Ontario - S Further Response To OECTA Production Request - Feb 6 2020 - Vol 1

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995
2
1
75 Submissions received comprised of 51 education stakeholder submissions and 24 emails received directly into
the GSN Consultation inbox from members of the public.
2
31,263 Submissions received by February 22, 2019 in response to the First Class Size Consultation comprised of
30,768 emails as part of the ETFO letter writing campaign, 49 education stakeholder submissions, and 446 email
submissions received directly into the Class Size Consultation inbox from members of the public.
3
7104 Submissions received by May 31, 2019 in response to the Second Class Size Consultation comprised of 68
education stakeholder submissions and 7036 email submissions received directly into the Class Size Consultation
inbo from member of he p blic There ere appro ima el campaign le email a par of he
email submissions received.
1. Amend the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act (SBCBA)
2. Funding for Trustee Associations
3. Addressing Violence in our Schools

4. Ongoing Review of GSNs:
GRANTS FOR
400-65 ST. CLAIR AVE. EAST
TORONTO, ON M4T 2Y8
STUDENT NEEDS
2019-20
T. 416.925.2493
1.800.268.7230
catholicteachers.ca
TO THE MINISTER
OF EDUCATION
December 2018
The Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) represents the 45,000
passionate and qualified teachers in Ontario’s publicly funded English Catholic schools,
from Kindergarten to Grade 12.
Liz Stuart Marshall Jarvis

President General Secretary
Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association

65 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 400
Toronto, ON M4T 2Y8
416.925.2493 or 1.800.268.7230
Fax: 416.925.7764
catholicteachers.ca
2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
2. EFFICIENT PRICE SETTING ............................................................ 1
3. OUTCOMES-BASED FUNDING ....................................................... 3
4. ACCOUNTABILITY AND VALUE FOR MONEY...................................... 4
Mental Health .............................................................................. 5
Safer Schools for All ..................................................................... 6
Special Education ......................................................................... 7
Education Quality and Accountability Office ..................................... 8
Full-day Kindergarten ................................................................... 9
Indigenous Education ................................................................... 9
English Language Learners .......................................................... 10
Adult and Continuing Education ................................................... 11
Professional Development ........................................................... 12
Holding School Boards to Account ................................................ 13
5. OTHER EDUCATION FUNDING EFFICIENCIES ................................. 14
6. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 16
7. WORKS CITED ........................................................................... 17

1. INTRODUCTION
1.01 The Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) welcomes the
opportunity to provide input regarding education funding for the 2019-20 school
year and beyond. Evidence from around the world shows that education systems
work best when education policy is developed collaboratively, and the co-operative
professional relationship between policymakers and teachers in Ontario has been
held up as a model for others to follow (Schleicher 2018; OECD 2011). Catholic
teachers look forward to building on this process.
1.02 Publicly funded education in Ontario is a vital service, and the success of our
students and graduates indicates that for the most part resources are being put
to good use. There is always room for improvement, but the evidence shows that
making our schools the best they can be does not require dramatic upheaval.
Instead, school communities across the province have been clear and consistent
that the most helpful course of action would be to provide safe, supportive,
well-resourced environments for teachers and students to work and learn. As always,
Catholic teachers will argue for investments in education that are effective,
transparent, and designed to meet the needs of students, schools, and communities
across Ontario.
2. EFFICIENT PRICE SETTING
2.01 All Ontarians support government efforts to make efficient use of public funds.
The better we allocate scarce resources, the more goods and services can be
provided to citizens. But we must approach the conversation in the proper context.
From an economic perspective, the argument in favour of public education rests first
and foremost on grounds of efficiency. As we often see in the case of health care,
a private system does a worse job for more money. The same holds true for the
education sector, where wide variations in cost, quality, and available information
make public financing and provision preferable. While the government has clearly
signalled its intention to cut spending, we cannot allow buzzwords or ideology to
take the place of well-considered public policy.
Page 1 of 19
2.02 With regard to “efficient price setting,” the lack of specificity in the recommendations
from the EY Canada report commissioned by the government indicates a limited
understanding of education funding in Ontario. In reality, the very concept of per-
pupil funding as it is currently practiced is an attempt at efficient pricing – a rough
balancing of the resources required to serve the average student and the willingness
of the government to fund them. Our concern is that the term is now being used as
code for lower price, or for cutting services.
2.03 The question we should really be asking is whether the current levels of investment
are sufficient to create quality working and learning conditions, and to fully meet
students’ diverse needs. While there is no disputing that education funding has
increased over the past 15 years, this has still failed to make up for structural
shortages that were built into the education funding formula from its beginning
(Mackenzie 2018; Mackenzie 2009). Rather than focusing our attention on cost
savings, we should be considering how to allocate the appropriate level of
resources for special education, mental health services, Indigenous education,
and other areas.
2.04 It should also be noted that some current attempts at so-called efficient pricing have
had negative effects for some students. For example, funding for class size based
on board-wide averages inevitably means some students are in classes that are too
large. The academic research shows that class size is an important determinant of
student outcomes, especially for disadvantaged students and others who might have
difficulty transitioning to the school setting (Schanzenbach 2014). Funding based
on board-wide averages fails to provide the optimal learning conditions for every
student.
2.05 Efficiency is an appealing goal, but the government must recognize that the first
priority is to provide services that are of sufficient quantity and quality as to enable
all students in Ontario’s publicly funded schools to reach their full potential. When
it comes to public policy, sometimes less is not more.
Page 2 of 19
3.0 OUTCOMES-BASED FUNDING
3.01 Outcomes-based funding holds obvious intellectual appeal, especially for those who
already have faith in market mechanisms. But all outcomes-based funding schemes
are fraught, and education is an area to which the concept is particularly ill-suited.
Most economists and policy experts would agree that education is complex and
multifaceted. It can be difficult to determine causality from input to output, due
to the number of potential intermediate factors. Moreover, the standard measures
of performance – namely achievement tests – are notoriously unreliable.
3.02 The government has brought up the Learning Opportunities Grant (LOG) as a
possible area for implementing an outcomes-based funding scheme, but this is
exactly the wrong approach. The LOG is about attempting to level the playing field
and, as much as possible, providing all students with equal opportunities to thrive
in the classroom. Students who might be without certain resources in their homes
or neighbourhoods are given access to them through their schools. But it is not
reasonable to expect the LOG to overcome the structural and systemic barriers of
poverty and social marginalization. Nor is it fair or productive to measure the impact
of LOG investments through achievement tests or similar instruments. The positive
benefits of the program could be evident in a wide range of areas, such as better
nutrition, enhanced social development, increased confidence, or even long-term
employment prospects. Even if we could measure these outcomes, it would be
difficult to isolate the influence of LOG funding in relation to the positive or
negative impact of other social factors, economic conditions, or education reforms.
3.03 There is impetus for reforming grants such as the LOG, but it is more important
to ensure accountability for how funds are spent. In a 2017 report, Social Planning
Toronto noted that the Demographic Allocation in particular, “as one of the very few
unprotected grants, appears to continue to be paying for a wide range of general
programs and filling in gaps in provincial funding for mandatory core services,
despite the long-time recognition of this problem” (Queiser 2017). The report found
that the Toronto District School Board alone diverts roughly $61 million of LOG
funding per year. When the provincial education funding formula was first developed
in 1997, an expert panel recommended that LOG funding be in the range of $400
million per year; however, the government of the day allocated only $158 million
Page 3 of 19
(Mackenzie 2015). With the grant having been severely underfunded from inception,
and the funds having been regularly diverted, it is no wonder some observers have
doubts about its efficacy. Rather than putting additional pressure on students to
justify funding for the grant, the government should first make the necessary
investments and ensure that resources are distributed appropriately by school
boards.
3.04 It is also crucial to keep in mind that in addition to efficiency considerations,

government funding of education is meant to enhance equity. Publicly funded
education promotes common values and boosts social cohesion by ensuring all
children can share in the experience, regardless of their socio-economic background
or geographic location. It is unclear how an outcomes-based model would fit with
this value; instead, it could lead to inequity or even polarization. If some students
are continuing to struggle socially or academically, it seems unlikely that cutting
funding for services and supports would solve the problem.
3.05 By almost any measure, Ontario’s education system has made great strides over the
past 15 years. We have fostered increased literacy and numeracy, advances in early
childhood education, and a dramatic reduction in the number of low-performing
schools. According to the latest results of the Pan-Canadian Assessment Program
(PCAP) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Ontario
remains one of the top-performing jurisdictions in reading, mathematics, and science
(CMEC 2016; OECD 2016). We also have relatively small gaps in performance
between high- and low-income students, and between Canadian and foreign-born
students. We should all be proud of these outcomes. To build on this success, the
government should be providing the necessary resources and working collaboratively
with education partners toward our shared priorities, not introducing new forms of
competition and measurement.
4.0 ACCOUNTABILITY AND VALUE FOR MONEY
4.01 Schools do not exist in isolation. When students arrive each morning, they bring all
of the qualities and challenges that affect their families and communities. For some
lucky students, this means a wealth of resources and encouragement. For others it
Page 4 of 19
can mean poverty, discrimination, and violence. students
face individual health issues or learning difficulties.
4.02 School is also where students learn how to live in the world; preparing them to meet
life’s challenges goes beyond teaching reading, writing, and math. While these basics
are fundamental building blocks of learning, they are not adequate to prepare
students for our rapidly changing economy, the complexities of an ever-changing
society, or the rigours and demands of adulthood. Globalization and advances in
technology have made the world more fast-paced and interconnected than ever
before, which makes it all the more vital that we graduate students who can
appreciate diverse opinions and work constructively together.
4.03 Going “back to basics” or reforming the education system to focus on “core
programming” will not help students develop into productive, engaged, and
responsible citizens – which, in the end, is what teachers, parents, and the public
all want. Although there are certainly opportunities for inter-ministerial collaboration
and innovative forms of service delivery, we must begin with the acknowledgement
that it is only when our schools are safe, welcoming, and adequately resourced for
all students and teachers that we will get the most out of our investments in publicly
funded education.
4.04 Mental Health

There is broad consensus among teachers, students, parents, and health care
professionals that significant investments are needed in mental health supports.
The government has said it will spend $1.9 billion over 10 years on mental health
and addictions services, but it is unclear how much of this funding will be directed
to children and youth.
4.05 Up to 70 per cent of mental health issues emerge by adolescence, but young people
remain the least likely of any age group to receive adequate care. According to the
most recent data, almost 20 per cent of students in Grades 7 to 12 in Ontario report
their mental health as fair or poor, but nearly a third of those who wanted to speak
to a professional about their mental health issues over the past two years did not
know where to turn (Boak et al. 2017). More than 12,000 children and youth are
Page 5 of 19
waiting to access mental health services, many of whom are having to turn to
emergency services through clinics and hospitals (CMHO 2018; MHASEF Research
Team 2017).
4.06 Beyond the stress this causes for families and households, not to mention the strain
on the health care system, it is also well-established that undiagnosed or untreated
mental health issues are a significant impediment to student engagement and
achievement. By providing more mental health supports in schools, where children
and youth spend much of their time, we can reduce stigma, connect students to their
communities, and deliver more responsive, cost-effective service, leading to better
health outcomes and improved academic performance. Progress has been made
through programs like School Mental Health ASSIST and Mental Health and Addiction
Nurses in District School Boards, but we are still not moving fast enough in
developing a comprehensive, adequately resourced approach that strikes an
appropriate balance between prevention and intervention, especially early and
ongoing intervention.
4.07 Naturally, the mental health needs of students, and the accessibility of services,
varies in accordance with the population and geography of our school communities.
We must ensure that rural schools and/or schools with lower student populations are
not disadvantaged in terms of access to services. This is an area where co-ordination
between the Ministry of Education and other ministries, and further exploration of
the community hub model, could be effective.
4.08 Safer Schools for All

For several years, our Association has been discussing the increasing frequency and
severity of violence and harassment against teachers, especially at the elementary
level. In our recent survey of classroom teachers, 85 per cent of respondents said
the incidence of violence is increasing, while 80 per cent said incidents are becoming
more severe. This has repercussions for everyone in the school community. More
than three-quarters of respondents said violence in schools makes teaching more
difficult, and more than a quarter have had to take time away from work due to
the physical or mental toll of a violent incident (OECTA 2017a).
Page 6 of 19
4.09 Some progress has been made over the past few years in terms of standardizing and
enforcing reporting procedures, but there is still a long way to go to fully implement
the solutions outlined in our Safer Schools for All platform (OECTA 2017b). Most
importantly, more professional services, such as child and youth workers, social
workers, and psychologists, are required to help students deal with their social,
emotional, and behavioural needs. These investments will help students manage
their behaviour and achieve academic success in the short and long term, enabling
teachers and the rest of the school community to focus on making learning happen
in a safe and secure environment.
4.10 Special Education

Increased funding for special education over the past decade has paid dividends.
For example, according to EQAO data, in 2009-10, 27 per cent of Grade 3 students
with special education needs were at or above the provincial standard in reading; in
2017-18 it was 46 per cent. For Grade 6 students with special education needs, the
percentage at or above the provincial standard increased from 34 per cent in 2009-
10 to 54 per cent in 2017-18.
4.11 Still, schools across the province are having difficulty providing for all students’
special education needs. It has been reported that more than 80 per cent of school
boards are spending more on special education than they are allotted by the
province, and some students are being asked to stay home because their school is
not able to provide appropriate services and supports on a daily basis (Rushowy and
Ferguson 2015). Only 72 per cent of rural elementary schools report having a full-
time special education teacher, and the average ratio of students receiving special
education support to special education teachers is 36:1 in elementary school and
74:1 in secondary school (People for Education 2018).
4.12 Catholic teachers were particularly disappointed by the government’s decision to

cancel the planned increase to the Special Incidence Portion (SIP), which has been
capped at $27,000 since 1998. This amount is well below the salary grid for
educational assistants and is not nearly enough to cover the increasing costs of
specialized staff and necessary materials. The planned increase to SIP would have
enabled schools to hire additional staff to support students with special education
Page 7 of 19
needs, which would have improved the learning environment for everyone. While
Catholic teachers recommend a variety of investments in special education, at the
very least the planned increase in funding that students, families, and schools were
counting on should be immediately restored.
4.13 Education Quality and Accountability Office

There are serious and well-founded concerns about the stress that high-stakes
testing causes for students, teachers, and administrators (Kempf 2016). Although
EQAO tests are supposedly not meant to be used to rank schools, we know they
are often employed as a basis for comparison. Trustees and superintendents feel
nervous about how their schools will measure up, which leads to pressure being
exerted on principals, who pass it on to teachers, who then have to spend weeks
focusing on the specific types of questions and answers that will be found on the
tests. If results in one year are deemed unsatisfactory, the anxiety is only
heightened the following year. We also know that some boards and schools are
diverting funds toward test preparation materials.
4.14 Students most especially feel the pressure to perform well on EQAO tests – and the
Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test is a requirement to graduate. The stress and
anxiety exacerbates learning challenges, mental health issues, or other issues that
students are experiencing, and often negatively affects their performance.
4.15 To make matters worse, province-wide standardized testing does not give an
accurate reflection of student ability, because it only captures a moment in time
and fails to account for the range of skills and factors that affect achievement.
While some argue that standardized testing provides essential information to
improve student achievement and ensure the education system is accountable
to taxpayers, the reality is that teachers already use our professional judgment
to conduct assessments for, as, and of learning, which we then use to modify our
instruction and provide individual attention, as well as to complete provincial report
cards (OTF 2017).
4.16 Clearly, standardized testing is not a good use of education resources. If the
government still believes that some sort of province-wide testing is necessary, they
should at least move toward a random sampling model. This would produce accurate
Page 8 of 19
results at a fraction of the current costs, while reducing the level of student anxiety
and allowing most teachers and students to remain focused on genuine learning
activities and more meaningful classroom assessments.
4.17 Full-day Kindergarten

The long-term benefits of public investments in early childhood education have
been recognized by groups such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD 2012), TD Bank (Alexander and Ignjatovic 2012), and the
Conference Board of Canada (Alexander et al. 2017). In Ontario, parents, teachers,
early childhood educators (ECEs), administrators, and researchers agree that the
FDK program is preparing children socially and academically, leading to better
outcomes in later years (Alphonso 2017; Janmohamed 2014).
4.18 When the program was developed, the teacher/ECE teams were recommended based
on pilot tests in Ontario and elsewhere, in which teams were found to add to the
professional preparation and skillset of each team member (Pascal 2009). ECEs bring
specialized knowledge about early childhood development, while certified teachers
bring high levels of skills and training related to pedagogy and delivery of the
curriculum. Research has shown one of the main reasons students are benefitting
from the program is that the staff teams are uniting around the mission to support
children and families (Pelletier 2014). It is imperative that a teacher and ECE be
present in the classroom at all times during the instructional day.
4.19 Ontario’s FDK program is a ground-breaking, world-leading initiative. The investment

will continue to pay dividends long into the future, for individuals, families, the
economy, and society. We should continue to support and improve the FDK program
so it can honour its original promise.
4.20 Indigenous Education

The 2015 report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission drew attention to a
number of issues pertaining to Indigenous youth and education. While much of the
focus has been on students attending on-reserve schools, it is important to note that
in Ontario the majority of Indigenous students attend a provincially funded school.
In fact, there are Indigenous students in almost every community: 92 per cent of
Page 9 of 19
elementary schools and 96 per cent of secondary schools have at least some
Indigenous students (Gallagher-Mackay et al. 2013).
4.21 By now, most Ontarians recognize the importance of integrating the curriculum with
Indigenous perspectives. This year, 74 per cent of elementary schools and 84 per
cent of secondary schools report having offered at least one Indigenous learning
opportunity, a substantial increase from 2014 (People for Education 2018). However,
Indigenous and non-Indigenous educators still need support and resources to ensure
they are properly integrating Indigenous history and knowledge in the classroom.
This is why Catholic teachers and others across Ontario were so disappointed that
one of the government’s first actions upon taking office was to cancel planned
curriculum writing sessions. We strongly urge the government to reconvene these
sessions at the earliest opportunity.
4.22 There are also significant resource gaps in schools with high proportions of
Indigenous students compared to other schools in the province, including lower
than average access to guidance teachers, teacher-librarians, and music and physical
education programs (Gallagher-Mackay et al. 2013). These gaps must be overcome
if we are going to address the well-known achievement gap between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous students. Significant steps were being made in this regard –
increasing funding and collecting data on a voluntary basis in order to provide
appropriate programs and supports. The new government should not turn its back
on these efforts. Integrating Indigenous students into their school communities
and enabling them to realize their full potential will reduce marginalization and pay
significant social and economic dividends over the long term (Sharpe and Arsenault
2010).
4.23 English Language Learners

Currently, funding for English as a Second Language (ESL) and English Literacy
Development (ELD) programs is based on census data and immigration statistics.
While these figures provide an estimate, they do not accurately reflect English
Language Learners’ needs based on actual proficiency. This problem was noted
15 years ago by the Education Equality Task Force, which also condemned the
inadequacy of the duration of supports, a sentiment echoed more recently by
the Auditor General of Ontario (2017). The current funding formula also “fails
Page 10 of 19
to recognize the additional costs associated with higher densities of ESL needs in
areas with high levels of immigration,” while a lack of oversight and transparency
mechanisms means some school boards might not be spending the funds on
programming for students who need support (Mackenzie 2017).
4.24 English Language Learners often require additional supports to acclimate to a new
school and culture, especially those who have recently arrived to Canada. These
resources help English Language Learners connect to their schools and communities,
which in turn contributes to their academic success. Investing more in English
language supports, including properly trained teachers, will ensure students are able
to interact with their peers, achieve academic success, and ultimately contribute
in our society.
4.25 Adult and Continuing Education

Adult and continuing education programs are funded at roughly two-thirds the level
of regular day school credit programs, which has previously been calculated to result
in annual underfunding of $112 million (Mackenzie 2015). In June 2017, the
government announced $185 million in funding over four years, as part of Ontario’s
Lifelong Learning and Skills plan, but this still is not enough to close the gap. At the
same time, funding allocations from Special Purpose Grants are directed only toward
students in the regular day school program, even though in many cases adult and
continuing education programs are being delivered to new immigrants or students
who have been marginalized from the regular day school credit program. As result,
students who have significant needs are often dealing with large class sizes, different
classes being delivered in the same room, and a lack of early intervention processes,
while teachers are often employed from contract to contract, with substandard
salaries, working conditions, and rights. Funding is required so that school boards
can provide the necessary supports to improve language skill assessment. At the
same time, adult learners require additional and specific mental health supports
to improve chances for successful completion of their respective programs.
4.26 Across Canada, one in five working age adults lack basic literacy and numeracy skills
(Drewes and Meredith 2015). Research has shown that raising literacy skill levels
would yield an annual rate of return of 251 per cent, with savings of $542 million
across the country on social assistance alone (Murray and Shillington 2011).
Page 11 of 19
Furthermore, by improving basic language proficiency, fostering notions of
citizenship and social engagement, and encouraging healthier lifestyles and
relationships, we can reduce the need for later interventions in these areas and
enhance the well-being of our democracy and society. Proper funding for adult
and continuing education programs will undoubtedly provide value for money in
the short and long term.
4.27 Professional Development

Teachers are dedicated lifelong learners, who continually upgrade our knowledge
and skills, often on our own time and at our own expense, to ensure that we keep
abreast of what is current and effective in our classrooms. Thousands of teachers
have taken advantage of opportunities over the past few years to upgrade and refine
our skills in math and technology (OCT 2017). The government has recently moved
to implement a math test for incoming teachers, but a more fruitful method would
be to ensure that teachers have the resources and supports necessary to deliver
math content in the classroom.
4.28 A prime example of this type of professional learning is the Teacher Learning and
Leadership Program (TLLP). In the final report on the 2017-18 program, a group
of respected education researchers once again found that “by providing the
conditions (funding, training, and ongoing support) for a self-selected and self-
directed professional development effort, the TLLP facilitates active, collaborative
learning that is embedded in teachers’ work, informed by evidence, and provides
opportunities for authentic leadership experiences.” The benefits of this learning are
enjoyed not only by the teams involved, but by the whole school community. “TLLP
projects have a positive effect on students’ engagement, attitude, and learning
experience” the researchers found, and “some TLLP projects help develop better
connections with parents and local communities as well” (Campbell et al. 2018).
4.29 With any curriculum changes that are made, it is imperative that more resources
are provided for this type of teacher-led, teacher-directed professional development
– the most efficient and effective form of professional learning. This will ensure that
our knowledge is relevant and up-to-date, based on the current, job-embedded
experiences of our colleagues, and designed to address the needs of our students
(CEA 2015; Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 1995).
Page 12 of 19
4.30 Holding School Boards to Account
While we believe our students and schools deserve additional investments, teachers
are also concerned about how resources are allocated, and whether school boards
are held accountable for their decisions. For example, our Association has for many
years been raising the issue of how school boards are using Special Purpose Grants,
such as the Learning Opportunities Grant or funds for English as a Second Language
programs. Since they were first implemented, the proportion of these grants that
goes to services targeted toward students in need has been dramatically reduced,
because with an overall education budget that does not match student needs, and
legal pressure to balance their books, school boards must use these grants to fill
gaps in funding for core programs and expenses (Brown 2013; Casey 2013). The
Toronto District School Board attracts most of the media attention in this regard,
but Catholic teachers report similar problems elsewhere in the province.
4.31 It is imperative that new funds for mental health services, special education
programs, professional services and supports, and other initiatives are spent
as intended. Rather than scaling back reporting requirements, we should be
strengthening the process by which funds are distributed and allocated. In many
cases, there is still no clear process to determine how allocations are made until
after funding has been distributed. To hold school boards to account, there should
be an annual process of consultation with teacher representatives at each school
board regarding locally determined expenditures, as well as prompt reporting with
real-time transfers of data where possible.
4.32 Occasional teacher funding is another area of concern. There have been several
media reports in recent months pointing to a shortage of occasional teachers
available to fill vacancies. The data we have seen show that, in some cases, as
many as 40 per cent of vacancies are not being covered. This appears to be an
issue in all publicly funded education systems in Ontario. There are legitimate
reasons why there might be fewer occasional teachers available than in past years.
Some teachers who had previously been seeking permanent positions may have
moved on to other work, while reduced enrolment in teacher education programs is
resulting in fewer graduates. However, it is also possible that school boards are
deciding not to fill absences as a means of saving money. In some cases, teachers
are being pulled from other classrooms or specialized programs, which creates
Page 13 of 19
shortages in coverage elsewhere in the school and undermines program delivery. It
is imperative that the government ensure school boards are filling teacher absences
appropriately. For every absence that goes unfilled, the strain on other teachers and
staff in the school is increased, and students are denied a day of quality learning.
4.33 OECTA members believe that as much as possible, school boards should be directing
funding toward the fundamental ingredient in a successful education system: the
interaction between a well-trained teacher and a well-supported student.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case. We are particularly troubled that a
number of school boards are turning to organizations such as School Boards’
Co-operative Inc. (SCBI), to advise them on issues of worker’s compensation, health
and safety, and attendance management, despite the fact that boards already
employ staff for these purposes in schools and central offices. Companies such as
SBCI hide their data and methodology from the public, making it impossible to verify
findings. This is especially problematic given that SBCI profits by promoting these
unverified findings and selling one-size-fits-all solutions. This is a poor use of
education funding, which is not in the interests of students or school communities.
5.0 OTHER EDUCATION FUNDING EFFICIENCIES
5.01 Publicly funded Catholic schools have made significant contributions to the overall
excellence of Ontario’s world-renowned education system. In addition to teaching
literacy, math, science, and other skills, we are developing students’ character
and commitment to the common good, encouraging them to be discerning believers,
creative and holistic thinkers, self-directed learners, caring family members, and
responsible citizens. There are almost 650,000 students attending publicly funded
Catholic schools in Ontario, including many non-Catholic students whose parents
have chosen the system’s high standards and well-rounded methods for their
children.
5.02 There is a common misconception that merging Ontario’s school systems could save
a significant amount of money, but history and scholarship suggests the opposite is
true. Dr. John Wiens, former Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of
Manitoba, put the matter succinctly: “If it's about money, I think there is actually
no evidence to show at all that anybody has saved money by [consolidating boards]”
Page 14 of 19
(CBC 2016). In Alberta, a study of the restructuring of the school system in the late
1990s found that the implementation costs associated with the mergers exceeded
any resulting savings (Pysyk 2000). Ontario’s experience with school board
amalgamation in the late 1990s led to hundreds of millions of dollars in costs for
transition and restructuring. Even conservative organizations like the Fraser Institute
have found that amalgamating large organizations almost always results in high
transition costs limited long-term savings (Miljan and Spicer 2015).
5.03 At the same time, there are opportunities to make more efficient use of education
resources, by using provincially funded buildings in more collaborative ways and
incentivizing inter-ministerial and municipal co-operation. One potential avenue
is shared facilities, specifically for coterminus boards. In its 2014-15 Pre-Budget
Consultation Summary, the government noted that “co-locating the schools of
coterminous boards in the same facility was an idea with fairly broad support”
(Ministry of Education 2014). Naturally, this would have to be done while protecting
each school system’s unique framework and structures, but there are significant
opportunities to make efficient use of resources while ensuring that more
communities have access to important public services.
5.04 There are several successful examples of such arrangements in Ontario. The
Humberwood Centre houses Holy Child Catholic School, Humberwood Downs public
school, a branch of the Toronto Public Library, the Humberwood Community Centre,
as well as the 280-space Macaulay Child Development Centre. In Brantford, St.
Basil's Catholic Elementary School and Walter Gretzky Elementary School each have
a wing in the 90,000-square-foot shared facility. These sorts of shared facilities can
be helpful in maximizing cost efficiency, in rural areas where enrolment
declines have raised the specter of school closures. In addition to co-location,
Ontarians can also benefit from shared services agreements. A case study feasibility
analysis of 11 Ontario school boards revealed that shared services in areas such as
energy and transportation could produce ongoing annual savings of $3 to 8 million
per year, which would represent a 13 to 28 per cent savings on these boards’ annual
total expenditures (Deloitte 2012). Ultimately, exploring options for shared services
agreements and co-locating schools is a far more effective approach than board
amalgamation, not only in meeting the needs of students and communities, but
also in making efficient use of school space.
Page 15 of 19
6.0 CONCLUSION
6.01 There is a widespread belief that public spending in Ontario is excessive. In reality,
Ontario has the lowest per capita spending on public programs of any province
(Ministry of Finance 2018). Even in the area of elementary and secondary education,
per capita spending in Ontario is among the lowest in the country (Statistics Canada
2018).
6.02 A four per cent cut to the education budget would have devastating effects on
student well-being and achievement. It would also undermine the government’s
stated goal to make Ontario “open for business.” As we have shown, spending on
education is one of the smartest long-term investments a government can make
in social cohesion and economic prosperity.
6.03 Providing proper resources for publicly funded education is the right thing to do.
To help students learn how to live and work together, develop the necessary
knowledge and skills, and grow into engaged, caring, and responsible members of
the community, we have to provide them with appropriate learning environments.
Teachers, parents, and the broader public are counting on the government to keep
this in mind, and to work with others in the education community to provide the
necessary conditions for students to succeed at school and in life.
Page 16 of 19
7.0 WORKS CITED
Alexander, Craig, Kip Beckman, Alicia Macdonald, Cory Renner, and Matthew
Stewart. (2017). Ready for Life: A Socio-Economic Analysis of Early Childhood
Education and Care. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.
Alexander, Craig, and Dina Ignjatovic. (2012). “Early Childhood Education Has
Widespread and Long Lasting Benefits.” TD Economics Special Report.
Alphonso, Caroline. (2017). “Ontario children gain learning benefits from full-day
kindergarten: study.” Globe and Mail (August 9).
Auditor General of Ontario. (2017). 2017 Annual Report. Toronto: Office of the
Auditor General of Ontario.
Boak, Angela, Hayley A. Hamilton, Edward M. Adlaf, Joanna L. Henderson, and

Robert E. Mann. (2017). The mental health and well-being of Ontario students,
1991-2017: Detailed findings from the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey
(OSDUHS) (CAMH Research Document Series No. 47). Toronto: Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health.
Brown, Louise. (2013). “TDSB says it spends $103M of special $143M grant on kids
in need.” Toronto Star (May 6).
CBC News. (2016). “No big bucks to be saved by merging school divisions: expert.”
CBC News (November 18).
Canadian Education Association (CEA). (2015). What

is Effective Teacher Professional Development? Toronto: Canadian Education
Association.
Campbell, Carol, Ann Lieberman, Ana Yashkina, Sharon Alexander, and Joelle
Rodway. (2018). Research Report: Teacher Learning & Leadership Program 2017-18.
Toronto: OTF.
Casey, Liam. (2013). “TDSB diverting $100 million annually from programs for
underprivileged students, report says.” Toronto Star (May 6).
Children’s Mental Health Ontario (CMHO). (2018). Kids Can’t Wait: Improving Mental
Health Outcomes for Ontario’s Children and Youth – 2018 Pre-budget Submission.
Toronto: CMHO.
Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Milbrey McLaughlin. (1995). “Policies that Support

Professional Development in an Era of Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan 76, no. 8: 597-
604.
Deloitte. (2012). The Case for Shared Services in Ontario’s School Board Sector: A
Feasibility Study Based on Eleven School Boards. Toronto: Deloitte & Touche LLP.
Drewes, Torben, and Tyler Meredith. (2015). “If at First You Don’t Succeed: Toward
an Adult Education and Training Strategy for Canada.” IRPP Study No. 54.
Page 17 of 19
Janmohamed, Zeenat, Kerry McCuaig, Emis Akbari, Romona Gananathan, and
Jennifer Watkins. (2014). Schools at the Centre: Findings from Case Studies
Exploring Seamless Early Learning in Ontario. Toronto: Atkinson Centre for Society
and Child Development – Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Kempf, Arlo. (2016). The Pedagogy of Standardized Testing: the Radical Impacts of
Standardization in the US and Canada. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gallagher-Mackay, Kelly, Annie Kidder, and Suzanne Methot. (2013). First Nations,
Métis, and Inuit Education: Overcoming Gaps in Provincially Funded Schools.
Toronto: People for Education.
Mackenzie, Hugh. (2018). A Blueprint to Fix Ontario’s Education

Funding Formula. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – Ontario Office.
Mackenzie, Hugh. (2017). Shortchanging Ontario Students: An Overview and

Assessment of Education Funding in Ontario. Toronto: Elementary Teachers’
Federation of Ontario.
Mackenzie, Hugh. (2015). Harris-era Hangovers: Toronto School Trustees’ Inherited

Funding Shortfall. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – Ontario Office.
Mackenzie, Hugh. (2009). No Time for Complacency: Education Funding Reality

Check. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – Ontario Office.
Miljan, Lydia, and Zachery Spicer. (2015). Municipal Amalgamation in Ontario.

Vancouver: Fraser Institute.
Ministry of Education. (2014). Consultation Summary: School Board Efficiencies and

Modernization. Toronto: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2013). A Solid Foundation: Second Progress Report on the

Implementation of the Ontario First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education Policy
Framework. Toronto: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Finance. (2018). 2018 Ontario Budget: A Plan for Care and Opportunity.
Toronto: Ministry of Finance.
MHASEF Research Tem. (2017). The Mental Health of Children and Youth in Ontario:
2017 Scorecard. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.
Murray, T. Scott, and Richard Shillington. (2011). From Poverty to Prosperity:

Literacy’s Impact on Canada’s Economic Success. Ottawa: Canadian Literacy and
Learning Network.
Ontario College of Teachers (OCT). (2017). 2017 Annual Report: Setting the
Standard for Great Teaching. Toronto: OCT.
Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA). (2017a). Workplace Violence

and Harassment Against Teachers: Results of a Comprehensive Members Survey.
Toronto: OECTA. Available at: https://bit.ly/2F6akPv
Page 18 of 19
OECTA. (2017b). Safer Schools for All: Addressing Violence and Harassment Against
Teachers. Toronto: OECTA. Available at: https://bit.ly/2Uf480o
Ontario Teachers’ Federation (OTF). (2017). More than Dots on a Chart: Setting a New
Course for Assessment in Ontario. Toronto: OTF.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2012). Starting

Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2011). Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from
PISA for the United States. Paris: OECD.
Pascal, Charles. (2009). With Our Best Future in Mind: Implementing Early Learning in
Ontario – Report to the Premier by the Special Advisory on Early Learning. Toronto:
Ministry of Education.
Pelletier, Janette. (2014). “Ontario’s Full-Day Kindergarten: A Bold Public Policy

Initiative.” Public Sector Digest (June).
People for Education. (2018). 2018 Annual report on schools: The new basics for public
education. Toronto: People for Education.
Pysyk, David. (2000). Restructuring Alberta School Systems (PhD Thesis). Edmonton:
University of Alberta.
Queiser, Sharma. (2017). Missing Opportunities: How Budget Policies Continue to Leave
Behind Low-Income Students. Toronto: Social Planning Toronto.
Rushowy, Kristin, and Rob Ferguson. (2015). “Special ed cuts to hit most Ontario
boards.” Toronto Star (March 12).
Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore. (2014). Does Class Size Matter? Boulder, CO: National
Education Policy Center.
Schleicher, Andreas. (2018). Valuing our Teachers and Raising their Status: How
Communities Can Help. Paris. OECD.
Sharpe, Andrew, and Jean-Francois Arsenault. (2010). Investing in Aboriginal Education

in Canada: An Economic Perspective. Ottawa: Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
Statistics Canada. (2018). “Canadian Classification of Functions of Government: Selected

Functions, 2016 (provisional estimates).” The Daily (January 11).
Page 19 of 19
On ario Secondar School Teachers Federa ion
50 UBE Drive Phone: 519 542 1600 or 1 888 350 7282
Sarnia ON N7W 1B6 Fax: 519 542 4446
SUBMISSION TO THE 2019-2020 EDUCATION FUNDING CONSULTATIONS
District 10 of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) is pleased to be able to
provide this submission to the Ministry of Education regarding the 2019-2020 Education Funding
Guide. OSSTF District 10 believes that any money saved by implementing any of the following
suggestions should be re-invested directly into classrooms.
Efficient Price Setting

Changes should be made the to Differentiated Special Education Needs Amount (DSENA) to reflect
actual need as opposed to school board predictions of need for special education funding.
Predictions and estimations are problematic in considering both over- and under-funding in certain
areas. The best action for students, families, school staff, school boards, and for financial
responsibility is to fund based on actual need.
A review and update of benchmarks for Pupil Accommodation Grants is necessary, as it currently
follows an outdated model based on 1998 average school board spending. Significant changes have
occurred in schools and our communities in the past 20 years and this failing model does not
consider individual needs and states of disrepair in our schools as shown in a $15.9 billion backlog
on school repairs across the province, including in our local aging schools.
Outcomes-Based Funding
In District , we believe strongly in the messaging from our provincial leadership that: “The best
way to improve student success is investment directly into the classroom and student services to
assist students in overcoming challenges in order to reach their full potential. Numerous studies
have shown that the best method of improving education outcomes is by directly supporting
students in the classroom; any support must be directed to the classroom or student services
instead of administration.
School board spending of funds from various envelopes, including Learning Opportunities Grants
(LOG) and Education Programs Other (EPO), needs to be transparent and should be able to clearly
show a positive impact on student outcomes. Stakeholders should have an opportunity to review
the effectiveness of these programs in terms of value for money spent. The LOG and EPO
specifically are major funding envelopes with little oversight on the use of this taxpayer investment.
Funding found to be ineffective should be ended and re-directed to programming with
demonstrated success.
…
-2-
Accountability and Value-for-Money

As OSSTF has proclaimed for some time, we believe strongly in one publicly funded school system in
Ontario. Estimates indicate that $1.2-1.6 billion could be re-distributed to secular schools (which
could easily accommodate optional additional courses/programming in world religions) if there
were only one system in English and French.
The Education Quality and Accountability Office costs taxpayers $35 million annually despite its
primary stakeholders questioning its value. EQAO in its current model has got to go. There are
modified methods of delivery available, at a fraction of the cost, for the province to still access
randomized standardized testing statistics of students in Ontario.
Ministry of Education staffing is problematic, considering the Ministry’s staff has grown over the
past decade without improved education outcomes. Additionally, there has been a significant
recent increase in administrative staffing outside of the classroom. Ontario taxpayers should
rightfully question this lack of return on investment when there are qualified frontline teachers
available to provide direct student support if this significant funding was redirected to permit it.
Other Education Funding Efficiencies

As previously stated, OSSTF District 10 believes in the value of one public school system, providing
access to a complete complement of public education programming (including music, art, drama,
technical studies, physical education, languages, etc.). Over $1 billion could be saved through a
secular education model.
A careful provincial review of school board expenditures in the area of rights arbitration is
necessary. OSSTF collective agreements outline grievance procedures that are fair, effective, and
timely. Unfortunately, there has been a significant provincial increase in rights arbitration which is
the longest and most expensive option, needlessly creating delays and stress for the frontline
education workers impacted. Across the province, school boards should be discouraged from
relying on rights arbitration as a default strategy.
Cons ltation s r le financement de l éd cation en -2020
Rétroaction de
lA cia i de e eig a e e de e eig a f a c -ontariens
présentée au
Mi i è e de l Éd ca i de l O a i
Le 14 décembre 2018
Introduction
L A ocia ion de en eignan e e de en eignan f anco-ontariens (AEFO) remercie la ministre de

l Éd ca ion Li a Thomp on de l i fo ni l occa ion de soumettre sa rétroaction dans le cadre de la
con l a ion le financemen de l éd ca ion en -2020.
L AEFO e n ndica i comp e en i on 500 membres et représente les enseignantes et les

en eignan de école élémen ai e e econdai e de lang e f ançai e de l On a io ant catholiques
que publiques, e de a aille e e a aille d a e é abli emen f ancophone de l On a io
L AEFO e d a i e le gouvernement doit veiller à ce que le système d éd ca ion financé par les fonds
publics de l On a io con in e à amélio e . À cette fin l AEFO e d a i e le modèle de financemen
doit tenir compte des besoins divers des élèves francophones de o e e cha e élè e engage
in i e e e p épa e po l a eni Le financemen en ma iè e d éd cation doit être équitable, stable,
axé sur les besoins des élèves et doit refléter le fait que les élèves des écoles franco-ontariennes ont le
droit fondamental de recevoir une éducation de qualité équivalente à celle que reçoivent les élèves qui
fréquentent les écoles de la majorité anglophone.
De plus, les enseignantes, enseignants, travailleuses et travailleurs qui œ en dans les écoles de
lang e f ançai e de l On a io on égalemen d oi à de e o ce e de o il é i alen s à ce on
retrouve dans les écoles de langue anglaise.
Des besoins et des défis particuliers
En géné al le con eil colai e de lang e f ançai e n on pa la ma e c i i e d effec if po off i à la

foi de e ice compa able à ce off en les conseils scolaires de langue anglaise et pour faire des
économie d échelle Le ème d éd ca ion de lang e f ançai e en On a io con in e de faire face à des
défis particuliers : petits conseils scolaires, territoires énormes, petites écoles, coûts plus élevés du
matériel pédagogique, recrutement et maintien du personnel enseignant et offre de service de soutien
communautaire francophone qui e infé ie à l off e po le anglophone
À cela, il faut ajouter les pressions attribuables à la situation minoritaire des francophones, qui font en
o e e le élè e e p é en en à l école a ec ne connai ance in ffi an e de la lang e française et
de la culture francophone C e ne de ai on po la elle l école de lang e f ançai e en On a io doi
jouer un double rôle : elle doit non seulement transmettre des connaissances et développer des
habiletés mai a i fo ge l iden i é c l elle des élèves qui lui sont confiés.
La grande majorité des écoles de langue française étant de petite taille, les enseignantes et les
enseignants doivent enseigner plusieurs matières et souvent composer avec des classes à niveaux
multiples. Le personnel en eignan doi égalemen compo e a ec l in ffi ance de ma é iel
pédagogique en français et le manque de personnel spécialisé tel que psychologues, orthophonistes,
a aille e ociale o a aille ocia e ce dan de milie o l accè à de elles ressources en
f ançai aille à l école e e êmemen limi é
Et n o blion pas non plus le défi fondamental auquel font face nos enseignantes et nos enseignants,
oi cel i d a e le dé eloppemen c l el de élè e En milie mino i aire, cela engage souvent
l o gani a ion d ac i i é di e e e e le l école e en me e d off i en f ançai
2
Le financement selon les subventions pour les besoins des élèves (SBÉ) et selon les autres programmes
d e eig eme APE
L AEFO croit que le modèle de financement selon les subventions pour les besoins des élèves (SBÉ) est
toujours approprié et que les subventions et les allocations qui en découlent répondent aux besoins
pour lesquels ils sont identifiés. Toute décision de redéploiement des fonds pour adopter un modèle de
financement axé sur les résultats aurai po effe de mine l éd ca ion de lang e f ançai e À notre avis,
le gouvernement doit veiller à ce que ces subventions et ces allocations continuen d ê e a ée ur les
besoins des élèves et de refléter les réalités fondamentales a ec le elle le ème d éd ca ion de
langue française doit composer o en enan comp e de l é ol ion de ce be oin
Plus particulièrement, le financement lié aux élèves à besoins particuliers, notamment à l enfance en
difficulté et au trouble du pec e de l autisme (TSA), doit être adapté à la réalité avec laquelle les écoles
de langue française doivent composer face aux défis toujours grandissants dans ces domaines.
Tout en reconnaissant les défis avec lesquels le gouvernement doit composer, il ne faut pas miner les
ressources du ème d éd ca ion i no o lon en emble p épa e le élè e de l On a io à fai e face
a éali é d a jo d h i e i e pa i de po ibili é f e afin d a e la p o pé i é de école de
langue française, et celle de la société et de l économie ontariennes.
Plus précisément, il faut avoir un curriculum à jour, ainsi que du matériel et des ressources en français et
a e d off i la fo ma ion néce ai e po le me e en œ e À i e d e emple le c ic l m
d éd ca ion ph i e doi efléter la réalité de la société de 2018 dans laquelle les élèves évoluent et
doit ê e app é pa le e o ce néce ai e po le me e en œ e
De pl il fa a e e le financemen oi éellemen de iné à la salle de classe et à

l app en i age de élè e À i e d e emple le financement prévu pour la stratégie renouvelée pour
l en eignemen e l app en i age de ma héma i e dans le cadre des APE, qui devrait être destiné à
la salle de classe, est redirigé à d a e fin e n a ein donc pas son objectif.
Optimisation des ressources
L AEFO croit in e i dan l éd ca ion con i e n in e i emen ocio-économi e C e po oi

le gouvernement devrait continuer à in e i dan le ème de l éd ca ion financé pa de fond
publics, plus particulièrement au niveau de e o ce dédiée à l app i de élè e à be oin pa ic lie
et des ressources en français, et ce, afin de continuer à répondre aux besoins grandissants des élèves et
da e la pé enni é d ème d éd ca ion de lang e f ançai e en On a io.
L AEFO e con cien e que les conseils scolaires de langue française ont fait des efforts et mis en place le
partage de certains services (par exemple, le système de paie e l app en i age élec oni e afin
d op imi e le e o ce e de éali e de économie mai nous croyons il e po ible d en fai e
da an age afin de éd i e le fa dea admini a if e d amélio e l efficaci é de ces services. À cet effet,
nous croyons il e ai po ible de con olide davantage certains services tels l app o i ionnemen la
con c ion d immobilie e certains services assurés par les ressources humaines.
3
L AEFO c oi a i il a n po entiel énorme pour le développement d a e modèles de partage
entre conseils scolaires po d a e e o ce par exemple des ressources en lien avec la mise en
œ e de p og amme e d ac i i é c l elle des ressources pédagogiques et des ressources en lien
avec la formation du personnel. Le gouvernement devrait développer et encourager ces modèles de
partage. Cependan afin d a e e ce modèle éponden a be oin no omme d a i e le
gouvernement doit consulter les partenaires, y compris l AEFO a an de p océde à leur mise en place. À
i e d e emple, le gouvernement pourrait revoir l en emble de alloca ion dan la subvention pour les
p og amme d aide à l app en i age afin de donne la priorité aux modèles de partage entre conseils
plutôt que de distribuer cette subvention en fonction des résultats.
Finalemen no c o on e le ccè d ne o d n élève peut difficilement être évalué en fonction

de résultats ponctuels. L élève est une personne, et non une donnée. Le ccè d ne ou un élève ne
pe pa ê e me é de la même façon ne en ep i e o n p oje économi e ; son vrai succès est
son impact socio-économi e éel la ocié é e l économie f e de l On a io En fai lo on
détermine qu ne ou un élè e o ne école ne pe fo me pa bien c e n igne elle ou il a besoin
de pl d app i e de e o ce afin de lui pe me e d a eind e on plein po en iel e de con ib e
pleinement à la société et à l économie de l On a io
4
Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3
2 Elemen a Teache Fede a ion of Ontario
1 People fo Ed ca ion Compe ing P io i ie Ann al Repo on On a io P blicl F nded School To on o ON People fo
Education, 2017.

2Education Funding Technical Paper 2018-19, Spring 2018, Ministry of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/1819/2018-19-technical-paper-en.pdf

3People fo Ed ca ion Compe ing P io i ie Ann al Repo on On a io P blicl F nded School To on o ON People fo
Education, 2017.

4Hugh Mackenzie (2017). Shortchanging Ontario Students: An Overview and Assessment of Education Funding in Ontario. Toronto:
Elemen a Teache Fede a ion of On a io

6
5 Education Funding Technical Paper 2018-19, Spring 2018, Ministry of Education. p. 40. Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/1819/2018-19-technical-paper-en.pdf
6 Wo ke Safe In ance Boa d EIW Claim Co Anal i Schema J ne nap ho To on o

7 Ontario Auditor General (2017). 2017 Annual Report, Chapter 3, Section 3.08 - Ministry Funding and Oversight of School Boards.
8 Jane e Pelle ie A g Child en gain lea ning boo f om o- ea f ll da kinde ga en The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/children-gain-learning-boost-from-two-year-full-day-kindergarten-
79549?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%203%20201
7&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%203%202017+CID_3b51c04b24b7444248b9dee39c2c63a
e&utm_source=campaign_monitor_ca&utm_term=Children%20gain%20learning%20boost%20from% 20two-year%20full-
day%20kindergarten
9 Ibid.

10 Katina Pollock and Michael Mindzak (2015). Specialist Teachers - A Review of the Literature prepared for the
Elemen a Teache Fede a ion of On a io. Toronto.
11 Ontario Ministry of Education. Education Funding Technical Papers, 2005-06, 2008-09.

12People fo Ed ca ion Hamlin D Hagen Came on D Wa kin E On a io guidance counsellors:
Spread thinly in an environment of growing expectations. People for Education. Toronto: March 7, 2016.

13People for Education. Competing Priorities Ann al Repo on On a io P blicl F nded School To on o ON People fo
Education, 2017.

,
14Hugh Mackenzie (2017). Shortchanging Ontario Students: An Overview and Assessment of Education Funding in Ontario. Toronto:

5.

SHORTCHANGING ONTARIO STUDENTS
AN OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATION FUNDING IN ONTARIO
ELEMENTAR TEACHERS FEDERATION

OF ONTARIO
This report was prepared for the
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario
by Hugh Mackenzie.
August 2017
Cover photograph by Kathryn Gaitens
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario

136 Isabella Street
Toronto ON M4Y 0B5
Phone: 416-962-3836 or 1-888-838-3836
Website: www.etfo.ca
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ FEDERATION OF ONTARIO 1

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................1

KEY AREAS AFFECTED BY FUNDING CUTS................................................................................................................. 1
FINDINGS OF ROZANSKI TASK FORCE ON EDUCATION FUNDING ................................................................................. 2
FUNDING CHANGES UNDER THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT............................................................................................ 2
FUNDING HIGHLIGHTS ........................................................................................................................................ 3
FUNDING FOR GRADES 4 TO 8 .............................................................................................................................. 3
GAP BETWEEN FUNDING FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY STUDENTS ...................................................................... 3
STAFFING ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
CLASS SIZE ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
SPECIAL EDUCATION ........................................................................................................................................... 4
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES GRANT ....................................................................................................................... 5
ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE GRANTS............................................................................................................ 6
LOCAL PRIORITIES .............................................................................................................................................. 6
SCHOOL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................. 7
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................ 7
DECLINING ENROLMENT...................................................................................................................................... 7
LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................................................................................................... 8
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 8
EDUCATION FUNDING FORMULA BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 10

CUTS IMPOSED BY THE PC GOVERNMENT............................................................................................................. 12
THE NEW FUNDING FORMULA INITIAL DESIGN AND IMPACTS ........................................................ 12
POST-INTRODUCTION EVOLUTION OF THE FORMULA ....................................................................... 14

PC GOVERNMENT PERIOD ................................................................................................................................. 14
PC GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHES ROZANSKI TASK FORCE TO REVIEW FUNDING FORMULA .............................................. 15
THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT PERIOD – 2003 TO THE PRESENT.................................................................................. 16
FUNDING PER STUDENT IN 2016-17 .................................................................................................. 17

SALARIES AND BENEFITS .................................................................................................................................... 17
WHERE WE ARE TODAY ..................................................................................................................................... 18
FUNDING PER STUDENT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY COMPARED ............................................. 18
STAFFING......................................................................................................................................... 23
TEACHERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 24
OCCASIONAL TEACHERS .................................................................................................................................... 24
PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS....................................................................................................................... 25
EDUCATION ASSISTANTS ................................................................................................................................... 25
PROFESSIONALS............................................................................................................................................... 27
i
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ FEDERATION OF ONTARIO
TEACHER COMPENSATION SINCE INTRODUCTION OF FUNDING FORMULA ........................................ 28
ISSUES IN FUNDING FORMULA DESIGN SPECIAL EDUCATION .......................................................... 33

HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING ........................................................................................................... 34
EXPERT PANEL ON SPECIAL EDUCATION ............................................................................................................... 35
FUNDING SHIFTS AWAY FROM REFLECTING STUDENT NEED...................................................................................... 36
ROZANSKI REPORT RE SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING ............................................................................................. 36
LIBERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES DIFFERENT APPROACH TO SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING ............................................... 37
INTRODUCTION OF STATISTICAL MODEL FOR DETERMINING SPECIAL EDUCATION SUPPORT ............................................ 37
SUMMARIZING THE SHIFT AWAY FROM A NEEDS-BASED MODEL ............................................................................... 40
NEW STATISTICAL MODEL LACKS ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................................................................. 44
FUNDING ISSUES AT-RISK STUDENTS.............................................................................................. 45

IMPACT OF SCHOOL FUNDRAISING ...................................................................................................................... 46
FUNDING ISSUES LANGUAGE/ESL .................................................................................................. 47
FUNDING ISSUES LOCAL PRIORITIES ............................................................................................... 49
FUNDING ISSUES SCHOOL OPERATIONS ......................................................................................... 51

SPACE ALLOCATIONS PER STUDENT AND THE FOCUS ON EDUCATION BASICS ............................................................... 52
SPACE ALLOCATIONS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION ...................................................................................................... 52
COMMUNITY AND NON-EDUCATION PROGRAMMING USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES ........................................................ 52
THE SPACE ALLOCATION FORMULA...................................................................................................................... 53
FUNDING BENCHMARK FOR SCHOOL SPACE .......................................................................................................... 53
BUILDING NEW SCHOOLS FOR GROWING AREAS .................................................................................................... 54
FUNDING AND ENROLMENT ............................................................................................................. 54

MINISTRY FUNDING ADJUSTMENTS OFFSET DECLINING ENROLMENT ......................................................................... 55
ONTARIO S EDUCATION FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY GAP ................................................................. 57

ONTARIO’S ONE-WAY ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 57
A COMPARATIVE REALITY CHECK ......................................................................................................................... 58
APPENDIX 1 DETAILS OF ELEMENTARY VS. SECONDARY FUNDING PER STUDENT CALCULATION ...... 61
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ FEDERATION OF ONTARIO ii

Executive Summary
September 22, 2017 marks the 20th anniversary of the introduction of Bill 160, euphemistically
entitled the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997. By assuming complete control of the
finances of all school boards in Ontario, the bill ended nearly two centuries of local initiative in
and accountability for the delivery of elementary and secondary education. It did so by
eliminating the right of local school boards to raise revenue from the local property tax base
and requiring boards to operate within the limits of a funding formula established under
provincial regulation.
Despite its title and the language of fairness and equity that peppered the government’s
statements in support of the bill, its overriding purposes were to reduce overall spending on
elementary education and transfer resources from “wealthy” large urban school boards to
other less “wealthy” boards, most notably rural and remote as well as Catholic boards.
On day one, the formula was designed to reduce education operating spending, on an
enrolment-and inflation-adjusted basis, by $833 million below its provincial total in 1997. By
2002-03, on an enrolment-and inflation-adjusted basis, funding had dropped to a level
$1.7 billion below its pre-formula base and $913 million below its 1998-99 level.
Key areas affected by funding cuts
The impact of the reduction in funding was distributed throughout the system:
Because the formula provided less funding than boards needed to employ the teachers
they were legally required to employ to meet basic class size standards, school boards
diverted funding from programs intended to support students from immigrant families
and students at risk.
Because the formula provided less funding for special education than boards had been
spending prior to its introduction, boards were faced with significant unmet needs for
special education services.
Because the formula provided funding for school operations well below the 1997 actual
costs for boards serving a majority of the students in the province, deferred
maintenance resulted in a marked deterioration in the physical quality of school
facilities.
Because the formula was driven entirely by “classroom spending,” art and music
education and library services were cut and, in some schools and boards, eliminated.
1
Findings of Rozanski Task Force on education funding
By school year 2001-02 – only the fourth full year of the formula’s operation – the system had
deteriorated to the point where the Progressive Conservative government appointed an
independent task force to review the formula. Mordechai Rozanski, former president of the
University of Guelph, headed the task force. Its 2002 report recommended an immediate
increase in funding of $1.7 billion a year. It also drew attention to a $5.6 billion maintenance
backlog and recommended additional funding to address that need.
In addition to his significant financial recommendations, Rozanski went beyond his mandate to
highlight the negative consequences of the formula’s fixation with uniformity and its
inadequate funding for special education, programming for students at risk and support for
students whose first language is neither English nor French.
Funding changes under the Liberal government
In some respects, the election of a Liberal government in the fall of 2003 changed the terms of
the education debate. The focus of government policy shifted from funding cuts to the
implementation of election promises to improve the system. In the elementary system, the
new government responded to pressure from the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario
(ETFO) by reducing primary class sizes in its first term and introducing full-day Kindergarten in
its second.
A renewed commitment to collective bargaining also had a positive impact. In the mid-2000s,
teachers’ salaries and benefits made up some of the ground lost in the s. In addition,
through collective bargaining, ETFO made gains in funding for preparation time that enabled
the hiring of more specialist teachers in art, music, drama and physical education.1
Despite these changes, and the shift in tone that accompanied them, the government made a
political choice to ignore most of the fundamental issues that had plagued the new funding
system right from the beginning. It responded to the gap between funding and identified needs
for special education by breaking the link between them and capping funding overall. It ignored
recommendations for expanded English as a second language (ESL) programming. It dealt with
the underfunding of teachers’ salaries by diverting funding from students at risk and eliminating
funding intended to support local priorities. It provided funding for school renewal but left
untouched the inadequate funding for operations and maintenance that had created the
maintenance backlog in the first place.
As a result, those fundamental issues persist.
Recently, during the 2017 contract extension negotiations with the government, ETFO also negotiated
improvements to Kindergarten and grades 4 to 8 class sizes and enhanced supports for special education.

On the surface, it would appear that funding per student has increased substantially. Since
2002-03, the base year for the Rozanski Task Force’s analysis, per pupil funding has increased
on an inflation-adjusted basis from $9,114 to $11,420 in 2016-17. Taking into consideration
Rozanski’s finding that the system was underfunded by . per cent in 2002-03 and the new
programs introduced since 2003, an apples to apples comparison shows an increase of 7.6 per
cent over the 15 years since the Rozanski review.
Funding Highlights
Funding for grades 4 to 8
Funding per student for grades 4 to 8 reached a peak in 2011-12 and has declined since then.
For example, on an inflation-adjusted basis, the Elementary Foundation Grant for grades 4 to 8
peaked at $5,050 in 2011-12; it declined to $4,770 in 2017-18 or $4,724 if the reduction in class
size from 24.5 to 24.17 negotiated in 2017 is excluded.
Gap between funding for elementary and secondary students
Despite the emphasis in the funding formula on uniformity, the Pupil Foundation Grant has
consistently provided a higher level of funding per student for the secondary panel than for the
elementary panel. Other grants also have systematically different impacts on elementary and
secondary funding per student.
Looking only at funding directly related to programming and teaching, data provided by the
Ministry in 2007 showed a differential of $770 in favour of secondary, dropping to $438 in
2007-08. Using the same data sources and methodology, the analysis in this paper shows that
the differential has increased again to $612.
A staffing database of Education Funding Information System (EFIS) data for the period 2002-03
to 2015-16 shows the elementary student-teacher ratio declined from 18.7 to 16.8, including
special education teachers. The corresponding figures for secondary show a reduction from
17.0 to 15.5.
Staffing
Use of occasional teachers has been relatively stable over the period. Expenditures by public
boards on elementary occasional teachers increased slightly from 3.6 per cent of the Pupil
Foundation Grant to 4.1 per cent, measured on a consistent basis.
Elementary regular program education assistants virtually disappeared, dropping from 0.6 per
1,000 students in public boards to 0.3. That decline, however, was more than offset by an
increase in special education assistants from 9.4 to 12.4 per 1,000 students.

Employment of professionals and paraprofessionals in the elementary panel of public boards
has increased from 1.57 per 1,000 students to 2.72 per 1,000 students.
EFIS data on Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) teaching by principals and vice-principals shows a

decline in elementary public boards across the province from 430.5 FTE to 347.2 FTE.
Class size
The data show that, under the Liberal governments since 2003, funding under the formula
stabilized and programming has been enhanced through the reduction in class sizes and full-day
Kindergarten.
However, the data also show that the funding formula gaps, which existed from the outset and
were confirmed by the Rozanski Task Force, have remained essentially unchanged.
Special education
Special education funding under the formula initially fell short of the Harris government’s
expert panel’s estimate of boards’ prior expenditure levels. While the gap was reduced in the
early years of the formula as the Harris government responded to public pressure to increase
funding, in recent years, the Liberal government responded to the needs gap first by putting a
cap on funding and then by breaking the connection between identified needs for service and
provincial funding levels. As a result, we now have a system for funding special education that
bears little relationship to the needs for service that boards have identified through their
Identification, Placement and Review Committees (IPRCs).
Despite significant evidence that special education programming needs continue to increase,
funding on an inflation-adjusted basis has essentially been stable since 2011.
The change from identified needs to the statistical model, which the government has now
finished phasing in, gave rise to significant shifts in funding among boards. In 2016-17 (the last
year for which both high needs amounts and statistical amounts were reported), the biggest
losers were the two Toronto boards – Toronto public and Catholic – and Halton public, with
losses of $8.6 million, $6.5 million and $7.6 million, respectively. The biggest winners in the
shift were the Peel public and Dufferin-Peel Catholic boards, making gains of $13.4 million and
$6.4 million, respectively.
Beyond the impact on overall funding, perhaps the most important consequence flowing from
the separation of funding from identified needs is that it has forced a shift in focus at the local
level from meeting the special education needs of students to rationing a fixed allocation of
funding from the provincial government.

Learning Opportunities Grant
Funding for at-risk students is delivered through the Learning Opportunities Grant (LOG).
The initial concept for the LOG was developed by one of the four expert panels created by the
Harris government in advance of the introduction of the funding formula in 1997. It was
intended to support a range of special programs for students at risk in the school system. The
initial level of funding was controversial. The panel recommended $400 million to be
distributed based on student and community demographic factors as a starting point, while
calling for a more in-depth study of future need.
The actual starting point for the LOG was $158 million. The 2017-18 level of funding for the
demographic portion of the LOG is $358 million, compared with the inflation-adjusted value of
the original $400 million recommendation of $597 million.
Over time, the funding formula diluted the focus of the LOG by adding components that were
unrelated to demographic factors. The Rozanski report addressed both the funding level and
dilution of focus. The report recommended an in-depth study of the basis for determining the
grant and the level of funding provided, taking into consideration the needs it was intended to
address. No such study has been done.
Three other factors have served to diminish the effectiveness of the LOG, considering its
original purpose. In the early years of the formula, funds provided through the LOG were used
to backfill the significant gaps in funding for basics like paying teachers and maintaining schools.
That left very little for programming for students at risk.
The potential for the LOG to overcome the disadvantages facing students from lower-income
backgrounds is undermined by the prevalence of school-based fundraising in Ontario. An
analysis of data provided through the EFIS database shows that in 2015-16, school-based
fundraising generated an average of $280 per student whereas the LOG demographic grant
generated only $179. Because fundraising tends to be more successful in higher-income
communities, it serves to reverse the effect of the LOG in offsetting inequality.
Finally, because the LOG is not earmarked for programming for students at risk, there is no
accountability for how boards spend the money. This serves the boards’ interests because it
amounts to a pool of discretionary funds. It also serves the government’s interests because
boards can use the funds to offset pressures in other areas of the funding system – pressures
that the government would otherwise be forced to address.
The losers are Ontario’s students at risk.

English as a Second Language Grants
ESL programming has come under intense scrutiny. The 2002 Rozanski report condemned the
level of funding and the associated duration of support as inadequate. Five years later,
Ontario’s Provincial Auditor examined ESL funding, criticizing the system for determining
funding on arbitrary criteria based on birthplace and years of residence rather than on the
achievement of a specified level of proficiency.
Furthermore, because the system is based on counts of individual students who meet the
regulatory criteria, it fails to recognize the additional costs associated with higher densities of
ESL needs in areas with high levels of immigration.
Finally, as is the case with the LOG, there is no requirement that ESL funding be spent on
programming for students who need the support.
In a province as dependent on immigration as Ontario is, the failure of its funding system for
students for whom English is a second language is shocking and unacceptable.
Local priorities
Throughout its history, Ontario’s education system has relied heavily on local school boards as
sources of innovation in programming. System-wide programs like French immersion and ESL
support didn’t get their start as provincial initiatives; they started in local school boards to
address local needs.
That fact, along with a realization that no centralized funding formula was ever going to get
everything right, led every review of the funding system, up to the implementation of the
provincial formula in 1997, to recommend that school boards have access to property taxation
to a level equal to a percentage of their provincial funding. Most recommended 10 per cent;
the Crombie report commissioned by the Harris government recommended five per cent.
Despite this history, however, the first iteration of the funding formula contained no provision
at all for local priorities.
That soon changed with the addition of a local priorities amount of $100 per student in
2001-02, which subsequently increased to $200. In 2002, Rozanski recommended setting the
local priorities amount as a fixed percentage of the Foundation Grant so that it would increase
automatically each year as overall funding levels increased.
Against a backdrop in which funding for teachers fell short of actual costs by an estimated
$10,000 per teacher, however, that funding was not available to fund local priorities. The
Liberal government even eliminated that amount from the formula in 2006.

School operations and maintenance
Funding for school operations and maintenance has been a major issue in the funding formula
right from the beginning. In its original form, funding was driven by enrolment and uniform
allocations of space per student, with a higher number for secondary students than for
elementary students. It made no allowance for the use of school facilities for other purposes.
The funding provided was not based on actual costs but rather on the costs per square foot of
the median-cost board among the 122 pre-consolidation boards. That turned out to be the
average of the reported per-square-foot costs of two rural separate school boards.
Over time, the government made changes to make the space allocations more realistic by
establishing individual space utilization factors for each school in the province. The grants
provided a modest amount of additional funding to support the higher space needs in facilities
dedicated for special education. Community and other uses of schools continue to be
contentious. Most importantly, the government has never fundamentally re-examined the
funding allocated per square foot but simply adjusted it periodically based on year-to-year
changes in costs. As a result, many school boards still receive far less funding than would be
required to maintain their buildings to an adequate standard.
More recently, the government has begun to use space utilization factors – the percentage of a
school’s space considered to represent full utilization – as a lever to force boards to close
schools the government views as “underutilized.” In addition to forcing school closures, the
government has withheld approval for new school construction from boards with underutilized
schools in their systems. That leaves boards unable to respond to demographic and enrolment
pattern changes within their jurisdictions.
Student transportation
There are no standards limiting the amount of time a student can expect to spend on a bus
getting to school. The consequence is that thousands of students in rural and northern areas
spend unacceptably long periods commuting to and from school. Again, there is a reason for
the absence of a standard. If the government were to set a standard, it would have to fund to
meet that standard.
Declining enrolment
A funding formula driven primarily by student counts places extreme pressure on jurisdictions
experiencing declining enrolment. Under the formula, the decline in function associated with an
enrolment decline is immediate, whereas adjustments in programming to respond to a decline
will inevitably take much longer even if they are possible.
The government recognized that problem in principle through the introduction of a Declining
Enrolment Adjustment (DEA) into the funding formula and through the creation of a special

grant for in-school administration that recognizes the reality that school-level administration is
not adjustable to individual student head counts.
That, however, falls far short of addressing the impact of changes in enrolment on education
finance at the board or school level. In its current form, the DEA provides partial assistance
(roughly 35 per cent of the impact of enrolment on funding) for one year and only 25 per cent
of that partial assistance in a second year.
This level of support is completely unrealistic. Because boards only know their enrolment within
the school year, they have essentially no ability to adjust to changes in enrolment in the first
year. While some functions can be adjusted to reflect enrolment changes in the second year,
other expenditures that are linked to enrolment in the formula can only be adjusted, if at all,
over a longer term.
Lack of Accountability
In the long term, the biggest problem with Ontario’s approach to funding elementary and
secondary education is the total lack of accountability on the part of the provincial government
for the role its funding plays in the system’s performance. The funding formula began with a
fixation on reducing expenditures and the public discourse ever since has continued that focus.
Conclusion
Education funding in Ontario has lost its way. There are no clearly articulated goals for the
system and no standards for its individual components. Consequently, there is no basis for
holding the provincial government accountable for the relationship between the funding levels
and for what is required to achieve the funding model’s goals or meet its standards.
Each year, the government dictates what school boards have to spend. It demands
accountability from school boards for the spending of that money, but it accepts no
accountability for the adequacy of its overall level of funding or the approach it takes to
allocating that funding across the system. The only relevant consideration with respect to total
funding is what the funding formula provided last year. The question of the funding allocation is
sidestepped by characterizing the situation as a series of conflicts among boards for a fixed
funding envelope.
The system is urgently in need of a review and a reality check. Had Rozanski’s
recommendations been accepted, we would have had three broad public reviews and 14
annual funding adequacy reviews. We have had none.
As for a reality check, a look outside the self-contained bubble of education funding in Ontario
gives considerable cause for concern.

Among Canadian provinces, Ontario ranks 5th in per pupil funding. Of more concern is how
Ontario ranks among provincial/state-level jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.
Among those 61 jurisdictions, in 2013-14 – the most recent year for which data are
available – Ontario ranks 45th. Looking more closely at the jurisdictions Ontario considers its
closest competitors economically – the Great Lakes states and provinces and Northeastern U.S.
states – Ontario ranks dead last among the 18 jurisdictions compared.
Of course, per student spending isn’t the whole story and it is certainly possible to imagine that
Canadian jurisdictions are able to do much more with less. However, a differential of 50 per
cent should, at the very least, raise some difficult questions about the relationship between the
goals for our education system and our hopes for the students in that system, on one hand, and
the level of our financial commitment, on the other.

Education Funding Formula Background
The funding of Ontario elementary and secondary education in its early history was made up of
a mixture of provincial grants and locally determined property taxes.
In 1967, the Ontario Committee on Taxation (known as the Smith Committee) issued a report,
recommending sweeping changes in local government, two of which are relevant to
subsequent changes in education finance. First, it recommended the replacement of locally
determined systems for value assessment for property tax purposes with a uniform, province-
wide system based on market value. Second, it recommended the provincial government
introduce a uniform system for funding elementary and secondary education in which 60 per
cent of the funding would be provided through provincial government grants and 40 per cent
from local property taxes. In shorthand, this became known as 60/40 funding.
These two recommendations were intended to work together. In principle, 60/40 funding could
be achieved simply by providing each school board with a grant equal to 60 per cent of its costs,
leaving the other 40 per cent to come from local property taxes. However, significant
differences in revenue-raising capacity from municipality to municipality would, in such a
system, require significantly different levels of “tax effort” (the amount of tax raised relative to
the property assessment base) among municipalities and school boards. Uniform property
assessment would enable the provincial government to consider differences in revenue-raising
capacity among school boards by creating a consistent basis for comparison of tax effort among
the municipalities, which levied the taxes to support school boards.
The 60/40 funding promise was to be effected by dividing an amount equal to 60 per cent of
overall education costs among school boards in such a way that the tax effort required to fund
the local share would be equalized. Thus, from the beginning, it was contemplated that while
the share of spending received by school boards in the form of provincial grants would average
60 per cent across the province, that share would vary from school board to school board.
While the provincial government accepted these recommendations from the Smith Committee,
in the face of widespread opposition, it decided to delay implementation of province-wide
market value assessment while at the same time proceeding with education finance reform. To
compensate for the absence of a uniform property assessment system, the government created
a complex array of assessment equalization factors designed to determine local shares based
on estimates of how tax bases would compare if market value assessment were in place.
Provincial grants were based on the revenue that would be raised locally, based on a notional
province-wide tax rate levied against each municipality’s “equalized” assessment.
Two key points should be noted: First, while the grants were based on a notional province-wide
tax rate, there was no requirement that school boards’ requests for local property tax revenue
be based on that tax rate. School boards were still free to set local education property tax rates.
Second, the allocation of property assessment between the public and separate systems was
based on designated school support, the effect of which was to provide for a much narrower

tax base for most Roman Catholic separate boards than for the corresponding public boards.
Consequently, separate boards were in general more grant-dependent than the corresponding
public boards.
The new system was fully implemented by 1974 and, as it happens, provincial funding did
account for approximately 60 per cent of total local education costs in that year. That, however,
was the last such year. Beginning in 1975, the Ministry of Education responded to successive
waves of provincial spending constraints by limiting the growth of, and in some years reducing,
its contribution to local school board finances. It did so, not by scaling back the percentage of
school board spending from the 60 per cent funding promise but by changing the spending base
on which the dollar value of the 60 per cent was calculated. Thus, the concept of “recognized
spending” as contrasted with “actual spending” was introduced to the provincial elementary
and secondary education funding system.
From that point until the new funding formula was introduced in 1997, the Ministry annually
determined an amount of spending on elementary and secondary education at the local level
that it designated as recognized spending and then provided grants that, across the province,
came to a total of 60 per cent of that amount. As a result, actual spending and recognized
spending began to evolve on different tracks: actual spending responding to local requirements
and the willingness of local taxpayers to support 100 per cent of costs above recognized levels;
and recognized spending responding to the spending constraints imposed by the Ministry of the
day.
By the early 1990s, the system had essentially collapsed. Recognized spending had been
constrained to the point that, in total across the province, it came to roughly 60 per cent of
actual total spending. Consequently, provincial funding accounted for only 36 per cent of total
education costs – a clear indication that, relative to the expectations inherent in the 60 per cent
funding promise, the government was significantly underfunding education.
The diverging tracks of “recognized” and “actual” spending created two classes of school
boards: boards with access to strong local assessment bases, which could raise substantial
amounts of additional revenue from local property taxes; and boards with relatively weak local
assessment bases that were largely restricted to levying the provincial notional tax rate and
spending at only the “recognized” level. While the latter category consisted primarily of boards
in rural and northern areas, it also included boards whose assessment bases were weaker than
those of coterminous boards. In those boards, for competitive reasons, the tax rate would
effectively be set by the board with the stronger assessment base, leaving the board with the
weaker base underfunded relative to the board with the stronger base. In general, those
underfunded boards were Catholic separate boards.
In the end, the discrepancy between recognized and actual spending was so extreme that two
boards – Metro Toronto and Ottawa – would have raised more at the notional uniform
provincial tax rate than their total recognized spending, i.e., they received no grant revenue
from the province whatsoever, and were effectively financially independent of the provincial

government. The Ministry invented the term “negative grant” to describe these boards’
financial position.
Cuts imposed by the PC government
That was the situation facing the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris when it
was elected in 1995. Committed to a promise to cut personal income taxes by 30 per cent, the
new government set out to free up fiscal capacity to offset the revenue loss from its promised
tax cuts by reducing grants to transfer payment agencies, most notably school boards, colleges
and universities, hospitals and municipalities. In its first full budget in 1996, it reduced funding
for elementary and secondary education by $530 million for 1996-97 and by a further
$100 million the next year.2 The government very quickly recognized, however, that in cutting
grants to school boards, it was pushing on a proverbial fiscal string. Many school boards simply
responded to the cuts in grants by increasing their property taxes; some even drew attention to
the provincial government’s responsibility for the increases by including special explanatory
notes in their local tax notices.
At that point, the Ministry of Education dusted off proposals, developed in the 1970s, to
assume total control of education funding. The government jumped in with both feet. It
proceeded immediately to set in motion processes designed to give it political cover. It
announced it was going to proceed with the implementation of market value assessment. It
appointed former Toronto Mayor David Crombie to report on local property tax funding for
education. It created four “expert panels” to address specific issues in education funding.
While the Harris plan was framed as a way to deliver equity in funding across the province and
between separate boards and public boards, it emerged during the process that the explicit
goal was to reduce total spending on elementary and secondary education by approximately
$750 million. The actual reduction – on an inflation-adjusted per-student basis – was $883
million, a reduction remarkably close to the $667 million saving target subsequently revealed to
have been included in the performance contract of the deputy minister of education at the
time.3 When added to the cuts made during the first two years of the Harris government, the
total amount of education funding cuts by 1997-98 equalled $1.5 billion, a figure that is
equivalent to $2.2 billion in current dollars.
The New Funding Formula Initial Design and Impacts

Under a title of which George Orwell would have been proud, “Student Focused Funding,” the
new formula contained several features intended to put substantial downward pressure on the
highest-spending (largely urban public) boards.
2 1997-98 Ontario Budget, Page 64, Table B4.

3
Hugh Mackenzie, Ontario Alternative Budget Technical Paper #5, October 1998, p.7

First, and most important, the government designed the formula to support a narrow definition
of “education” for funding purposes. Funding was driven primarily by student head counts and
provided primarily for classroom teachers, with only a limited allocation for ancillary services.
With a focus, firmly rooted in the 1950s, on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, the
grants made no explicit allocation for the arts or physical education, no allocation for education
readiness programming like school breakfast and lunch programs, and no allocation for
educational enrichment such as outdoor education and field trips.
As we will see later, funding for special education and programming for students at risk was far
below estimates of what boards had been spending in these areas. Even the basics were not
properly funded. School operations were funded at a level per square foot found in the median-
cost school board – the average of the costs in two rural separate boards – leaving half the
boards in the province representing more than half of the student population receiving
substantially less funding than their actual spending before the change. The formula did not
provide enough funding to cover the salaries and benefits of the teachers they were required to
employ to fulfill class size requirements.
Allocations for key items in the so-called Pupil Foundation Grant were inadequate and arbitrary.
There was sufficient funding for teacher-librarians in the grant to provide for only one library
for each two average-sized elementary schools. Funding for classroom supplies was arbitrary.
In aggregate, the impact was dramatic, as a detailed retrospective study conducted in June
2001 shows.4
Not only was funding reduced overall, once inflation and enrolment change were considered,
there were substantial and systematic shifts among boards. Over and above the funding
reductions imposed before the new formula was developed, total funding declined by a further
$913 million by 2000-01. That loss was, to say the least, not evenly distributed. Boards whose
funding was reduced lost $1,052 million, offset by $138 million in gains by other boards. Boards
in major urban areas lost a total of $921 million – more than the total province-wide loss,
implying an urban-rural shift of about $8 million. Public boards lost $1 billion, while Catholic
boards gained a net of $87 million.
The per-student impact was dramatic.
In the last year of the old system, spending in major urban areas in southern Ontario
was $73 per student higher than the provincial average. In 2001-02, per student funding
in major urban areas will be $179 lower than in the rest of the province.
4Hugh Mackenzie, Ontario’s “Student Focused Funding” formula for Elementary and Secondary Education – a
Report Card, Ontario Alternative Budget Technical Paper #13, June 2001

Funding per student was $344 per student higher in large urban public boards in
southern Ontario than public boards in the rest of southern Ontario. In 2001-02, public
boards in major urban areas receive $192 per student less.
Spending per student in Catholic boards was $708 lower than in public boards. In
2001-02, it will be $60 higher.
In public boards, funding per student is lower in absolute terms. Before allowing for
inflation, funding per student in 2001-02 will be $7 per student lower than it was in
1997. In the GTA, funding is down $146 per student. In Toronto, $332 per student.
Adjusting for inflation, most types of boards were forced to operate with substantially reduced
resources, per student.
Public boards, down $741 per student

Major urban boards in southern Ontario, down $734
Other southern Ontario boards, down $59
Major urban public boards in southern Ontario, down $1,089
Other southern Ontario public boards, down $213
Major urban Catholic, down $37
Other southern Ontario Catholic, up $357
GTA boards, down $880
GTA public boards, down $1,262
Toronto public, down $1,780
Ottawa public, down $1,347
Toronto Catholic, down $109
French language boards, up $5805
Post-introduction Evolution of the Formula

PC government period
The changes imposed by the new PC government funding formula would have been even more
dramatic had the formula not been modified, virtually from its first days, as the disconnect
between its expectations and the real world became apparent. The government increased
special education support almost immediately, as the numbers of students with exceptional
needs identified by boards ran far ahead of the numbers assumed in establishing the funding
base. The government realized it would suffer politically if it carried through on its initial plan to
cut funding per student to match the original allocation.
5
Report Card, June 2001, pp. 5-6

Funding for school operations was originally based on the square footage per student in
notional benchmark schools rather than the physical areas of actual schools. The government
had to acknowledge that a formula, based on notional rather than actual schools, and on an
assumption that every classroom in every school would be fully utilized, was absurd. The
system for calculating the square footage funded was changed but not the allocated funding
per square foot.
To appear to be addressing the financial pressures faced by school boards in making their
budgets fit an unrealistic funding formula, the government introduced a “local priorities”
amount into the Foundation Grants. Of course, that funding wasn’t available to fund local
priorities; it was fully committed to filling holes left by the basic funding formula.
Despite these changes, however, the basic inadequacies of the funding formula remained. By
2002-03, funding for teachers fell short of the actual cost by approximately $10,000 per
teacher. That gap had to be filled by diverting funding from other areas.
Key funding benchmarks were not appropriately inflation-adjusted and therefore fell behind in
real terms.
The financial pressures on school boards led to intense conflicts between the provincial
government and boards. The provincial government placed several boards under trusteeship
for refusing to pass a balanced budget. It bailed others out through special deals that allowed
them to use funding intended for capital and renewal projects to cover regular operating
expenditures.
PC Government establishes Rozanski Task Force to review funding formula
In 2002, the chickens came home to roost. Against expectations, the government followed
through on its 1997 promise to review the funding formula every five years by creating a task
force, led by Mordechai Rozanski, the former president of Guelph University. The task force was
not to consider fundamental changes in the formula as originally established but focus on
whether the formula was keeping up with changing needs in the system.
The task force was limited to an assessment of the responsiveness of funding to changes in
costs over the period since its introduction. It was not asked to address the adequacy of the
funding formula itself. The task force found that Ontario’s elementary and secondary education
system was underfunded and required increased annual funding of $1.7 billion on a 2002-03
operating spending base of $13.7 billion, or approximately 17.5 per cent.
The Rozanski report also observed that the funding for facilities renewal equated to less than
one per cent of the replacement value of the properties, a figure he described as “inadequate
to meet boards’ school renewal needs.” He drew attention to an estimated maintenance
backlog amounting to $5.6 billion. With respect to funding formula basics – the adequacy of the
base funding for special education, English and French as a second language, students at risk

(the Learning Opportunities Grant) and school operations – the task force, constrained by its
limited mandate, called for further study and refrained from making specific financial
recommendations.
The Liberal government period 2003 to the present
While the increases in funding for teachers and other staff and for school renewal were
welcome, they did nothing to address the underlying problems. The revised grants increased
funding for teachers to a level that approximated boards’ actual costs, but most of that increase
came at the expense of other grants in the formula. The revised grants eliminated the local
priorities amount and reduced funding for students at risk. Special education funding was
disconnected from the actual needs identified by school boards.
The education grants allocated substantial amounts to address a massive deferred maintenance
liability identified in the Rozanski report. However, the underfunding of school operations and
maintenance, that gave rise to the deferred maintenance liability in the first place, was left
untouched. Not surprisingly, provincial data now show a deferred maintenance and renewal
backlog that is substantially higher than it was when Rozanski reported on it. Current Ministry
data indicate five-year renewal requirements at just over $15 billion, compared with the
$5.8 billion identified by Rozanski in 2002.
The Ministry has delivered on a commitment to adjust key funding benchmarks to inflation, but
it has not addressed the adequacy of the benchmark funding numbers themselves.
Most importantly, the Ministry has not addressed at all the issues raised by the narrow
definition of education embedded in the funding formula.
Instead, the government has focused on new initiatives arising out of campaign commitments:
reductions in primary class sizes; eliminating Grade ; adding specialized “student success”
teachers in secondary schools; allocating funding for preparation time for the hiring of
specialists in such areas as art and music; and introducing full-day Kindergarten. In some
instances, the fundamental issues have merely been neglected. In others, new initiatives make
the problems worse.
Despite a targeted amount of additional funding, the formula still doesn’t provide enough
funding for a library in every school. It provides funding that can be used to hire music and art
teachers, but it does not provide enough funding for music and art rooms.
Perhaps most significantly, the Harris government’s surprising commitment to a five-year cycle
of public reviews as a basis for accountability has been buried. Premier Dalton McGuinty made
a commitment to a second review during the 2007 provincial election campaign, but the
promised review never materialized.

Funding Per Student in 2016-17
In assessing current levels of funding per student in Ontario, it is important to draw two
important distinctions. The first is the difference between funding directed towards
improvements to the scope of the system and funding required for the maintenance of the core
system. The second is the difference between shortfalls arising from the failure of the formula
to keep pace with inflation and enrolment growth and shortfalls embedded in the original
design of the formula.
The former PC government was only part way through its response to the sweeping Rozanski
recommendations when the Liberals, led by Dalton McGuinty, won the 2003 election. As far as
education funding was concerned, the 2003 and 2007 election cycles were driven by promises
to reduce primary class sizes (2003) and implement full-day Kindergarten as part of a new early
learning strategy (2007). Consequently, a portion of the increase in funding implemented
between 2003 and 2016 is directly attributable to funding required for system expansion rather
than the maintenance of the base system.
The impact is clear in the numbers.
Adjusted for inflation, funding per student has increased from $9,330 per student in 2002-03
(the base year for the Rozanski analysis) to $12,107 per student in 2016-17. However, of that
$12,107 per student, approximately $626 is attributable to the per-student spending impact of
class size reductions and the additional investment attributable to the early learning program.
On a long-term equivalent basis, 2017-18 funding is $11,480 per student. Adjusting 2002-03 per
student spending to reflect Rozanski’s identified funding shortfall of . per cent yields an
inflation-adjusted per student funding base of $10,496. Measured on a consistent basis,
2017-18 funding represents a 9.4 per cent increase relative to Rozanski’s recommended base
funding level over a 16-year period.
Salaries and benefits
Of the $1.7 billion increase in funding recommended by Rozanski, $675 million was accounted
for by the difference between the increases in salaries and benefits negotiated in the education
sector between 1997 and 2002-03 and the increased amounts provided for in the funding
formula. In addition to that amount, which simply reflected the difference between funding and
actual costs for salaries and benefits, the system, as it was funded in 2002-03, reflected roughly
a decade during which salaries and benefits for teachers and other education sector employees
fell behind because of NDP Social Contract’s salary freezes and the Harris government’s
subsequent salary freezes.
Salary and benefit increases negotiated after reflected a degree of “catch-up” from the
losses in the prior decade. That degree of catch-up is evident in the difference between the
average salary increase in the education sector between 2004 and 2012 (approximately three
per cent) and the average CPI increase (approximately two per cent). Over the period between

and , that difference would have given rise to a total “catch-up” of approximately .
per cent. With salaries and benefits at a normal long-term average of 88 per cent of total
education system costs, the 2004- period of “catch-up” would have increased funding by
8.35 per cent without affecting base funding adequacy as measured by Rozanski.
Where we are today
On balance, then, when enrolment, inflation, the cost of new programs and the element of
catch-up reflected in education system salaries and benefits are considered, education funding
in 2017-18 is roughly equivalent to the level recommended by Rozanski in his review of 2002-03
funding. While that is a positive sign, relative to the standard required in Rozanski’s terms of
reference, it essentially reflects no progress at all in addressing the fundamental funding issues
built into the base funding formula introduced for the 1998-99 school year.
It is also important to note that the pattern has not been uniform over time. Inflation-adjusted
overall funding per student reached a peak of $12,023 in 2011-12 compared with the figure of
$12,107 in 2017-18.
It is evident that successive governments have failed to address the funding gaps in the
formula’s initial 1997 conception. The gaps include:
Inadequate funding, relative to the government’s own expert panel’s recommendation,

for programming for students at risk through the Learning Opportunities Grant;
Inadequate funding for English and French as second language programming;
Inadequate funding for special education programming relative to identified needs;
Inadequate funding for basic school-level facilities and services such as libraries,
guidance, music, art and physical education;
Inadequate funding, relative to costs, for school operations and maintenance; and
The absence of any funding to support local priorities.
Funding Per Student Elementary and Secondary Compared

The 1998-99 formula, with its predominant focus on linking funding to FTE student counts,
shone a bright light on the funding discrepancies between the elementary and secondary
panels in Ontario’s public education system.
When the Harris government introduced is new funding formula, there was a differential in
funding support between the elementary and secondary panels in the public education system.
Foundation Grant funding per student was higher in the secondary panel than in the
elementary panel, a differential only partially offset by higher funding per student for special
education, and higher per-student amounts linked to teachers’ placement on the qualifications
and experience grid.

There has been considerable change in the structure of both the education system and the
funding formula since then. With respect to elementary education, the government has funded
smaller class sizes, which has a direct impact on the Foundation Grant. In addition, full-day
Kindergarten has been introduced into the formula, which increases funding per student in the
elementary panel.
In the secondary panel, the elimination of Grade 13, the shift to a credit-based system and the
creation of new programs to enhance “student success” have had an impact on measures of
per-student funding.
In 2007, the Ministry of Education reported to ETFO on the differential in per-student spending
between the elementary and secondary panels in 2003-04, 2006-07 and 2007-08.6 That report
showed the comparative evolution of elementary and secondary per-student spending from
the last school year beginning before the election of the McGuinty government in 2003 to the
then-current school year.
The reported results are summarized in the following table.
Funding differential over time

2003-04 2006-07 2007-08
Foundation including Early Learning 791.00 908.00 848.00
Special Education -318.00 -483.00 -509.00
Language -124.00 -146.00 -142.00
First Nations, Métis and Inuit 1.00
Geographic 13.00 21.00 12.00
Adult Continuing Education and Summer School 116.00 111.00 115.00
Teacher Compensation 410.00 269.00 232.00
Transportation -60.00 -101.00 -110.00
Administration - -3.00 -3.00
Other - - -14.00
School Operations 297.00 283.00 288.00
Learning Opportunities -2.00 12.00 10.00
Safe Schools - - -
1,123.00 871.00 728.00
In the table, positive numbers show an advantage favouring the secondary panel; the negative
numbers show an advantage favouring the elementary panel.
For the most part, the data reported by the Ministry in 2007 are derived in a relatively
straightforward manner from a combination of the annual education technical papers
published by the Ministry each spring and the twice-annual Education Finance Information
6
Letter from Didem Proulx, Director, Education Finance Branch, Ministry of Education to Pat McAdie, Research
Officer, ETFO, 25 May 2007.

System (EFIS) spreadsheets that compile the financial reports submitted by all schoolboards in
the province.
There are three general categories of expenditure in which there are no publicly available data
that distinguish between the elementary and secondary panels: transportation; administration
and the demographic portion of the Learning Opportunities Grant.
The annual technical paper is the primary document issued by the Ministry with respect to the
funding formula. It sets out in detail the terms under which boards will receive grants through
the Pupil Foundation and School Foundation grants and the 13 special purpose grants currently
provided for under the formula.
In some cases, the full amount, or an identifiable portion of these grants, is linked directly to
enrolment in either the elementary or secondary panel. In other cases, details of the grant may
be linked to the elementary or secondary panel, but the precise allocation depends on metrics
from the two panels that are not apparent in the summary documents. In some cases,
enrolment may play a role in the allocation of a grant between boards. However, because the
per-student factors underlying those allocations are the same as between the elementary and
secondary panels, that grant will not affect the per-student funding differential. Finally, the full
amount of a grant or a portion thereof may not be identified with either panel.
The Education Finance Information System (EFIS) Estimates (Sections 1 to 19) contain the
details submitted by district school boards in support of their claims for funding under the
general and special purpose grants. For some grants, sufficient information is provided to
disaggregate the full amount of the grant between the elementary and secondary panels. For
some other grants, some sub-components are driven by metrics that can be identified with one
or the other panel. For the remainder, either the grant itself does not make a distinction
between panels or the detail reported does not permit making such a distinction.
The analysis that follows is based on Sections 1 to 19 of the EFIS Estimates for 2016-17, which
detail each board’s entitlement to each component of each operating grant. Capital grants are
not included.
Grants or components of grants, for which no distinction between panels is made or no

allocation between panels is reported, are excluded from the analysis. For example:
The student transportation grant is excluded from the analysis in its entirety because
the EFIS reports do not allocate the transportation grant or any of its components to
one or the other panel;
The board administration grant is excluded in part because the enrolment-related
multipliers are the same for ADE in both panels and, in part, because other metrics that
give rise to the grant are unrelated to enrolment;
The demographic component of the Learning Opportunities Grant is excluded because it
is not related to any characteristic that could be identified with one or the other panel.

Overall, the analysis allocates 96 per cent of the funding provided to one or the other panel.
Summary of analysis
ADE October 2016 1,358,289 592,521

Per
student
Elementary Secondary Differential
1. Foundation 5,202.22 5,792.23 590.01
2. School Foundation 697.31 790.98 93.67
3. Special Education 1,507.58 1,160.91 -346.66
4. French Language 172.13 39.60 -132.53
5. ESL ELD PANA 117.64 123.88 6.25
6. ALF 51.49 36.86 -14.63
7. Supported Schools 28.37 54.64 26.27
8. Remote and Rural 63.42 55.93 -7.50
9. New Teacher Induction 6.11 3.10 -3.01
10. ECE Qualifications and Experience 91.93 - -91.93
11. School Operations 904.11 1,226.94 322.83
12. Learning Opportunities 38.14 108.23 70.09
13. First Nations, Métis and Inuit 16.29 48.84 32.55
14. Safe Schools 1.52 24.52 23.00
15. SUBTOTAL 8,898.26 9,466.66 568.41
16. Continuing Education and Other Programs 19.56 136.07 116.51
17. Cost Adjustment and Teacher Q & E 823.01 1,189.71 366.70
ITEMIZED TOTAL 9,740.84 10,792.45 1,051.61
The data are sourced from the EFIS summaries as follows:

1. Foundation – Section 01.1 -- Pupil Foundation Allocation
2. School Foundation – Section 01.3 -- School Foundation Amount
3. Special Education – Section 02 -- Special Education Allocation
4. French Language – Section 03-1 -- French Language Allocation
5. ESL ELD PANA – Section 03-2 -- English as a Second Language; English Literacy
Development; Programme d’appui aux nouveaux arrivants Allocations
6. ALF – Section 03-3 -- Actualization linguistique en français
7. Supported Schools – Section 04 -- Supported Schools Allocation
8. Remote and Rural – Section 05 -- Remote and Rural Allocation
9. New Teacher Induction – Section 07-4 -- New Teacher Induction Allocation
10. ECE Qualifications and Experience – Section 07-5 -- Early Childhood Educator
Qualifications and Experience Allocation
11. School Operations – Section 11-1 -- School Operations Allocation
12. Learning Opportunities – Section 13 -- Learning Opportunities Allocation (excluding
demographic portion)

13. First Nations, Métis and Inuit – Section 18 -- First Nations, Métis and Inuit Education
Allocation
14. Safe Schools – Section 19 -- Safe Schools Allocation
15. SUBTOTAL
16. Continuing Education and Other Programs – Section 06 – Continuing Education and
Other Programs Allocation
17. Cost Adjustment and Teacher Qualifications and Experience – Section 07-3 – Cost
Adjustment and Teacher Qualifications and Experience Allocation
In total, the analysis shows that funding per student in the secondary panel exceeds per-
student funding in the elementary panel by $1,051.61 per student. Of that differential, $366.70
is attributable to the fact that, on average, secondary teachers are at a higher level on the
teacher qualifications and experience grid than elementary teachers. A further $116.51 reflects
the impact of funding for international languages (elementary), summer school (secondary) and
adult day school (secondary).
Continuing education is generally considered to be primarily a secondary school function and

might legitimately be excluded from the analysis. In addition, it might be argued that the
differential in the Teacher Qualifications and Experience Grant is attributable to the individual
characteristics of teachers, rather than any systematic policy difference. Excluding both the
Teacher Qualifications and Experience Grant and adult day and summer school grants, the net
differential is $568.41.
Another way to look at the comparison would be to exclude grants that are unrelated to
programming and teaching – i.e., excluding transportation, administration and school
operations – and the largely secondary education related adult and continuing education grant,
the differential in 2016-17 works out to $612.28.
The following table compares these results with those prepared by the Ministry and provided
to ETFO in 2007.

Funding differential over time
2003-04 2006-07 2007-08 2016-17
Foundation including Early Learning 791.00 908.00 848.00 683.67
Special Education -318.00 -483.00 -509.00 -346.66
Language -124.00 -146.00 -142.00 -140.91
First Nations, Métis and Inuit 1.00 32.55
Geographic 13.00 21.00 12.00 18.78
New Teacher Induction -3.01
Adult Continuing Education and Summer School 116.00 111.00 115.00 117
Teacher Compensation 410.00 269.00 232.00 274.77
Transportation -60.00 -101.00 -110.00 -
Administration - -3.00 -3.00 -
Other - - -14.00 -
School Operations 297.00 283.00 288.00 322.83
Learning Opportunities -2.00 12.00 10.00 70.09
Safe Schools - - - 23.00
1,123.00 871.00 728.00 1,051.61
Program and teacher-related only 770.00 581.00 438.00 612.28
Sources:
2003-04, 2006-07 and 2007-08, letter from Education Finance to ETFO dated May 25, 2007
2016-17, author's calculations from EFIS Estimates 2016-17
The Ministry’s data provided in show a drop in the differential from , to

between 2003-04 and 2007-08. Even if transportation data not provided in the EFIS Estimate
were to show the same differential for 2016-17 as in 2007-08, the data show a rebound of the
differential to $942.
Excluding functions not related to day school programming and teaching, the differential
dropped from $770 to $438 between 2003-04 and 2007-08 but rebounded to $612 in 2016-17.
Staffing
Staffing information for Ontario is available through the reports filed by boards under the
Education Finance Information System (EFIS). Although these data have been available to
specified users outside the government and school boards since 2002-03, comparisons over
time are challenging to make because of changes in reporting categories and definitions. The
following section reports, at an aggregated level, on the available data for major staffing
categories.

Teachers
EFIS data collected for teachers varied by category and format during the period from 2002-03
to 2015-16, reflecting changes in the political priorities of the provincial government.7
For the first three years, from 2002-03 to 2004-05, EFIS reported a global total of “classroom”
teachers for elementary and secondary, regular program and special education. Specialist
teachers were reported as “other teachers” in the same four categories. Beginning in -06,
the “other” category was broken down into a limited number of specialties. In 2006-07, a more
detailed breakdown of specialist teachers was introduced.
In the data set prepared for the project, I have included the detail for specialist teachers for the
period 2006-07 to 2015- . I have included the “other teachers” data in the totals for the four
main categories.
As is the case with other aspects of the EFIS Appendix H data, it is not always clear that boards
have prepared and entered the data on a consistent basis, either within a given year or over
time. As a result, some caution should be exercised in using the data, with greater caution
required as the data used becomes more granular.
For comparison purposes, the summary data are expressed as ratios of students to teachers.
The summary results are as follows:
Including only teachers in the regular program, the elementary student/teacher ratio declined
from 21.8 in 2002-03 to 19.2 in 2015-16 in public boards. The corresponding figures for the
secondary regular program are 18.3 and 17.3.
Including both regular program and special education program teachers, the elementary
student/teacher ratio declined from 18.7 in 2002-03 to 16.8 in 2015-16. The corresponding
figures for secondary are 17.0 and 15.5.
Occasional teachers
Although the EFIS system does not capture FTE data for supply (occasional) teachers, it does
report expenditures on their wages and salaries on an annual basis, board by board.
To put the data into perspective for comparative purposes, both over time and among boards,
annual expenditures for elementary supply teachers from 2002-03 are expressed as a
percentage of the Elementary Pupil Foundation Grant received by each board for that year. The
7
Data Reference: Teachers.xlsx

grant is adjusted to consider the fact that in-school administration was transferred to the
School Foundation Grant effective 2006-07.
Over the period from 2002-03 to 2015-16, expenditures on elementary occasional teachers
increased slightly, from 3.6 per cent of the Pupil Foundation Grant in 2002-03 to 4.0 per cent in
2015-16. In public boards, the pattern was almost the same – an increase from 3.6 per cent to
4.1 per cent.8
In general, the highest users of occasional teachers were rural Catholic French-language boards,
where ratios were typically in the five to 10 per cent range. The overall public board average
was higher than the total for the province, largely because the Toronto District School Board’s
expenditures were generally slightly above the average.
Principals and vice-principals
EFIS includes data on FTE teaching by principals and vice-principals for the period 2002-03 to
2015-16.9
Across the province, elementary FTE teaching by principals and vice-principals has declined by
about 25 per cent, from an FTE reported of 590 in 2002-03 to 481 in 2015-16.
Most of that teaching done by vice-principals is in the regular program.
In 2015-16, the breakdown was as follows:
FTE Teaching in Elementary by Principals and Vice-Principals

Regular Program Special Education Total Teaching
Principals 47.2 6.5 53.7
Vice-Principals 384.7 29.8 414.5
Total 431.9 36.3 468.2
The pattern is similar looking at public boards only.
Total FTE of instructional time attributed to elementary principals and vice-principals in public
boards in 2015-16 was 347.2, compared with 430.5 in 2002-03.
Education assistants
EFIS data report FTE education assistants in the regular and special education programs on a
relatively consistent basis from 2002-03 to 2015-16.
8 Reference data: supply teacher exp.xlsx

9
Data Reference: Principals and vice principals.xlsx

As is the case with the Appendix H data reported by boards, an overview of the data reveals
both clear errors in data entry and inconsistencies in the way the data are reported from year
to year.
Having said that, the data for education assistants are dominated by the virtual disappearance
of regular program EAs from the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). Most other boards’ FTEs
for education assistants in the regular program reflected the 0.2 FTE per 1,000 students
benchmark in the formula for the Elementary Foundation Grant. TDSB employed significantly
more elementary EAs in the regular program – between three and four per 1,000 students, until
the past three years.
Although EAs are not incorporated explicitly into the Special Education funding formula, over
the period special education EAs increased both in number and as a ratio per 1,000 students.
Across all public boards, elementary regular program EAs dropped from 0.6 per 1,000 students
to 0.3 per 1,000 students. Elementary special education EAs increased from 9.4 per 1,000 to
12.4 per 1,000.10
Although the secondary benchmark formula does not provide for any funding for regular
program EAs, EFIS reports an increase in secondary regular program EAs in public boards from
0.2 per 1,000 students to 0.4 per 1,000 students.
Secondary special education EAs in public boards increased significantly from 5.3 per 1,000
students in 2002-03 to 9.6 per 1,000 students in 2015-16.
Total FTE EAs in public boards increased from 10 to 12.7 per 1,000 in elementary and from 5.5
to 10 per 1,000 in secondary.
Expenditures on EAs show a much different pattern. EFIS captures expenditures on wages and
salaries for EAs, board by board, although it does not distinguish for reporting purposes
between regular program EAs and special education EAs. To facilitate comparison over time
and between boards, wage and salary expenditures on EAs are expressed as a percentage of
each board’s Pupil Foundation Grant (adjusted to reflect the change in funding for in-school
administration in 2006-07) each year.
Reported elementary EA wage and salary expenditures increased across Ontario from 8.8 per
cent of the Pupil Foundation Grant in 2002-03 to 15.7 per cent in 2015-16. Only about one third
of the increase can be attributed to increases in FTE EAs. The remainder is attributable to the
fact that benchmark pay levels for EAs have increased significantly since 2002-03.11
10 Data Reference: Education Assistants.xlsx

Data Reference: Supply and EA expenditures.xlsx

Professionals
EFIS reports data consistently from 2002-03 to 2015-16 on professionals and paraprofessionals
employed by school boards in the following categories:
Social services;
Speech services;
Psychological services;
Attendance counsellors; and
Other professionals and paraprofessionals.
In all instances, the data are reported separately for the regular and special education programs
and for elementary and secondary.12
In addition, from 2008-09 to 2015-16, data are reported separately for child and youth workers,
again in the four subcategories.
An overview of the data points to difficulties and inconsistencies in board reporting. As a result,
while the totals reported would appear to be reliable, one should be cautious in relying on data
for subcategories. For example, allocations between categories of professionals and between
the regular and special education programs would appear to be inconsistent over time. There
are also some anomalies in the data, which clearly reflect errors in data entry. Finally, there are
inconsistencies in reporting by some large boards – most notably Toronto DSB – that tend to
skew the data from year to year and from item to item.
In the data set compiled for counts of professionals and paraprofessionals, I have included
subtotals for each category (i.e., the sum of regular and special education) and for the group for
which data are presented in total.
To provide a scale-based comparison, in addition to the FTE counts for each year and each
board, I’ve also expressed the FTE counts as a ratio per , students.
In general, over the period from 2002-03 to 2015-16, FTE professionals and paraprofessionals
increased for both the regular program and the special education program, for both elementary
and secondary and for both public and other boards.
In public boards, the average ratio for elementary increased from 1.57 per 1,000 students to
2.72 per 1,000 students. The increase was from 0.51 per 1,000 to 1.04 in the regular program
and from 1.06 to 1.68 in the special education program.
12
Data Reference: Prof and para data

In secondary public boards, the ratio more than doubled, from 1.38 per 1,000 in 2002-03 to
3.07 in 2015-16.
It is also of some interest to compare the number of professionals and paraprofessionals

funded under the funding formula with the number employed according to the EFIS data.13
Comparing actual FTE professionals and paraprofessionals by using the benchmark allocations
for these positions in the Pupil Foundation Grant as a measure of funded positions, the data
show that 81 per cent of the professionals and paraprofessionals employed by boards were
recognized for funding under the Foundation Grant in 2002-03. By 2015-16, the positions
recognized in the Elementary Foundation Grant accounted for only 62 per cent of professional
and paraprofessional FTEs.
For public boards, the ratio of funded to actual positions declined from 86 per cent to 65 per
cent.
Teacher Compensation since Introduction of Funding Formula

Between 1974 and 1993, negotiations in the education sector took place at the individual board
and union level. The Education Relations Commission (ERC) oversaw the process and made
compensation data available to the parties to facilitate their bargaining. School boards and local
unions had relatively unfettered rights to lock out and strike, respectively.
The Social Contract, introduced in 1993, imposed an agreement on all parties in the sector that
ran until 1996 or 1997, depending on the board and agreement. The introduction of the
funding formula in 1997 essentially coincided with the expiry of the Social Contract restrictions.
Bargaining reverted to the pre-Social Contract form, with two exceptions: The government
abolished the ERC; and, because school boards’ financial resources were limited to the grants
determined by the provincial government, bargaining between individual boards and unions
was tightly constrained. Funding declined in real per-student terms in the first five years of the
formula’s operation and settlements generally reflected those limits.
Following the report of the Rozanski task force, which identified inadequate funding for
teachers and inadequate provision for cost increases as major problems with the formula, the
Eves government provided additional funding to support boards’ negotiation of teacher salary
increases. That change presaged the end of the first era of teacher bargaining under the
funding formula-constrained conventional teacher-board bargaining.
Following the 2003 change in government, the then Minister of Education Gerard Kennedy
convened central discussions with the teachers’ unions, which resulted in an agreement for a
general increase in board funding to support four-year agreements (2004 to 2008) at agreed-
13
Data Reference: Prof and para funded.xlsx

upon percentage rates. The agreed salary increases were then extended to the individual
agreements around the province.
The government attempted to repeat the process in 2008. The process was somewhat more
formal, and included the unions representing all the workers in the education sector. There was
no legislative framework for the process. The government convened so-called provincial
discussion tables involving the Ministry of Education, school boards and each individual
education sector union. All the unions except for ETFO reached voluntary agreements within
the provincially imposed time limit. ETFO subsequently reached an agreement including a
“penalty” in the form of a two percent lower percentage increase for two years of the four-year
term for missing the province’s deadline. That brought to an end the second era in education
bargaining under the funding formula – informal province-wide bargaining.
Provincial legislation (Bill 115) that imposed an agreement that, among other things, froze scale
increases and eliminated the sick leave gratuity from all agreements, curtailed bargaining for
the 2012-2016 period. That era ended with the establishment of the current legislative
negotiation framework, with its formal division between local and central bargaining tables.
The agreement negotiated in 2017 extends the 2016 agreement to August 31, 2019.
From 1995-06 to 2018-19, elementary teachers’ salaries increased at an average annual rate of
1.79 per cent. This compares with an average annual increase for employees paid a salary in
Ontario of 2.40 per cent over that period and an increase in the CPI (Ontario) at an annual rate
of 1.95 per cent.14
The following charts show the results of this analysis.
14
Sources: negotiated salary increases, Ontario Ministry of Labour and Extension Agreement Ministry of ; Average
Salaries and CPI, Statistics Canada.

Teachers (Average Elementary) compared with Consumer Price Index for
Ontario index 1995-06=100
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
Index, 1995-6 = 100 Average Elementary Index 1995-6=100, CPI Ontario

Average Annual Percentage Increases for Elementary Teachers
Year Average % increase
1996-7 0.14%
1997-8 0.26%
1998-9 0.35%
1999-0 0.35%
2000-1 3.37%
2001-2 3.52%
2002-3 3.80%
2003-4 3.90%
2004-5 2.56%
2005-6 2.56%
2006-7 2.56%
2007-8 2.56%
2008-9 2.50%
2009-10 2.50%
2010-11 2.50%
2011-12 2.50%
2012-13 0.00%
2013-14 0.00%
2014-15 0.00%
2015-16 0.00%
2016-17 1.50%
2017-18 1.50%
2018-19 2.52%

Issues in Funding Formula Design Special Education
The grant for special education stands out in the provincial funding formula for two reasons: it
is the largest of the special purpose grants, second in value only to the Pupil Foundation Grant;
and it is one of only two major grants – the other being administration and governance – which
is subject to enveloping.15
School boards are required to spend their entire allocation for special education on special
education, and must account for that spending in a compliance report to the Ministry. Special
education funding not spent in the current year must be reported in a deferred revenue
account and spent on special education in the future. This requirement has generally had no
material impact on school budgets, other than the associated compliance costs, since boards
have generally spent more than their allocation on special education.
From the beginning, the special education grant has consisted of several different components
targeted to aspects of special education programming. In general, those components have
consisted of:
A general amount, calculated for each board based on enrolment data. (It is essentially
an add-on to the general Foundation Grant that is specifically earmarked for
programming deemed to be special education programming);
An amount or amounts related to students with high needs;
An amount related to the acquisition and maintenance of specialized equipment
required to support students with special needs; and
An amount related to the operation of facilities required for the delivery of special
education programs.
In recent years, a small amount of additional funding has been identified as linked to
behavioural supports.
The general amount (referred to as the Special Education Per Pupil Amount, or SEPPA) and the
high needs amount (which has been associated with various program names and acronyms
Special education is subject to what could be termed “positive enveloping” in that boards are permitted to
spend more than the amount allocated under the grant but cannot spend less. Administration and governance is
subject to what could be termed “negative enveloping,” in that boards are not permitted to spend more than the
amount allocated and are permitted to spend less. The requirement that grants deemed to be directed to
functions deemed to be “classroom” functions be spent on those “classroom” functions, which was a major
feature of the formula for the Harris government when it was introduced, was dropped by the McGuinty
government and replaced by class size restrictions. Several smaller, more targeted grants are also earmarked for
the designated activities. This includes funding for the New Teacher Induction Program and the Safe and Accepting
Schools Supplement. In addition, capital and capital related funding in general must be spent on capital projects,
although the restrictions on the use of School Renewal and School Condition Improvement funding are relatively
loose and in practice permit activities that would normally be considered operating expenditures to be funded
from this envelope. (Source: Education Funding Technical Paper 2017-18, Spring 2016)

over the years) are by far the most significant of the grants, accounting over the years for
between 92.5 per cent and 95 per cent of the total special education allocation.
These two grants have given rise to five issues that were present in the funding formula’s
beginnings and persist at present:
The adequacy of the total funding provided -- the relationship between funding and
system-wide needs for special education programming;
The relationship between needs-based funding and population-driven funding;
The linkage or lack thereof between pupils in need of funding support and the method
for allocating that funding at the school board level;
The linkage between needs and funding at the individual pupil level; and
The impact of changes in funding regimes on the allocation of funding among school
boards.
In the evolution of the funding formula, the related questions of overall funding adequacy and
the relationship between funding and needs drive the debate on these issues. Consequently,
current issues in special education funding are best understood in the context of the history of
the development of the funding formula as it relates to special education.
History of special education funding
When the Conservative government embarked on the creation of a new education funding
formula for the 1998-99 school year, it identified four topics for in-depth consideration by
expert panels: special education; learning opportunities (programming for students with special
needs arising from demographic factors); pupil accommodation; and financial accountability.
The expert panels completed their respective reports prior to the introduction of the funding
formula, but they were not available to the public until they were included in the government’s
disclosure documentation during the constitutional challenge to the funding formula launched
by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) and others in 1998.
The expert panel reports were significant, not necessarily because the government followed
their recommendations, but because they set the stage for the 20 years of debate that has
followed the introduction of the formula.
The special education panel made several significant findings.16
It identified a total of $858.4 million in provincial grants for special education in 1996-97 under
the then-existing funding arrangement. It also made several notable observations and
conclusions:
Expert Panel on Special Education Funding, Panel Report to the Minister of Education and Training, August 29,
1997.

That under the then-existing funding arrangement, school boards were spending
substantially more than the official grant allocation of $858.4 million and that funding
should take that fact into account;
That funding should respond to students’ needs for special programming rather than
the identification of the student’s condition; and
That the method of funding should not drive program choices.
The first point was critical. Under the then-existing funding approach, provincial grants funded
60 per cent of “recognized spending” on education by school boards. However, because the
spending amount recognized by the province for funding purposes amounted to only about 60
per cent of what boards were spending, provincial funding only accounted for 36 per cent of
total school board costs. Or, looking at it another way, 40 per cent of the spending of school
boards was completely outside the funding formula. The $858.4 million identified as special
education funding by the province was tied to the 60 per cent of total spending recognized by
the province. It did not reflect in any way the extent to which boards allocated the remaining 40
per cent to special education.
Expert Panel on Special Education
In 1997, the Expert Panel on Special Education examined a “small but representative sample” of
school boards and found that their actual spending exceeded their provincial grants by a range
of 23 per cent to 85 per cent. Although the panel made no specific recommendations with
respect to funding levels, the clear implication of these findings was a grant that simply
replaced the then-current provincially recognized spending amount would translate to a
substantial cut in resources available for special education.
The debate over block funding versus needs-based funding played out in the panel’s process,
with boards arguing for block funding with its attendant flexibility and parents advocating for
needs-based funding and its associated accountability. In the end, the panel recommended the
broad structure for special education funding that persisted until the current government
initiated a shift to statistically-determined funding drivers – a combination of block funding
(SEPPA) based on total head counts and needs-based funding (the Intensive Support Amount or
ISA).
It is important to note that, in the panel’s perspective, the ISA should be driven from the
bottom up, by individual students’ needs, and that it should be geared to the programming
needs identified in a student’s Individual Education Plan rather than the student’s category of
disability.
As it was introduced, special education funding followed the rough structure set out by the
Expert Panel, with a couple of noteworthy exceptions. First, with respect to adequacy, the
initial funding level effectively reflected the low end of the estimated percentage by which
boards outspent the provincially recognized allocation under the previous formula. The total

funding amount of $1,052 million was almost exactly 23 per cent higher than the 1997
recognized amount of $858 determined by the panel.
Second, although the formula provided indicative amounts for approved funding for ISA-
qualified students, it also specified that, once boards’ applications for the funding had been
processed, the amounts would be adjusted downwards to keep the total within the
$389 million envelope for ISA level 2 and 3 funding. In other words, it was intended that fiscal
considerations would, if necessary, override students’ needs.
That approach lasted about two months. By November 1998, it was clear there were
significantly more students who needed ISA-level support than had been assumed in
developing the notional model and that, following the strict guidelines in the funding technical
paper, the amounts delivered would be substantially lower than those advertised. Once it
became clear that these effects would be felt throughout the government’s political heartland
in suburban and rural Ontario, the government backtracked and committed to the initial
funding level for all students who met the requirements.
As a result, ISA level 2 and 3 funding was increased from the initial $389 million to $524 million.
Funding shifts away from reflecting student need
The fiscal cold shower administered by the program in its first few months, however, set in
motion the shift from student needs to cost containment that dominates the system today. The
provincial government realized there was a big political downside to any explicit link between
funding and needs, and to any role that it might play in assessing needs. School boards found
themselves caught between parents, who were fully aware of how much funding their son or
daughter “generated” for the board and who expected some accountability for the
expenditure, and a provincial government that had been forced into writing a blank cheque
that it had never intended to write.
The government responded by freezing the ISA funding level for each board at its (revised)
1998-99 level for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and then by introducing a more rigorous process for
ISA approval in 2001-02 and freezing total funding pending the review. That freeze continued
until the December 2002 report of the Education Equality Task Force (known as the Rozanski
report).17
Rozanski Report re special education funding
With respect to special education, Rozanski recommended the government increase special
education funding by $250 million to reflect the cost of providing ISA level support to the
17
The Conservative government created the Rozanski Task Force pursuant to its commitment when the new
formula was introduced in 1997 to conduct a public accountability review after five years. The 2002 review is the
only public review ever conducted of the performance of the formula.

additional students identified in the ongoing file review $200 million immediately and a
further $50 million pending further review.
The 2003-04 funding, announced by the government in March of 2003, reflected this
recommendation, in part, by increasing the allocation for ISA funding from $566 million to
$765 million.
Liberal government takes different approach to special education funding
For 2004-05, the new Liberal government signaled a change in direction, completing the rollout
of funding from the previous review, providing funding for “net new needs” and announcing a
plan to develop a new system.18
For 2005-06, the freeze combined with net new needs funding was continued, as work on the
new approach to funding was still under development.
For 2006-07, the government began to transition away from an identified needs based
approach to funding. Prior ISA funding was converted to a different per-pupil amount for each
board, and re-labelled the High Needs Amount (HNA).
For 2007-08 and 2008-09, the transition continued, with the HNA allocated on the same basis
as for 2006-07 with additional funding to allow for benchmark changes and to protect prior
funding levels in the face of enrolment changes.
For 2009-10, recognizing that the extended freeze was not adequately reflecting changes in
needs, the government announced the Measures of Variability (MOV) grant, as the basis for
allocating the 2009-10 increase. Otherwise, the transitional HNA basis was retained. The MOV
factors were based on student participation in special education programs, EQAO participation
by students with special needs, and a geographic factor.
Introduction of statistical model for determining special education support
In 2010-11, funding shifted from the per-student determined HNA to the MOV grant, making
more of the funding dependent on estimated changes in needs. In addition, the MOV factor
calculation methodology became more complex as it incorporated much more granular
information. It also introduced the Special Education Statistical Prediction Model (SESPM) as
the basis for allocating a small portion ($10 million) of the MOV funds.19
18
Sources for the narrative of the history of special education funding are the annual Technical Papers issued by
the Ministry each spring setting out the terms of the funding formula for the following school year.
19
The model is discussed in more detail below. It is described in general in B-Memos from the Ministry of
Education; it is referenced as the work of Professor J.D. Willms of the University of New Brunswick. Professor
Willms’ CV lists two non-peer-reviewed publications on the topic:
Willms, J. D. (2012, August). Ontario Special Education Statistical Prediction Model. Presentation for the Ontario

The SESPM uses census and other data to develop statistical estimates of the likely incidence of
various categories of special needs, board by board. The province then uses the results of these
statistical estimates to determine each board’s share of the allocated amount.
The Ministry continued the same approach for 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 with the SESPM
amount set at $10 million.
In 2014-15, the government announced a four-year transition towards a statistically-driven

model for allocating the HNA among boards. As a result, funding shifted substantially towards
the SESPM basis, with its funding allocation increasing from $10 million to $198.8 million and
the MOV allocation from $66 million to $131 million, both at the expense of the High Needs
Amount (HNA).
The transition continued in 2015-16 and 2016-17, with SESPM funding growing to
$391.4 million and MOV to $131 million in 2015-16 and to $578 million and $193 million,
respectively, in 2016-17, again at the expense of the historical HNA.
As of 2017-18, the transition is complete. SESPM for 2017-18 is projected to be $763 million
and the MOV amount $269 million. The historical High Needs Amount has been eliminated.
The following table and chart summarize the evolution of special education funding categories
from the formula’s inception.
Ministry of Education. Toronto, ON and Willms, J. D. (2013, February). Using Innovative Predictive Modeling
toward Equitable Funding in Special Education. Presentation for the Ontario Education Research Symposium.
Toronto, ON.

Special Education Funding -- 1998-09 to 2016-17
($ million)
ISA 2 & 3 Special HNA & Flat
ISA 1 (High ISA 4 Incidence historical per Inflation
SEPPA (Equipment) Needs) (Facilities) Portion HNA MOV SESPM board Behaviour TOTAL adjusted
1998-99 591.0 5.0 389.0 67.0 1,052.0 1,526.4
1999-00 622.0 5.0 524.0 63.0 1,214.0 1,728.0
2000-01 681.0 5.0 524.0 70.0 1,280.0 1,769.9
2001-02 729.4 5.0 567.9 70.5 1,372.8 1,841.9
2002-03 732.7 5.0 566.1 70.1 1,373.9 1,809.6
2003-04 810.5 7.2 765.0 66.9 1,649.6 2,113.5
2004-05 837.7 18.0 831.0 75.0 1,761.7 2,215.4
2005-06 867.6 25.0 76.6 6.2 924.6 1,900.0 2,337.9
2006-07 884.3 25.0 81.0 9.4 993.4 1,993.1 2,410.0
2007-08 928.7 26.4 80.3 12.3 995.3 2,043.0 2,425.9
2008-09 956.8 54.6 93.3 32.1 994.4 2,131.2 2,474.4
2009-10 1,044.3 66.8 93.5 40.2 957.0 50.0 2,251.8 2,604.7
2010-11 1,101.7 61.2 94.5 45.6 938.2 50.0 10.0 10.8 2,312.0 2,610.8
2011-12 1,286.0 81.5 100.1 41.0 938.1 50.0 10.0 11.3 2,518.0 2,758.4
2012-13 1,281.1 81.4 100.2 50.5 931.7 50.0 10.0 11.3 2,516.2 2,718.1
2013-14 1,265.9 84.1 96.0 53.2 931.6 49.9 10.0 11.3 2,502.0 2,674.6
2014-15 1,410.0 91.8 96.0 60.3 748.3 66.3 198.8 32.4 11.6 2,715.5 2,837.3
2015-16 1,402.0 93.7 96.0 68.7 495.7 130.5 391.4 32.4 11.6 2,722.0 2,809.8
2016-17 1,430.0 96.9 96.1 82.3 246.8 192.7 578.1 32.4 11.7 2,767.0 2,822.3
2017-18 1,478.0 102.4 99.7 98.2 269.4 763.2 32.4 11.9 2,855.2 2,855.2
39
Summarizing the shift away from a needs-based model
The table and chart highlight the extent to which funding has shifted away from needs-based
bottom-up funding to formula-based funding with no direct link to individual students’ needs.
The shift is significant from a policy perspective. The SEPPA portion of special education funding
has never had anything to do with needs. It has always been an add-on to standardized per
student funding. In its initial conception, ISA funding was created as a source of funding linked
directly to individual students’ special programming needs. The former Conservative
government struggled for several years with the open-ended nature of the ISA funding
commitment. Ultimately, with a strong push from the Rozanski Task Force, it followed through
on its commitment to fund based on individual needs.
The open-ended commitment ended with the Liberal government in 2004-05 as the pre-
existing ISA funding levels were frozen and then converted into per-student amounts. From
that point, the aggregate level of funding for special education students with high needs had
nothing to do with the actual needs levels of Ontario students. Allocations to ISA and then to
the High Needs Amount which replaced it were based on the distribution of student needs as
approved by the Ministry as of 2003-04. After a hiatus, during which the Ministry was
developing new statistical models, the legacy link to individual student needs has been
eliminated.
40
The breaking of the link between funding and needs has had profound implications for
students, parents, teachers and special education administrators. For students and parents,
there is no longer a link between needs and funding that can serve as a guide to available
services. For teachers, there is no longer any link between special education needs identified in
a classroom setting and additional resources to address those needs. The role of special
education administrators has been transformed from one of enabling access to needed services
to a gatekeeping role of rationing scarce resources and cost containment.
It also has a significant impact on the relationship between school boards and the government
in special education funding, and on the budgets of individual school boards. At the school
board/provincial government level, ironically, the abandonment of needs-linked funding has
accomplished what the Harris government tried unsuccessfully to do in 1998-99: establish a
fixed provincial total funding commitment with a funding formula that simply determines what
share of that fixed total goes to each school board.
Total funding is determined unilaterally; the statistical formula allocates that amount. As a
result, there is no basis on which to assess funding adequacy, either in aggregate or at the
individual board level. At the individual board level, the shift from funding based on assessed
needs to funding based on a statistical analysis is producing substantial shifts in funding.
Using data provided in the Grants Students Need (GSN) regulations for 2016-17 – the last year
for which both historical and statistical funding data are available, it is possible to compare the
funding share for each board based on historical measured needs, with the share based on the
statistical models.20
The following table summarizes the results:
Percentage shift from

School board HNS to SESPM Dollar value of shift ($mm)
Algoma District School Board -0.12 % -1.0
Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board -0.08 % -0.7
Avon Maitland District School Board 0.10 % 0.8
Bluewater District School Board -0.07 % -0.6
Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board 0.16 % 1.3
Bruce-Grey Catholic District School Board -0.01 % 0.0
Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario -0.15 % -1.2
Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario 0.00 % 0.0
Conseil scolaire catholique Providence 0.02 % 0.2
Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre- Sud -0.09 % -0.7
Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l'Est ontarien -0.24 & -2.0
Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Aurores boréales -0.08 % -0.6
Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Grandes Rivieras 0.04 % 0.3
Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Centre-Est de l'Ontario -0.33 % -2.8
Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario -0.15 % -1.2
20
Data References: spec ed grants_1.xlsx; special ed.xlsx
41
Conseil scolaire de district catholique Franco- Nord -0.17 % -1.4
Conseil scolaire de district du Grand Nord de l'Ontario -0.26 % -2.1
Conseil scolaire de district du Nord-Est de l'Ontario -0.21 % -1.8
Conseil scolaire Viamonde 0.07 % 0.6
District School Board of Niagara 0.68 % 5.6
District School Board Ontario North East -0.08 % -0.6
Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board 0.78 % 6.4
Durham Catholic District School Board 0.20 % 1.6
Durham District School Board -0.13 % -1.0
Grand Erie District School Board 0.14 % 1.2
Greater Essex County District School Board 0.43 % 3.6
Halton Catholic District School Board 0.04 % 0.4
Halton District School Board -0.92 % -7.6
Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board 0.02 % 0.2
Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board 0.39 % 3.2
Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board -0.06 % -0.5
Huron Perth Catholic District School Board 0.08 % 0.7
Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board 0.10 % 0.8
Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board -0.13 % -1.0
Keewatin-Patricia District School Board -0.27 % -2.2
Kenora Catholic District School Board -0.04 % -0.3
Lakehead District School Board -0.13 % -1.0
Lambton Kent District School Board 0.23 % 1.9
Limestone District School Board -0.42 % -3.5
London District Catholic School Board 0.25 % 2.0
Near North District School Board -0.17 % -1.4
Niagara Catholic District School Board 0.11 % 0.9
Nipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School Board -0.13 % -1.1
Northeastern Catholic District School Board -0.12 % -1.0
Northwest Catholic District School Board -0.01 % -0.1
Ottawa Catholic District School Board 0.52 % 4.3
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board -0.10 % -0.8
Peel District School Board 1.63 % 13.4
Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic
District School Board -0.22 % -1.8
Rainbow District School Board 0.10 % 0.9
Rainy River District School Board -0.07 % -0.6
Renfrew County Catholic District School Board -0.01 % -0.1
Renfrew County District School Board 0.20 % 1.6
Simcoe County District School Board -0.25 % -2.1
Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board 0.18 % 1.5
St. Clair Catholic District School Board 0.06 % 0.5
Sudbury Catholic District School Board 0.10 % 0.9
Superior North Catholic District School Board -0.07 % -0.6
Superior-Greenstone District School Board -0.02 % -0.2
42
Thames Valley District School Board 0.39 % 3.2
Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board -0.02 % -0.1
Toronto Catholic District School Board -0.79 % -6.5
Toronto District School Board -1.05 % -8.6
Trillium Lakelands District School Board -0.20 % -1.6
Upper Canada District School Board -0.43 % -3.6
Upper Grand District School Board 0.47 % 3.9
Waterloo Catholic District School Board 0.05 % 0.4
Waterloo Region District School Board 0.00 % 0.0
Wellington Catholic District School Board 0.10 % 0.8
Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board 0.05 % 0.4
York Catholic District School Board -0.23 % -1.9
York Region District School Board 0.28 % 2.3
The funding changes in the shift from historical needs-based funding to funding based on the
Ministry’s statistical models are substantial. For example, for the two Toronto-based school
boards, the shift reduces funding by just over $15 million.
It is important to stress that this shift will be the result not of a revised assessment of need but
rather of the difference between an allocation based on an (admittedly dated) audited direct
measure of need and an allocation based on a series of linear regression analyses. The
description of the model, which allocates $763 million in provincial funding for 2016-17, is
noteworthy.21 Another $269 million is allocated through the Measures of Variability (MOV)
model.
Essentially, the SESPM model employs statistical techniques to estimate, based on demographic
characteristics, the likelihood that a student in each school board will fall into one of 14
categories of exceptionality. These probabilities are added together and weighted by the
board’s enrolment to produce a factor for each board. Those factors are added together and
each board receives a share of the available funding based on its factor as a fraction of the total
of all board factors.
Even at this level of generality, the description of the model raises significant questions. First,
the categories of exceptionality used are clinical rather than needs based. There is no attempt
in the model to assess the programming needs associated with the identified exceptionalities.
In the model, each of the 14 categories of exceptionality is equally weighted. The model takes
no account of differences in the level of programming resources that might be required for
different categories of exceptionality. In addition, the use of clinical categories per se as
opposed to measures of need represents a significant departure from the needs-based
For example, the Ministry of Education’s B-Memo 2016:SB07 issued March 24, entitled “Special Education
Grant Funding in 2016-17.
43
approach that was the foundation of the original funding model. Second, the modelling
estimates are based on 2006 Census data. While the exercise does not make the obvious error
of using the widely discredited results from the 2011 Census, the statistical data are nearly as
stale-dated as the data from the directly measured needs they are replacing.
Beyond those general observations, the Ministry has not released the results from the 14
regression equations that form the basis for the model; nor has it provided details as to how it
combines those results into the funding share allocation system.22
New statistical model lacks accountability
It is not difficult to understand the attractiveness of the model to the Ministry of Education. The
new system provides no basis for an assessment of either the adequacy of the overall level of
special education funding or the relationship between the funding allocated to individual school
boards and their students’ actual special education needs. Because the funding no longer has
anything to do with programming needs or requirements, teachers, students and their parents
have no basis on which to assess the available resources relative to needs.
Essentially, the new system eliminates any possibility of accountability for programming
adequacy. The only accountability in the system now is purely financial, delivered through the
continuation of the requirement that special education funding be enveloped for special
education programming, in the aggregate, at the school board level.
That shift has been profound. Funding for intensive needs has evolved to the point where it is
difficult to distinguish from block funding under SEPPA.
22 For example, there has been no disclosure of the statistical results that underlie the model – the statistical
significance of the equations and of the individual variables that make up the equations. The detailed results have
not been released. As a result, we do not know what the model’s predictions are for the incidence of each of these
clinical categories of exceptionality, by school board. Such results might serve as a useful reality check against the
results, and would enable an analysis of the significance of equal weighting of categories as opposed to a
programming needs-related weighting. Although the Ministry’s material cites a model developed by Professor J.D.
Willms of the University of New Brunswick as the basis for its approach, his CV lists no peer-reviewed publications
on topic. The use of statistical models for special education funding is referenced in two presentations, one in 2012
to the Ministry of Education (Willms, J. D. (2012, August). Ontario Special Education Statistical Prediction Model.
Presentation for the Ontario Ministry of Education. Toronto, ON.) and one in 2013 to the Ontario Education
Research Symposium. (Willms, J. D. (2013, February). Using Innovative Predictive Modeling toward Equitable
Funding in Special Education. Presentation for the Ontario Education Research Symposium. Toronto, ON.)
44
Funding Issues At-risk Students
The Ministry established the Learning Opportunities Grant (LOG) to provide additional funding
“for students whose education is at risk because of their social and economic circumstances.”23
In conjunction with the development of the new funding formula, the Harris government
appointed an expert panel to advise it on the construction of the LOG.
The panel’s key recommendations were as follows:
The allocation of the grant should be based on the numbers of at-risk students in a
board’s student population, using demographic factors as a proxy measure of the
number of students at risk;
Demographic measures used to proxy at-risk students should include poverty, parental
education, refugee status and Aboriginal status; the basis for allocation should be kept
up to date as new demographic data become available;
The Ministry should conduct a detailed analysis of the additional programming costs
associated with equalizing opportunity for students at risk, both within a student
population and among at-risk students in different parts of the province;
The panel estimated that boards’ expenditures on at-risk students were
approximately $400 million, and suggested that amount as a floor for the initial Learning
Opportunities Grant allocation; and
School boards should be required to report annually on the distribution of Learning
Opportunities Grant allocation funding among schools, the programs funded by the
grant, and the results achieved.
The government adopted none of the original recommendations. Nor did it conduct an analysis
of the need for at-risk student programming across the province. At $158 million, the initial
level of funding allocated was less than half the panel’s estimate of boards’ actual spending on
at-risk programs in 1997.
Adjusted for inflation, the 1997 recommended funding level of $400 million would now be $595
million, compared with the 2017-18 level of funding for the demographic portion of the LOG of
$358 million.
The government failed to develop an accountability mechanism for the LOG. In fact, it chose
not to require boards to spend the funding allocated on at-risk students, essentially treating the
grant as one of several fund-generating “engines” in the formula with no strings attached to its
actual end use. Boards are free to allocate these funds as they see fit and to use the funds as
backfill for gaps in provincial funding for mandatory core services.
23
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training “Learning Opportunities Grant: Panel Report to the Minister of
Education and Training,” August , , .
45
The government shattered the fiction that the LOG had a meaningful relationship to
programming for at-risk students when it updated the benchmarks for teachers’ salaries to
reflect the actual amounts being paid. It assumed, probably correctly, that most boards were
generating the funds from the LOG and the Local Priorities Amount in the Pupil Foundation
Grant to help pay teachers.
The LOG expert panel’s original report recommended further analysis of programming needs
for at-risk students, as did the 2002 Rozanski report.24 Yet the government had no better idea
of the investment required to achieve Ontario’s educational objectives for at-risk students in
2017 than it did in 1997, when it set the initial funding level at less than half the rate that its
expert panel estimated represented boards’ actual expenditures.
Impact of school fundraising
Another feature of the current system puts the limited funding provided for programming for
at-risk students into perspective. The EFIS reports provide school-based fundraising totals,
board-by-board. In 2015-16, boards estimated that school-based fundraising generated total
revenue of $548 million – nearly $200 million more than the amount allocated to boards for
programming for students at risk. Given that school-based fundraising capacity likely relates to
the community’s ability-to-pay and inversely relates to the demographic factors for students at
risk in the community, the inevitable conclusion is that substantially more is being invested in
undoing the demographically based resource allocation than is allocated based on demographic
factors in the first place. The LOG demographic grant averages $179 per student; school-based
fundraising averages $280 per student.25
This factor does not simply affect the system; it also affects the allocation of resources among
boards in the system. Nine boards received more than the $179 per student average LOG
demographic grant, for a total of $221 million. Sixty-three boards received less than the
average LOG grant per student, for a total of $129 million. The nine boards with an above-
average at-risk measure had school-based fundraising of $124 million, nearly $100 million lower
than their LOG amount. The 63 boards with a below-average at-risk measure had school-based
fundraising of $424 million, nearly $300 million more than their LOG amount. In other words,
school-based fundraising significantly reverses the impact of the LOG on school boards’
resources.
Even these numbers radically understate the upside-down equity driven by school-based
fundraising. These figures are compiled at the board level and thus reflect averages of at-risk
allocations and school-based fundraising amounts across the whole board. At the individual
24 Education Equality Task Force, “Investing in Public Education: Advancing the Goal of Continuous Improvement in
Student Achievement,” . Link: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/task /complete.pdf
25
Data Reference: LOG and fundraising.xlsx
46
school level, the gap between at-risk programming needs and local fundraising potential will
inevitably be even starker.
Funding Issues Language/ESL

In looking at how the funding formula addresses issues like the need for additional support for
children whose first language is neither English nor French, it is hard to avoid the impression
that some features of the formula are designed to appear to be addressing issues without doing
so seriously. Funding falls far short of what is needed.
The English as a Second Language (ESL) and Perfectionnement du français (PDF) grants are
identified as supporting additional services for students whose first language is neither English
nor French. Most of the funding generated by the grants is based on a head count of the
number of students who entered schools in Canada within the past four years. The formula
generates additional funding of $3,982 for a student who has been in Canada for less than one
year as of September 1 of the school year. The formula allocates 85 per cent of that amount for
students who have been in Canada between one and two years; 50 per cent for students who
have been in Canada between two and three years; and 25 per cent for students who have
been in Canada between three and four years.
A second component provides additional funding based on Census data on the numbers of
children living in homes in which the language most often spoken at home is neither English nor
French. This component allocates a fixed provincial total funding level among school boards
based on their share of the total number of students in the province that meet the Census
language spoken at home criterion. For 2016-17, this component delivered $31.7 million across
the province – 14 per cent of the total ESL allocation, representing an increase of 10 per cent
from the $28.6 million provided in 2008-09. While beginning in 2016-17, the allocation basis is
changing from 2006 to 2011 Census data, the provincial total allocated continues to be
administratively determined. Total funding for the “pupils in Canada” component of the ESL
grant increased by only one per cent in the first year of the new allocation system, compared
with the level in 2015-16.
Ontario’s funding for ESL falls far short of what is needed in four key respects: the
determination of which students count for funding purposes; the time period over which
additional funding is provided; the level of funding relative to need; and the absence of a
standard of competence in English to which ESL funding is targeted.
In 2002, the Rozanski Report reviewed the adequacy of the formula’s investment in ESL
programming and found it fell far short of a reasonable standard, recommending that:
47
The Ministry of Education increase the funds allocated under the Language Grant to
reflect five years of language training for English as a Second Language/English Skills
Development and Perfectionnement du français 26
The government ignored the recommendation.
A review of total allocations for ESL under the funding formula shows that, on average across
the province, ESL funding was lower in 2015-16, as a percentage of the Foundation Grant, than
it was in 2002-03. Adjusting the data for 2002-03 to 2005-06 to reflect the shift of in-school
administration to the School Foundation Grant as of 2006-07, on average over the period 2002-
03 to 2015-16, ESL funding declined from 3.0 per cent of the Foundation Grant in 2002-03 to
2.5 per cent in 2015-16 in elementary, and from 2.3 per cent to 2.0 per cent in secondary.
Looking only at public boards, elementary ESL dropped from 3.4 per cent of the Foundation
Grant to 2.6 per cent; secondary from 2.6 per cent to 2.0 per cent.27
For public boards in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area – the area of Ontario with the greatest
ESL needs – the ratio dropped from 5.8 per cent in 2002-03 to 3.8 per cent in 2015-16 for
elementary, and from 4.5 per cent to 3.1 per cent for secondary. In Toronto, the ratio dropped
from 8.9 per cent to 5.1 per cent for elementary, from 7.2 per cent to 4.5 per cent for
elementary.
A review of ESL programming conducted by Ontario’s auditor general also highlighted the
issue. In his report,28 the auditor found as follows:
A key issue for this type of program is identifying the point at which students no longer
require services. The schools we visited generally reduced supports for elementary
students after they reached Stage Three, defined … as the use of English “independently
in most contexts.” For students who started school at Stage One (the use of English “for
survival purposes”), service was typically provided for two or three years. However, a
2002 study of the long-term academic achievement of ESL students in the United States
stated that “students with no proficiency in English must NOT be placed in short-term
programs of only one to three years … The minimum length of time it takes to reach
grade-level performance in the second language is four years.”
The study’s conclusion was consistent with the views expressed by some educators we
interviewed that decisions to reduce or eliminate support after students reach Stage
Three were often based on resource limitations rather than sound pedagogy. Although
teachers told us that services would be resumed in cases of very poor academic
performance, this practice does not address the needs of students performing below
26
Investing in Public Education,” Report of the Ontario Education Equality Task Force, December .
27
Statistical table reference: ESL Analysis.xlsx
28
Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, 2005 Annual Report, 149. Link:
http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en05/307en05.pdf
48
their potential due to marginal English skills, who would benefit from continued service.
Other jurisdictions have recognized the need for a more rigorous basis for determining
when to end service. For example, New York State requires its school boards to provide
ESL services until students achieve a level of English proficiency defined by the state and
measured annually by its English as a Second Language Achievement Tests.
Another problem with the language grant is that it fails to consider the impact or intensity of
ESL requirements on programming needs because the ESL formula follows the overall pattern
of linking support to individual students. For example, the additional programming
requirements for a student depend, in part, on the ESL needs of the other students in a class. A
classroom with a single ESL student calls for a much different category of additional resources
than a classroom in which more than half of the students have such needs. A classroom with
ESL students from a limited range of language backgrounds calls for a different level of
additional resources than a classroom in which ESL students come from a wide range of
language backgrounds. This is a problem for Toronto school boards and the surrounding area,
where immigrants tend to be concentrated geographically and where sources of immigration
are extremely diverse.
Finally, and most important, there is no guarantee or even an expectation that ESL/PDF funding
will actually be spent on programming for students facing language issues.
Simply to bring funding for those students currently recognized as requiring ESL assistance at
the $3,920 per year level to the four-year standard set out in the provincial auditor’s report
would have required additional funding province-wide of more than $96 million.
Funding Issues Local Priorities

Every independent review of education funding conducted in Ontario over the past 50 years
has concluded that the funding system should enable limited, locally determined, discretionary
revenue source be applied to locally determined priorities. Most recommend that locally
determined funding, of up to 10 per cent of boards’ total expenditures, be raised from local
property taxes.29
Even the “Who Does What?” panel led by former Toronto mayor David Crombie, which was
required to take the Harris government’s education finance framework as a given,
recommended that the formula include a supplementary amount of five per cent to support
local priorities.
29
For a discussion of this issue, see the chapters on local government finance in the Ontario Fair Tax Commission’s
reports Fair Taxation in a Changing World, 1993, and Working Group report: Property Tax, 1992.
49
Two principal arguments have traditionally been advanced for additional funding to support
local priorities. First, it is argued that no central formula, no matter how detailed and no matter
how sophisticated, can fully anticipate all the educational needs in every community in the
province. There should be a safety valve somewhere in the funding system.
Second, it is argued, local school boards in Ontario have often been innovators in education
policy. To cite just two examples, French as a second language instruction was developed in
Ottawa-area school boards and funded from local property taxes long before it became part of
Ontario’s official education policy. ESL programming was developed in Toronto-area boards and
funded from local property taxes long before the need was recognized at the provincial level.
Despite the extent of the support for funding local priorities, the funding formula in its original
form contained no such provision. While the Harris government eventually relented and
introduced a local priorities amount into the elementary and secondary foundation grants, its
introduction and subsequent history could be described as an extended exercise in political
cynicism.
The Harris government introduced a $100 per student local priorities amount in 2001-02
(subsequently increased to $200 per student), knowing that the formula provided significantly
less funding (roughly , per teacher) for teachers’ salaries than the amounts boards were
contractually obligated to pay and that the additional funding would be used not for local
priorities but to pay teachers’ salaries.
In , Rozanski’s Education Equality Task Force recommended both an increase in teacher

salary benchmarks to reflect actual costs and a local priorities amount set as a percentage of
the Foundation Grant so that it would increase from year to year.
Yet, when the McGuinty government finally got around to updating teacher salary benchmarks
in 2006, it eliminated the local priorities amount. It also declared that, since boards were using
the money for teachers’ salaries and not for local priorities, they didn’t need a local priorities
amount once teacher salary benchmarks had been adjusted.
To put the issue into perspective, returning to the Harris government’s local priorities amount
of $200 per student would require an additional investment of approximately $395 million
today. The five per cent of operating funding recommended by the Crombie “Who Does
What?” panel in 1997 would require an additional investment of $1.19 billion. The 10 per cent
of operating funding recommended by every other Ontario funding review would require $2.38
billion in additional funding.
This compares with the new allocation for 2017-18 labelled as “Local Priorities” of $218.9
million for teachers and support staff. This amount is provided for in the collective agreements
reached in 2017 with the unions representing teachers and support workers and is tied to
incremental hiring or retention where staff reductions would otherwise have taken place. It is
50
specifically directed towards local gaps in funding for “children in need, ‘at-risk’ students and
adult education.”30
Funding Issues School Operations

Funding for school operations is one of those issues that mostly fly under the radar. School
boards have generally learned how to fit the bare minimum of spending on school operations
needed to keep the facilities running within a funding allocation that is clearly inadequate
relative to requirements.
“Underutilized” space in operating schools is blocked off or locked away, essentially treated the
way our grandparents treated their attics: ignored and given no attention or investment. More
importantly, expenditures have been squeezed to fit within funding amounts by deferring
maintenance – essentially allowing the buildings to deteriorate. That this is not a viable long-
term strategy is evident in the fact that the 2002 Rozanski report, the first review of the system,
recommended significant new investments in school renewal to reverse the deterioration
brought on by years of deferred maintenance. Now, just a few years after the emergency
funding recommended by Rozanski expired, stories about deteriorating facilities and massive
investment backlogs have again begun to hit the news.
The problem with this repeated cycle of underfunding, deferred maintenance backlogs and
facilities renewal crises is that at no point in the cycle has anyone dealt directly with the
fundamental issues with the way school operations were supported in the original design of the
funding formula.
The former Harris government designed the funding formula for school operations with several
objectives in mind, none of them having anything to do with improving the quality of education.
It designed the formula to work against the interests of large urban school boards, which it saw
as wasteful in their utilization of space and as dedicating significant space to activities other
than what the government defined as education. Specifically, it intended the formula to force
school boards to close schools it considered to be “underutilized.” It designed the formula to
reduce the amount available to fund school operations overall and to pressure large urban
boards to replace higher-wage staff with low-wage contract staff for custodial and maintenance
services.
It took a rigid “one-size-fits-all” approach to funding for the operation of an extremely diverse
portfolio of school facilities located in a wide range of economic and community environments.
Although some key elements of the formula were found very quickly to be unworkable – the
implicit assumptions that all schools could be utilized to 100 per cent of their capacity and that
30 Grants for Student Needs (GSN) for 2017-18, Ministry of Education B-Memo 2017:B04, April 12 2017, p. 3
51
all school and classrooms were the same sizes and configurations, for example – the underlying
approach is essentially the same today as it was when the formula was created.
Space allocations per student and the focus on education basics
The funding formula based the original allocations of space per student on benchmark values
developed from the floor plans for new elementary and secondary schools designed to
accommodate 350 to 450 students for elementary and 1,400 students for secondary. For the
elementary benchmark areas, there were three reference schools, two in the Catholic system
and one in the public system: one in Simcoe, one in Niagara, and one in Lakehead in Northern
Ontario. For the secondary benchmarks, the formula used a Catholic school in York Region and
a Catholic school in Dufferin-Peel. 31
When it became clear that this one-size-fits-all approach was not going to work in all schools
across the province, the Ministry developed a system to adjust measured capacity to reflect
higher-than-assumed areas in individual schools. However, the system never took the obvious
step of providing funding based on the actual layouts of the existing schools. As a result, the
formula continued to provide insufficient funding for specialized facilities and common spaces.
Space allocations for special education
While some space in the original 1996 reference schools was dedicated to special education
classrooms, that space simply flows into the standardized per-student allocation, which, in turn,
defines a school’s utilization rate. It is not related in any way to the actual space allocated for
special education programming.
A bottom-up approach to determining space requirements – looking at actual schools and the
actual educational activities taking place in those schools – would produce a much more
accurate and realistic picture than the current mechanical linkage between head counts and
capacity based on classroom area.
Community and non-education programming use of school facilities
Many of the headline-grabbing issues related to school facilities revolve around their use for
purposes other than Kindergarten to Grade 12 education.
In addition, it is common across Ontario for schools to provide community resources such as
swimming pools, playing fields, playgrounds, arenas and park-equivalent green space as well as
31
Report of the Expert Panel on the Pupil Accommodation Grant, Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, 5
September 1997. Notably, the government ignored and subsequently suppressed a minority report filed on behalf
of school boards with older facilities
52
serving as a focal point for community-based voluntary organizations. The funding formula
recognizes none of these functions.
The space allocation formula
Rather than basing funding on the configuration of the actual school buildings operated by a
board, the formula is driven by an arbitrarily determined fixed number of square feet (later
square metres) per student. As a result, schools with large classrooms or substantial common
spaces could easily end up full, based on normal class sizes, but with significant amounts of
unfunded space. This issue was addressed, in part, by allowing for funding of a cushion amount
of unused space. However, the provincial government has used and is continuing to use a
steady shrinking of that cushion to put pressure on school boards to reduce their use of space
by closing schools.
Funding benchmark for school space
When the government first introduced the funding formula, it provided funding for school
operations at $5.20 per square foot of required and funded space. That amount applied
uniformly across the province, regardless of actual operating costs. Remarkably, the
government revealed in 1998 court proceedings that the $5.20 amount was calculated as the
median of the per square foot costs paid by the 122 school boards in existence before the
funding formula was introduced. As a result, funding for school operations in the entire
province was based on the average cost per square foot reported by the middle two boards in
the original list of 122: the Brant County and Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School
Boards. As a consequence, these two boards determined the level of funding for every school
board in the province and in fact, after adjusting for inflation, still do so today.
Even then, the figure of $5.20 per square foot was not representative of 1997 operating and
maintenance costs for school facilities in Ontario. Overall, the average cost for the 122 boards
was $5.31. Weighted by total space – i.e., to derive the average cost of operating a square foot
of school space in Ontario – the average was . . Toronto’s cost per square foot was the th
highest in the province, at $6.58 per square foot.
Even the original figure of $5.20 would have been suspect on its own terms. In response to the
constraints on the system imposed first by the Social Contract and then by the Harris
Government’s funding cuts, many school boards were already well into a deferred maintenance
strategy to make limited funding appear to go further. It is therefore likely that the data set that
gave rise to the $5.20 per square foot initial funding formula itself represented an
understatement of the longer-term costs of operating schools and keeping them in a state of
good repair.
The Ministry made a number of changes in the early years of the formula: an adjustment
reflecting the age of school buildings, an allowance for less than full capacity utilization, as
noted above, and various specific changes focused primarily on schools in remote and rural
53
areas, again as noted above. However, the fundamental problems remain. The uniform cost
benchmark means that school boards in higher cost areas, like Toronto and the far north, are
disadvantaged relative to other school boards. The age adjustment is based on average ages
rather than the actual ages of individual school buildings and makes no adjustment beyond an
average age of 20 years. Over the past five years, the provincial government—as a lever to
pressure boards to close underutilized schools—has reduced the funding allowance for schools
using less than 100 per cent of their rated capacity.
Despite the importance of maintaining a safe and healthy physical environment for education,
there are no standards in place for school operations and maintenance. School boards are free
to spend as much or as little as they wish. This has given rise to a strategy of sorts of deferring
maintenance expenditures to the point of crisis to attract additional funding.
Building new schools for growing areas
In general, the Ministry funding guidelines do not permit school boards to invest in new schools
if there are underutilized schools in other parts of the board’s geographic area. This means that
school boards with a mixture of mature and rapidly growing communities are unable to
accommodate growth if there is vacant space in the mature area, even where long distances
separate the two areas.
Funding and Enrolment

In large-scale demographic shifts, the school system reflects the most visible indicators of
change. That was true in the 1960s, when the baby boom generation entered the school system
and enrolment exploded. It was true in the early-1980s, when post-boomers dominated. It was
true again in the late-1980s and early-1990s when the echo generation (children of the baby
boom generation) entered the system. Today, demographic shifts underlie the fact that
elementary enrolment has begun to grow again as secondary enrolment continues to decline.
Similarly, shifts in immigration policy have direct implications for the school system, both
quantitative and qualitative.
These trends would pose significant challenges to any school system, regardless of funding
structure. They pose a challenge to the Ontario school system, which is centrally controlled and
whose funding is closely tied to enrolment. School populations are changing but not at the
same rate across all school boards and not at the same rate in the elementary and secondary
panels. School populations are also shifting geographically, both within school board
jurisdictions and between jurisdictions. The demographic structure of the school population is
also in constant flux.
While the trend is obvious, the appropriate response is not nearly as clear. Does it make sense
to close schools and sell off surplus land? Not if the decline in enrolment is only short-term. In
54
large, densely populated urban areas with extremely high property values, does it make sense
to sell off a school that will be needed within a few years?
Will an enrolment decline reduce operating costs proportionally? Not necessarily, if the
characteristics of the student population also change. Not necessarily, depending on how the
decline is distributed within the municipality. And not necessarily in the short term but perhaps
more likely over a much longer time horizon.
Overall, elementary and secondary school enrolment in Ontario has been slowly declining for
roughly a decade. The phenomenon is no longer concentrated in a small number of boards in
older urban areas or in rural and northern Ontario. It is a general phenomenon affecting almost
all boards. Projections for 2016-17 showed more than 40 of the 72 boards expected to
experience a decline in enrolment. Across the province, projections showed a slight decline,
with a decline in secondary enrolment partially offset by an increase in elementary enrolment.
Ministry funding adjustments offset declining enrolment
To its credit, as declining enrolment became more general within the Ontario system, the
Ministry adjusted the funding formula to take into consideration the challenges faced by boards
experiencing significant enrolment decline.
The government altered the formula in two respects. First, it recognized that some
expenditures linked to enrolment could not be adjusted immediately. A grant called the
Declining Enrolment Adjustment (DEA) was originally introduced for the school year 2002-03.
The Ministry has adjusted this grant several times since its introduction, initially to make it
more generous to school boards and, more recently, to make it less costly for the provincial
government.
While the DEA makes sense in principle, there are significant problems with it in practice. It
assumes, implicitly, that a fixed proportion of costs will vary directly with enrolment. In general,
however, that is not the case. The extent to which it is not the case varies depending on
student population and school board geography.
The current version of the DEA cushions funding for only two years. It compensates for the
impact of enrolment decline in only six of the many grants in the system: the Pupil Foundation
Grant; SEPPA (per pupil) portion of the Special Education Grant; the French as a First Language
Grant; the remote and rural allocation in the Geographic Circumstances Grant; the per-pupil
component of the Administration grants; and the per pupil portions of the School Operations
and Renewal grants. Furthermore, the second year of support is only 25 per cent of the support
in the first year.
The grant implicitly assumes that only the identified grants reflect funding changes to which
boards cannot respond immediately by reducing expenditures and that all the expenditure
adjustments a board must make in response to declining enrolment can be made within two
55
years of the decline. Even in the first year, only 13 per cent of the loss in the Pupil Foundation
Grant qualifies for support, representing 50 per cent of the loss in the remote and rural and
administrative grants.
It is important to note that what is designated as the first year in the DEA grant is already under
way before enrolment totals are known. It is difficult to imagine how any programming
adjustment can be made in response to a funding decline in these circumstances, much less the
implied 87 per cent of the adjustment in with respect to the School Foundation Grant implied
by the DEA formula.
Furthermore, the period of adjustment required will vary from area to area, depending again
on student population and school board geography as well as the period of enrolment decline.
The task of managing enrolment decline in a large board is quite different from the task in a
smaller board that has been experiencing steady reductions in enrolment over several years.
The second change split the Foundation Grant into two separate grants: one maintaining the
strict per-pupil focus of the original grant; the other acknowledging the fact that school-based
administration costs could not be adjusted by boards in accordance with a per-pupil grant
allocation.
When the government introduced the School Foundation Grant, funding for school-based
administration was disconnected from year-to-year fluctuations in enrolment, a recognition of
the reality that some expenditures are linked to schools rather than student head counts. This
change was a welcome departure from the strict head-count basis that had prevailed
previously. However, the concept has not been extended to other school-based functions that
are just as difficult to subdivide to the student level as school-based administration. For
example, a school library is a school-based rather than an enrolment-based service. Similarly,
school operations spending is not head-count driven; in practice, cuts in operations funding can
only be addressed through school closures, which are in turn tied to substantial, ongoing and
geographically concentrated enrolment changes, not year-to-year fluctuations.
Furthermore, by extension, there are some types of expenditures tied to the classroom rather
than the individual student. The fact that a classroom might have one fewer student because of
enrolment decline will affect costs only where enrolment loss accumulates to the point that the
number of classrooms can be reduced.
In addition, the formula fails to consider the fact that many central services provided by school
boards to support the learning environment do not vary in response to changes in enrolment at
all despite being funded in part based directly or indirectly on enrolment.
56
O Education Funding Accountability Gap
O -way accountability requirements
Accountability is one of the recurring themes raised by the provincial government in its
relationship with school boards and school trustees. The funding regulations impose financial
limits and requirements on various categories of operating spending. Some of these limits and
requirements have been in place since the formula was first introduced for the 1998-99 school
year; others have been added from time to time as new, targeted funding envelopes have been
opened.
In summary, the current operating funding requirements are:
Reporting requirements – in each school year cycle, boards are required to submit five
comprehensive financial reports in accordance with provincially mandated standards;
Special education – funding must be accounted for as special education spending;
(original limit);
Administration – spending cannot exceed the amount of the grant for administration;
(original limit);
Student achievement funding in the Learning Opportunities Grant must be spent on
seven specified programs;
Library staff allocation – must be spent on library staff;
First Nations, Métis and Inuit Education – must be spent on related programming;
Mental health leader allocation – boards must have a designated mental health leader;
The New Teacher Induction Program funding must be spent on such programming;
Maintain class sizes within the limits set by regulation; and
Balance the budget within the funding provided for under the regulations.
In addition, the regulations restrict access to and use of capital funds. In summary:
Renewal funding is designated primarily for school renewal;

School Condition Improvement funding must be used for improvements that are
capitalized;
Capital funding can only be used for approved capital projects; and
Temporary Accommodation funding is restricted to that purpose.
The Ministry has used its control over new capital projects to put pressure on school boards
with space it considers underutilized to close schools.
To enforce these requirements, the government has imposed penalties on non-compliant

school boards, up to and including taking control of boards’ day-to-day operations through the
imposition of a trusteeship.
57
The Ministry has also attempted to constrain the political role of school trustees by limiting
their pay to discourage them from making a full-time commitment to the role and by
establishing a “job description” for trustees that is closer to that of a member of a corporate
board of directors than that of a political representative.
Entirely missing from the government’s approach to accountability is any provision for
accountability for the adequacy and allocation of its funding to school boards.
To its credit, the Harris government recognized the accountability gap it was creating when it
took full control over the amount and allocation of elementary and secondary education
spending in 1997. As noted in the overview of the history of the formula above, it promised a
regular public review of the performance of the funding formula. Only one such review – the
Rozanski Report – has ever been completed.
Rozanski addressed the need for accountability through a process like the task force he headed.
His report recommended an annual public review of funding adequacy and allocation as well as
a full public review of the entire funding system every five years.
A comparative reality check
In an ideal world, the government would set out clearly its detailed goals for the system,
account annually for the relationship between its annual funding allocations and those goals in
a process akin to an audit, and submit, on a periodic basis, to a thorough public review of its
goals and the relationship between the funding system and those goals.
In the absence of such a system, we can look to funding numbers in other jurisdictions
considered comparable to Ontario as a kind of reality check on at least the overall funding
commitment implied by Ontario’s system.
Using the most recent data available across North America, for the school year 2013-14,
operating spending per student is compared among the 10 Canadian provinces and among the
61 state and provincial jurisdictions in North America.32
The following table compares funding among the ten Canadian provinces.
32 Canadian data on spending are found in Statistics Canada CANSIM 478-0012; data on enrolment are found in
Statistics Canada CANSIM 477-0025 ; data on US state level per student spending are found in United States
Census Bureau , Public School System Finances, SS1400A08: Annual Survey of School System Finances: Per Pupil
Amounts for Current Spending of Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems by State: Fiscal Year 2014,
http://www.census.gov/govs/school/; US data converted to Canadian dollars at OECD Purchasing Power Parity
conversion fate for 2014 – 1.24 Canadian dollars to 1.00 US dollar.
58
Operating Spending 2014 - Total per pupil
Province
($Cdn PPP)
Quebec 12,238
Manitoba 11,536
Saskatchewan 11,425
Alberta 11,039
Ontario 11,033
Prince Edward Island 10,723
Newfoundland and Labrador 10,562
Nova Scotia 10,321
New Brunswick 9,598
British Columbia 8,918
Ontario ranks 5th among Canadian provinces.
Perhaps a more-telling comparison locates Ontario in relation to the Northeastern states and
Great Lakes states and provinces, which this province typically considers to be its comparator
jurisdictions.
Operating Spending 2014

State/Province
- Total per pupil ($Cdn PPP)
New York 25,556

New Jersey 22,205
Connecticut 22,004
Vermont 21,065
Massachusetts 18,708
Rhode Island 18,311
New Hampshire 17,775
Maryland 17,364
Pennsylvania 17,312
Delaware 17,283
Illinois 16,215
Maine 15,757
Minnesota 14,215
Ohio 14,079
Wisconsin 13,871
Michigan 13,776
Quebec 12,238
Ontario 11,033
Ontario ranks last out of the 18 jurisdictions compared. Notably, its spending per student is less
than half that of the jurisdictions in the New York City area and less than two thirds the
59
spending per student in the state of Massachusetts, often cited as a jurisdiction whose focus on
education is one which Ontario should seek to emulate.
The following is a full summary chart showing Ontario’s rank among the 61 jurisdictions
compared (50 states plus the District of Columbia in the U.S.; 10 Canadian Provinces).
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
60
Appendix 1 details of elementary vs. secondary funding per student calculation
Summary of analysis
ADE 1,358,289 592,521
Per student Provincial total Technical paper Source
Elementary Secondary Differential Elementary Secondary Combined Total EFIS Table
Sec 01.1 Pupil Foundation
Foundation 5,202.22 5,792.23 590.01 7,066,125,418 3,432,016,000 10,498,141,418 10,546,600,000 Allocation
Sec. 01.3 School Foundation
School Foundation 697.31 790.98 93.67 947,148,586 468,669,541 1,415,818,127 1,442,400,000 Amount
Special Education 1,507.58 1,160.91 -346.66 2,047,722,926 687,864,803 2,735,587,729 2,762,000,000 Sec. 02 Special Education Allocation
Sec. 03 -1 French Language
French Language 172.13 39.60 -132.53 233,803,652 23,466,725 257,270,377 331,800,000 Allocation
ESL ELD PANA 117.64 123.88 6.25 159,787,897 73,403,953 233,191,850 231,800,000 Sec. 03 - 2 ESL-ELD-PANA Allocation
Sec. 03 -3 ALF and Total Language
ALF 51.49 36.86 -14.63 69,935,755 21,838,071 91,773,826 113,500,000 Allocation
Sec. 04 Supported Schools
Supported Schools 28.37 54.64 26.27 38,535,699 32,376,480 70,912,179 69,600,000 Allocation
Sec. 05 Remote and Rural
Remote and Rural 63.42 55.93 -7.50 86,144,837 33,137,443 119,282,280 119,600,000 Allocation
Sec. 07 - 4 New Teacher Induction
New Teacher Induction 6.11 3.10 -3.01 8,295,678 1,838,201 10,133,879 13,700,000 Allocation
ECE Q & E 91.93 - -91.93 124,869,773 - 124,869,773 129,600,000 Sec. 07 - 5 ECE Q & E Allocation
Sec. 11 - 1 School Operations
School Operations 50.88 118.04 67.15 69,111,048 69,938,439 139,049,487 2,050,000,000 Allocation
Sec. 13 Learning Opportunities
Learning Opportunities 38.14 108.23 70.09 51,807,365 64,130,885 115,938,251 532,100,000 Allocation
Sec. 18 First Nations, Metis & Inuit
First Nations, Metis & Inuit 16.29 48.84 32.55 22,120,787 28,936,692 51,057,480 64,100,000 Education Allocation
Safe Schools 1.52 24.52 23.00 2,062,328 14,526,498 16,588,827 47,200,000 Sec.19 Safe Schools Allocation
SUBTOTAL 8,045.03 8,357.76 312.73 10,927,471,749 4,952,143,733 15,879,615,483 18,454,000,000
Continuing Education and Sec. 06 Continuing Education and Other
Other Programs 19.56 136.07 116.51 26,574,269 80,625,731 107,200,000 165,400,000 Programs Allocation
Cost Adjustment and Sec. 07 - 3 Cost Adjustment and Teacher
Teacher Q & E 823.01 1,189.71 366.70 1,117,890,516 704,930,195 1,822,820,712 1,836,600,000 Qualifications and Experience Allocation
ITEMIZED TOTAL 8,887.60 9,683.54 795.94 12,071,936,535 5,737,699,660 17,809,636,194 20,456,000,000
61
1
OSSTF District 8 is pleased for the opportunity to make this submission on behalf of well over 1000 front line education
workers that are employed by the Avon Maitland District School Board (AMDSB) in Huron and Perth counties. OSSTF
District 8 represents public high school teachers, occasional teachers, educational assistants, early childhood educators,
psychometrists, secretaries, speech-language pathologists, among other educational workers.
Although this submission makes several points similar to the Provincial OSSTF submission, efforts have been made to
provide local context for the issues being raised.
Part A Funding Engagement Guide Submissions
1. Efficient Price Setting
Considerations
2. Are there allocations of the GSN which currently do not use efficient price setting, but should be considered for
reform?
o Change the Differentiated Special Education Needs Amount (DSENA) from one that is based on school
boards predic ions of need for special ed ca ion f nding o one based on ac al need
Locally, we have communities that contain networks of Group Homes that attract a concentration of
high and complex needs learners from all over the province, that the current funding model does not
address. These students are placed in our secondary schools without adequate supports, and creates a
bigger burden on our rural schools already suffering from declining enrolment.
o Improve accountability and transparency of funding by establishing benchmarks for educational

assistants at the secondary level. This will eliminate the need for boards to use funding from other areas
to fund secondary school educational assistants.
Locally, AMDSB has developed an unwritten policy that an education assistant is only meant for a
student who may be a harm to themselves or others. Many students who require academic support are
not accommodated.
Further complicating our local educational support staff situation is AMDSB s incl sion program
whereby self-contained classes are closed, and complex learners are put into classes with their
cognitively typical peers. In a self-contained class, an EA may support two or more students, but in
AMDSB, these students may be in two or three different rooms, and the support is absent for those
complex learners.
o Update support staff benchmarks to be consistent with current salaries. This would also provide more
transparency as boards would not be forced to make up the shortfall with money from other areas of
the GSNs.
Locally, some support staff are paid 20 to 25% less than workers in neighbouring boards. Underpayment
of support staff, along with workload and violence issues (described below) have led to an extreme
shortage of qualified support staff. Often, when an Educational Assistant is absent from work, they
aren replaced d e o s affing shor ages This p s s den s and staff at risk when this happens.
2. Outcomes-Based Funding
Considerations
1. Are there areas of the GSN which could be reformed to an outcomes-based model (e.g. Learning Opportunities
Grant)? How would the outcome be measured?
2. How can the funding model do a better job of indicating whether the investments made have maximized returns
in achievement?
o Spending of funds from both the Learning Opportunities Grant (LOG) and Education Programs Other
(EPO), requires greater accountability from school boards. Locally, system administration, professional
de elopmen oppor ni ies and ill-advised technology investments (such as seven years of one-to-one
iPad project in Grades 7-10) have been made by AMDSB with no data to support or justify such an
expenditure. Classroom staff have not had any input into Board and Ministry initiatives yet have been
asked to comply. This has not led to any meaningful student achievement improvement and has left the
staff feeling demoralized.
3. Accountability and Value-For-Money
Considerations
1. Are there parts of the funding formula that are not core to the delivery of education in Ontario? If so, what are
they?
o Staffing Outside of the Classroom - With continual funding add-ons through EPOs and
compartmentalized programs through the years, there has been a rapid increase in the number of
school board staff that do not directly provide service to students.
A quick count of teachers and administrators (excluding superintendents) working in the AMDSB Ed
Centre gives eighteen people. This would be two extra full-time teachers and administrators for each of
our nine secondary schools. This would go a long way in addressing the problem our small, rural
secondary schools have in offering a good variety of courses for our students.
This q ick co n doesn incl de cen ral s aff ha ork else here in he Board b do no ser ice
student directly.
3. Should the Ministry undertake a review of targeted areas of the funding formula to increase accountability and
value-for-money? If so, what are they?
o Reduce Board Reliance on Rights Arbitration. A fair, effective, and timely grievance procedure is an
essential component of effective labour relations. Locally, we have grievances that are five years old,
with the Board seeming to be content with allowing the issue to be dealt with by an arbitrator, rather
than addressing the matter pro-actively and collaboratively with stakeholders. At a minimum, boards
should disclose to the public the amount of money spent on rights arbitrations.
4. Other Education Funding Efficiencies
Considerations
1. Are there areas of overlap or duplication within the GSN? If so, what are they?
o One Public Education System in Each Official Language - Ontario is a multi-cultural, multi-faith society.
Our public education system brings together students from diverse backgrounds to build a shared sense
of community. Singling out one religion for separate education funding runs contrary to public
ed ca ion s commi men s o ni ersali and eq i
Locally, the problem of two public English-speaking school Boards is very clear. All eleven secondary
schools (9 public and 2 separate) are under capacity and completing desperately for the same students.
The two new separate secondary schools have an unfair advantage compared with the public schools
that are older, underfunded and falling into disrepair.
Further adding to the contradiction locally is that despite AMDSB sharing the same geography (Huron
and Perth Counties) as our coterminous separate school Board, AMDSB is funded as an urban board,
while HPCDSB gets increased funding as a rural board.
Part B Supplemental Proposals
Addressing Violence in our Schools
A growing number of OSSTF/FEESO members have reported incidents involving biting, punching, kicking, spitting, and
other forms of assaults by students year-after-year. These members, primarily educational assistants but also teachers,
work with high needs students.
Locall AMDSB has no adop ed prac ices ad oca ed b he Pro incial Working Gro p on Heal h and Safe s doc men
Workplace Violence in School Boards released by the Ministries of Labour and Education in March 2018. This has led to
delays, kept students and staff at risk, and duplicated services as the Board slowly develops its own forms and
procedures.
Locally, the province and nation- ide rend of iolence in o r schools is e acerba ed b he Board s incl sion program.
Students with complex needs are put not into special education classrooms, but into regular classrooms, often without
the necessary support. The increased number of student transitions, classroom material that is not cognitively
appropriate, and a lack of focused and qualified support has increased the number of violent outbursts.
AMDSB s Incl sion Program has lef s aff inj red dealing i h iolence e ha s ed r ing o mee he needs of all
learners) and demoralized (unable to give the students the learning environment they deserve and require).
Education Funding
Consultation
Submission
December 12, 2018
Introduction:
The Ontario School Board Council of Unions (OSBCU), the bargaining agent for 55,000 Canadian
Union of Public Employees (CUPE) members who work in Ontario school boards, welcomes this
opportunity to participate in the 2019-20 Education Funding Consultation. OSBCU-CUPE
members have a vast amount of experience in the education sector, working in all support staff
classifications throughout the province. These include early childhood educators, educational
assistants, instructors, library staff, child and youth workers, other professionals and
paraprofessionals, office and clerical staff, information technologists, custodial, maintenance
and trades personnel. Our members’ experience informs this submission, as does the need that
all CUPE members have for a strong, sustainable education system.
Guidelines for the 2019-20 Education Funding Consultation:
The Guide to this year’s funding consultation is all too narrow in its focus on cost containment.
The focus should instead be on investing in the highest quality possible education outcomes for
all students. Investing in high quality public education has immediate benefits for students and
has long term benefits for the province as a whole. We propose that the annual review of
educational spending priorities be based on the assumptions that:
Ontario should provide the highest quality publicly funded, publicly administered
education system possible
All students should have equitable access to the same high quality education, and that
all resources necessary to succeed should be provided to all students
Public schools are important to the full development of communities across the
province. Preserving schools, enhancing community use, and making schools community
hubs will make for a stronger Ontario.
The introduction to the consultation guidelines reiterates the Ernst and Young (EY) report’s
claim that it is possible to “find efficiencies” of four cents on every dollar of spending in the
Ministry. A 4% reduction to the Grants for Student Needs (GSN) would amount to a cut of
approximately $1 billion. A reduction of this magnitude cannot be achieved without closing
schools, or cutting funding to services, or both. Such a reduction would make it impossible to
make the investment of $15.9 billion in school repairs and renewal that are currently needed. 1
Decreasing funding by any amount will mean that it is impossible to address the waiting list for
students who desperately need access to special education and, in all likelihood means that
more students will not have access to the resources they need. Students will be denied the
supports they need to succeed in school and will not be able to develop the skills they need to
succeed when they graduate.
1
Office of the Auditor General, Annual Report 2015; Hugh Mackenzie, Ontario’s Deteriorating Schools: The Fix Is
Not In, A Study Commissioned by the Campaign for Public Education, November 14, 2017, available at
http://campaignforpubliceducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Fix-Schools-Final-for-Publication.pdf.
CUPE Research Page 2 of 8

The education system in Ontario has been underfunded for the past two decades. The EY report
notes that funding in Ontario has risen faster than in British Columbia and Quebec, 2 an
assertion that is made without any context or background. Nor is there any attempt to
investigate whether funding has increased in Ontario at a faster rate because it had been
historically underfunded or because additional programs have been introduced. The EY
assertions about the increased funding fail to recognize new programs like full-day
kindergarten, or reduced class sizes that have improved the education system.
There is ample evidence that the education funding formula is flawed. 3 The Campaign for Public
Education has reported that there is a $15.9 billion backlog in deferred maintenance in Ontario
School Boards. 4 The Auditor General reported that funding for school renewal fell behind what
was needed to maintain schools at a reasonable standard of repair. 5 People for Education does
an annual report that regularly identifies a shortage of funding for special education, noting
that School Boards regularly spend more on special education than they receive from the
government and many students go without the assessments they need to fully access special
education.6
There are currently many needs that are going unmet because of decisions made by previous
governments. This is not the time to consider cutting funding. Cuts hurt students. They prevent
schools from delivering the highest quality education possible. Ontario is a rich province, and
our students deserve much better than what they have been given. The time is now for
investments in public education.
There is, however, a proposal that will lead to cost savings that we will reiterate. For years CUPE
school board workers have been promoting preventative maintenance programs as a means by
which School Boards could save money, protect good jobs, and ensure that work is done by
qualified school board employees.
2
Ernst and Young, Managing Transformation: A Modernization Action Plan for Ontario – A Line-by-Line Review of
Ontario Government Expenditures, 2002/03 – 2017/18, September 21, 2018,
https://files.ontario.ca/ey_report_2018_en.pdf
3
See for example, Hugh Mackenzie, Harris era Hangovers: Toronto School Trustees Inherited Funding Shortfall,
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, February 10, 2015,
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Ontario%20Office/2015/02/CCPA-
ON_Harris_Era_Hangovers.pdf; and Dan Crow “The Consequences of a Neoliberal Funding Formula: Time to tear it
up and start again”, Our Schools/Our Selves, December 14, 2017,
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2017/12/Crow.pdf.
4
; Hugh Mackenzie, Ontario’s Deteriorating Schools: The Fix Is Not In, A Study Commissioned by the Campaign for
Public Education, November 14, 2017, available at http://campaignforpubliceducation.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/Fix-Schools-Final-for-Publication.pdf.
5
Office of the Auditor General, Annual Report 2015.
6
See, for example, People for Education, “Special Education (excerpt from the 2016 annual report)”,
http://www.peopleforeducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/P4E-special-education-2016.pdf

Funding for preventative maintenance will help school boards find significant savings. CUPE
local 4153 and the Hamilton Wentworth DSB developed an innovative program that saw
custodial staff trained, on paid time, to do routine plumbing, like clearing clogged toilets.
Training was expanded to include more plumbing tasks, as well as common electrical and
carpentry tasks. Training more workers to do these tasks frees up the time of skilled trades
workers to focus on more complex tasks that are within their scopes of practice, which has the
added benefits of reducing overall maintenance costs and eliminates the pressures to contract
out work. Funding should be allocated to all boards to provide these training opportunities to
staff, as a means by which to save money on maintenance, as well as eliminate contracting out
of work in school boards.
The government could also save money by eliminating the Education Quality and Accountability
Office (EQAO). Standardized testing is not the best way to evaluate student outcomes. Rigidly
imposed standardized tests, administered in formalistic ways (as has been the standard under
the EQAO) are ineffective. They lead to problems like “teaching to the test”, increased student
stress, and they do not reflect the fact that students express their accomplishments in diverse
ways. Scrapping the EQAO and developing new ways to measure student performance will have
the twin benefits of saving costs associated with the EQAO and providing more effective
evaluation tools.
Priorities for Education Funding:
Although the main focus of the consultation guideline was limited to measures that would lead
to cuts to funding, the guidelines did also suggest that other proposals would be considered.
We would like to take this opportunity to make suggestions on some areas in which the
government should invest in public education.
Special Education:
Overall funding for special education is inadequate to meet the needs of all students who
require educational assistance. It is regularly reported that a majority of school boards spend
more on special education than they receive in the GSN.7 The flexibility in some allocations
under the GSN makes it possible to partially make up for the gaps in funding, this comes at the
expense of other spending needs. Even with the shifting of funding from other areas into
special education there are not enough resources to meet all student needs.
Underfunding of special education leads to multiple problems in the classroom. Most obviously
this disadvantages those students who require educational assistance but are unable to access
the resources and staff that they need. The lack of resources for students in need of special
education supports stretches the overall resources of the classroom thin, which detracts from
7
People for Education, “Special Education (excerpt from the 2016 annual report)”,
http://www.peopleforeducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/P4E-special-education-2016.pdf

the learning experience for other students. Increasing resources, including staffing, for special
education will benefit all students, regardless of their particular needs.
It needs to be pointed out that understaffing contributes to the growing problem of violent
incidents at schools. Violent incidents pose problems for workers, who regularly report being
hit, kicked, spit on, bitten, and threatened. Our members go home from work injured and
stressed. This is not part of the job. Other students are also adversely affected by violence, in
some cases directly, but also as violent incidents cause significant disruptions in the classroom,
turning them into conflict management zones instead of spaces for learning. Violence could be
significantly reduced, and managed more effectively, by increasing staffing levels. This is not to
say that the problem of violence in schools is solely caused by students who require the support
of an Education Assistant. But it is undeniable that increasing classroom staffing, including in
special education, will help reduce the rate of violence in schools, and will also help deal with
violent incidents in a safer manner when they do occur.
Increases to overall funding for special education need to be coupled with dedicated funding
for professional development for Educational Assistants. EAs provide support to students with a
wide diversity of needs, including students with “behavioural, communicational, intellectual,
physical, or multiple exceptionalities”. 8 Providing greater access to professional development
will enhance EAs existing skills, and enhance their ability to implement students’ learning plans.
Additionally, funding needs to be enhanced to allow EAs to begin work prior to the beginning of
the school year so that they can have early access to students’ learning plans and safety plans,
in order to adequately prepare for the students with whom they will be working that year to
ease their transition back to school.
Operations and Maintenance:
The benchmark funding for maintenance that was established in 1997 has not been
fundamentally changed and has merely been adjusted for inflation over time. In 2015 the
Auditor General estimated that the ongoing maintenance needs for schools was $1.4 billion per
year, but the province had only committed between $150 million and $500 million on school
maintenance from 2011 to 2015.9 Over time this shortfall in funding has led to an accumulated
deferred maintenance bill of $15.9 billion. Despite recent increases to funding, that
infrastructural deficit is projected to increase to $17 billion by the 2018-19 school year. 10
Poorly maintained buildings are not good learning environments. Buildings with heating or
cooling problems, with leaky roofs, or broken plumbing are inhospitable environments for
8
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/ontario.html
9
Office of the Auditor General, Annual Report 2015.
10
Hugh Mackenzie, Ontario’s Deteriorating Schools: The Fix Is Not In, A Study Commissioned by the Campaign for

education. Deferred maintenance causes health and safety risks for students and workers alike.
Maintaining quality buildings is a necessary starting point for a quality education system.
The province needs to have a five-year plan for eliminating the current $15.9 billion
infrastructure deficit in Ontario schools. Part of this plan will require continuing the School
Condition Improvement funding at $1 billion per year. To forestall the possibility of future
infrastructure deficits, this dedicated funding must be coupled with other measures.
Benchmarks used to determine funding need to be changed to reflect the actual costs of each
school, including factoring in differing regional costs, as well as different costs associated with
the age of buildings. The current operational and maintenance budget needs to be increased by
8.7% from current levels, and adjusted for inflation thereafter, in order to recognize the true
costs of operating costs across the sector as a whole. A standard for building maintenance must
be established to allow boards to assess the actual cost of maintenance for each school to
achieve that standard.11 School Renewal Allowance funding needs to be increased to $1.7
billion per year. Overall, funding for school renewal needs to be set at 3% of total replacement
value of Ontario schools so as to maintain these valuable assets at a generally accepted
standard.
Office Staff:
Office staff play a core function in the operations of schools. They are the face of the school to
all visitors, provide a key link between the school and parents, regularly interact with students,
teachers and support staff, and ensure that administrative functions run smoothly. Despite this,
office staff are often overlooked in discussions of funding. Over the past several years the
workloads of office staff have increased tremendously. The introduction of door buzzers in
schools, a useful safety measure, has meant that secretaries are spending significantly more
time answering the door for visitors. Secretaries have taken on additional banking and cash
handling responsibilities, taking them away from other core functions of their jobs. Additional
funding to hire more office staff will alleviate the additional workload and help make schools
function more effectively.
Funding for office staff is bundled in the School Foundation Grant with funding for principals
and vice-principals. Staffing decisions based on this allocation have to balance between
demands for school secretaries and calls to hire more principals and vice-principals. Boards that
choose to hire more of the latter ultimately put a greater workload burden on the existing
complement of secretaries. Funding for school secretaries should be separate from funding for
principals and vice-principals, with guidelines guaranteeing a minimum complement of
secretaries in each school and in each board, will help ensure that staffing of frontline staff is
sufficient to meet school needs.
11
Hugh Mackenzie, Ontario’s Deteriorating Schools: The Fix Is Not In, A Study Commissioned by the Campaign for

Library Staff:
High quality, well resourced, and well staffed libraries play a vital role in educating students.
The modern library is about more than just borrowing books. It plays a key link between library
users and information in print and digital media. Developing the skills necessary to fully utilize
libraries, and access information, does not happen on its own. It requires highly skilled staff,
including library technicians, who can guide students, have a role in curriculum support, provide
necessary instruction, and meet the differing needs of students. Funding should be sufficient to
guarantee that every school has the resources available to properly staff school libraries,
including a minimum complement of library technicians in each school. The funding model
should recognize that larger schools will require a larger number of staff, but each school
should have at least one library technician to deliver services to students. Funding should also
be sufficient to keep properly staffed libraries open for the entire school day.
Conclusions
The Ontario education system has been underfunded for far too long. Previous governments
made decisions to set funding levels at inadequate levels, forcing school closures, suboptimal
staffing levels to meet school needs, and deferred maintenance and renewal that have left
many schools in a state of disrepair. Now is the time to fix the problems with the funding
formula and make investments in education that will benefit students and communities. For
ease of reference, a summary of our recommendations is included below.
Recommendations:
The annual review of educational spending priorities be based on the assumptions that:
o Ontario should provide the highest quality publicly funded, publicly administered
education system possible.
o All students should have equitable access to the same high quality education,
and that all resources necessary to succeed should be provided to all students.
o Public schools are important to the full development of communities across the
province. Preserving schools, enhancing community use, and making schools
community hubs will make for a stronger Ontario.
Provide funding for preventative maintenance programs in all School Boards, including
training for custodial workers to do routine plumbing, and common electrical and
carpentry work, freeing trades workers to focus on more complex tasks within their
scopes of practice.
Eliminate the EQAO and standardized tests and develop alternative measures for
student achievement.
Increase funding in special education to meet all student needs.
Provide dedicated funding for professional development for Educational Assistants.

Enhance funding such that Educational Assistants can start work prior to the beginning
of the school year to assist with the development and implementation of student
learning plans and safety plans.
Develop a five-year plan to rectify the $15.9 billion in deferred maintenance, repair and
renewal at School Boards across Ontario.
Benchmarks used to determine funding for school renewal and repair need to be
updated to reflect the actual costs of each school, including factoring in differing
regional costs as well as different costs associated with the age of buildings.
Increase the operational and maintenance budget by 8.7% from current levels and
adjust for inflation thereafter.
Establish a standard for building maintenance to allow Boards to assess the actual costs
of maintenance.
Introduce additional funding to hire more office staff to alleviate the additional
workload, help schools function more effectively, and ensure security and safety in
schools.
Funding for school secretaries should be separate from funding for principals and vice-
principals, with guidelines guaranteeing a minimum complement of secretaries in each
school.
Provide funding to ensure that there is a minimum of one library technician assigned
full-time in each school, with built in escalators to increase the complement of library
technicians in larger schools.
Provide funding so that school libraries are properly staffed and can remain open and
available to students for the entire school day.

December 14, 2018
Dear Deputy Minister Naylor,
Efficient Price Setting First and foremost it is important that GSNs prioritize a school system that places
emphasis on students not slogans.
Outcomes-Based Funding An outcomes-based model of funding be ied a S de Bi f Righ

based on research.
Accountability and Value-for-Money E e i e e ea ch N h A e ica b ic ed ca i e e ie ce

show that we rank as one of the best systems and receive the best value for money while placing students
first.
The services public education currently provides our students, community members, adults and new
Canadians are programs and services that will be improved by:
giving students what they actually need to succeed
eliminating the Ontario-wide $15.9 billion school repair backlog and
ensuring better staffing levels for all program delivery.
Other Education Funding Efficiencies Key items of concern to our Members and their families are:
1. The role education plays in leveling the playing field for all families. Education is the great equalizer in
ensuring the wellbeing of all students
2. The important role played by Educational Assistants, Early Childhood Educators, School Office staff
and Central administration staff, to name a few, and how better staffing levels would improve student
outcomes and the overall classroom environment
3. The dangers of contracting out school board work to private companies and reducing the continuity,
consistency and safety that children need.
4. How school custodians play an important role in student safety
5. The importance of school libraries in providing students with the skills they need to succeed, and the
key role played in developing literacy and research skills; fostering a love of reading
6. How consistent adult presence by staff keep schools running smoothly and are the frontline of school
security.
7. The problems associated with deferred maintenance and the underfunding of school renewal and
repair
8. The importance of social workers, speech and language therapists, child and youth workers remaining
in our schools.
9. The important role our Instructors play in Adult Education and International Languages.
Regards,
John Weatherup, President

PROMOTING AND PROTECTING CATHOLIC EDUCATION
SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION
ENGAGEMENT: 2019-2020 EDUCATION FUNDING GUIDE
The Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association (OCSTA) was founded in 1930. It represents 29 English-
language Catholic district school boards, which collectively educate approximately 545,000 students from
junior kindergarten to grade 12 and many more adults in continuing education programs province-wide.
Inspired by the Gospel, the Mission of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association is to provide
leadership, service and a provincial voice for Catholic school boards in promoting and protecting Catholic
education.
OCSTA has consistently advocated for an education funding model build on the following four essential
principles:
Equity: A funding formula must distribute education dollars equitably among all Ontario
school boards and their students;
Adequacy: The level of funding for education must be adequate to ensure quality
education for today’s students;
Autonomy/Flexibility: The model must allow school boards the autonomy and
flexibility in spending they require to achieve the distinctive goals of their system, and to
meet local needs; and
Accountability: The educational funding model must include mechanisms that ensure
the appropriate degree of accountability for all parties and transparent processes and
reporting mechanisms to support efficient and effective use of educational resources for
students.
Setting the context:

“The EY review outlined an objective of efficiency gains in the order of four cents on the dollar to be
found in the governments’ expenditures. As such, the government will be looking to our partners in the
education sector to find efficiencies and improve accountability.”
Based on 2018-19 GSN allocation projections for our 29 boards, ($6.76 Billion), the magnitude of
“efficiency gains” within the English Catholic sector of “four cents on the dollar” equates to approximately
$270.44 million in GSN funding reduction ($483.92 per pupil).
Within our school boards, between 80% -85% of expenditures are directly related to salary and benefit
costs. As such, it is not feasible to consider finding the magnitude of efficiency gains (funding reductions)
articulated, absent of direct impact on staffing levels and in such a way as to not impact students. The
majority of staffing levels are constrained through legislative, regulatory and/or collective agreement
obligations. We note that collective agreements for the sector expire August 31, 2019. The number of
these regulatory mandates has increased significantly in recent years and, together with previous
government program initiatives and onerous reporting requirements, has further dictated a portion of
staffing obligations.

“Efficient Price Setting” is not a term that has historically been utilized within the education sector.
A review of available literature identified this as a concept implemented in the Australian Hospital
Sector funding reform. It is with this understanding that we provide our comments. In terms of
implementing “Efficient Price”, we note that averages are always preferable to absolutes. System
averages provide school boards with much needed flexibility that allows for maximizing available
resources for the delivery of programs and services to our students. Absolutes (for example,
deliberate enveloping of funding allocation, hard caps as opposed to system averages) result in cost
pressures (staffing and physical resources) that drive up average costs and inefficiencies within a
school board and, by extension, within the sector as a whole. Equally, requiring that funding be
utilized for specialized, dedicated positions may also result in inefficiencies.
In order to allow school boards to seek to maximize efficiencies within the funding allocation
provided, consideration should be given to restricting “absolutes” and providing the opportunity for
school boards to utilize their funding allocation with increased flexibility. School boards have, and
continue to be, prepared to provide significant levels of transparency with respect to the utilization
of the funding allocations. In this regard, accountability and rigidity are not synonymous and we
would encourage the government to allow school boards the latitude to seek efficiencies which are
locally derived and respectful of the distinct missions of each school system. Available efficiencies
within a large urban setting are likely highly distinct from efficiencies which may be realized within
a geographically disparate, rural board. Providing school boards with latitude and adopting an
incremental, phased-in approach over an extended period of time will assist in producing change
which is student-focused and more palatable in the short-term, as well as more sustainable in the
long-term.
Outcomes Based Funding

Catholic school boards have, and will continue to, utilize their funding allocation in the best interests of
the students entrusted to us. It is OCSTA’s view that the GSN was not designed as an outcomes-based
model precisely because each student’s needs are unique, with some students’ obstacles for success
greater than others. Regardless, within the minimal flexibility which is currently afforded within the
model, Catholic school boards seek to clear those obstacles in order to assist our students in achieving
their full potential of which Jesus Christ is the model. To this end, the vast majority of our Catholic boards
are currently overspent in their special education funding allocation.
Other outcomes-based indicators currently in place include the English Catholic sector Catholic
Graduation Expectations, multi-year strategic plans and high school graduation rates as well as EQAO
results.
Catholic school boards are committed to assisting each student to achieve their full potential, and
understand linking these outcomes to education funding and the investment made in students. It is also
the view of Catholic school boards that as the system funder it is incumbent on the Ministry to articulate
which outcomes are a priority and to provide resources and flexibility appropriate to achieve those
priorities. Clearly defining education policy priorities, providing school boards resources and latitude
within which to achieve those priorities and adopting an incremental, phased-in approach to new
benchmarks and standards are steps which the Ministry should take in this regard. Recognizing that
measuring a return on investment in students may be more nuanced than other, more traditional,
measures of return on investment, will also be key.
Accountability and Value-For-Money

Catholic school boards’ responsibilities for delivering programs and services have expanded well beyond
JK-12 education. This expansion has occurred in large measure as a result of public policy setting by
various governments of the day. Catholic school boards are presently seen as central to the provision of
a host of community-based services including: Community Use of Schools, Child Care, Before & After
School Care, Child and Family Centers, Community Hubs/Partnerships and Adult Education to name only
a few. Notwithstanding that significant board resources, (physical, human, financial) are allocated to the
delivery and maintaining of these services we note that these programs have become part of the lexicon
of education and are valued by our communities. Any change in this regard would, of necessity, be driven
by a reassessment and realignment of policy priorities emanating from the Ministry.

Any funding reductions implemented will result in Catholic school boards facing increased budget
pressures to deliver educational programs and services currently required by the Ministry of Education.
While the provincial education budget is large, 80-85% of that budget is directly related to salary and
benefit costs. Within the current funding structure and service-delivery expectations, reductions in the
magnitude of 4% will have an impact on program delivery. The Ministry has also placed increased
restrictions on how school boards spend their operating funds with ever-decreasing flexibility through
greater enveloping of funding. These restrictions on Catholic school boards have reduced their capacity
to plan for, fund and operate specific education programs that serve the unique needs of their local
constituents. Enveloping of funding is not efficient in the delivery of services nor does it enable a school
board to target funds to the areas of need within its jurisdiction. The increased use of Education Program
Other (EPO’s) and regulatory obligations associated with class size and a number of other areas has
further exacerbated the financial challenges for school boards. In addition, there are numerous areas
where Catholic school boards are over-spent in their current funding allocation, with little flexibility to
address those concerns. Special education funding and funding for occasional staff coverage are two
examples in this regard. Finally, clarity from the Ministry with respect to priority policies and the
continuation of funding allocations (EPO’s and otherwise) are necessary to allow school boards to
manage these allocations as staffing commitments are constrained through collective agreement
obligations and often cannot be altered mid-year.
To enable boards to implement funding reductions of this magnitude, which we are not proposing, will
require transition funding and flexibility for boards to implement solutions within their jurisdictions. The
Ministry should allow local school boards to find ways of seeking efficiencies that are appropriate to their
local context and that will be sustainable for the future. This will require clear policy direction from the
Ministry as well as adoption of an incremental, phased-in approach over an extended period of time. Such
policy decision making necessitates a careful consideration of the impact on students and local
communities. Further, assistance from the Ministry in removing barriers to finding efficiencies will be
required. Finally, we would underscore that it is not realistic to ignore that certain long-term efficiencies
will require an infusion of funding which cannot be supported by Catholic school boards within the current
model. In this regard, Catholic school boards are already experiencing cost pressures in numerous areas.
Ontario Public School Boards’ Association
2019-20 Education Funding Submission
Please find attached comments and suggestions related to education funding as
requested. This submission is sent on behalf of the Superintendents at the
Upper Grand DSB. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input and feedback:
o
o
o
o
Rick
2019/2020 Education Funding Consultation
Prepared for: Ministry of Education

Prepared by: Avon Maitland District School Board
AMDSB Stats: Small (15,000 students), English, Public Board
AMDSB borders the West Coast of Lake Huron. We have many rural
areas and small towns with one city: Stratford. Residents of the two
counties, Huron and Perth, consider London, Kitchener-Waterloo or
Sarnia as the closest urban centre, all of which are not in the AMDSB
boundaries. AMDSB is the largest single employer in the counties of
Huron and Perth.
E c e P ce Se
1. A e e e a ea f e GSN c c e e eff c e ce e g c c d be e-
e a a ed f f e eff c e c e ?
2. A e e e a ca f e GSN c c e d e eff c e ce e g, b
d be c de ed f ef ?
We believe that many components of the GSN do not acknowledge school boards local
circumstances. We have a number of unique factors due to our physical location that impact
our costs.
L cal Fac Im ac
Sparse student We are considered a declining enrolment board yet have some
population in some areas locali ed areas experiencing growth. Our need in the growth
of the district with growth areas increases and so then do our costs, but the needs in our
in one or two areas only declining areas do not decrease at the same rate and funding
does not match
No public transportation Most of our communities do not have a public transportation
system system, which means our transportation budget must be used as
efficiently as possible. This also impacts our ability to recruit
staff from urban areas and may contribute to the reasons behind
lack of community organi ation supports.
Lacking community Given our rural location, most of our communities are lacking
supports supports in the areas of Mental Health, General Counseling,
Youth in Care, Youth/Families in Poverty, Newcomers and non-
immigrant ESL students. Given that there are not community
resources available, often times it falls to the board or the
schools to provide these supports for our students.
GSN Con l a ion f om AMDSB of
Proximity to Urban AMDSB is not a Northern Board and is not really considered a
centres but not Rural Board. Before the Rural and Northern Education Fund, we
considered truly Rural or did not receive funding in recognition of our Rural reality. Given
Northern our closer proximity to urban centres but lower cost of living, our
district houses a number of therapeutic foster and group homes
for students that require significant mental heath and special
education supports.
AMDSB borders Lake Given the fact that we do not have neighbouring population to
Huron the West of the district, we find this reduces competiveness of
our vendors, in particular as it relates to IT connectivity. This
creates cost pressures for AMDSB that we do not believe is
recogni ed in the GSN funding.
While we would like to see some price setting to include the factors noted above, we d expect
these considerations to be favourable for AMDSB, so this wouldn t address the question of
how to obtain greater efficiencies. If anything, it provides the rational as to why grants such as
the Rural and Northern Education Fund are important to maintain.
To answer the question of how to obtain efficiencies, the government may want to consider the
following notions:
- Lift moratorium on school closures, but acknowledge resultant savings would take 2-3
years to come to fruition
- Consider class-si e legislation (and funding) in place and whether the research
supports the notion of class-si e impact on student learning
- Consider defining/setting maximum walking distances as it relates to student
transportation. Differing walking distances within one region can create competition
between boards and cost pressures for boards with lower maximums
- Consider how to enhance cross-ministerial partnerships in favour of providing consistent
supports across Ontario. As an example, consider providing funding for items such as
Mental Health on a regional basis, as opposed to by Ministry. Funding would need to be
contingent on all applicable organi ations taking part in the delivery of and being held
accountable for resultant programming or services.
O c e -Ba ed F d
1. A e e e a ea f e GSN c c d be ef ed a c e -ba ed de (e.g.
Lea gO e G a )? H d e c e be ea ed?
2. H ca ef d g de d a be e b f d ca g e e e e e ade
a e a ed e ac e e e ?
Most Special Grants (EPOs) and some GSNs, such as Student Success and Specialist High
Skills Major, require very detailed financial and deliverable reporting via PRISA. Other
reporting, outside of PRISA, is provided to various Ministry departments via spreadsheets or
reports. There is a significant amount of accountability over EPO grants, which is appropriate
given boards are given clear guidelines and expectations regarding the purpose of these
grants. However, we do question how the data is being used at the Provincial level, and
whether the benefit of having this data available justifies the considerable effort to provide it.
When it comes to measuring and monitoring outcomes as it relates to GSNs, the expectations
of the specific GSN to be measured need to be explicit. A suggestion is to add clarity over
expectations over the various GSNs.
Please consider that boards are very different in their reporting and monitoring work. We have
heard the use of the Learning Opportunities Grants in the province repeatedly questioned, but
when it comes to AMDSB, we have no issue providing details over how we are using these
funds and were able to make the direct connection to the purpose of the grant as outlined in
the 2018-19 Ed ca F d g: A G de eGa f S de Need posted on the
Ministry of Education s website. We were able to demonstrate this when responding to the
Auditor General of Ontario via the audit survey in the summer of 2016 and to the Ministry
regional branch in the fall of 2018.
Acc ab a d Va e-F -M e
1. A e ee a f ef d gf a a ae c e e de e f ed ca
O a ? If , a ae e ?
2. S d eg e e e e a f a e a e acce -c e ga g?
3. S d e de a e a e e f a ge ed a ea f ef d gf a c ea e
acc ab a d a e-f - e ? If , a ae e ?
Value for Money:

See also responses to questions above. We believe there may be value added in the
province as a whole, if we could increase cross-ministry partnerships, in particular between
Municipalities, Health Care, Children Community and Social Services, Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs and Education.
We are wondering about the value of the Outdoor Education Grant, within the Learning
Opportunities Grant. We don t feel it is core to the delivery of education and would like to see
the grant repurposed.
Accountability:
AMDSB is always willing to enhance reporting and accountability, providing it adds value to the
Ministry or the Province. Please don t require enhanced reporting if the results will be not
reviewed, contemplated or used in some way meaningful. There are some cases where we
spend much time and effort producing reports (such as EPO grant reporting and some OnSIS
level reports) and we aren t certain the data is being used.
O e Ed ca F d E ce ce
1. A e e e a ea f e a d ca e GSN? If , a ae e ?
2. A e e e a ea f e a d ca e f d g ea (e.g. Ed ca
P ga O e, e e , e e e fg e e )? If , a ae e ?
See also responses to questions above. We believe there may be value added in the province
as a whole, if we could increase cross-ministry partnerships, in particular between
Municipalities, Health Care, Children Community and Social Services, Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs and Education.
AMDSB continues to operate in the most frugal manner possible, and so we do not believe
there are funding duplications or overlaps in the funds that we receive specifically. Perhaps
due to our smaller si e, we are able to work as a system to ensure efficiencies so we do not
have excesses or are not wasting funds. Within the counties we serve, however, we believe
there is duplication in costs relating to the operation of two separate school boards. Examples
of duplication of expenses include Finance, HR/Payroll, Facilities and Student Information
technologies, as well as the infrastructure to operate these.
Appendix A
Response: Education Funding Engagement Guide

2019-2020
Introduction
The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is Canada s largest and most diverse school
board. Every day, we welcome more than 246,000 students to 582 schools across the
City of Toronto. We also serve more than 140,000 life-long learners in our Adult and
Continuing Education programs.
It is because we are the largest and most diverse school board in the country, that we
have a unique set of needs when it comes to what is required to best support our
students and communities.
Our new Multi-Year Strategic Plan consists of five pillars. Each of these pillars represents
our evidence-based decision making. Each pillar has measureable outcomes that are
confirmed through our student census data, student academic achievements, and
strategic allocation of resources:
1. Transform Student Learning We will have high expectations for all students and
provide positive, supportive learning environments.
2. Create a Culture for Student and Staff Well-Being We will build positive school
and workplace cultures that support mental health and well-being free of bias
and full of potential.
3. Provide Equity of Access to Learning Opportunities for All Students We will
ensure that all schools offer a wide range of programming that reflects the
voices, choices, abilities, identities and experiences of students.
4. Allocate Human and Financial Resources Strategically to Support Student Needs
We will allocate resources, renew schools, improve services and remove barriers
and biases to support student achievement and accommodate the different
needs of students, staff and the community.
5. Build Strong Relationships and Partnerships Within School Communities to
Support Student Learning and Well-Being We will strengthen relationships and
continue to build partnerships among students, staff, families and communities
that support student needs and improve learning and well-being.
1
Measuring our success is critical to know we are making a difference for students. Our
expectation and our goal is that everyone improves. We expect to:
Close the achievement and well-being gaps while keeping expectations high for all
students because we are providing access to the programs, resources and learning
opportunities that students require, while removing systemic barriers that may exist
for them.
Transform student learning to ensure students improve in literacy and math and
strengthen essential skills including critical thinking, creativity, collaboration,
communication, citizenship and character (known as global competencies).
Increase engagement of students, staff, parents and communities because we are

honouring voice, experience, identity and expertise, and we are willing to adjust our
directions and plans because of this engagement.
Real change happens in the classroom and with this coordinated and strategic
approach, we are confident that each and every student will be successful.
An example from our Multi-Year Strategic Plan are the Action Plans dedicated to Special
Education, wherein we are committed to outcome-based planning to support our most
vulnerable students. The goals include, each school will welcome all students, providing
an open and inclusive learning environment that recognizes that most students can be
served effectively within their community school. This includes continuing to provide
intensive support programs for students with more specialized learning needs.
Strengthening collaboration with parents and engage effectively in the decision making
process regarding their child s program, placement and well-being. Increased
employment opportunities and outcomes for all students with Low Incidence
Exceptionalities (Intellectual Disabilities, Physical Disability, Low Vision, Deaf and Hard of
Hearing, and Health/Medical).
In addition to answering the Ministry s questions, we would like to focus on the

following areas of interest for the TDSB:
1. Transportation;
2. Renewal Funding Backlog; and
3. Education Development Charges.
2
1. Transportation
Transportation service in many urban school boards is an increasing challenge. In the

City of Toronto, the service challenges are compounded by traffic congestion and
road construction.
The driver shortage issue experienced in September 2016 continues to be a concern

of boards as carriers struggle to maintain a sufficient number of core drivers as well
as spare drivers to cover absences for vacation, illness, religious observance and
other unexpected and planned absences. The Transportation Unit continues to
leverage technology to improve the level of service for our communities. Parents
have high service expectations and the demand for service is outstripping the supply
of available drivers. School boards that try to amend their current model of service
levels face incredible push back from parents who rely on the service.
In the absence of provincial funding benchmarks for transportation, school boards

have no guidance to support a change in service expectations and the inequity
among coterminous boards is left unaddressed because boards will continue to use
transportation as a means to compete for students. In addition, the TDSB is
advocating that transportation for students with special needs be identified and
funded separately. The TDSB is the largest provider of transportation services for
students with special needs in the province. These students are our most vulnerable
students, with the greatest service needs and for whom the cost per pupil is
appreciably higher than other standard transportation.
In order to address retention of drivers, the Ministry implemented a driver retention

bonus based on service benchmarks. With this bonus set to expire and nothing yet
offered to attract and retain drivers, it is of concern to the industry, as well as the
Boards, that we may face a larger than normal number of retirements and/or staff
movement to other jobs with steadier work conditions.
The review of transportation services and funding started two years ago, still has not
reported out on its findings.
2. Renewal Funding Backlog
The province has provided multiple years of additional funding for school repairs.
We are appreciative to the province for this funding, which has allowed us to address
3
emergency issues in our schools. Unfortunately, it has not been sufficient to
decrease the repairs backlog.
Currently, the TDSB faces a staggering $3.9 billion repair backlog as a result of years
of inadequate funding. If additional funding provided over the last 3 years (SCI) is
discontinued and/or reduced, and no additional funding is provided, we estimate
that the TDSB's renewal repairs backlog will grow approximately $0.6 billion per year.
It is imperative that the province commit to providing predictable and sustainable

funding for school repairs so that the TDSB can continue to implement our long-
term plan for renewal, lower our current $3.9 billion repair backlog and modernize
our schools. Current industry standards are that 2 to 4%1 of the replacement value of
buildings should be budgeted for renewal expenditures. Costs in high density urban
boards for maintenance and construction work are significantly higher than either
suburban or rural boards and should be taken into consideration in establishing
construction benchmarks.
3. Education Development Charges
The TDSB is advocating for access to Education Development Charges (EDCs) as a

source of revenue to sustain our ability to make adequate investments in our schools
as development continues in the city.
As you know, school boards must meet several conditions before being eligible to
require developers to pay EDCs. The first condition is that the board must show that
the number of students that it needs to accommodate is larger than the space
available. The TDSB does not meet this condition because there is surplus space
across the system. However, city intensification plans mean that many
neighbourhoods are growing and putting additional pressure on schools in these
areas that are already full.
In addition, current legislation mandates that EDCs can only be used for the
purchase of land to support schools in growth areas, not to support the cost of
building new schools or renovating existing schools. We advocate for a change in
this regard as well.
1
Reversing the Cycle of Deterioration in the Nation's Public School Buildings, Council of the Great City Schools,
October 2014.
4
Toronto City Planning figures indicate that approximately 290,000 residential units
are in the review process or under construction, which could generate EDC revenue
of over million in funding for school improvements. Toronto is one of Canada s
fastest growing cities. Overlooking the use of EDCs to fund badly needed school
repairs is a lost opportunity. We once again ask the Ontario government to amend
the EDC regulations to ensure that the TDSB can capture this revenue and use it to
build and repair schools.
DSB Response to Ministry of Education Consultation Questions
The Education Act provides the authority and responsibility for student achievement
and well-being to school boards. The TDSB accepts this responsibility and works
with its communities to develop programs and supports to achieve these goals with
the available funding provided by the Ministry of Education. It is important for
school boards to have flexible available funding to ensure that they can meet the
local needs of their communities.
Under the Education Act, boards also have responsibility for their multi-year strategic
plans. Any outcome-based funding would need to honour these commitments
made and approved by the Board.
It is critical for the TDSB to have accurate information on possible changes to

funding as early as possible. Currently, the TDSB has to make school staffing
decisions in early March to meet collective agreement timelines and to ensure that
our schools are ready for the upcoming school year. As the Ministry noted in their
consultation document, efficient, outcomes-based and value for money decisions are
required to ensure resources are spent effectively on student achievement and well-
being. School boards need the Ministry of Education to provide their annual funding
allocations in sufficient time so that school boards can do this within collective
agreement timelines. The result of notification of these allocations would be more
efficient decisions by school boards regarding the number of staff required in their
schools.
Provided below is the TDSB s response to the themes contained in the Education
Funding Engagement Guide, 2019-2020:
a) Efficient Price Setting;
5
b) Outcomes-Based Funding;
c) Accountability and Value-for-Money; and
d) Other Education Funding Efficiencies.
a) Efficient Price Setting:
Considerations:
1. Are there areas of the Grants for Student Needs (GSNs) which currently use
efficient price setting which could be re-evaluated for further efficiencies?
Efficient pricing is an economic model that suggests that perfect

information is known to set a price. The concern with the example
provided, ‘class size , is that it only addresses averages and space usage,
not student achievement outcomes. The TDSB would ask: What
information was used to set current benchmarks and was student
achievement and well-being data used in the calculation? At the TDSB our
Multi-Year Strategic Plan is focussed on student achievement and well-
being outcomes.
2. Are there allocations of the GSN which currently do not use efficient price setting,
but should be considered for reform?
Efficient price setting involves ensuring that all information is known about
the factors impacting price (i.e. benchmarks). It is difficult from a
provincial perspective to set pricing that addresses the diverse needs of
individual school boards. It could be argued that given class size, pricing
has different impacts on student achievement and well-being in northern
Ontario vs downtown Toronto.
b) Outcomes-Based Funding
Considerations:
1. Are there areas of the GSN which could be reformed to an outcomes-based

model (e.g. Learning Opportunities Grant)? How would the outcome be
measured?
6
Funding based on outcomes would be a significant departure from the
initial purpose of the GSN which was to create equity of funding for
students across the province. A funding model based on outcomes would
return boards to a similar place prior to the GSN, but this time it would not
be based on the ability to tax but on your social economic challenges
impacting student achievement and well-being. The TDSB has developed
a Multi-Year Strategic Plan to improve student achievement and well-
being based on data driven outcomes. Further to that, the TDSB utilizes
census data from students, parents and staff to guide where to invest to
support the board s five pillars.
2. How can the funding model do a better job of indicating whether the
investments made have maximized returns in achievement?
The funding model is a method of providing funding to school boards.

Boards use local flexibility with the funds to address local needs that
support student achievement and well-being. The TDSB would suggest
that the funding model is not the tool to indicate the impact on
achievement. Other data points or reports can provide this information.
c) Accountability and Value-For-Money
Considerations:
1. Are there parts of the funding formula that are not core to the delivery of
education in Ontario? If so, what are they?
It is important to remember that the Ministry has stated that the GSN is to
support schools boards to meet their local needs delivering the curriculum
to students and school boards are responsible for their student
achievement and well-being. As such, school boards use their GSN
allocation strategically to make choices that best support improving
student achievement. The TDSB believes that through development of
local programs and supports aligned to its strategic plan it is meeting its
legislative requirement. The Ministry has yet to inform school boards on
how it identifies its core commitments to student achievement and well-
7
being. Once these are known, school boards can better address this
question.
2. Should the government explore ways for alternative access to non-core

programming?
TDSB students come to school with a wide variety of needs that we must
address in order to create learning environments in which students can
succeed and have a strong sense of well-being.
Therefore, the TDSB is always looking for partners to assist in creating

effective and efficient learning environments for our students. We would
suggest that the government better coordinate support for families and
students to ensure that the student comes to school ready to learn and
able to succeed in their education. We need to look at the whole student
to understand those factors that impact their learning. If we want to use
public funds effectively and efficiently we need to address barriers to
learning from both inside and outside the school.
3. Should the Ministry undertake a review of targeted areas of the funding formula
to increase accountability and value-for-money? If so, what are they?
The TDSB agrees with the concept of accountability for the use of funding to
support student outcomes. The TDSB has created a Multi-Year Strategic Plan
that is based on evidence and has measurable outcomes that hold the Board
accountable. Value for money is important. This is the concept that is used
by the TDSB to ensure that the limited resources provided to school boards
are allocated effectively and efficiently to support student achievement and
well-being.
d) Other Education Funding Efficiencies
Considerations:
8
We do not believe there is any overlap within the GSN. The TDSB fully utilizes
all funding to support student achievement and well-being. TDSB has created
an evidence-based and outcome-driven strategic plan to ensure its resources
align to its five pillars:
1. Transform Student Learning;

2. Create a Culture for Student and Staff Well-Being;
3. Provide Equity of Access to Learning Opportunities for all Students;
4. Allocate Human and Financial Resources Strategically to Support
Student Needs; and
5. Build Strong Relationships and Partnerships Within School
Communities to Support Student Learning and Well-Being.
2. Are there areas of overlap or duplication with other funding streams (e.g.
Education Programs Other, other ministries, other levels of government)? If so,
what are they?
The significant overlap is not with funding, but with the administrative
reporting needed to support Education Program Other (EPO) and other
levels of government reports. The funding is important to support student
achievement and well-being, but the administrative burden on reporting
needs to be reduced.
Also, we believe some areas of EPO funding should be permanently

moved into the GSN to increase efficiency for the money spent while also
increasing transparency. The Community Use of Schools grant is a great
example of a program that has been working for years, is a highly efficient
use of money, and would benefit from more stable funding. Moving these
long-term, highly effective and efficient programs into the GSN would
stabilize this funding, reduce the administrative burden for school board
reporting and on Transfer Payment oversight within the Ministry.
9
December 11, 2018
Submission to the Minister of Education
2019-20 Education Funding Engagement
Efficient Price Setting - The modern role of the ministry is as a system funder and steward. One of the
best ways to ensure strong delivery of service and return on investment is to set efficient prices. Parts of
the Grants for Student Needs (GSN) are already consistent with the concept of efficient price, for
example, class size funding based on averages and funding based on the efficient use of space.
Considerations
1. Are there areas of the GSN which currently use efficient price setting which could be re-evaluated for
further efficiencies?
2. Are there allocations of the GSN which currently do not use efficient price setting, but should be
considered for reform?
Currently, the GSN utilizes many different types of calculations as it relates to funding. There is an
opportunity to increase the use of system averages in an effort to reduce costs. However, this change is
directly- related to staffing requirements and outside the scope of influence of individual boards. The
amo n of a boa d di c e iona pending o ide of salary and benefits equates to approximately 15%
of the entire operating budget which creates a unique challenge in identifying efficiencies.
On the capital budget side, current construction benchmarks are not price efficient and Boards are
unable to implement capital projects based on the current funding structure. To address the growth
requirement for K-12 education in Ontario, a long-term strategy needs to be implemented.
Outcomes-Based Funding -Outcomes-based funding is intended to aid students by encouraging schools

to focus more on providing supports and clearing the obstacles that prevent some students from
achieving their full potential and graduating. Although the GSN was not designed as an outcomes-based
model, portions of it could be targeted to reducing gaps in student outcomes, which could result in
better and more equitable results for students and their families. Considerations
1. Are there areas of the GSN which could be reformed to an outcomes-based model (e.g. Learning
Opportunities Grant)? How would the outcome be measured?
2. How can the funding model do a better job of indicating whether the investments made have
maximized returns in achievement?
The Wellington Catholic District School Board has always and will continue to apply the funding
allocations in order to achieve the best outcomes for our students based on their strengths, needs, and
the principle of equity of outcome. More stringent guidelines will limit the local autonomy needed to be
he mo e pon i e po ible a e e boa d demog aphic a e ni e A challenge con in e o be in
the area of enveloped special education funding where like many boards, we continue to spend
significantly outside the envelope in order to ensure the necessary supports for the complexity of needs
of our students in a fully inclusive model of service delivery.
Current outcomes-based indicators include the Ontario Catholic Graduation Expectations, the multi-year
strategic plan, board improvement plan, mental health strategic plan, special education plan, safe
schools plan, high school graduation rates as well as EQAO and report card results.
We are committed to supporting each student to achieve their full potential academically, socially,
emotionally, physically and spiritually, and appreciate linking these outcomes to education funding and
the investment made in our students. It is our view that it is incumbent on the Ministry as a result of a
consultative process and evidence available in current research, to articulate which outcomes are a
priority and to provide resources and flexibility appropriate to achieve those priorities. Clearly defining
education policy priorities not based on single issues, providing school boards resources and flexibility
within which to achieve those priorities and adopting an incremental, phased-in approach to new
benchmarks and standards are necessary steps for successful implementation. It is essential to recognize
that measuring outcomes and a return on investment in students is more nuanced than other, more
traditional, measures of return on investment.
Accountability and Value-For-Money -The ministry is focused on ensuring that taxpayers get the best
possible service for their money. It is also focused on ensuring that funding is being used for its intended
purpose. With limited resources, it means keeping the focus on key priorities and making strategic
choices about how best to use resources to improve student achievement. Considerations
1. Are there parts of the funding formula that are not core to the delivery of education in Ontario? If so,
what are they?
2. Should the government explore ways for alternative access to non-core programming?
Based on changes to Ministry legislation and directives, Boards have continued to expand services
including community use of schools, before and after school and extended day programs as well as
childcare programs. We also continue to operate international language and adult education options to
our communities. They have become programs that the community and families have come to rely
upon and expect as part of our program and operational delivery.
3. Should the ministry undertake a review of targeted areas of the funding formula to increase
accountability and value-for-money? If so, what are they?
Over the past several years, the Ministry has enveloped many of the GSN grants including areas of the
Learning Opportunities Grant, Indigenous Education, and Mental Health etc. The Board continues to
spend appropriately within the parameters defined by these specific grants.
As a Board, we have supported the regional internal audit model including the implementation of the
audit committee. As a Board and a province, education continues to embrace the tenants of
accountability and transparency in everything that we do, however it is important to understand that
each Board has unique operating priorities and challenges and as such, local budget autonomy is
important especially when making decisions related to funding reductions.
1 4
François Turpin
Page | 2
Fixation efficace des tarifs
Considérations particulières
1. Y a-t-il des composantes des SBE qui utilisent ou n’utilisent pas déjà une
fixation efficace des tarifs, mais qui pourraient être réévaluées pour accroître
l’efficacité?
Page | 3
Page | 4
Page | 5
Page | 6
Page | 7
Financement fondé sur les résultats
1. Y a-t-il des composantes des SBE qui pourraient être réformées pour adopter un
modèle de financement fondé sur les résultats (p. ex., la Subvention pour
programmes d’aide à l’apprentissage ? Comment le résultat pourrait-il être
mesuré?
Page | 8
2. Comment le modèle de financement pourrait-il mieux indiquer si les
investissements ont fourni un rendement maximal sur le plan de la réussite?
Page | 9
Responsabilisation et optimisation des ressources
1. Y a-t-il des aspects de la formule de financement qui ne sont pas essentiels à la
prestation des services d’éducation en Ontario? Si oui, lesquels?
2. Le gouvernement devrait-il explorer d’autres manières de fournir l’accès aux

programmes non essentiels?
Page | 10
3. Le Ministère devrait-il entreprendre un examen des aspects ciblés de la formule
de financement afin d’améliorer la responsabilisation et l’optimisation des
ressources? Si oui, lesquels?
Page | 11
Autres mécanismes efficaces du financement de l’éducation
1. Y a-t-il des éléments qui se chevauchent ou sont dupliqués dans les SBE? Si oui,
lesquels?
2. Y a-t-il des éléments qui se chevauchent ou sont dupliqués dans les autres
volets de financement (p. ex., autres programmes d’enseignement, autres
ministères, autres paliers de gouvernement)? Si oui, lesquels?
Page | 12
1
2
Introduction
About this Engagement
Other Education Engagements
3
Considerations
1. Are there areas of the GSN which currently use efficient price setting which
could be re-evaluated for further efficiencies?
Using average class sizes and eliminating hard caps would help in more
efficient program delivery.
Level of financial reporting requirements should be reviewed to ensure
that the information being provided is of value and warrants resources
to prepare.
Enhance special considerations within the GSN for equity concerns,
population density, socio-economic conditions, disabilities, etc.
2. Are there allocations of the GSN which currently do not use efficient price
setting, but should be considered for reform?
Analysis of sick leave and attendance programs is recommended. Sick
leave is not specifically funded for a number of groups but the costs
accrue for all.
Consider enabling access to a provincial Human Rights Office for smaller
school boards instead of having HRO at multiple school boards.
Pupil Accommodation Review process, which is currently on hold, should
be reinstated on an individual business case basis so each can be
evaluated by the Ministry on its merit, impact on student programs and
costs.
The special education costing is growing significantly without appropriate
level of increased funding.
Any reduction in funding should have a corresponding reduction in
externally controlled expenses.
4
Considerations
1. Are there areas of the GSN which could be reformed to an outcomes-based
model (e.g. Learning Opportunities Grant)? How would the outcome be
measured?
Outcome based model would be difficult to implement as it may take a
number of years of revised program/process to be able to assess how
well the program worked.
Outcome-Based Funding may have unintended impacts and create cause
for alarm. Clear criteria should be established that is reflective of current
research and evidence.
O c me ba ed m del can n in eading benchma k I e
bec me e a e a ed b eaching he e each ecific c me
Targeted funding should be designed to close gaps of students who are
underperforming and underserved with an emphasis on evidence-based
intervention
2. How can the funding model do a better job of indicating whether the
investments made have maximized returns in achievement?
As mentioned above, it may take years to see data indicating if results
changed.
Consider performance-based bonuses for leaders.
Consider short, medium and long term goals.
Define achievement with caution and ensure the focus on well-being is
maintained.
Establish an evaluation framework that includes benchmarks that are
monitored and analyzed.
School climate surveys/student and parent census should be used to
target intervention.
Quality assurance and accountability for data collection in relation to the
outcomes-based funding is necessary
Considerations
1. Are there parts of the funding formula that are not core to the delivery of
education in Ontario? If so, what are they?
Funding is being used for its intended purpose.
5
2. Should the government explore ways for alternative access to non-core
programming?
Defining non-core is essential.
3. Should the ministry undertake a review of targeted areas of the funding
formula to increase accountability and value-for-money? If so, what are they?
Targeted funding does not provide more accountability or value for
money as it may be too restrictive. Different areas have different needs
and flexibility should be allowed.
Boards are already accountable in all areas.
6
Considerations
Consider review of standardized testing and the consideration of random
sampling and ensure results are used for student and school
improvement.
Consider public and separate education systems and how to share space
and services.
2. Are there areas of overlap or duplication with other funding streams (e.g.
Education Programs Other, other ministries, other levels of government)? If
so, what are they?
Continue to streamline and bundle EPOs to reduce the administrative and
reporting burden on school boards. Align funding timelines to the school
year calendar to enable appropriate timelines for planned and thoughtful
spending.
Where value of a particular EPO has been demonstrated, the grant should
be incorporated into GSN.
More collaborative programming with MCCSS funded programs.
Additional comments from Special Education Advisory Committee

Any review of cuts should focus on areas that are far removed from student success.
Trimming the transportation line, not by cutting service but by moving as quickly as possible to
green/electric buses.
There may be other areas to look at to save money that do not affect special education students.
Children are our future and cutting their education is a shortsighted move. Instead we should be
investing more heavily to ensure that our children are well prepared to be the way forward into
our collective future
There must be a role for parents in the evaluation process for special education programming and
that curriculum must be flexible enough to allow for individual education programming for the
diverse needs of students with ASD throughout their education and transition process.
This process must be assessment-based, using tools and/or strategies specific to the learning
needs of students with ASD with an emphasis on evidence-based practices. These plans must
include appropriate supports and classroom/curriculum adaptations to ensure maintenance of
previously acquired skills and continuity of learning.
When we invest in supports and strategies we know to work, we waste less money and time and
our students receive the best possible education outcome. This includes an emphasis on teacher
training, community collaboration with autism professionals, evidence-based programming like
ABA and PEERS and a role for families and caregivers in this process.
7
A range of educational placements are important based on individual need (from full inclusion
to specialized classes). When we invest in positive educational outcomes, autistic students are
better prepared to make meaningful contributions to society when they graduate.
Also:
1. The biggest barriers to support that families experience continue to be long waitlists and financial
restriction. What role will our education system play in helping to alleviate these barriers for
families?
2. Our Canadian prevalence rate is now sitting at 1 in 66 Canadian children diagnosed with ASD; how
will our education system address these increasing rates? How are they budgeting their resources
to meet this growing student population?
3. One of the most significant issues about ABA programming in Ontario is the challenge of access to
excellence in ABA-ba ed o in On a io blicl f nded chool De i e m ch og e in
awareness and understanding in Boards of Education, and even with PPM-140, we know that
school issues remain one of the top concerns expressed by parents of students on the autism
spectrum. The gap that remains between coordinating ABA services between schools and the
community must be resolved if parents are to have confidence that their children will be able to
achieve their full potential.
4. A supportive education system includes well-planned transitions to services that provide optimal
participation, inclusion and success of the child or adult on the autism spectrum.
5. A robust education system includes ASD-trained and regulated health professionals, educators,
behaviour, communication therapists, mental health practitioners and ongoing ASD training to
understand, intervene and support people with ASD at all ages and stages of development and life.
6. For education programs to be evaluated properly, parents/caregivers MUST be active, informed
partners in the planning, delivery and evaluation of program supports for their children and
families.
Conclusion
8
Chairperson, Upper Grand District School Board
Board Office: 500 Victoria Road N. Guelph, ON N1E 6K2
Email: linda.busuttil@ugdsb.on.ca
Tel: 519-822-4420 ext. 735 or Toll Free: 1-800-321-4025
Submission to the Ministry of Education

2019 – 2020 Education Funding Consultation

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to the Ministry of Education Grants for
Student Needs Funding Consultation. The Upper Grand District School Board [UGDSB] Trustees
are the locally elected representatives responsible for the Strategic Multi-Year Plan for student
learning and wellbeing in our Wellington and Dufferin County communities. UGDSB Trustees
are the stewards accountable for the Operational Plan developed by the Director of Education
and the resources allocated by the Ministry of Education to support a local system of student
learning, success and wellbeing .

GSN Consultation
In reviewing the GSN we would ask for consideration of a number of items listed below and
that these be respectfully reflected in future Ministry of Education funding.

1. Recognize current Ministry of Education reporting, compliance and accountability
mechanisms. Education and Schools Boards are highly regulated in all aspects of our
operations, by the Ministry of Education, other governments and numerous other
legislative requirements. We would recommend that the GSN review process examine
these existing Ministry and ongoing operational mechanisms to identify any
opportunities to improve existing accountability rather than establish additional or new
reporting and control systems. Examples include:
GSN and EPO funding attestations by the Director of Education, on behalf of the
UGDSB, for Restricted Purpose Revenue, annual basis
Board Operational Review, last Review and Report 2010
Annual Energy Report to the Ministry and an Energy Plan submitted every four years
Student Register Audit
Effectiveness and Efficiency Review for Student Transportation, Reviews conducted
in 2007, 2009
Regional Audit Team
Board internal Financial controls, GAP, policies and procedures

• Linda Busuttil , Chair • Mark Bailey, Vice-Chair • Lynn Topping • Jen Edwards • Barbara Lustgarten Evoy
• Martha MacNeil • Jolly Bedi • Robin Ross • Gail Campbell • Mike Foley
2. Recognize School Board demonstrated accountability in meeting benchmarks for
Capital projects, and encourage and facilitate the use of Proceeds of Disposition for
additional capital and future strategic building requirements. This comment is specific
to the positive experience of the UGDSB in the area of capital, building to Ministry
benchmarks, on time and within budget. The UGDSB Trustees have identified and
developed a business case for capital development with the use of Proceeds of
Disposition in response to strategic local community needs. We would strongly advocate
for a Capital Approval process that allows an unencumbered process to respond to local
capital needs in a timely, strategic, transparent and accountable manner. In so doing
this would recognize the responsibility and accountability of local school boards for
strategic multi-year plans, including capital, stewardship and accountability of
resources.

3. Retain existing GSN flexibility. The notional allocation of GSN funding to the Upper
Grand District School Board has been successful in supporting Board strategic priorities
and operational circumstances. This flexibility positions us well to meeting student
learning priorities in Wellington and Dufferin Counties. The current balance of
Restricted Purpose Revenue and notional flexibility in the GSN, and the legislative
requirement for a balanced school board budget, has ensured good stewardship and
accountability by the UGDSB Trustees.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on behalf of the Upper Grand District
School Board. Please contact me directly for any additional information or clarification.

• Linda Busuttil , Chair • Mark Bailey, Vice-Chair • Lynn Topping • Jen Edwards • Barbara Lustgarten Evoy
• Martha MacNeil • Jolly Bedi • Robin Ross • Gail Campbell • Mike Foley
1
A Submission to the Ministry of Education
2019-2020 Education Funding
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The Association des directions et directions adjointes des ecoles franco-ontariennes (ADFO), Catholic
Principals Co ncil of On ario CPCO and he On ario Principals Co ncil were founded in 1998.
Together we represent more than 8,000 Principals and Vice-Principals in 72 district school boards, which
collectively educate approximately 2,020,301 students from junior kindergarten to grade 12 and many
more adults in continuing education programs province-wide. We believe that exemplary leadership
results in outstanding schools and improve student learning. Principals and vice principals are the
connection among communities, parents, students and policymakers. To this end we foster quality
leadership through world class professional services and supports.
ADFO, CPCO and OPC have consistently advocated for an education funding model built on the following
four essential principles:
Equity: A funding formula must distribute education dollars equitably among all Ontario schools and
their students;
Advocate: To work with government, district school boards, school councils and other members of the
Education community to ensure exemplary public schools for On ario s s den s
Adequacy: The le el of f nding for ed ca ion m s be adeq a e o ens re q ali ed ca ion for oda s
students; and,
Accountability: The educational funding model must include mechanisms that ensure the appropriate
degree of accountability for all parties and transparent processes and reporting mechanisms to support
efficient and effective use of educational resources for students.
We welcome the opportunity to be part of the consultation process. Having considered the guideline
questions, we wish to address two opportunities to realize efficiencies as well as provide specific
feedback on four areas of interest: efficient price setting, outcomes-based funding, accountability and
value-for-money and other education funding efficiencies.
Setting the context

The Ernst & Young review outlined an objective of efficiency gains in the order of four cents on the
dollar o be fo nd in he go ernmen s e pendi res As s ch he go ernmen ill be looking o o r
partners in the education sector to find efficiencies and impro e acco n abili
Within our schools, between 80% - 85% of all expenditures are directly related to salary and benefit
costs. As such, it is incredibly challenging to find the magnitude of efficiency gains (funding reductions)
Page 1 of 9
articulated without negatively impacting student achievement and absent a direct impact on staffing
levels. The majority of staffing levels are constrained through legislative, regulatory and/or collective
agreement obligations. That said, we do believe there are some opportunities for efficiencies. One of
the submissions our three associations made as part of the Education Consultation Reform deals with
opportunities for efficiencies that have the potential to enable principals and vice-principals to free up
more time to be lead leaders in their schools and in so doing maximize staff excellence and student
achievement. A copy of this submission is attached as Appendix A. We take this opportunity to focus on
two ideas framed in that submission that will not only lead to efficiencies but also value for money.
Regulation 274
For many years, we have expressed concern about the new and more complex hiring regime required by
Regulation 274. While we are proponents of a transparent and fair hiring process for teachers and all
education staff, this regulation places seniority as the priority factor when hiring new teachers, has had
a negative impact on students. Regulation 274 is inflexible in its requirement that new teachers spend
months as an OT and LTO before being eligible for a permanent position, regardless of fit for a particular
position. Moreover, in many school boards, LTO teachers with the most seniority move between LTO
positions based on their own preferences, meaning that less desirable positions can be a revolving door,
which creates instability in classrooms and poor learning outcomes for students. In addition, as a result
of he re ol ing door, board staff and principals are spending a disproportionate amount of time
engaging in hiring practices in some cases, multiple times in a period of weeks for the same position.
Each year there are many classrooms in the province where classes are reorganized in September
because of enrollment changes, resulting in the students not having their permanent teacher until the
hiring processes are completed many weeks after school has started. This disruption causes difficulties
with the learning process as a result of a long drawn out hiring procedure. It is possible to have a fair
and transparent hiring process that is more efficient (saving time and potentially reducing human
resource costs) and supportive of students.
Initiatives Should Meet Demonstrated Need, Not Be Presumed to be Necessary in all Schools
There is an opportunity to realize efficiencies by providing funding that is integrated more easily and is
responsive to local needs. Schools receive funding for many initiatives, some of which can truly be
difference makers and o hers ha don pro ide the same value for money. Consider, for example,
that students in the French sector have demonstrated greater success in EQAO math testing than their
English counterparts. Does it make sense to allocate the same amount of money to support math
initiatives in the French sector or could that money be better spent and achieve more value for money
responding to the needs of that sector as demonstrated by the data and identified by boards and senior
teams? In other cases, there are a number of initiatives all designed to address a particular need.
However, they are implemented in such a way that they create competing requirements for paperwork
and reporting that reduce efficacy. One example is the initiative that is designed to lead to more skilled
tradespeople in our workforce. We agree that this is an area that should be prioritized as our working
population ages and there is a shortage of new skilled workers graduating from colleges or trade
schools. Schools have had access to a number of ministry initiatives that are meant to reach this group
of students (Specialized High Skills Major, combined with the Student Success Initiative, Ontario Youth
Apprenticeship Program and the Urban and Priority High Schools Allocation), but because of a lack of
integration, individual plans are required for each initiative, leading to patchwork implementation with
Page 2 of 9
multiple reporting requirements. We believe it would be more efficient to allocate this money as one
lump sum so that boards and schools can allocate resources that support local needs. Streamlining the
reporting and providing more flexibility with specified outcomes in terms of required elements of
program would benefit students and staff.

Efficien Price Se ing is no a erm ha has his orically been utilized within the education sector. As
not-for-profit organizations we strive to provide professional learning and development that is
consistent with the concept of efficient pricing. Our experience has demonstrated that modernizing all
professional learning and development through a digital first approach lowers the cost of doing business
and opens up new avenues for innovation and supports equitable access throughout Ontario. A digi al
firs online pla form of deli er red ces barriers in knowledge building, knowledge sharing and
knowledge mobilization.
Outcomes Based Funding

The principals and vice-principals of our three associations have, and will continue to work hard to
utilize funding in the best interests of the students entrusted to us. This is a task we share with senior
staff and boards across the province.
An Outcome-Based Funding (OBF) model and Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) model are the macro
and micro levels that provide an opportunity for leaders of our education system, from the provincial
go ernmen o school dis ric s and i hin indi id al schools o foc s on pro iding s ppor s and
clearing the obstacles that prevent some students from achieving their full potential and graduating,
resulting in better and more equitable results for students and their families O r associa ions and
principal/vice-principal members are in a strong position to support an accountability focus on the
macro and micro areas of improving student outcomes. Educational leadership research has
demonstrated the effect of school leadership as second only to classroom teaching as an influence on
student achievement (Leithwood et al, 2008), but more recently OECD recognizes, beca se principals
can have an impact on student achievement, improving the quality of school leadership is more
impor an han impro ing he q ali of a single eacher s prac ice (Andreas Schleicher, Schools for
21st-Century Learners, 2015). As an associa ion ha represen s middle leadership we bridge the gap
between the macro level of the funding policy model for the GSN and the teachers in schools who
implement successfully the micro accountability of Outcomes-Based Education. We have the capacity to
partner with ministry leaders, school district leaders and individual school leaders to develop and deliver
programs and performance measures within an OBF and OBE approach through effective use of
government funding. At the heart of this accountability approach is our proven expertise in the use of
big data, data analytics and leading schools and school systems through effective measurement of
outcomes and appropriate responses to student data on a cyclical basis. Principals and vice-principals
are the bridge between the macro and micro iterations of an outcome-based system.
We are committed to assisting each student to achieve their full potential and understand linking these
outcomes to education funding and the investment made in students. We also believe that as the
system funder it is incumbent on the Ministry to articulate which outcomes are a priority and to provide
resources appropriate to achieve those priorities. Clearly defining education policy priorities, providing
schools resources and latitude within which to achieve those priorities and adopting an incremental,
phased-in approach to new benchmarks and standards are steps which the Ministry should take in this
Page 3 of 9
regard. Recognizing that measuring a return on investment in student outcomes may be more nuanced
than other, more traditional, measures of return on investment, will also be key.

When looking at the value for money that our education system provides, the evidence shows that
money spent on quality education will reduce the money spent later in life on social assistance and on
employment funding. Ontario is an international leader in using evidence based instructional and
educational leadership strategies through funding that ensures equitable outcomes for all students.
Achievement is carefully monitored using a variety of methods, creating a model of accountability that
guarantees that funds provided are being used efficiently towards student achievement.
Our schools responsibili ies for deli ering programs and ser ices ha e e panded ell be ond JK-12
education. This expansion has occurred in large measure as a result of public policy setting by various
governments of the day. Our schools are presently seen as central to the provision of a host of
community-based services including: Community Use of Schools, Child Care, Before & After School Care,
Child and Family Centers, Community Hubs/Partnerships and Adult Education to name only a few.
Notwithstanding that significant resources, (physical, human, financial) are allocated to the delivery and
maintaining of these services we note that these programs have become part of the lexicon of education
and are valued by our communities. Any change in this regard would, of necessity, be driven by a
reassessment and realignment of policy priorities emanating from the Ministry.

While we have identified some opportunity to find efficiencies, we recognize that they are not in the
order of magnitude the government is seeking. Respectfully, if the goal is to ensure that there is a good
return on investment in student achievement, success and well-being, we must capitalize on the
investment already made. How do we achieve this? We carefully identify what we are doing well and
ensure that funding continues. We strive to correct and modernize rather than overhaul programming
and process so ha e don lose he momen m ha has been achie ed so far. We inspire all
education players to engage in continuous review and revision. We work collaboratively to ensure that
perspectives and voices are heard from all of the stakeholders involved in this education sector before
any fundamental changes are made. And finally, following clear policy direction from the Ministry, we
make changes on an incremental, phased-in basis over an extended period of time.
____________
Patrick Venne, President, ADFO
____________
Jennifer Yust, President, CPCO
____________
Larr O Malle President, OPC
Page 4 of 9
APPENDIX A
P/VP Work Intensification - The Need for a Change
Introduction
As res l s from recen s dies and research papers ha e indica ed he na re of principals ork has
undergone a significant change in the last decade. The way principals and vice-principals interact,
communicate, collaborate and lead in their school community and with board officials, the impact of
information and communication technologies, the rising levels of student diversity, the numerous
implementation and follow-ups to provincial policies and the higher level of accountability expected
from the different stakeholders are among the main factors that have brought about this important
change.
Research confirms ha beca se principals can ha e an impac on s den achie emen impro ing he
quality of school leadership is more important han impro ing he q ali of a single eacher s prac ice
(Andreas Schleicher in his 2015 Schools for 21st Century Leaners). Ho e er he increase in principals
and vice-principals ork rela ed o opera ions and adminis ra ion has red ced he amo n of time we
have available for instructional leadership in support of student achievement. This change in focus has
become a major source of concern and frustration to many principals and vice-principals, and to their
respective professional associations, across the province.
Based on the major studies listed below and the anecdotal evidence of practising principals and vice-
principals across the province, there are three main areas of concern related to principal/vice-principal
work intensification that are reducing the amount of time they have available to be lead learners in their
buildings:
There has been an e ponen ial increase in adminis ra ors opera ional job d ies for e ample
facilities management)
The volume of paperwork and forms that must be completed has both intensified and is often
duplicative
Training and resource support has continued to focus on administrators as lead learners and has
not kept pace with the need to support and teach how to manage and expeditiously discharge
their operational duties.
At the conclusion of this report, we have provided concrete suggestions to mitigate these concerns with
the express goal that as principals and vice-principals we will be able to spend more time and effort on
student learning and staff development, becoming more effective instructional leaders in our schools, a
goal we know the Ministry shares.
Page 5 of 9
Studies
Armstrong, D. E., Transition to the Role of Principal and Vice-Principal Study, The Institute for
Educational Leadership (IEL), April 2014.
290 newly appointed P/VPs
Leithwood, K. and Azah, V.N., E e e a a d Sec da P c a a d V ce-P c a W ad

Studies, October 2014.
e e en a i e f m he h ee inci al a cia i n OPC CPCO ADFO
10 trustees
65 Directors of Education
3,5701 school P/VPs
People for Education, Principals and vice-principals - The c e f he da ch , 2018.

1,101 responses
Pollock, Dr. K., The Cha g g Na e f P c a W - Final Report, October 2014

1,423 surveys available for analysis.
Findings
- Although 75% of participants indicated they felt prepared for the transition from a teacher to a
P/VP, once they started in the new role, most of them reported they were actually unprepared
for the complexity and unpredictability of their administrative roles.
(Armstrong, D. E., Transition to the Role of Principal and Vice-Principal Study).
- Principals in Ontario work an average of 59 hours per week and VPs work an average of 55 hours
per week.
(People for Education, Principals and vice-principals - The c e f he da ch )
- The top three time-consuming tasks at each level were:

- Elementary : Completing the SIP (25%) Managing facilities (22%) and Provincial and
Board Initiatives (14%)
- Secondary : Managing Staff (27%), Provincial and Board initiatives (18%) and Managing
individual student issues (18%)
(People for Education, Principals and vice-principals - The c e f he da
schools)
- More time is spent on managerial tasks, such as Regulation 274 (hiring practices for occasional
teachers is a serious problem), emails sent daily by central office, programs and policies
implementation, filling out forms (violence in the workplace and all forms associated with health
& safety, safe schools, lock down policies) rather than focusing on student improvement and
building capacities needed by the staff to achieve school, board and ministry improvement
goals.
(Leithwood, K. and Azah, V.N., E e e a a d Sec da P c a a d V ce-P c a
Workload Studies)
Page 6 of 9
- The focus of work should be curriculum, instruction, programming, assessment and evaluation,
rather than administratively running the school (school plant issues).
(Pollock, Dr. K., The Cha g g Na e f P c a W - Final Report)
- Every week, Ontario principals spend :

- 11 hours reading and writing emails
- 9 hours participating in informal meetings
- 6 hours engaging in formal, pre-scheduled meetings
- 4 hours on phone calls
- only 2 hours on professional development
- N mero s Minis r and board policies implemen a ion and follo - ps di er principals
attention, time and efforts away from student and school improvement. Amongst the most
recent and important time-consuming policies are :
- Regulation 274/12 - Hiring Practices
- Safe School Act - Bill 212
- In regard to the ever-growing work intensification:

- 86% of those surveyed indicated that they never seem to have enough time to do their
work
- only 38% feel they have the resources necessary to do their job properly
- 82% feel they have been too busy dealing with managerial tasks to give instructional
issues the attention they deserve
These studies, the analysis and their findings all seem to lead to common conclusions:
the need for a better and more comprehensive understanding of the changing nature of
principals and ice-principals ork incl ding he reali ha more emphasis is being placed on
the managerial role;
he need o red ce and or s reamline ario s Minis r Ed ca ion Labo r Heal h Children s
Services) and Board compliance requirements and the accompanying paperwork, emails and
follow-up that absorbs a large por ion of a pical adminis ra or s ork da
recognition that the increase in volume and managerial nature of principal and vice-principal
work has reduced our available time to focus on instructional leadership, student improvement
and staff professional development some of these managerial tasks needs to be managed in
other ways;
recogni ion ha i s becoming er challenging o recr i he bes eachers in o he role in par

because they see the job as too focused on administrative tasks;
Page 7 of 9
time for principals and vice-principals to engage in our own professional learning to improve the
instructional program, especially in schools where there is no VP or a part-time VP; and,
the need for better, targeted training and professional development for those transitioning into
the role of principal and vice-principal that includes training and support for the key operational
responsibilities that must be performed.
Recommendations
Part 1 Forms (Provincial level, multi-stakeholder development)
A provincial template needs to be developed that combines the multiple forms for the most common
day-to-day situations that are currently in use and different from board to board into one, user-friendly,
pre-populated, easily accessible form, for the following situations:
- violent incidents
- WSIB
- health and safety
- safe schools/lockdown
- medical iss es R an s La Sabrina s La Ro an s La PPM
parent authorization (school excursions, publication on website, participation in school
activities/sports, etc.)
Part 2 - Administrative tasks (Board level)
Boards and Local P/VP Associations should together develop best practices and resources related to the
following issues:
- Health & Safety inspections including the possibility that monthly inspections are undertaken by
specialized, board employees, Building and premises upkeep (appointing a supervisor to address
these issues) and school premises rentals
- Emails (number of emails, email etiquette, expectations for responding to emails during and
after hours) and board memos (number, follow-ups)
- Marketing, social media, website
- Training in the efficient execution of operation functions in order to suit specific needs of each
school (e.g., budgeting, accounting and reporting practices)
- Reduce out-of-school meetings through the efficient use of video conferencing technology
- Promote voluntary participation to board committees
- Data analysis (data to be supplied by the board instead of the P/VP)
- Appropriate sharing of core school-based data with different board services/departments to
avoid duplication of requests
- Cen rali e hiring prac ices Reg in order o alle ia e or red ce principals par icipa ion in
the preliminary steps (leaving interviews in the hands of P/VPs)
Part 3 - Ministry of Education in Consultation with Boards and P/VP Associations
Develop a framework that gives boards some flexibility to develop models based on local needs to select
Ministry programs/initiatives and target resources to realize efficiencies including:
Page 8 of 9
- Create a task force to address the shortage of teachers, occasional teachers, teacher assistants
and board specialists (specifically mental health) including the administrative tasks of recording
absences and securing supply teachers and education assistants.
- Allow choice or discretion in relation to Ministry initiatives that are prioritized based on the
individual school needs --- school based data as well as principal and superintendent input
would determine participation in Ministry initiatives (for example, if a school has excellent
results in math but not in literacy, then the school should be able to focus on improving literacy
and not be forced to take part in a math initiative).
We want to work with the Ministry and Boards to ensure that principals and vice-principals are
maximizing their time as the lead learners in their buildings both in support of school staff and toward
the mutually desired goal of improved student learning and outcomes. We believe that these practical
suggestions will move us in this direction.
Page 9 of 9
Grants for Student Need 2019/2020 Consultation Submission
Submission on behalf of the Ontario Student Trustees Association
Introduction
The Ontario Student Trustees Association- l Association des élè es conseillers et conseillères de l Ontario
officially branded as OSTA-AECO, is an acti e partner in Ontario s education s stem and the largest student
stakeholder group in Ontario, representing over 2.2 million students. Our General Assembly is comprised of
student trustees from public and Catholic school boards across Ontario. Members of the association work
tirelessly throughout the year to advocate for student's voice and strive to work with our partners in government
and other ise to impro e Ontario s education s stem for our students More information about our ork can be
found at www.osta-aeco.org.
While the provincial government is looking for efficiencies throughout our province, we urge them to fully
understand the magnitude of the decisions they make. Students are the heart of our education system; while
stri ing to ensure that all of Ontario s outh achie e at the highest le el possible e must provide them with
comprehensive curricula and supports, and understand the variety of learners throughout our province. This is
possible through an equitable funding model.
Currentl there are parts of the Grants for Students Needs GSN s hich alread follo the efficient price setting
concept. Efficient Price setting suggests that correct statistical data is used to provide funding.
OSTA-AECO recommends that;
The provincial government ensures that all benchmarks:

i.Reflect the current costs of operations which have risen over the past couple of years;
ii.Are reflective of the needs that school boards possess;
iii.Are up to date with current and relevant statistical data which should be updated on a
regular basis;
iv.Ensure that there is flexibility to consider certain factors such as the increased costs for
rural/remote boards and special student demographics;
v.Are transparent and understood by school boards;
The government should act on these recommendations by updating the current benchmarks for
capital repairs. Currently, the benchmarks for maintenance spending is set at a level similar to the
amount provided in 1997 and have seen minor adjustments for inflation.1 Additionally, these
benchmarks are based on two (2) boards which were the median of the per square foot maintenance
spending incurred by the one-hundred twenty-two (122) school boards in existence before the
funding formula was introduced. Updating these benchmarks will allow for modernized maintenance
funding that reflects the needs of toda s school boards
OSTA-AECO, Executive Council

t: 905-351-1398 e: amal.qayum@osta-aeco.org
www.osta-aeco.org
Outcome Based Funding
In 2006, OSTA-AECO published a report titled Loss of Learning Ed cation s E al ation 2 which encompassed a
variety of educational aspects. Specifically, the association put forward 8 recommendations for the province to
ensure that students are being taught 21st-century skills and are not subjected to evaluation oriented solely
around standardized testing.
Education is not based solely on standardized testing and graduation rates. More information can be
found at https://www.osta-aeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/education_vs_evaluation.pdf
School boards be given flexibility with the fiscal discretion they need to craft and fund innovative
solutions that will meet individual board outcome requirements as well as provincial outcome goals.
An outcome-based model would work well for the Language Grant.3 Specifically, the allocations
regarding the English as a second language/English literacy development (ESL/ELD) and the
Actualisation Linguistique en français allocation. To ensure that these allocations are outcome-based,
funding should be provided based on the average number of pupils who are not meeting the
expectations of proficiency standards rather than the number of years a student has been living in
Canada for.
An outcome-based model would also work well for the Learning Opportunities Grant (LOG).4 This
could be achieved by returning the LOG to being entirely funded on demographic factors and moving
the Student Achievement Envelope to another grant, like the Pupil Foundation Grant. Since its
inception in 1998, the purpose of the LOG has been to enhance student achievement for at-risk
students. However, through the addition of the Student Achievement envelopes which are not tied
to demographics in an a the core purpose of the LOG s has been significantl diluted Through
this reform, the entirety of the resources provided by the LOG will be focused on demographic
factors which will allow for improvements in student achievement for at-risk students, ultimately
fulfilling the core outcome sought by the LOG.
When considering alue for mone in the conte t of Ontario s education s stem it needs to be rooted in the fact
that public education is an invaluable entity. Our education system
does essential work lifting individuals, communities, and our province as a whole. As the government continues to
look for efficiencies throughout our province, we urge them to
recognize the magnitude of our education system which sets up our youth as successful future citizens who will
one da form the foundation Ontario s econom

www.osta-aeco.org
A. The Ministry of Education conducts a fully independent, objective, and external review of the
entirety of the educational funding formula. Through this undertaking, the ministry will get an
unfiltered look at the fiscal state of Ontario s education s stem pro iding a factual basis for future
reforms. An excellent model for a review is the 2002 Rozanski Report5, which through its
independent model shed critical light on the physical state of Ontario's schools.
B. Additionally, the Ontario Government should maintain and expand a form of local priorities funding
for Ontario s school boards as it ill pro ide boards ith the autonom and resources the need to
create new solutions. These specialized, creative, and innovative solutions will rectify some long-
standing issues in our education system, thus providing maximum value for money to the provincial
government and the diverse needs of students.
The students of Ontario are extremely diverse, requiring distinctive supports based on differing experiences to
achieve their full potential. Taking this into consideration, Ontario must have a funding formula which provides
students and all school with the basic needs and supports while also providing crucial funding for our exceptional
learners and at-risk students.
A. The government continue to consult with stakeholders and ensure that student voice is at the core
of future reforms within the education system;
B. The government keep the following considerations in mind to any and all alterations to the GSNs;
i. Student well-being;
ii. Equity for all students;
iii. Transferable skills development;
iv. Rural/remote/northern education realities;
v. Funding adequacy throughout the province;
For any questions or comments, please contact amal.qayum@osta-aeco.org

www.osta-aeco.org
Endnotes
1
Fix our Schools, Ontario s Deteriorating Schools: http://fixourschools.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/11/Hugh_MacKenzie_Report_Ontarios_deteriorating_schools.pdf
2
OSTA-AECO Loss of Learning; Education vs Evaluation 2006: https://www.osta-aeco.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/12/education_vs_evaluation.pdf
3
Education Funding 2018/2019 Technical Papers: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/1819/TechnicalPaper2018-19.pdf
4
People for Education, Learning Opportunities Grant, 2017 Report: https://peopleforeducation.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/P4E-The-Learning-Opportunities-Grant-2017.pdf
5
Report of the Education Quality Task Force, 2002. Investing in Public Education: Advancing the Goal of Continuous
Improvement in Student Learning and Achievement: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/task02/complete.pdf

www.osta-aeco.org

FIX OUR SCHOOLS CAMPAIGN:

Founded in Spring 2014, we continue to be a non-partisan, parent-led, Ontario-wide campaign
focused on ensuring that:

Every publicly funded school in Ontario is a safe, well-maintained, healthy building that
provides an environment conducive to learning and working
The $15.9-billion of disrepair across all 72 Ontario school boards is eliminated, which
depends upon adequate and stable provincial funding
Publicly funded schools are funded as critical public infrastructure

We are optimistic that your provincial government will be the government that finally fixes
Ontario’s publicly funded schools, given your government’s commitment to:

1) Govern for the people. What act could be more “for the people” than to ensure that the 2-
million children in this province who spend their days in publicly funded schools learn in safe,
healthy, well-maintained buildings?

2) Reduce government waste. What is more wasteful than waiting for critical public
infrastructure, such as publicly funded school buildings, to fall apart before fixing it? Reactive
maintenance can cost up to three times more than proactive maintenance. Sadly, the vast
majority of repairs to Ontario’s publicly funded schools are currently done reactively so we
know that your government would agree this is an atrocious waste.

3) Restore accountability and trust to government. For twenty years, four successive provincial
governments grossly and chronically underfunded school repairs, often providing only one-
tenth of what industry standards suggest was the absolute minimum required by school boards
to keep Ontario’s publicly funded schools safe and well-maintained. And yet, those
same provincial governments failed to take accountability for the resulting disrepair, instead
blaming school boards. Accountability and trust in government could be restored in Ontario
through bold leadership that takes responsibility for these important public assets and ensures
that all Ontario’s publicly funded schools are safe, healthy, well-maintained buildings.

With this optimism in mind, we are pleased to provide the following input to the Ministry of
Education as part of its 2019-20 Education Funding consultation process. Please note that given
the focus of our campaign, our input will be exclusively focused on education funding for
schools as infrastructure.

1

We recognize the Ministry of Education as the system funder and steward. Therefore, before
focusing on setting efficient prices, we urge your government to adopt the following
interrelated and interdependent principles that, according to the 2002 Rozanski Report,
(commissioned by PC Education Minister, Elizabeth Wittmer) must guide all funding for publicly
funded schools and education in Ontario:

“Adequacy. The goals of high program quality, high levels of student achievement, and
continuous improvement in both will not be met, without a concomitantly high level of public
investment. While financial support is not the only kind of support needed, it is important that it
be adequate to the objectives school boards, teachers, and students are being asked to achieve.

Affordability. I tend to agree with those who say we cannot afford not to provide adequate
funding to meet our goals for public education. Our children deserve no less; our economic
future requires no less. But education is only one public priority, and taxpayers’ pockets are not
bottomless. The Province and the education community must engage in a continuous dialogue
and a continuous process of assessing need, determining the appropriate level of funding to
meet that need, then assessing results, including levels of student achievement, and reassessing
need and the appropriate level of funding.

Equity. Equity means fairness. All Ontario students deserve equitable access to education and to
the financial resources necessary for a high-quality education. Equity is not equality. Equality is
not always equitable. One size does not fit all.

Stability. To plan for continuous improvement, boards and schools need to be able to count on
a stable and predictable education funding system. When boards and schools are issued a new
or an expanded mandate, they need assurances that they will also be given time to build the
capacity to implement the change and resources that are adequate to meet the new demands.

Flexibility. Ontario is a vast and diverse province, and the needs of students in one board’s
jurisdiction are not necessarily the needs of those in another. The funding system should be
both flexible and adaptable to allow boards and schools a certain amount of discretion in
assessing local needs and spending part of their funding allocation to address those local needs.

Accountability. In the context of Ontario’s publicly-funded education system, reciprocal
accountability means that every demand by the public and the Province for improved
performance involves a responsibility to provide appropriate resources to meet the demand,
and that every investment accepted requires school boards, principals, teachers, and other staff
to demonstrate accountability for using those resources efficiently and effectively for the
purpose intended.”
On the topic of efficient price-setting, we would urge your government to implement a new
approach to school closures that is not focused on utilization rates but, instead, determines the
importance of a school to its surrounding community and considers the implications for student
access to programs and commute times. If a school is open, then its capital costs and
operational maintenance costs must be fully funded by the provincial government, regardless
of the utilization of that school. Additionally, the condition of a school relative to other schools
nearby must be a consideration in any acceptable new approach to school closures. To ensure
efficient use of renewal funding by school boards, school boards ought to be incented to keep a
school in a relatively good state of repair open instead of a nearby one in a relatively poor state
of repair.

3

We applaud a move to outcomes-based funding relative to ensuring all publicly funded schools
in Ontario are safe, healthy, well-maintained buildings and that the $15.9-billion of disrepair
that has been allowed to accumulate in schools is quickly eliminated. We urge your government
to take the following steps to ensure that the taxpayer dollars invested in our publicly funded
schools are used efficiently and achieve the desired outcomes:

Develop a standard of good repair for all of Ontario’s publicly funded schools. Without a
defined and commonly understood metric for what school conditions are acceptable in Ontario,
there is no reasonable way to assess the outcomes of provincial funding for school
infrastructure. Therefore, the starting point for your government must be to develop a standard
of good repair for all Ontario’s publicly funded schools. This standard must take into
consideration not only Facilities Condition Index (FCI) data but also issues such as:
o Water quality
o Air quality
o Vermin
o Mold
o Asbestos
o Fire and electrical code
o Temperatures of classrooms
Furthermore, these standards must be applied not only to permanent school buildings but also
to portables, which often end up being on a school site for over a decade, instead of as a
temporary measure, as originally intended.

Release annual updates on school disrepair data. In 2016, the provincial government began
releasing disrepair data on a school-by-school basis for the general public to see. In November
2017, the provincial government updated that disrepair data. In order to measure the outcome
of provincial funding for school infrastructure, your government must continue to collect and
publicly release disrepair data for every publicly funded school in Ontario. Furthermore, we urge
your government to:
Release disrepair data by school board and by riding
Begin collecting and releasing disrepair data for all portables on school sites.

Commit the funding required to eliminate the $15.9-billion of disrepair in Ontario’s publicly
funded schools. Economist Hugh Mackenzie’s report, entitled: “Ontario’s deteriorating schools:
The fix is not in” confirms that despite the significant increase in provincial funding for school
renewal since 2015, $1.4 billion/year is simply not enough to make up for the 20 years when
provincial funding was a mere fraction of what it ought to have been – not only for renewal but
for school capital projects and operational maintenance in schools. In fact, the report highlights
that even with current increased provincial funding levels for school renewal, the repair
4

backlog will continue to increase. Clearly, this outcome is not desired and we would expect
your government to take the following bold funding steps to truly fix Ontario’s schools and
achieve the outcomes deserved by the 2-million students who spend their days in school
buildings:
a. Keep special School Condition Improvement (SCI) funding at $1 billion per year until
the repair backlog is gone.
b. Increase annual School Renewal Allocation (SRA) funding from the current $357 million
per year to $1.7 billion per year, and maintain that funding at 3% of the replacement
value of Ontario’s schools to conform to the generally accepted level of renewal funding
required to keep schools in a state of good repair.
c. Create a new and separate capital stream of funding to replace the 346 school
buildings across the province determined to be too expensive to repair as of the most
recent provincial review cycle; an estimated $3.9 billion one-time capital injection
amortized over 40 years would result in a new budgetary expense of $100 million per
year.
d. Increase the current operational maintenance budget by $165 million per year (an
8.7% increase from current levels, based on industry averages) and ensure that the
formula used to determine this annual figure explicitly recognizes the underlying drivers
of differences in operating costs for schools in the province including: labour costs in the
community, heating costs and climate, age & design of school buildings.

Therefore, to eliminate the $15.9-billion of disrepair in Ontario’s publicly funded schools, which
surely must be desired outcome, your government must maintain the existing special SCI
funding at $1-billion/year until the repair backlog is eliminated; and also maintain existing
funding for renewal, amortized costs of building new schools, and operational maintenance
costs.

As well, your government must commit to the following new annual funding:

+ an additional $1.3 billion/year in renewal funding
+ an additional $100 million/year to cover amortized cost of rebuilding 346 schools
+ an additional $165 million/year for operational maintenance in schools
= AN ADDITIONAL $1.6 BILLION OF ANNUAL FUNDING until the $15.9 repair backlog is
eliminated and the $1 billion of SCI funding can be redirected

The $15.9-billion of disrepair that plagues Ontario’s publicly funded schools has accumulated
over twenty years so is not realistically going to be solved overnight. However, we look to your
provincial government to take the bold steps to invest in our publicly funded schools as critical
infrastructure and, in so doing, make a critical investment in our youth. We cannot lose another
generation of students learning in abysmal learning conditions.
5


Reactive repairs waste taxpayer money. As true conservatives, we know that you will
understand how much waste occurs when repairs and maintenance of publicly funded assets
are done reactively – instead of proactively. Every homeowner knows that if you wait to replace
your roof until the roof is actually leaking, the roof job is a much more expensive undertaking
than to have simply replaced your roof proactively. Complications such as water damage,
rodents and mold can significantly add to the overall expense. Sadly, because of the chronic and
gross underfunding of school repairs for two decades, school boards are in a position that the
majority of repairs are done reactively. We know that your government will recognize the waste
in that approach and we urge you to please take the bold steps needed (as outlined in the
above section entitled, “Outcomes Based Funding”) to significantly increase funding by $1.6-
billion/year – on top of the current funding - to eliminate the $15.9-billion of accumulated
disrepair in Ontario’s publicly funded schools as quickly as possible.

With power comes responsibility and accountability. In 1998, Mike Harris’ PC government
amalgamated school boards and implemented a new funding formula, with school boards
relying exclusively on the provincial government for funding. In 2002, the Rozanski report,
commissioned by the PC government, identified that $5.6-billion of disrepair had accumulated
in Ontario’s publicly funded schools since the provincial government took over education
funding. Furthermore, the Rozanski report identified that the yearly funding provided by the
provincial government to school boards for school renewal was less than 1% of the value of the
current replacement value of schools, even though established guidelines recommended that
governments provide a minimum of 1.5% - 4% of the current facility replacement value of a
building for renewal needs each year. The Liberal governments that held power for the 15 years
after the Rozanski report allowed the $5.6-billion of disrepair in Ontario’s publicly funded
schools to triple to $15.9-billion.

Despite the reality that provincial funding to school boards for school repairs and maintenance
has been chronically and grossly inadequate and unstable, these same provincial governments
failed to take accountability for the resulting disrepair, instead blaming school boards. We urge
your government to take accountability and responsibility for these important public assets
called schools and to allocate the additional $1.6-billion/year needed – on top of the current
funding – to ensure that every one of Ontario’s publicly funded schools is a safe, healthy, well-
maintained building.

6

We appreciate that your government wants to continually evaluate opportunities to streamline
and become more efficient and more effective. With this in mind, we urge your government to:

Update the provincial regulation that guides the collection and use of Education Development
Charges (EDCs). This provincial regulation is outdated and we urge you to update it such that
developers contribute to the local publicly funded school infrastructure from which they
ultimately profit. We look forward to a time when developers, who clearly profit from choosing
to build in communities with “good local publicly funded schools” and “good transit”, are
contributing to the public school infrastructure from which they profit.

Continue to pursue the use of schools as community hubs. While complex and involving
multiple levels of government and multiple stakeholders, we would make the following
recommendations:

1. Allocate the renewal and operational maintenance costs in proportion to usage by the
school boards, municipalities, various provincial ministries, and various federal ministries
that use a given school asset and its surrounding green space as a Community Hub.

2. Design and build new schools with the foresight and intention to use these public assets as
Community Hubs in the future, weighing the costs and benefits of building for Community
Hub use vs. retrofitting later.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to education funding for the 2019/20 school
year. We hope to also have the opportunity to present to the Committee on January 15, 2019,
after having submitted a request to this effect. We also very much look forward to our meeting
with Education Minister Thompson on January 7, 2019.

Kind regards,
Krista Wylie, Co-founder of Fix Our Schools Campaign
416-525-1540
info@fixourschools.ca

7
Campaign for Public Education since 2002
We INSIST on needs-based funding for Ontario’s publicly-funded schools, daycares and adult education.
Dear Deputy Minister Naylor,
First and foremost it is important that GSNs prioritize a school system

that is publicly-funded based on student need.
An outcomes-based model of funding must be tied to a Students’ Bill

of Rights rather than a Parents’ Bill of Rights.
Extensive research on North America’s public education

experience and particularly the 170 years of public education delivery in Ontario demonstrates
clearly that the search for “efficiencies” will be futile, without putting students first.
The services public education currently provides our students, community members, adults and
new Canadians are programs and services that will be improved by:
giving students what they actually need to succeed

eliminating the Ontario-wide $15.9 billion school repair backlog and
ensuring better staffing levels for all program delivery.
Key items of concern to our community-based policy

organization are:
1. The important role played by Educational Assistants, and how better staffing levels
would improve student outcomes and the overall classroom environment
2. The dangers of contracting out school board work to private companies and reducing
the continuity, consistency and safety that children need.
3. How school custodians play an important role in student safety
4. The importance of school libraries in providing students with the skills they need to
succeed, and the key role played in developing literacy and research skills; fostering a
love of reading
5. How consistent adult presence by staff keep schools running smoothly and
are the frontline of school security.
6. The problems associated with deferred maintenance and the underfunding of
school renewal and repair
7. The importance of social workers, speech and language therapists, child and youth
workers remaining in our schools."
Funding through the GSNs must be based upon these priorities.
Sincerely, Stephen Seaborn, spokesperson

December 13, 2018

Hon. Lisa Thompson
Mowat Block 22nd Flr,
900 Bay St, Toronto, ON
M7A 1L2
minister.edu@ontario.ca

c/o Andrew Davis, ADM Education Labour and Finance Division, EDULABFINANCE@ontario.ca
Re: Education Funding for 2019-20 School Year
Dear Minister Thompson,
French Second Language programs are a growing, in-demand area of K-12 education with evidence-
based cognitive, employment and global economic benefits to the individual learner and to Ontario as a
dynamic participant in the Canadian and world economy.
As such, Canadian Parents for French (Ontario) cannot recommend any cuts at this time that would
negatively impact this positive trajectory which enhances opportunities for our future Ontario workforce
and provides Ontario private and public sector employers with the English/French bilingual candidates
they need.
We ask that the government not consider or make cuts that will impact the quality of education we are
providing to our children in classrooms across the province or reduce access to and quality of our French
Second Language programs.
The current funding approach, put in place in 1977 by then Minister Thomas Wells, has served us
relatively well in supporting a gradual and manageable growth in student participation in immersion and
extended French and in supporting retention to grade 12 in core French.
We hope to have the opportunity to meet with you in person to share the parent experience with
French Second Language programs and to discuss opportunities for investment in the future of our
children as bilingual Canadians.
Submitted by

Denise Massie, President
Canadian Parents for French (Ontario)
December 13, 2018
Community Schools Alliance-CSA

Doug Reycraft, Chair
reycraft@sympatico.ca
RE: CSA comments on the Education Funding Guide
On behalf of Chair Doug Reycraft the CSA is pleased to be able to comment on the Funding
Guide for Ontario.
Our Mission
The Community Schools Alliance is a non-profit organization committed to working with the
Ontario Ministry of Education, municipalities and school boards to achieve a collaborative process
that results in democratically determined decisions regarding education infrastructure. Such
decisions should be based on principles that consider the broad impact, including but not limited
to both social and fiscal effects, of any changes to the infrastructure on students and their
community
Our Goals
a. Students should have the opportunity to attend elementary and secondary school in their
home community.
b. School boards, including co-terminus boards, and municipalities should work together to
build creative partnerships that allow community resources and services to be delivered in
conjunction with education so that schools evolve into community hubs.
c. When surplus space develops in a school due to enrolment decline, the school board and the
municipality should work together to identify community uses for the space before
considering closure of the school.
d. The input of students, parents and the community to the student accommodation review
process used by school boards should be respected and valued.
Based on our goals we are not able to comment on the 9 questions asked in the funding document.
However, as our goals state, we hope to have a province where small, rural and northern children
have the opportunity to attend school in their home community. As such, we are particularly
pleased with the Rural and Northern Education Fund provided by the last government to help
make this a reality.
The CSA hopes that the Rural and Northern Education Fund will continue thus helping to keep
small town Ontario schools open and eliminating the need to bus children to distant more urban
communities.
Ontario is a province of small,

mainly rural towns. The CSA hope keep our schools open thus strengthing the fabric of the
province.
Hopefully we can meet soon to discuss these goals further.
Kindest regards
OSBA SUBMISSION – Education Funding Reform
December 14, 2018
The Ontario School Bus Association (OSBA) appreciates the government’s support of the Ontario student
transportation industry and our continued work together to ensure that student transportation remains
sustainable for the future. Student transportation is crucial to Ontario families and the entire education
system, particularly in rural Ontario and for students with special needs. OSBA believes there are
efficiencies to be found in the current student transportation system. We want to work closely with the
Ontario government to make the system more transparent, accountable and efficient to the taxpayer.
Every school day in Ontario, over 830,000 children are safely and reliably transported to and from school
in approximately 20,000 school buses and school purpose vehicles. Collectively, this means more than
two million kilometres driven every school day and 300 million safe rides each school year. Ontario’s
student transportation industry safely transports more than 42.5% of the two million elementary and
secondary school students enrolled in Ontario’s schools. School buses are the safest form of
transporting students to/from school. Transport Canada continues to state that children are over 16
times safer riding on a school bus to or from school when compared to other means of transport.
OSBA believes there are three main areas that the government should examine in its “Education
Funding Reform” review: 1) funding sustainability 2) procurement and 3) changes to governance and
administration of the student transportation sector.
Funding sustainability is a critical issue to ensure the student transportation system can function safely
and on-time. The recent minimum wage increase had a negative impact on driver recruitment and
retention in the province. Operators struggle to attract new drivers without a competitive wage in
relation to public transit driver wages and other industries/sectors. While OSBA is pleased that the
government continued the Driver Retention Program (DRP), this is a short-term solution which is
challenging to administer and fails to address long-term issues associated with attracting and keeping
qualified and professionally trained school bus drivers who are critical to Ontario’s student
transportation system. Driver wage projections must be included as part of the overall student
transportation funding formula.
School bus fleet operation costs are also escalating exponentially with rising labour, maintenance, fuel
and vehicle costs making it more expensive to operate with each succeeding year. Recent reductions to
gasoline taxes have provided relief to bus operators’ budgets, but many costs can be difficult to predict
because they are subject to currency fluctuation. In a competitive marketplace, operators are locked
into long-term contracts with transportation consortia. It is very difficult for operators to make ends
meet when costs are rising and contract rates remain the same year over year. OSBA recommends the
government allow for some flexibility within the GSN funding formula to respond to sudden changes,
allow for variability in routes across the province (particularly urban and rural differences) and account
for additional costs associated with transportation of special needs students. OSBA also believes that
efficiencies can be found by standardizing student transportation requirements across the province
including defined service levels, integrated routes and bell times, and provincially designated PD Days to
improve the co-ordination of transportation planning between school boards.
Page 1 of 3
Ontario School Bus Association (OSBA)

3075 Lenworth Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L4X 2G3
Tel. 416.695.9965 | Fax 416.695.9977 | info@osba.on.ca | www.osba.on.ca
December 14, 2018
OSBA also recommends the government complete a procurement process review for student
transportation. We believe the procurement system can be improved to ensure sustainability for
operators while also improving efficiency in the system. OSBA believes transportation contracts should
provide annual cost of living adjustments based on appropriate benchmarks for new and existing
contracts, not permitted in the current system. The government could also improve efficiency by
standardizing specific RFP components across the province, including its evaluation methodologies. We
also recommend the government implement all recommendations in the Student Transportation
Competitive Procurement Review Report (Colin Campbell), previously commissioned by the Ministry of
Education, to improve competitive procurement practices for student transportation. The government
should convene an industry committee on student transportation to assist with a procurement best
practices evaluation and ensure that varying procurement processes across the province are aligned
(e.g. negotiating contracts vs RFP vs contract extensions, etc.)
Finally, to improve student transportation system efficiency in Ontario and find new cost savings, the
government must closely examine existing student transportation governance and administrative
systems within transportation consortia. OSBA believes there is limited transparency of consortia
accountability and expenditures. Formerly, consortia were required to post their expenditures publicly,
however this transparency was removed. OSBA believes the current consortia system can be improved
in several ways. First, the government should work collaboratively with school bus operators and school
boards to assess potential administrative changes and improve consortia operational efficiency.
Secondly, the Ministry of Education should strengthen its oversight mechanisms to improve consortia
and school board accountability and procurement compliance. This should ensure appropriate flow-
through of transportation funding to operators. Lastly, OSBA recommends the government establish an
arbitration panel to resolve issues quickly between consortia, school boards and student transportation
service providers for routing, standards, procurement and other issues.
OSBA has several ideas to improve cost savings for student transportation service delivery across the
province while increasing government revenue. The Ministry of Education should allow for pay-per-use
bussing. This would permit families who live in areas not eligible for bussing, to pay for access to
bussing. Currently, many parents choose to drive their children to school. Pay-per-use bussing would
eliminate traffic congestion around school areas, increase government revenues and help meet climate
change targets. The Ministry should also consider staggered bell times, which would improve route
planning and efficiency for operators and school boards allowing one driver to accommodate more
routes. This was recently implemented successfully in Durham Region and resulted in $2 million in
savings between the public and catholic school boards.
Challenges aside, OSBA looks forward to working in partnership with the Ontario government to
improve the student transportation sector’s sustainability. We urge this government to work with us to
address bus driver retention, funding sustainability, procurement and administrative oversight issues.
OSBA believes there are changes to be made to improve efficiency, accountability and transparency for
the student transportation system. These changes will improve its functionality and result in cost
savings. By working together, we can ensure every student will arrive to school safely, on-time and
ready to learn thereby improving Ontario’s education system as a whole.
Page 2 of 3

December 14, 2018
Topic Main Issues Recommendation

Include driver wage projections as part of the student
Driver Retention
transportation funding formula
Ensure funding formula flexibility at the local level:

a) to adjust for cost changes via a costing model
Costs b) deal with variable costs in rural and urban areas
1.
c) account for U.S. currency fluctuation (vehicles and parts)
Funding
Sustainability Assess increased public needs and costs of special needs
Special Needs student transportation as part of the student transportation
funding formula
Ensure efficiencies through standardized requirements, service

Standardization
levels, routing, PD Days, etc. across the province
Provide annual cost of living adjustments based on appropriate

Contracts
benchmarks for both existing and new contracts
2. Ensure efficiency through provincial standardization of specific

Procurement RFPs RFP document components, evaluation methodologies, etc.;
Update implement full Campbell report
Organize an industry committee as government’s advisor on

Collaboration
student transportation, including procurement best practices
Consortia funding and cost data to be transparent and publicly

Transparency
accessible
3. Work with operators and school boards to assess administrative

Efficiency
Administration changes and efficiencies of consortia operations
& Consortia
Changes Ensure accountability measures for school board and consortia
Accountability funding flow-through and procurement compliance (e.g. Ministry
oversight)
Establish an arbitration panel as a resource to resolve issues
Arbitration
quickly
CONTACT:
Michele O’Bright, C.A.E.
Association Director
mobright@osba.on.ca | 416.695.9965 Ext. 3
Page 3 of 3

Conclusion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ontario Association for Families of Children with Communication Disorders (OAFCCD)
Charitable Registration BN# 88877 0146 RR0001
Ontario Association for Families of Children with Communication Disorders (OAFCCD)
Charitable Registration BN# 88877 0146 RR0001
2019/20 EDUCATION FUNDING:
Protecting Ontario’s School Libraries and Taxpayer Dollars
Executive Summary
For generations, school libraries have been at the core of Ontario's
schools, with a proven impact on student achievement and
standardized test scores.i
However, over the past 20 years, students all across Ontario have
been steadily losing access to school libraries and library-based
Rose, Grade 12
resources.ii School boards are not required to spend funds allocated
Markham
by the Ministry of Education for school libraries and teacher-librarians
York Catholic District School
on these critical learning resources.
Board
The Ministry of Education recognizes the vital importance of school
Rose is involved in an online libraries and teacher-librarians to student success, and has a well-
research co-op course, working established per-student funding formula that determines the
on a research project in amount of money that is to be invested in this important priority.
molecular biology and virology, Because school boards are not required to spend the funds as
with online mentorship from a intended by the ministry formula, some boards have made board-wide
university professor. decisions to use funds meant for school libraries on other priorities,
stop hiring teacher-librarians or close their school libraries altogether.
Rose’s favourite parts of the The resulting decline in funding for libraries and teacher-librarians is
school library are the having far-reaching impacts on student performance and outcomes,
technology and resources including math and science grades, EQAO test scores, literacy &
available to the student body. research skills, digital literacy, and post-secondary readiness. The
She uses the computers to results are dramatic: alongside the slow decline in board-level support
access the school library’s many for school libraries, the percentage of Ontario students who enjoy
online databases and reading has fallen from 76% in 1997 to only 47% in 2018.iii
scientific/academic journals. The Ministry of Education can restore transparency and reinforce the
critical role school libraries play in supporting Ontario’s student
Research skills are critically achievement – without any new spending – by mandating, rather
important for students finishing than recommending – that annual funds currently allocated for school
high school, whether they libraries and teacher-librarians are spent on these important priorities.
pursue college or university
education or go on to learn a
trade or technical skill. School
libraries with trained staff
provide a training ground for
1 researchers of tomorrow.
the
Background
A school library is more than just books. School libraries are
constantly evolving to offer programming that supports future-
oriented learning; science, technology, engineering and math
(STEM) skill, literacy, and research skills. Students with a well-
resourced and staffed school library have access to:
Elisabeth, Teacher-Librarian
Coding and robotics equipment and programming;
Richmond Hill
Quality, age- and curriculum- appropriate books and learning
resources; York Catholic District School
Board
Interactive programming and resources that complements the
curriculum; and The school library and teacher
librarians support teachers and
A dedicated space for independent and collaborative
students in everything that they
learning outside of the classroom.
do.
When it comes to student achievement, Wikipedia and Google alone
Elisabeth, the teacher-librarian at
are not a substitute for a properly-resourced and staffed school
Father Frederick McGinn Catholic
library. A teacher-librarian is an Ontario Certified Teacher, who
and Notre Dame Elementary
independently completes additional qualifications in librarianship.
Schools is working closely with
Teacher-librarians ensure that students have access to the tools to
classroom teachers to increase
build the skills they need to be successful in their future - whether
the impact of new technologies
pursuing college or university education or learning a trade or
on learning in the classroom.
technical skill. They also help all teachers in the school by developing
effective, in-depth learning strategies and programming to help Elisabeth has been a true
deliver on student performance and curriculum objectives. technology mentor in the school,
organizing lunch and learn
Teacher-librarians wear many hats:
sessions for classroom teachers
Supporting students to become independent learners, with to introduce new technologies
instruction on accessing a wide-range of learning resources; that can be incorporated in the
Co-planning, co-teaching, and co-assessing with teacher classroom.
partners, from full-day kindergarten to Grade 12; She is also co-teaching classes,
Supporting the implementation of new curriculum and for instance, supporting this class
teaching strategies across the school; and with hands-on-learning related
to their electricity unit. For their
Acting as a mentor and coach for staff and students alike to
final lesson, the class wired small
integrate technology in teaching and learning.
robots and offset them to create
these “scribble bots” (pictured
above).
Hands-on-learning helps not only
to get students excited and
engaged in what they are
learning, but also reinforces the
curriculum and enhances
learning.
2
How are School Libraries Funded?
Funding for School Libraries comes from the Ministry of
Education’s Pupil Foundation Grant. The Ministry has an
Only 52% of established funding formula that recommends a ratio of 1
elementary schools elementary teacher-librarian per 763 elementary pupils, and 1
have a teacher- teacher-librarian per 909 secondary pupils.
Funding for teacher-librarians is based strictly on the number of
librarian – either full- students enrolled in the school, and the ratio currently used by
or part-time – down the Ministry is designed to be consistent with the concept of
efficient price. In fact, Ontario's funding formula is already very
from 80% only 20
cost-effective, well above the ratio of one teacher-librarian to
years ago. 567 students recommended by the Canadian School Library
Association.iv
However, because the funding received from the Ministry is not
currently prescribed ("sweatered"), many school boards are not
allocating the funding to teacher-librarians and school libraries
as set out in the Ministry's funding formula.v
3
A Growing Crisis in School Libraries
Because of insufficient transparency and accountability for money Some school boards,
allocated by the Ministry of Education for school libraries and
teacher-librarians, students across Ontario are losing access to like Ottawa Catholic
libraries and library-based resources, especially in rural schools. District School Board
For example, in 2017 only 52% of elementary schools had a teacher- and Near North District
librarian – either full- or part-time – down from 80% only 20 years
ago. The situation in Northern Ontario is especially dire: only 11% School Board, no
of elementary schools have these specialized staff.vi longer hire teacher-
Because resource allocation is determined at the board-level, some librarians at their
boards have made board-wide decisions to go so far as to no longer
hire Teacher-Librarians in their elementary schools, in direct elementary schools.
contradiction of Ministry of Education recommendations, and
despite protests by students and parents alike.
The result: students – even students within the same community – have access to radically different
supports:
Schools with a School Library and Schools without a School Library or

Teacher-Librarian Teacher-Librarians
E.g. Greater Essex County District School Board E.g. Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board
ü 24/7 access to age- and curriculum- û No expert oversight over school’s books
appropriate books and learning resources; and learning resources purchasing,
leading to inappropriate and out of date
ü Safe and supervised access to and
resources for students and teachers;
instruction on technology, online tools and
digital spaces; û Less access to e-resources
ü Integrated, school-wide approach to û Limited training on research skills;
digital mentorship, supporting students in
û Piecemeal access to technology, with no
each and every classroom;
supervision or instruction on the use of
ü Access to up-to-date resources for College, digital spaces; and
University, and career readiness;
û No dedicated space for learning outside
ü A flexible, on-demand space for learning the classroom.
outside of the classroom, including
individual study areas, collaborative
workspaces or performance spaces; and
ü A supportive, school-wide culture of
independent learning.
4
Transparency & Accountability
School libraries are a recognized priority, described by the Ministry of
“We found that school Education as “…key elements of a classroom education that are
required by, and generally common to, all students.” (Pg. 23,
boards’ reporting as
Ministry of Education Funding Technical Paper 2017-2018). vii Tried,
required under transfer tested and proven over generations, school libraries are core to the
payment agreements was school and student success.
often incomplete…” As noted in the 2017 Auditor General’s annual report, school boards
are frequently failing to report to the Ministry of Education how funds
allocated to school libraries are being spent.viii The ongoing cuts to
“…all three [school] teacher-librarians show that across the province, this funding is not
being spent where it should be and where the Ministry has intended.
boards we tested for
We estimate that as much as half of funds - up to $100 million
compliance with transfer annually - earmarked by the Ministry of Education for teacher-
payments for the Library librarians are being otherwise allocated by school boards.
Staff program had failed Because of the lack of transparency, this core resource of the school is
to report in their annual already under significant threat - and far worse in many parts of the
province, particularly rural and northern schools. The result is a
reports, as required, the
patchwork of investment approaches by school boards across Ontario,
number of staff hired.” with students in some schools increasingly falling behind their peers in
other school boards with robust school library programs.
It is important to get back to basics, and ensure that the allocated funds
"Further, in all cases are delivered to support the critical role school libraries play in
where the school board supporting Ontario’s student achievement.
failed to provide the full Accountability does not mean that "one size fits all." Local needs and
required reporting, the conditions vary widely across Ontario. It is important that local school
boards received funding boards and teacher-librarians continue to have flexibility in how they
adapt their school library programming and make the needed
in the following year for investments. It is essential, however, that boards are mandated to
the same program." spend annual funding allocated by the Ministry of Education for school
libraries and teacher-librarians on its intended purposed and in a way
(Auditor General of
that is transparent, effective and accountable.
Ontario, 2017 Annual
Report, p. 463)
5
Value for Money
It’s a fact, not a theory: access to libraries and teacher-librarians has
a demonstrable impact on the learning outcomes of students across
Ontario.
The library has always been the heart of the school, and teacher-
librarians are the only educator who maintains regular, curriculum-
focused contact with each and every student in the school. At the
elementary level, that’s over 750 students to each teacher-librarian.
In secondary schools, it’s over 900 students per teacher-librarian. Charlie, Grade 6
Teacher-librarians work closely with classroom teachers to ensure Oshawa
they have access to quality, curriculum- and student achievement- Durham District School Board
focused resources – in diverse formats to serve all learners. They
maintain a dedicated space for quiet work or group study, where At Village Union Public School,
students can find the expert advice they need from a qualified Charlie is part of the robotics
teacher-librarian to achieve excellence. and coding club run through the
It’s no wonder that school libraries have a multiplier effect on student school library by the teacher-
achievement, supporting support students in developing: librarian.
literacy skills and a love of reading; Learning to program robotics

math, science and technology skills; and code is more than just fun.
critical information capability; Coding helps students to apply
the math and writing skills they
research proficiency; are learning in the classroom in
and much more. a real-world context, and
robotics helps students to
develop the practical high-tech
skills of today's and tomorrow's
hands-on jobs.
Charlie and many students are

already very interested in
focusing on programming and
tech in high school and beyond!
6
Outcomes
The existing shortfall in funding for libraries and teacher-librarians is having far-reaching impacts on
student performance and outcomes, from early literacy to post-secondary readiness.
Access to a properly staffed school library, no matter where you live in the province, is a proven, essential
component of student success.
Student Achievement
Trained library staff and access to properly resourced school libraries foster students’ love of reading,
which research has shown has a positive impact on success in science and math, literacy scores, and
students’ social and civic engagement.ix
EQAO Scores
Schools with trained library staff see better outcomes on the Grade 3 and 6 EQAO assessments.x
Conversely, the steep decline in the percentage of Ontario children who
report that they enjoy reading – from 76% in 1997 to 47% in 2018 – College and university
closely aligns with the declining presence of teacher-librarians in librarians see the difference
Ontario schools over the same period.xi
College Readiness Catie Sahadath, an experienced
librarian from the University of
College and university librarians are increasingly reporting significant
Ottawa, sees firsthand the
differences in information literacy skills between students graduating
impact of teacher-librarians and
from secondary schools with resourced school libraries and teacher- school libraries on post-
librarians, and those without. School libraries have an important role
secondary preparedness.
to play in preparing students to succeed in post-secondary, with
teacher-librarians providing the first formal introduction students
Students who have had
receive to library databases, search skills, critical information
instruction from trained school
assessment.xii These are critical skills that students need to hit the library staff demonstrate a
ground running, regardless of whether they're attending university,
higher level of applied research
college or learning a trade.
skills, both online and
A study is now underway, led by Dr. Mary Cavanagh (University of traditional, “…representing an
Ottawa) and Dr. Diane Oberg (University of Alberta) - Canada's important advantage as
foremost researchers in the field - to measure the impact of school students enter post-secondary.”
libraries on post-secondary readiness in the Ontario context.
By contrast, many students who
Digital Resources
didn't have access to these
As leaders on digital content, teacher librarians and library staff critical learning resources face
promote digital literacy and digital citizenship by acting as an uphill climb: “We frequently
technology mentors and coaches for all staff and students. see intelligent students
Mandating the allocation of adequate funding for school libraries will struggle with these very basic
provide students across the province with the library resources they skills, and the time it takes
need to collectively achieve the outcomes expected from Ontario’s them to catch up can stop
significant investments in education and post-secondary education them from achieving their full
and performance. potential.”
7
OUR RECOMMENDATION
Require that funds currently allocated for school libraries and teacher-librarians
are used for their intended purpose.
The Ministry of Education can recognize the critical role school libraries play in supporting Ontario’s student
achievement by:
Mandating that the annual funds currently allocated by the Ministry of Education for school
libraries and teacher-librarians are spent on these priorities ("sweatering").
Enhancing transparency and requiring school boards to be accountable for using these
allocated funds for their intended purpose. This will ensure that millions in annual funding
committed by the province for school libraries across Ontario is applied, without committing
any new money.
Ensuring that all Ontario students – no matter where they live – will have access to the tools
and technology to build the skills they need to for future success.
We know that school libraries have a demonstrable impact on student achievement. The Ontario Library
Association (OLA), alongside the Association of Library Consultants and Coordinators of Ontario (TALCO),
the Ontario School Library Association (OSLA) and other school library and teacher-librarian partners, will
work with the Ministry of Education and school boards to set clear benchmarks and outcomes metrics.
These will assess performance and curriculum alignment, drive the uptake of best practices, and assess the
impact of school libraries on student achievement. Metrics will be informed by demonstrated best practices,
innovative use of technology, and evidence from across Canada, North America and the world, and will
minimize red tape so teacher-librarians can focus on enhancing student achievement rather than
administrative paperwork. We can build on what we know through an advisory group leveraging the
expertise of teacher-librarians, principals, school board representatives and parents.
i
People for Education & Queen’s University Faculty of Education. School Libraries and Student Achievement in
Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Library Association, 2006.
ii
People for Education. Libraries. Toronto: People for Education, 2017.
iii
Ministry of Children & Youth Services. Gearing Up: A Strategic Framework to Help Ontario Middle Years Children
Thrive. Toronto: Government of Ontario, 2017. & People for Education. Reading for Joy. Toronto: People for
Education, 2011.
iv
Canadian Association for School Libraries, Achieving Information Literacy – Standards for School Library Programs
in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Association for School Libraries, 2003.
v
vi
vii
Pg. 23, Ministry of Education. Education Funding Technical Paper 2017-2018. Government of Ontario, 2017.
viii
Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. Annual Report 2017. Toronto: Government of Ontario, 2017.
8
ix
People for Education, Reading for Joy, 2011. Toronto: People for Education, 2011.
x
People for Education & Queen’s University Faculty of Education. School Libraries and Student Achievement in
Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Library Association, 2006.
xi
Ministry of Children & Youth Services. Gearing Up: A Strategic Framework to Help Ontario Middle Years Children
Thrive. Toronto: Government of Ontario, 2017. & People for Education. Reading for Joy. Toronto: People for
Education, 2011.
xii
Foote, C. (2016). Building success beyond high school with career- and college-ready literacies. Knowledge Quest
44(5).
9
support staff can also keep school libraries alive and support
students for success. The kids who don't "fit" go there for support
academically and socially, closing these safe and engaging hubs is
letting students down. I follow the news and is sickens me when
boards close these services. The librarian was a key part of my
school experience and luckily my children have access to these
spaces in our school board. The Learning Resource Assistant in my
child's school is contently supporting students with amazing things
like coding and other education activities that interest them.
The violence in schools needs to stop, no matter what is "wrong"
with a kid. Adults and kids shouldn't go to school afraid and
putting up with this. I have seen pics of massive bruises, bites
through gloves hair pulled out of scalp by students. My daughter
doesn't even talk about it any more, kids aren't even shocked by
it. What the heck is wrong with this picture! Shame on education
and the liberal government for not doing something about this. My
daughter also can't focus because a girl thinks she is a cat and
crawls under desks all day long meowing like cat. Can't remove her
because she has rights? The test scores don't show teachers are
teaching, they show that education is a 3 ring circus of
violence/behaviour, noise distractions and under funding. The
solutions isn't private school, charter schools or at home education.
The right solution is fixing the PUBLIC school system and investing
in ALL the students in Ontario.
Bring back tech and arts programs as well for 7/8 students as
well. Some kids thrive in these classes and its the only time they
enjoyed school! When I was in grade 7&8 I hated school and
struggled. These classes were my saving grace and I honestly
learned so much in those classes and still use those skills today. My
most vivid memories of grades 7/8 were the cooking, sewing, shop,
wood working. I still have the toilet paper roll I made after 30
years, I sure as heck don't have any note books left!
Concerned parent,
To: Honourable Lisa Thompson, Minister of Education
From:
November 25, 2018
Feedback on Education Funding in Ontario
Dear Minister Thompson:
I will offer several comments on the engagement process. I have written quite extensively about a
number of aspects of the Ontario and Canadian school systems.
Accountability
I would urge the minister to maintain the census based accountability process that uses the
primary and junior assessment administered by the EQAO. This is a very low cost way of generating a
minimum level of accountability and consistency across a very large system. The cost per student is very
small and the benefits of the EQAO are large. It will be necessary to explain to people just how small
these costs are relative to the costs of the entire system. For example (these are not the current
numbers) - the cost per pupil-assessment might be $25 and the amount spent to educate a pulie might
be $6000. This is spending $25 to be sure that $6000 is well spent.
Class Size
There was in Ontario a decision to reduce elementary school class sizes. The evidence that a
reduction in class size from 24 to 22 has any significant impact on student outcomes is quite weak. It
was acknowledged at the time of this decision that this evidence was weak and yet the decision went
ahead. Having a conversation about the costs and benefits of increasing class sizes slightly would be a
useful way to reduce delivery costs. The other direction such a conversation could go is to take the
resources freed by increasing average class size and delivering more services to more disadvantaged
students. This is a value-for-money discussion that should take place. I suspect, but it is an evidence-
based discussion that needs to take place, that many smaller interventions dominate a general class-size
reduction.
Teacher salaries and compensation
I have written to compare teacher salaries in Ontario to teacher salaries in the rest of Canada.
To be specific, student results are as good as or better in Alberta and British Columbia where teacher
salaries are relatively lower than teacher salaries in Ontario. It seems possible to make the case in a
variety of ways that salaries for teachers are higher than necessary to attract the most qualified
candidates for this important job. Other provinces are making adjustments in the generosity of teacher
pension plans. This is a value-for-money discussion that should take place.
The use of externally graded high school completion examinations
There is some evidence that a medium stakes examination on exit from high school is a good
thing to introduce to educational system. Alberta is the province with the most prominent such system .
There is evidence collected at the University of Waterloo engineering faculty that shows that there is
substantial variation in high school grades awarded at different high schools to students who end up
with the same performance at the University of Waterloo. This variation introduces important issues in
the fairness of university admissions across high schools into high demand university programs and into
the awarding of university scholarships.

Such an introduction could be done very gradually. It could start with mathematics and some
kind of external assessment of writing skills. The EQAO experience shows that the cost per student of
such an exercise is quite low. The benefits of such an exercise could be quite high. This is an area where
a discussion should take place.

Globe and Mail
Toronto Star
Submission to the
Ministry of Education
on Class Size and
Full- ay Kindergarten
The Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) represents the 45,000
passionate and qualified teachers in Ontario’s publicly funded English Catholic schools,
from Kindergarten to Grade 12.
Liz Stuart Marshall Jarvis

President General Secretary
Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association

65 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 400
Toronto, ON M4T 2Y8
416.925.2493 or 1.800.268.7230
Fax: 416.925.7764
catholicteachers.ca
February 2019
OECTA is prepared to share its views with the government on Regulation
274 and the matter of class size and Full-day Kindergarten. We believe
that our participation in this process is in the interest of the students in
particular and the education system in general. However, OECTA is firmly
of the view that these three issues are issues for collective bargaining
under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act. In particular, these
matters are and have been issues for central bargaining under the Act
in which the government is a participant in the collective bargaining
process. Our participation in these discussions should not be viewed as
a waiver of the rights of OECTA and/or its members to legally challenge
any government decisions and/or actions which may result in
prejudicing or infringing upon our statutory or constitutional rights. Once
again, we urge the government to deal with these three issues in central
bargaining, which is to commence this summer. Any government
decisions and/or actions resulting from this process which affect OECTA
and its members will be viewed as a circumvention of our statutory
rights and a violation of our constitutional rights.

CLASS SIZE MATTERS
Experts have reached a consensus on the benefits of smaller class sizes.

For example, after a thorough review of the research, Diane Whitmore
Schanzenbach (2014) of the US National Education Policy Center
concluded, “Class size is one of the most-studied education policies, and
an extremely rigorous body of research demonstrates the importance
of class size in positively influencing student achievement.”
In the most comprehensive and well-known study, the Tennessee STAR

project, assessment results consistently favoured those students who had
been in small classes, with carryover effects lasting throughout their
academic careers (Finn et al. 2001; Krueger and Whitmore 2000; Mosteller
1995). In Ontario, even before the introduction of class size reduction
policies in the early 2000s, analysts from Statistics Canada concluded that
teachers and public resources aimed at reducing class size could influence
student achievement (Tremblay, Ross, and Berthelot 2001). In a more
recent meta-analysis of studies from across North America, Europe,
and the Antipodes, smaller classes were shown to have a strong impact
on student achievement, with the benefits almost always outweighing
the costs (Zyngier 2014).
Of course, by now we should all recognize that achievement tests are not
the most reliable or consequential measure of education quality or student
achievement. Smaller class sizes are perhaps more important for their
pedagogical and non-cognitive effects. Smaller classes enable teachers
Page 1 of 25
to spend more time on instruction and less time on classroom
management, while students remain on-task and engaged with the
teacher, their classmates, and the subject matter (Finn and Achilles 1999).
Reductions in class size have also been associated with improvements in

students’ psychological engagement with school, more positive reactions
to teachers and peers, higher levels of interest and motivation, lower levels
of boredom and anxiety, a greater sense of belonging, and more optimism
and confidence (Dee and West 2011). While class size reductions are
generally targeted toward primary students, these factors also point to
the benefits of smaller classes for junior, intermediate, and secondary
students, who are often dealing with a range of intellectual, social, and
emotional challenges while struggling to develop “the skills of productive
citizenry.” All students need the time and attention of a dedicated teacher,
which can only be guaranteed if class sizes are manageable (Wasley 2002).
Given the current discussion in Ontario about value for money, we should
also consider the long-term socio-economic effects of smaller class sizes.
Here again, the weight of the evidence suggests significant gains
(Fredriksson, Öckert, and Oosterbeek 2011; Krueger 2003). Muennig and
Woolf (2007), for example, have found that due to the increased earnings
of students who benefit from smaller class sizes, as well as public savings
in terms of lower health and welfare costs, reducing class size is a
cost-effective policy over the long run. In another project, researchers
found that while in some cases the impact of smaller class sizes on test
Page 2 of 25
scores might fade out over time, the non-cognitive gains that influence
long-term academic and economic success remain (Chetty et al. 2011).
Smaller Classes in Ontario: Reaching Every Student
The reduction of class sizes in Ontario is a prime example of the

considerable progress we have made in strengthening our publicly funded
education system over the past 15 years. Research has confirmed that
class size reductions have enabled teachers to use a variety of instructional
strategies, and created more opportunities for students to develop higher-
order thinking, and interact with their teachers and other professionals
more frequently. In short, students learn more, are more engaged, and
are less disruptive (Bascia 2010a).
In keeping with findings from around the world, Ontario’s experience has
shown that while smaller classes certainly benefit all students, the gains
are especially pronounced for those who have traditionally been
disadvantaged, including students with special education needs. For
example, parents have found that smaller classes enable teachers to
more quickly identify learning challenges and create a sense of
community, which works to reduce bullying. Similarly, principals have
noted the increase in individualized instruction provided to students with
special needs who are integrated into regular primary classes, as well as
the greater likelihood of identifying special needs. Teachers have reported
that in smaller classes, it is more feasible to implement government
initiatives and professional learning in, for example, differentiated
pedagogy, balanced literacy, and inclusive education (Bascia 2010b).
Page 3 of 25
Since class sizes were reduced in Ontario, student performance has
improved, and achievement gaps between students have narrowed or
closed. For instance, Ministry of Education (2014) data show that students
participating in English as a Second Language programs now perform
about as well as the general student population, and the gap between
students with special education needs and the general student population
has shrunk considerably. International observers have been particularly
interested in our success in reducing the influence of socio-economic
background on student outcomes. Ministry officials such as Nancy Naylor
(2007) have previously said that the class size reduction initiative, in
combination with the other major reforms carried out at the time,
contributed to improvements in student achievement.
Teachers have long recognized the relationship between class size and our
ability to reach every student. In a 2005 survey for the Ontario College of
Teachers, 91 per cent of respondents said that smaller classes would do
the most to improve student learning (Jamieson 2005). Similarly, Catholic
elementary teachers most often suggested reducing class size when
asked to identify the most effective means of addressing issues in their
classrooms, including the integration of students with special needs
(OECTA 2006). A survey by the Canadian Teachers’ Federation identified
class size and class composition, which considers the diversity of student
needs within the classroom, as the top concerns of teachers across the
country (Froese-Germain, Riel, and McGahey 2012). In Manitoba, where
caps on Kindergarten to Grade 3 class sizes were removed last year,
74 per cent of teachers say they are less able to provide individualized
Page 4 of 25
attention to students, and three-quarters say their effectiveness has
been compromised (Turenne 2019).
There is a common criticism that teachers like smaller classes because

they decrease teacher workload. The reality is that teachers work just
as hard in smaller classes – but we are less stressed, less stretched, and
therefore more effective (Haughey, Snart, and da Costa 2001; Achilles
1999). Our advocacy for smaller class sizes – including hard caps rather
than manipulable board-wide averages – is based on our experience in the
classroom, and our genuine dedication to ensuring that every student has
a fair chance to succeed. Together with parents across the province, we
will continue to advocate for the resources and learning conditions that
will enable us to do our jobs to the best of our ability. (Further perspectives
from current classroom teachers are attached to this submission as
Appendix A.)
An Essential Ingredient in Quality Education
Critics and advocates of small class sizes are in agreement on one element
of the debate: class size reduction is not a magic bullet that will remedy all
other issues and significantly raise student achievement on its own.
Nobody could argue that smaller classes will be effective without also
paying proper attention to the other resources and services being provided
to students. However, whereas skeptics suggest that the funds devoted to
class size reduction policies could be better spent elsewhere, proponents
rightly argue that small class sizes should be a part of any comprehensively
designed and supported education system.
Page 5 of 25
Continuing to support smaller class sizes gets to the heart of what
Ontarians expect from our policymakers and public investments. In the
words of Bruce Biddle and David Berliner (2002), who have been studying
class size for decades, when policies are planned and funded adequately,
long-term exposure to small classes generates substantial advantages
for students, especially those who have traditionally been disadvantaged.
Given the obvious benefits, any reluctance to commit to smaller classes
basically amounts to an unwillingness to make the necessary investments
in students. “Indeed,” they have said, “if we are to judge by available
evidence, no other education reform has yet been studied that would
provide such striking benefits, so debates about reducing class sizes are
basically disputes about values.”
Critics often point to Asian countries or other jurisdictions, where class

sizes are large and test scores are high, as evidence that smaller classes
are unnecessary. However, they ignore the other factors that influence
student achievement in these places, such as socio-cultural homogeneity,
narrow academic focus, or the prevalence of private tutoring (Loveless
2013). We should also note that a number of these same jurisdictions have
been introducing their own class size reduction initiatives over the past few
years, to help teachers bring about higher-order thinking and collaborative
learning (Blatchford 2013).
In contrast, Ontario’s classrooms have incredible social, economic,

linguistic, and behavioural diversity, and Ontarians place high value on a
publicly funded education system that reaches every student and provides
equal opportunity for everyone to realize their full potential. The province
Page 6 of 25
has qualified, certified teachers who are eager to put our world-class
training to work, but we must be given the time and space to manage
behaviour, differentiate our instruction, and provide individual attention.
This will be increasingly necessary as we continue to move toward 21st
century learning.
It might be tempting to look at the short-term costs of smaller class sizes

and deem they are beyond our means, but our cost-benefit analysis
cannot be so myopic. Our goal should be to continue developing a publicly
funded education system that gives every student the opportunity to
reach their full potential and appropriately prepares our young citizens
for the challenges of the future. Education is the best investment a society
can make, but only if we provide the best possible infrastructure and
learning conditions.
FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN: A SMART PUBLIC INVESTMENT
Ontario’s full-day Kindergarten (FDK) program was developed based

on evidence from Canada and around the world that highlighted the
importance and benefits of high quality, inclusive early learning programs.
Science has clearly shown that the early years, from birth to age five, are
a crucial stage of cognitive, behavioural, and social development.
Furthermore, decades of research have amply demonstrated the long-
term social and economic benefits of giving all children access to early
learning opportunities (McCain, Mustard, and McCuaig 2011).
Page 7 of 25
As Charles Pascal (2009) noted in his study and recommendations laying
the groundwork for FDK in Ontario, such programs are essential for some,
but beneficial for all. For children from low-income families or who are
otherwise socio-economically disadvantaged, early childhood education
is necessary to bridge gaps that might hinder success in the school
environment. But universal access enables children from all backgrounds
to play and learn together, while helping to ensure that all children receive
early interventions for possible vulnerabilities.
Ensuring Quality
The early signs from teachers, early childhood educators (ECEs),

administrators, researchers, and families indicate that Ontario’s current
FDK model is working. For example, survey results show parents believe
FDK and the extended early learning program are preparing children to
succeed at school, while administrators report improved outcomes for
students (Janmohamed et al. 2014). Recently published longitudinal
Page 8 of 25
research has found clear, long-term self-regulatory and academic gains
from FDK, as compared to the previous half-day Kindergarten program.
Contrary to claims that these benefits tend to ‘fade out’ as students move
through school, the evidence shows that in most areas, gains are apparent
in Ontario’s FDK graduates throughout the primary years (Pelletier and
Corter 2019).
A major reason for the success of this “well-planned, evidence-based

strategic investment” is the teaching model, which sees most classes
being taught by teacher-ECE teams (McCuaig 2019). When experts were
developing Ontario’s FDK program, the teams were recommended
because they “add to the strengths of the professional preparation and skill
sets of both teachers and ECEs” (Pascal 2009). Although implementing this
new model has required some hard work and creative thinking, both
teachers and ECEs report that they are experiencing professional benefits
from working in teams, and that school communities are uniting around
the mission of supporting students and families (Pelletier 2014).
(Perspectives on the existing two-educator model from current
classroom teachers are attached to this submission as Appendix B.)
Ontarians have long recognized the need to have trained, knowledgeable,

skilled, and respected professionals delivering quality early learning based
on high standards and expectations (EPQHR 2007). This is in keeping with
past research. For example, the most comprehensive longitudinal study of
early learning, the Perry Preschool Program in Ypsilanti, Michigan, illustrates
the benefits of a well-resourced, well-designed program delivered by
well-trained, certified teachers. The program was implemented in 1961,
Page 9 of 25
and by 1996, the long-term social and economic benefits resulted in a
more than 7:1 return on investment. By 2004, the return on investment
had jumped to 11:1 (Kirp 2007). This reinforces research undertaken in
four Canadian provinces, in which the presence of trained staff was found
to be “the most important predictor of quality,” and parents were found
to be strongly in favour of programs operated by teachers, or teams of
teachers and ECEs (Johnson and Mathien 1998).
It is imperative that the government continue to support the current model

for Ontario’s ground-breaking, world-leading FDK program. As one expert
puts it, the current model allows the teacher and ECE “to capitalize on
children’s individual needs and inquiries. They have the time to know their
students very well and to identify problems and intervene early before a
child becomes too frustrated and discouraged to try.” Furthermore, full-
day Kindergarten’s “rich and secure environments are essential for the
deep play where children learn to negotiate, consider the feelings of
others and contribute to the group” (McCuaig 2019).
This well-rounded approach benefits all students. ECEs have specialized

knowledge in childhood development, which is helpful for encouraging
self-regulation and social skills, while the training and skills of certified
teachers enable us to provide an enriched learning environment. We can
gauge each student’s interests, abilities, and potential, and we are trained
to individualize programs, teaching methods, assessments, and planning.
We can also structure the play-based curriculum to ensure that learning
is optimized and children are adequately prepared for the next stages of
Page 10 of 25
school (OECTA 2008). Parents and the public expect that the government
will provide the best possible learning opportunities for all four- and five-
year-olds, and the evidence is clear that such opportunities must involve
qualified, certified teachers.
Building Up, Not Tearing Down
The evidence demonstrating the success of the FDK program should give
the government pause before moving backward. At the same time, we
must also acknowledge that we will never be able to fully study and
appreciate the potential benefits of the program until it is properly
implemented and funded.
The government’s own research, while finding that the program is working
to reduce developmental vulnerabilities among students, still notes that
there were “significant challenges” when the program first became
available in schools (Government of Ontario 2013). To support students
and families, and provide the most value for our public investments, the
government should address these and other challenges.
Since the Kindergarten program’s inception, high demand among parents

has forced some schools to introduce Kindergarten-Grade 1 split classes,
which former OECTA President James Ryan likened to “combining the
hockey team with the swim team” (Hammer 2011). There can be
considerable differences in age, cognitive development, and social skills
in these classes, with students beginning the school year aged anywhere
Page 11 of 25
three to six years old. There are also significant differences between the
play-based Kindergarten curriculum and the more desk-based Grade 1
curriculum. The result is a suboptimal learning environment for everyone.
Providing the proper infrastructure and resources to avoid these split
classes would enable all Kindergarten students to gain the full benefits
of the program.
Large class sizes have also been a persistent problem. Prior to the
implementation of the 29-student cap, it was common to see classes
with 30 or more students (Alphonso 2014). While we appreciate the
previous government’s efforts to partially address this issue, any teacher,
ECE, administrator, or parent who has been in a classroom recognizes that
even 29 students is far too many to allow for meaningful interaction and
learning. As we aim to introduce students to the school environment and
ensure their safety throughout the school day, it is imperative that FDK
class sizes be made smaller, not larger.
Despite the large class sizes, some school boards have been attempting
to save funds by manipulating supervision schedules in such a way that the
early childhood educator is often removed from the Kindergarten
classroom during class time. This threatens students’ safety and learning
conditions, and increases the likelihood of incidents of violence against
teachers. For the FDK program to fully live up to its original promise, the
government must force school boards to ensure that a teacher and an ECE
are present in the classroom at all times during the instructional day.
Page 12 of 25
Ontarians from across the political spectrum, including the business
community, recognize the value of public investments in early learning
(Alexander et al. 2017), and researchers and observers have held up
Ontario’s FDK program as a model for others to follow (Pelletier 2017).
But the returns on our investments will only be maximized when the
program is properly designed, implemented, and operated. Rather than
recklessly tearing down the progress that has been made over the past
decade, the government has an opportunity to serve the needs and
interests of all Ontarians by committing to a robust, adequately supported
full-day Kindergarten program.
WORKS CITED
Achilles, Charles. (1999). Let’s Put Kids First, Finally: Getting Class Size Right. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Alexander, Craig, Kip Beckman, Alicia Macdonald, Cory Renner, and Matthew Stewart.
(2017). Ready for Life: A Socio-Economic Analysis of Early Childhood Education and Care.
Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.
Alphonso, Caroline. (2014). “Crowded, chaotic classrooms hurt Ontario’s full-day

kindergarten push.” Globe and Mail (September 2).
Bascia, Nina. (2010a). Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know? Toronto: Canadian
Education Association.
Bascia, Nina. (2010b). Ontario’s Primary Class Size Reduction Initiative: Report on Early
Implementation. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.
Biddle, Bruce, and David Berliner. (2002). “Small Class Size and Its Effects.” Educational
Leadership 59, no. 5: 12-23.
Blatchford, Peter. (2013). “Why small is beautiful when it comes to class sizes.” The
Conversation (May 30).
Page 13 of 25
Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, Nathaniel Hilger, Emmanuel Saez, Diane Whitmore
Schanzenbach, and Danny Yagan. (2011). “How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom
Affect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project STAR.” National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper No. 16381.
Dee, Thomas, and Martin West. (2011). “The Non-Cognitive Returns to Class Size.”
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33, no. 1: 23-46.
Expert Panel on Quality and Human Resources (EPQHR). (2007). Investing in Quality:
Policies, Practitioners, Programs and Parents – A Four-Point Plan to Deliver High Quality
Early Learning and Care Services in Ontario. Toronto: Government of Ontario.
Finn, Jeremy, Susan Gerber, Charles Achilles, and Jayne Boyd-Zaharias. (2001). “The
Enduring Effects of Small Classes.” Teachers College Record 103, no. 2: 145-183.
Finn, Jeremy, and Charles Achilles. (1999). “Tennessee’s Class Size Study: Findings,
Implications, Misconceptions.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21, no.2: 97-
109.
Government of Ontario. (2013). A Meta-Perspective on the Evaluation of Full-Day

Kindergarten during the First Two Years of Implementation. Toronto: Government of
Ontario.
Hammer, Kate. (2011). “Kindergarten split classes will ‘shortchange’ students.” Globe
and Mail (April 25).
Haughey, Margaret, Fern Snart, and Jose da Costa. (2001). “Literary Achievement in
Small Grade 1 Classes in High-Poverty Environments.” Canadian Journal of Education 26,
no. 3: 301-320.
Janmohamed, Zeenat, Kerry McCuaig, Emis Akbari, Romona Gananathan, and Jennifer
Jenkins. (2014). Schools at the Centre: Findings from Case Studies Exploring Seamless
Early Learning in Ontario. Toronto: Atkinson Centre for Society and Child
Development/Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Jamieson, Brian. (2005). “State of the Teaching Profession 2005: What Matters?”
Professionally Speaking (September).
Johnson, Laura, and Julie Mathien. (1998). Early Childhood Services for Kindergarten-age
Children in Four Canadian Provinces: Scope, Nature and Models for the Future. Ottawa:
Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
Page 14 of 25
Fredriksson, Peter, Björn Öckert, and Hessel Oosterbeek. (2011). “Long-Term Effects of
Class Size.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 5879.
Froese-Germain, Bernie, Richard Riel, and Bob McGahey. (2012). “Class size and student
diversity: two sides of the same coin.” Perspectives (February).
Loveless, Tom. (2013). PISA’s China Problem. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Kirp, David. (2007). The Sandbox Investment: The Preschool Movement and Kids-First
Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Krueger, Alan. (2003). “Economic Considerations and Class Size.” The Economic Journal
113, no. 485: F34-64.
Krueger, Alan, and Diane Whitmore. (2000). “The Effect of Attending a Small Class in the
Early Grades on College-Test Taking and Middle School Test Results: Evidence from
Project STAR.” National Bureau of Economic Research No. 7656.
McCain, Hon. Margaret Norrie, J. Fraser Mustard, and Kerry McCuaig. (2011). Early Years
Study 3: Making Decisions, Taking Action. Toronto: Margaret and Wallace McCain Family
Foundation.
McCuaig, Kerry. (2019). “Full-day Kindergarten is what Ontario needs for a stable
future.” The Conversation (February 10).
Ministry of Education. (2014). Achieving Excellence: A Renewed Vision for Education in

Ontario. Toronto: Ministry of Education.
Mosteller, Frederick. (1995). “The Tennessee study of class size in the early school
grades.” The Future of Children 5, no. 2: 113-127.
Muennig, Peter, and Steven H. Woolf. (2007). “Health and Economic Benefits of Reducing
the Number of Students per Classroom in US Primary Schools.” American Journal of
Public Health 97, no. 11: 2020-2027.
Naylor, Nancy. (2007). “Implementing Primary Class Size Caps in Ontario.” Presentation
to the American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago.
Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA). (2008). An Opportunity for

Change: A Position on Full-Day Kindergarten. Toronto: OECTA.
Page 15 of 25
OECTA. (2006). OECTA Workload Study. Toronto: OECTA.
Pascal, Charles. (2009). With Our Best Future in Mind: Implementing Early Learning in
Ontario: Report to the Premier by the Special Advisor on Early Learning. Toronto:
Government of Ontario.
Pelletier, Janette. (2017). “Children gain learning boost from two-year, full-day
kindergarten.” The Conversation (August 2).
Pelletier, Janette. (2014). “Ontario’s Full-day Kindergarten: A Bold Public Policy Initiative.”
Public Sector Digest (May-June).
Pelletier, Janette, and James Corter. (2019). “A longitudinal comparison of learning

outcomes in full-day and half-day kindergarten.” The Journal of Educational Research
(January 3).
Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore. (2014). Does Class Size Matter? Boulder, CO: National
Education Policy Center.
Tremblay, Stéphane, Nancy Ross, and Jean-Marie Berthelot. (2001). “Factors affecting
Grade 3 student performance in Ontario: a multilevel analysis.” Education Quarterly
Review 7, no. 4: 25-36.
Turenne, Samantha. (2019). “Needed resources tops member poll.” The Manitoba
Teacher 97, no.4: 18-19.
Wasley, Patricia. (2002). “Small Classes, Small Schools: The Time is Now.” Educational
Leadership 59, no. 5: 6-10.
Zyngier, David. (2014). “Class size and academic results, with a focus on children from
culturally, linguistically and economically disenfranchised communities.” Evidence Base
1: 1-23.
Page 16 of 25
APPENDIX A
Below are some perspectives from current classroom teachers on how an

increase in class size would affect their working conditions and students’
learning conditions.
“Today’s elementary classrooms are filled with students with diverse

profiles. It is my job, as their teacher, to meet their emotional, social and
academic needs, wherever they may be on the learning continuum. In my
current Grade 2/3 classroom, I am responsible for delivering a
differentiated curriculum for two grades. On top of that, my class profile
consists of students with diagnosed behaviour issues, mental health
concerns and several students who have IEPs with academic
modifications, which means that I deliver, instruct, assess and report at
many grade levels. While I work 1:1 or in small groups with students who
have learning gaps and require my direct support for success, I must also
monitor the progress, behaviours and work habits of the other students
while they work individually or in small groups. An increase in class size
would mean less attention for each student. I know this for a fact because
I was a teacher before primary class caps. As it stands, with a cap on
primary class size, I am stretched thin. I am only one person. There is a
bottom to every well.”
“Working in a junior classroom with 25 students proves challenging with all

the various needs. Increasing class sizes has a negative effect on student
learning. We need lower class sizes so that students can get the
Page 17 of 25
individualized support they deserve. We need to look into decreasing class
size in junior and intermediate classrooms as well to ensure student
success.”
“Larger class sizes would mean less time to provide focused interventions
and individualized instruction/planning for students and their learning
needs. Classroom management/interactions between students would
become more difficult. It would be more difficult to build positive
relationships and 'check in' with students in larger classes.”
“There would be less time for one-to-one support, less time for frequent
verbal feedback, and students will wait longer for assessments to be
returned. Students need timely, meaningful and frequent feedback in order
to learn. I would be concerned about safety as my classroom is already
full; this also makes small group work extremely difficult logistically.
Parent-teacher communication will suffer, as I already find it difficult to
call parents as much as I would like with my current workload.”
“Currently in our Grade 9 applied classes, we have a gap-closing teacher, in

addition to the classroom teacher. Losing the gap-closing teacher (as is
projected based on cuts to support programs and resources that we see
being made) and having increased class sizes would result in a significant
reduction to the supports we currently provide to students: daily
checkpoint quizzes to assess student progress, small group remediation
and differentiated pacing based on student needs. We have worked so
hard to develop effective strategies and activities to engage and empower
Page 18 of 25
students to see themselves as competent math learners and to start to
develop their math confidence. More students with less support for them
will lead to a return in behaviour problems, emotional struggles, apathy and
hopelessness as students become frustrated when they can’t get the help
they need to be and feel successful.
Not being able to meet student needs and help them reach their potential
is devastating for us as teachers. The stakes are too high to risk. Our
children are our greatest potential for positive change and growth in our
society and they deserve the investment of our resources to ensure that
they have every opportunity to be safe and successful.”
“It is extremely difficult to teach, service, counsel, advocate, and all the
other things we do when we have an extreme number of students in the
class. I taught when we had large class sizes and it was very hard to work
one-on-one with students. When class sizes were reduced, I could work
with more students individually. Also, communication with parents
becomes a difficult task. I don't have the time to contact parents regularly
when I have too many students.”
“An increase in class size would minimize the amount of attention I could
give to each student. As there are more and more needs within the
classroom, a smaller class size would mean that I could devote more time
and resources to students with different needs. Whether it be a student
with a learning disability, a student with behavioural outbursts, or even the
Page 19 of 25
A+ student that needs extra work and stimulation so that they are
challenged.”
“As of right now in the Kindergarten classes I teach in, there is not enough
room for the students to work or move around without bumping into one
another. There are days when I go home and wonder if I have given enough
of my time to all of my students. I find students thrive when they are in a
smaller class because there are not as many distractions and they can
have some of that one-on-one time with the educator if they need it.”
“Increased class sizes means less time to work with students to ensure
understanding. Less time to help individual students overcome challenges
and understand that they are capable of succeeding. It means more time
marking and less time to plan engaging lessons and activities to reach the
needs of all learners. It increases chances of behavioural issues and
decreases opportunities to develop caring communities in which each child
feels safe and valued. Most importantly, it means less time to build
relationships with our students. Less time for them to know someone is
there to help them, someone cares about them, that someone wants
them to succeed and is willing to put in the time and effort to make sure
that they do so. Increased class sizes, in short, take away our students'
rights to be seen as an individuals and not numbers.”
“Since I teach in Tech, increasing class size is definitely a safety concern.

This topic is one that we in our department continually discuss, as we've
never had an official cap size, something that seems to be common with
Page 20 of 25
other boards. There are a lot of potential hazards and very dangerous
equipment where students can injure themselves as well as others. The
increase of class size definitely increases the possibility or chances of
something happening in our shops.”
“For example, I teach math for 60 minutes daily. Fifteen to 20 of that goes
to math starters and lessons. That leaves me 40-45 minutes of class time,
which works out to about two minutes of time to work with each student.
If a student is struggling, that means more time with them, which means I
am not helping someone else. Increasing class sizes will only make this
worse.”
“It is dangerous in a science lab. Try lighting Bunsen burners with 31 Grade
9s. Also, we often don't have enough gas jets or equipment for that many
students. If I am teaching chemistry, students don't ask for help as often
because they are intimidated in front of a large group of people. I don't
have as much time to devote to the struggling students.”
“I teach at the intermediate level. With every additional student, my ability

to provide support to the students in my class decreases. This is especially
true when trying to serve those students in my class who are most at
need. Despite my good classroom management skills, more students
often equates to more discipline problems as well.”
“Class size is the single most important factor in the quality of learning that
will take place in any class or semester. When I have 32 essays to
Page 21 of 25
conference with students about, to grade, to follow up on to make sure
students are clear about why their mark is their mark, we are just going to
get less done. Then there's the unlikelihood of being able to get to know
and reach every student; many feel lost in those bigger classes and are
afraid to use their voices.”
Page 22 of 25
APPENDIX B
Below are some perspectives from current classroom teachers on the

benefits of full-day Kindergarten and the existing teaching model.
“The teacher and ECE each have a unique background, education, and skill
set which complement each other. As a team, they effectively plan and
deliver quality programming for students.”
“The students have all their needs met. The teacher has a background in
education and the ECE has a background in emotional and social
development. All of which are critical at this age in developing and helping a
child grow and prepare for the rest of their school career and life in general.
With two educators in one classroom the students receive more one-on-
one time, support, individualized learning and enrichment, and focused
goals for their learning.”
“I have found that having two educators in the classroom allows for great
reflection and documentation. Often when we are teaching 'in the
moment' there are many things that we may not see or hear in our
students’ learning. Having another educator there helps us to realize and
document the learning and decide on intentional teaching and next steps.”
“These children go through so much change, adjustment and new routines

that they most likely would not receive at home! I personally have seen so
much positive change and a big difference in even the most troubled child
Page 23 of 25
from the day they start JK to the last day of SK. I can't imagine them being
prepared mentally, socially and physically for Grade 1 without this
program!”
“The current two-educator model is beneficial all parties: students,

teachers, and parents. It is through this model that the needs of all
students are met and maintained with regards to their learning styles,
learning environment, and individual social, emotional, physical, and mental
requirements. As a Kindergarten teacher, having the support of an ECE has
greatly helped me in developing the inquiry-based learning environment in
our class.”
“Since FDK classroom sizes have increased substantially over recent years
it would not be possible to safely provide instruction to that many students
without two educators in the classroom. For this reason, I feel that having
the ECE work in partnership with the classroom teacher is necessary. Also,
ECEs assist with supervision responsibilities so that classroom teachers
can conference with smaller groups of children for assessment purposes
knowing that the remainder of the students are being supervised and
assisted by the ECE. ECEs also provide invaluable expertise in the area of
early childhood education, understanding the intricate notion of child
development prior to attending school at the FDK stage of learning.”
“I believe that full-day Kindergarten is a great opportunity for young

children to learn and socialize in a safe environment. The students need the
ECE to bridge the gap from the home or daycare setting to the classroom
Page 24 of 25
setting. They need a teacher as well to help achieve the curriculum and
prepare them for the next grade.”
“We know that full-day Kindergarten has lasting benefits for students. In
addition, families rely on full-day Kindergarten to ensure their children learn
in a safe and nurturing environment. Our Kindergarten teachers are trained
to teach across the grades and across the continuum of learning.”
“We usually have around 30 students and many unidentified students with
needs. We work together and bring our own expertise and professional
knowledge to provide a program in which students can grow and develop
personally, socially and academically.”
Page 25 of 25
ETFO Submission to the
Ministry of Education
Engagement on Class Size
February 2019

etfo.ca I communications@etfo.org
1
3 Elemen a Teache Fede a ion of On a io

3

6

8

Mémoire sur les effectifs
rétroaction de
l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens (AEFO)
présentée au
ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario
Le 22 février 2019
Mémoire sur les effectifs
Partie 1 – Règlement sur les effectifs des classes

Le règlement sur l’effectif des classes (1 2/12) en application de la Loi sur l’éducation assure un contrôle
nécessaire sur les effectifs des classes.
Jusqu’en 1 , les effectifs des classes étaient régis par des dispositions dans les conventions collectives. Ces
dernières pouvaient avoir certaines variations d’un conseil scolaire à l’autre. À titre d’exemple, certaines
conventions collectives permettaient même, à cette époque, de pondérer la valeur des élèves ayant des besoins
particuliers. L’adoption du projet de loi 160, par le gouvernement conservateur en 1998, a amené des
changements à la formule de financement. L'article 1 0.1 de la Loi sur l’éducation prévoyait alors des moyennes
maximales de taille de classe. Ainsi, l’effectif moyen des classes du cycle primaire d’un conseil scolaire ne
pouvait dépasser 24 élèves. Ce nombre passait à 24,5 élèves en moyenne pour toutes les classes de
l'élémentaire et à 21 pour les classes du secondaire.
Ce mode de calcul est demeuré en vigueur jusqu’en 200 , année où l’article 1 0.1 a été modifié. Le
gouvernement d’alors avait pris l’engagement de réduire, pour l’année scolaire 200 -2008, à un maximum de 20
élèves les effectifs de la maternelle à la 3e année. Le règlement, tel qu’on le connaît aujourd’hui, reflète cet
engagement de même que la mise en œuvre du programme de maternelle et de jardin d’enfants à temps plein.
Les effectifs aux cycles préparatoire et primaire ont connu une diminution au cours des 10 dernières années
comme ce fut le cas, d’ailleurs, dans la majorité des pays de l’Organisation de coopération et de développement
économiques (OCDE) alors que les effectifs moyens aux cycles moyen, intermédiaire et supérieur sont restés
inchangés ou ont augmenté depuis les 20 dernières années.
« En moyenne, dans les pays de l’OCDE, les enseignantes et enseignants (hors auxiliaires d’éducation)
s’occupent chacun de 1 enfants dans l’enseignement pré-primaire. Il est intéressant de constater que le
nombre d’enfants par enseignant a chuté entre 200 et 201 dans environ deux tiers des 21 pays de l’OCDE
dont les données sont disponibles. » (1)
« Dans les pays de l’OCDE, la taille moyenne des classes dans l’enseignement primaire et le premier cycle de
l’enseignement secondaire a diminué entre 200 et 201 . » (2)
Présentement, les effectifs à partir de la 4e année sont entièrement calculés selon une moyenne à l’échelle des
conseils scolaires. Seul le calcul des effectifs de la maternelle à la 3e année propose une formule basée tant sur
un plafond que sur une moyenne, permettant ainsi une certaine flexibilité. Le choix de plafonner le nombre
d’élèves aux cycles préparatoire et primaire repose sur des données de recherche probantes qui démontrent
que limiter le nombre d’élèves par classe, dans les premières années à l’école, permet d’accroître les échanges
entre le personnel enseignant et chacun des élèves, favorisant ainsi le dépistage précoce. « Dans des classes
moins nombreuses, les élèves apprennent davantage sur le plan scolaire et sur le plan social, ils sont plus
engagés et moins perturbateurs. Même lorsqu’il n’est pas évident que les enseignantes et enseignants ont
sensiblement changé leurs activités pédagogiques, l’apprentissage des élèves peut être amélioré, leur
engagement rehaussé et les problèmes comportementaux réduits. Ces améliorations s’expliquent, en partie, par
l’accroissement de l’espace physique par élève dans la classe, permettant plus de possibilités de mouvement,
des stratégies différentes de regroupement et une interaction entre les élèves, ainsi qu’entre les élèves et
l’enseignante ou l’enseignant. » (3)
2
De plus, il est clairement démontré que les systèmes éducatifs qui interviennent tôt auprès des élèves ayant des
besoins particuliers permettent à ces élèves de mieux réussir à long terme. « Most of the research shows that
when class size reduction programs are well-designed and implemented in the primary grades (K-3), student
achievement rises as class size drops. » (4) Cet effet est encore plus marqué pour les enfants issus de milieux
socioéconomiques plus faibles ou de l’immigration. « Il apparaît que des effectifs plus réduits en classe
pourraient être bénéfiques pour certains groupes spécifiques d’élèves, notamment les élèves défavorisés. » (5)
L’AEFO est d’avis que :

1. le règlement sur les effectifs des classes devrait continuer à prévoir un plafond pour les classes de la
maternelle à la 3e année;
2. les règles actuelles de calcul des effectifs qui prennent en compte les effectifs moyens à l’échelle du conseil
scolaire offrent la flexibilité requise pour répondre aux particularités locales et régionales des conseils
scolaires;
3. le règlement sur les effectifs des classes conserve sa forme actuelle.
Partie 2 – Classes de maternelle et de jardin d’enfants

Le programme ontarien de la maternelle et du jardin d’enfants à temps plein, offert sur une période de deux
ans, a été mis en œuvre de façon échelonnée entre 2010 et 2015. Les élèves qui sont actuellement en 3e année
font partie de la première cohorte complète d’élèves ayant fréquenté la maternelle-jardin du nouveau
programme. Les élèves actuels de la 4e à la 7e année peuvent ou non avoir fait leur cycle préparatoire, en tout
ou en partie, sous le nouveau programme. Il est donc évidemment beaucoup trop tôt pour tirer quelques
conclusions que ce soit entre les résultats aux divers tests standardisés et la mise en œuvre du programme de
maternelle et de jardin d’enfants à temps plein.
Par contre, les recherches préliminaires démontrent déjà l’efficacité du programme. « Results showed lasting
benefits of full-da kindergar en on children self-regulation, reading, writing, and number knowledge to the
end of Grade 2, including some benefits for vocabulary. Full-day kindergarten children were significantly more
likely to meet provincial expectations for reading in Grade 3. The study points to the benefits of a play-based full-
day kindergarten program. » (6)
Ce que l’on sait aussi, c’est que ce programme a été élaboré de façon réfléchie et qu’il s’appuie sur des
fondements scientifiques. L’approche pédagogique ludique qui est préconisée dans le programme est une des
façons optimales de contribuer au développement de l’enfant. « Les spécialistes de l’enfance appuient
l’apprentissage par le jeu. Selon Lev Vygotsky, le jeu est la principale source de développement des enfants, que
ce soit sur le plan affectif, social, physique, langagier ou cognitif. Le psychologue David Elkind écrit d’ailleurs que
le jeu n’est pas seulement une source de créativité, mais qu’il est aussi un mode d’apprentissage fondamental. »
(7)
Un autre élément-clé du programme réside dans le fait qu’il est dispensé par une équipe pédagogique, une
enseignante ou un enseignant et une éducatrice ou un éducateur de la petite enfance. Chaque membre de
l’équipe, grâce à son expertise professionnelle, est appelé à jouer un rôle complémentaire. L’éducatrice ou
l’éducateur de la petite enfance a reçu une formation axée sur le développement de l'enfant âgé de 0 à 12 ans.
Elle ou il possède des compétences dans les domaines de l'intervention, de la programmation d'activités
éducatives et des soins adaptés aux enfants. L’enseignante ou l’enseignant est, de son côté, une ou un
spécialiste des approches pédagogiques, des méthodes de gestion de classe, de dépistage et d’intervention
précoce, ainsi que de l’évaluation.
3
Dans les écoles de langue française, le personnel enseignant au cycle préparatoire joue également un rôle
majeur en matière d’apprentissage de la langue française et de la construction identitaire francophone étant
donné que la majorité des enfants qui font leur entrée à l’école parlent peu ou pas du tout le français. Les deux
perspectives amenées par l’équipe pédagogique garantissent une intervention optimale auprès des élèves de
à 6 ans. Selon des recherches citées par le Collège royal des médecins et chirurgiens du Canada, « 90 % du
cerveau d’un enfant est développé avant l'âge de 5 ans, et ce avant que de nombreux enfants aient accès aux
études. Plus d’un quart des enfants canadiens sont vulnérables à leur entrée à la maternelle dans au moins un
domaine de développement. Environ deux tiers de ces vulnérabilités peuvent être corrigés. Les enfants qui ne
sont pas prêts à l’entrée à la maternelle sont deux fois moins susceptibles de savoir lire avant la troisième
année, un facteur qui accroît grandement le risque de décrochage scolaire au secondaire. Même si elles sont
possibles plus tard pour pallier ces lacunes d’apprentissage, les interventions sont moins efficaces et leur coût
est beaucoup plus élevé. » (8)
L’éducation à la petite enfance a un coût. Économiser à court terme en sabrant les dépenses liées à l’éducation
des jeunes enfants engendrera des coûts sociaux plus élevés à long terme. Dans un rapport sur les bienfaits des
investissements dans l’éducation des jeunes enfants, la Banque TD indique : « Taking into account the increase
in government revenues from income taxes of parents who would not otherwise be able to work, plus the
reduction in social costs, special education costs and healthcare costs associated with better educated children,
many analysts have come to the conclusion that the program pays for itself. In fact, Canadian cost-benefit
analyses indicate that for every dollar spent on early childhood education, the benefits range from $1.49 to
$2.78. American studies estimate benefits to be as high as $17 for every dollar spent, although the programs
analyzed were solely for disadvantaged children. » (9)
Dans son rapport sur l’état de la santé publique au Canada, l’administrateur en chef de la santé publique
affirmait : « Il y a de plus en plus de données qui montrent que les investissements qui visent les plus jeunes
citoyens du Canada sont parmi les investissements des contribuables qui offrent le meilleur rendement. Chaque
dollar dépensé pour garantir un bon départ au cours des premières années d’existence permettra de réduire les
coûts à long terme associés aux soins de santé, à la toxicomanie, à la criminalité, au chômage et à l’aide sociale.
De plus, les enfants canadiens deviendront des adultes plus scolarisés, mieux adaptés et plus productifs. » (10)
Le Conference Board du Canada abonde dans le même sens : « Researchers have compared the original costs of
the Early Childhood Education (ECE) program per child with the benefits derived when the children reach
adulthood from potentially higher employment earnings, higher taxes paid, and lower social welfare use and
possibly reduced incarceration costs. Then the total costs of the ECE programs per child are compared with the
benefits per child to obtain a return on investment. In the U.S. and Canada, the studies all showed positive
returns, ranging from $2 per $1 investment to as high as $17 per $1 of investment. » (11)

1. le programme de maternelle et de jardin d’enfants à temps plein doit être maintenu dans sa forme
actuelle;
2. le modèle d’équipe pédagogique actuellement en vigueur permet une intervention précoce optimale
auprès des enfants;
3. les économies réalisées à court terme en sabrant ce programme engendreront des coûts sociaux
supérieurs à long terme.
4
Partie 3 – Effectif général des classes
L’éducation est la pierre angulaire de toute société démocratique, et une société qui choisit d’investir dans son
système d’éducation investit dans son avenir. « Education remains one of the most important duties of any
government: it is a public responsibility to provide access to high quality education for everyone. » (12)
En choisissant d’investir des sommes additionnelles dans son système d’éducation, l’Ontario a permis à ce
dernier de devenir plus performant. À titre d’exemple, le taux de diplomation des jeunes ontariennes et
ontariens est passé de en 200 à , en 201 . L’Ontario est également un modèle et un chef de file à
l’échelle internationale. « Ontario really is impressive, enthuses Sir Michael Barber, former head of global
education practice at McKinsey. The Canadian province has a high proportion of immigrants, many without
English as a first language, yet it now has one of the world's best-performing school systems. » (13)
Le guide proposé par le ministère de l’Éducation dans le cadre de la présente consultation compare l’Ontario, où
les effectifs se situent dans la moyenne des pays de l’OCDE, à des pays aux effectifs beaucoup plus élevés et qui
performent bien aux tests du Programme international de l’OCDE pour le suivi des acquis des élèves (PISA),
comme le Viet Nam, la Turquie et la Chine. Toutefois, ces comparaisons ne peuvent être faites sans mise en
garde. « En premier lieu, la prudence est de mise lors de la comparaison de la performance entre des pays dont
le taux de couverture est très différent. Si l’on part de l’hypothèse que les individus exclus de l’échantillon PISA
auraient vraisemblablement obtenu des scores inférieurs à ceux des élèves représentés dans les échantillons, les
comparaisons risquent d’être biaisées en faveur des pays dont le taux de couverture est inférieur. Par exemple,
l’entité P-S-J-G (Chine), la Corée, Hong-Kong (Chine) et le Viet Nam sont tous très performants aux épreuves
PISA: leur score moyen varie entre 515 points et 525 points en sciences; toutefois, le taux de couverture est de
l’ordre de 0 en Corée et à Hong-Kong (Chine), mais n’est que de dans l’entité P-S-J-G (Chine) et de 49 %
au Viet Nam. » (14)
Par taux de couverture, l’OCDE fait ici référence au pourcentage de jeunes de 15 ans qui fréquentent toujours
l’école. « La scolarisation est quasi universelle dans la plupart des pays de l’OCDE, et les échantillons PISA
représentent plus de 80 % des jeunes de 15 ans dans 33 pays. Toutefois, le pourcentage de jeunes de 15 ans
scolarisés en 7e année au moins est inférieur en Turquie ( 0 ) et au Mexique ( 2 ), parmi les pays de l’OCDE,
et dans l’entité Pékin-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Guangdong (Chine) (64 %), au Costa Rica (63 %) et au Viet Nam (49 %),
parmi les pays et économies partenaires. » (15)
En plus d’avoir une scolarité obligatoire jusqu’à 1 ans, l’Ontario a adopté une approche d’inclusion et d’équité à
l’école. Les élèves ayant notamment des difficultés d’apprentissage, des troubles de comportement, des
difficultés langagières, des problèmes de santé mentale, des handicaps ou certains troubles du spectre
autistique sont intégrés dans les salles de classe dites régulières où l’on compte également, dans la grande
majorité des milieux urbains, une proportion importante d’élèves issus de l’immigration n’ayant pas
nécessairement le français ou l’anglais comme langue maternelle. L’indicateur « effectif » ne peut donc être
considéré d’une façon isolée et s’insère de facto dans un contexte social, démographique et culturel.
La composition de la salle de classe est donc un enjeu de taille lorsqu’il est question d’effectifs. Dans une classe
de 24 élèves de 5e année, on peut typiquement retrouver la composition suivante :
8 élèves qui suivent bien, aiment l’école et ont des parents impliqués dans leur cheminement scolaire;
5 élèves ayant un plan d’enseignement individualisé (PEI) avec adaptations pour diverses difficultés
d’apprentissage;
3 élèves ayant un PEI avec des attentes différentes en mathématiques et/ou en français;
1 élève nouvellement arrivé au Canada qui suit le programme d’appui aux nouveaux arrivants (PANA);
2 élèves identifiés comme ayant un de trouble du déficit de l’attention avec hyperactivité (TDAH);
5
1 élève surdoué qui dérange constamment les autres;
1 élève médicamenté pour des troubles anxieux;
1 élève ayant une déficience visuelle et nécessitant du matériel adapté;
1 élève qui est régulièrement absent;
1 élève dont les parents viennent de divorcer et qui éprouve des difficultés d’adaptation.
« Ce contexte d’apprentissage où évoluent des individus différents réunit-il les conditions requises pour offrir un
environnement d’apprentissage constructif, personnalisé et enrichissant pour nos enfants? À quelle fréquence
les interactions enseignant-élève sont-elles susceptibles de se produire? À quelle fréquence une enseignante ou
un enseignant est-il susceptible d’utiliser des méthodes pédagogiques novatrices pour transformer
l’apprentissage dans un contexte aussi difficile? » (16)
À cette réalité s’ajoutent d’autres défis auxquels le personnel enseignant est confronté. À titre d’exemple, les
événements violents dans nos écoles sont en forte hausse. Selon l’Institut de recherche sur le travail et la santé
le secteur de l’éducation est celui qui connaît présentement la plus forte hausse d’incidents de violence au
travail.
Dans ce contexte, une modification de l’effectif des classes, même d’un élève, ne peut se faire sans
conséquence. « L’OCDE estime que chaque élève supplémentaire par rapport à un effectif de classe moyenne
entraîne une diminution de 0, point du temps passé à l’enseignement et à l’acquisition des connaissances. »
(17)
Déjà, les effectifs actuels rendent plus difficile que jamais le travail des enseignantes et des enseignants. En
2014, la Fédération canadienne des enseignantes et des enseignants (FCE), lors de son enquête sur les enjeux de
l’enseignement, avait révélé que 95,2 % du personnel enseignant des écoles de langue française éprouvaient du
stress dû à son incapacité à consacrer autant de temps que voulu à chaque élève. (18)
6
La Société de recherche sociale appliquée (SRSA) a mené à l’automne 201 une enquête auprès du personnel
enseignant des écoles de langue française en Ontario sur les élèves ayant des besoins particuliers. Cette enquête
a révélé que pour le personnel enseignant, le nombre d’élèves par classe est trop élevé quand on prend en
compte le nombre d’élèves ayant des besoins particuliers ou des difficultés. De même, le personnel enseignant à
l’élémentaire rapporte devoir consacrer une partie importante du temps d’enseignement à la gestion des
problèmes de comportement. Les écarts dans les niveaux d’apprentissage sont également de plus en plus
importants au sein d’un même groupe, ce qui ne permet pas toujours d'offrir l’appui nécessaire à chacune et
chacun. (19)

1. pour assurer une éducation de qualité, les effectifs devraient être revus à la baisse;
2. les économies réalisées par une augmentation des effectifs se feraient au détriment des enfants et de la
capacité du personnel enseignant à répondre adéquatement aux besoins de chaque élève.
Références
1. OCDE. Regard r l éd ca ion Le indica e r de l OCDE Éditions OCDE, 2018, p. 173

2. OCDE. Regard r l éd ca ion Le indica e r de l OCDE Éditions OCDE, 2018, p. 370
3. Association canadienne d’éducation. La réd c ion de l effec if de cla e : que savons-nous?, Document de
questions et réponses, 2010
4. Center for Public Education. Class size and student achievement,
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/research/class-size-and-student-achievement
5. OCDE, Regard r l éd ca ion Le indica e r de l OCDE Éditions OCDE, 2018, p. 368
6. PELLETIER, J. & CORTER, J. A longitudinal comparison of learning outcomes in full-day and half-day
kindergarten, 2019, p. 1
7. Conseil des ministres de l’éducation. Déclara ion d CMEC r l appren i age par le je ,
https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/282/play-based-
learning_statement_FR.pdf
8. Collège royal des médecins et chirurgiens du Canada. Développement de la petite enfance : Énoncé de
position du Collège royal, 2014, p. 5-6
9. TD Economics. Early Childhood Education Has Widespread and Long Lasting Benefits, 2012, p. 5
10. Administrateur en chef de la santé publique. Rappor r l é a de la an é p bliq e a Canada, 2008, p. 73
11. Conference Board du Canada. Ready for Life: A Socio-economic Analysis of Early Childhood Education and
Care, 2017, p.11
12. Global Economic Symposium. Effective Investments in Education, https://www.global-economic-
symposium.org/knowledgebase/the-global-economy/effective-investments-in-education
13. The Economist. Reforming Education: The great schools revolution,
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2011/09/17/the-great-schools-revolution
14. OCDE. Ré l a d PISA Vol me I L e cellence e l éq i é dan l éd ca ion, PISA, Éditions OCDE,
Paris, 2016, p. 222
15. OCDE. Ré l a d PISA Vol me I L e cellence e l éq i é dan l éd ca ion, PISA, Éditions OCDE,
Paris, 2016, p. 212
16. FROESE-GERMAIN, Bernie, Richard RIEL et Bob MCGAHEY. « Effectif des classes et diversité des élèves : les
deux côtés d’une même médaille », Perspectives, numéro 6, février 2012
17. L'Économiste. L OCDE cri iq e le rpe plemen de cla e , Édition n° 4655, le 26 novembre 2015
18. FCE. Enjeux de l en eignemen en con e e minori aire francophone, 2014, p. 36
19. SRSA. Élèves ayant des besoins particuliers dans les conseils scolaires de langue française : consultation
auprès du personnel enseignant, 2018
7
Consultation:
Class Size Engagement
February 2019
Introduction:
The Ontario School Board Council of Unions (OSBCU), the bargaining agent for 55,000 Canadian
Union of Public Employees (CUPE) members who work in Ontario school boards, welcomes this
opportunity to participate in the consultation on class size. OSBCU-CUPE members have a vast
amount of experience in the education sector, working in all support staff classifications
throughout the province. These include early childhood educators, educational assistants,
instructors, library staff, child and youth workers, other professionals and paraprofessionals,
office and clerical staff, information technologists, custodial, maintenance and trades
personnel. We are a part of CUPE Ontario, the largest union in the province, with more than
270,000 members living and working in every community in Ontario. Our members’ experience
informs this submission, as does the need that all CUPE members have for a strong, sustainable
public education system.
We welcomed the opportunity to share our views on this consultation at a meeting on February
15, 2019 with Ministry staff. The written submission below is intended to highlight our main
points and supplement the feedback we provided at that meeting.
If the goal of the Ministry is to improve student outcomes, then the focus of consultations
should be on system investments rather than the possibility of increasing or removing caps on
class sizes or changing the education model for kindergarten. As we have regularly noted in our
submissions to the Ministry’s education funding consultations, funding for education has been
insufficient to meet needs for more than two decades. These funding deficiencies have meant
that schools are understaffed, and school renewal and repair needs have gone unmet. These
accumulated deficits in the education system weaken our ability to provide high quality
education. We will take this opportunity to refer the Ministry back to our most recent
submission on education funding as a statement of the ongoing need for additional funding and
increased staffing.
Class Size:
The consultation paper identifies some research on average class sizes in OECD countries, and
notes that Ontario has one of the lowest student-to-teacher ratios. Comparisons based on a
single variable are overly simplistic and superficial. There are multiple factors that contribute to
education outcomes making comparative analysis of the relationship between class sizes and
student outcomes extremely difficult. For example, it is not merely the number of students in a
classroom that is important to consider, but the specific needs of students in those classrooms
must be factored into the analysis. Jurisdictions that exclude students with exceptionalities

from classrooms are not comparable to Ontario, which is premised on the principle of
integrated classrooms.
Nor is it reliable to make comparisons between jurisdictions that have integrated classrooms1
when these jurisdictions offer different levels of support to students. Ontario has a long list of
students waiting for assessments, whose needs are going unmet. Additionally, Educational
Assistant (EA) workloads have been increasing in recent years, and the average number of
students supported by each EA is increasing. 2 Rather than focusing on changing or removing
caps on class sizes, Ontario should invest in providing additional supports to students with
exceptionalities. Such investments would lead to greater potential for success for students who
need supports and will also increase the potential for students who do not directly rely on the
support of an EA to improve outcomes.
Comparisons must also take into account the social determinants of educational outcomes. For
example, affordable high-quality childcare from an early age has several positive effects on
student learning potential. There are direct positive effects for students that come with the
care provided by childcare professionals. But there is also the benefit of improving family
earnings as affordable childcare allows for greater labour market participation of women and
has been identified as one of the most significant contributors to lowering the gender wage
gap. These positive economic and social benefits of affordable childcare, as one example of a
social determinant of educational outcomes, must be factored into comparisons of student
outcomes. Failure to integrate this approach into comparisons based on class sizes will lead to
unreliable results and bad public policy decisions.
Studies that compare class size should also consider government spending. Total government
spending on education is one factor, as is overall per-student funding, and education funding as
a proportion of GDP. Furthermore, a comparative analysis must also consider government
spending on all areas of social policy and public services. As the Financial Accountability Office
of Ontario recently reported, Ontario spends less per capita on public services than any other
province in Canada.3 Spending on a broad array of other public services, including health care,
municipal services, social services, childcare, etc., will also indirectly support educational
outcomes. Comparisons that ignore these other factors that contribute to student learning
outcomes provide a distorted picture of the complexity of the issue.
1
Integrated classrooms are those in which students with a number of different exceptionalities (and students with
multiple exceptionalities) are part of inclusive classrooms.
2
In 2018 CUPE surveyed the Educational Assistants we represent. Respondents to the survey reported that 60% of
EAs provide support to 5 or more students. 76% of respondents reported that the number of students they
support has increased over the past five years. Half of those who reported that their workload has not increased
stated that they were providing support to 5 or more students (i.e. that their workload had already been high).
3
Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, Comparing Ontario’s Fiscal Position With Other Provinces, February 14,
2019, https://fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/inter-prov-comparisons-feb-2019.

Despite all of these complexities (and other factors that need to be considered), the
consultation guide provides evidence that Ontario student achievement is not in crisis. In three
areas of learning Ontario students do better than most other provinces. In Mathematics,
Ontario does as well or better than all provinces except for two. In Reading, there is not a single
province that does better than Ontario. And in science, Ontario does as well or better than 6
provinces.
There is no single factor that can be used in comparisons of student outcomes. For a variety of
reasons (many listed above) class size, when used on its own, is an unreliable metric for
comparison. This is why the literature on the relationship between class size caps and student
outcomes is inconclusive. Instead of focusing this consultation on class size the Ministry should
be focusing on opportunities to invest more in education and the public services that support
educational outcomes. When the system has been underfunded for so long it is foolish to
pursue means by which funding can be withdrawn from education.
For the reasons listed above, and the reasons articulated in our meeting with Ministry staff on
February 15, we submit that existing caps on class sizes should be maintained. Increasing class
size will put additional strain on the system, adding workload to education workers whose
workloads are already too heavy. Instead of changing the regulation of class sizes the Ministry
should instead increase resources in schools, hire more education workers (see our submission
on the 2019-20 Education Funding Consultation, and our submission on Ontario School Board
Hiring Practices) to improve the education experience for students.
Furthermore, the Ministry should avoid the use of Board-wide averages for caps on class size.
Such a move could lead to wide variation of the number of students in classes, disadvantaging
those students in classrooms that have higher than average enrolment. A system of Board-wide
averages can also adversely affect students because it increases the risk that high-enrolment
classrooms will not be staffed based on need. Without changing other funding and staffing
mechanisms there is no guarantee that larger-than-average classrooms will have the staff
necessary to ensure all students receive the supports they need. The larger the classroom the
greater the risk.
Kindergarten Classrooms:
As we discussed at our meeting with Ministry staff, OSBCU-CUPE supports maintaining the
current two educator model for Kindergarten classrooms. The team-teaching approach that
includes an Early Childhood Educator (ECE) and a Kindergarten teacher has demonstrated its
effectiveness. We would like to reiterate, however, that Kindergarten classrooms also require
additional supports. For example, Kindergarten students with exceptionalities are not provided

adequate access to EA supports. The government’s recent announcement on changes to
supports for children with autism will likely lead to increased utilization of Kindergarten by
students on the autism spectrum. We are in favour of inclusive classrooms that provide
supports to all students. All students have a right to access a comprehensive education that
includes access to full-day kindergarten. This access must be accompanied by sufficient
supports to maximize student learning potential.
Conclusion:
Current caps on class size, and the current two educator model of Kindergarten education
should be maintained. Instead of attempting to find areas to cut funding or make changes that
will increase workloads and diminish supports for students, the Ministry should take this
opportunity to invest in public education. Earlier attempts to “find efficiencies” in school boards
have left us with a structural deficit that manifests itself in student needs being unmet
(including need for more EAs, ECEs, Office, Clerical and Technical (OCT) staff, maintenance and
custodial staff, library staff, etc.).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
February 14, 2019
To: The Honourable Lisa Thompson, Minister of Education
Cc. Martyn Beckett, Assistant Deputy Minister, Student Achievement Division

Andrew Davis, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education Labour and Finance Division.
From: W.R. (Rusty) Hick, Executive Director
Subject: Class Size and Hiring Practices Regulation Engagement
The Ontario Public School Boards’ Association represents English public school boards and
school authorities across Ontario, which together serve more than 1.3 million public
elementary and secondary students. The Association advocates on behalf of the best interests
and needs of students in the English public school system in Ontario. OPSBA believes that the
role of public education is to provide universally accessible education opportunities for
students of all ethnic, racial or cultural backgrounds, social or economic status, individual
exceptionality and faith. Under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act (SBCBA), OPSBA is
the designated employer bargaining agent for all 31 English Public School Boards as well as the
school authorities.
OPSBA appreciates this opportunity to engage with the Government in the consultation on
Regulation 132/12 Class Size and Regulation 274/12 Teacher Hiring.
Background
Over the years that OPSBA has been advocating on behalf of English public school boards in
Ontario there have been opportunities to engage in dialogue and consultation with previous
governments regarding class size and teacher hiring. OPSBA has always provided considered
feedback based on its own consultations with trustees and staff from member school boards.
Since the introduction of Regulation 274/12, OPSBA’s consultations have revealed the many
challenges and inequities this regulation has created regarding the hiring of teachers in the
province of Ontario.
1
Based on its previous consultations, OPSBA has held the view that the flexibility found in class
size averages provides the best opportunity for school boards to meet the unique learning
needs of each student. We will comment further on this position based on the most current
consultation with member boards later in this report.
In order to ensure the feedback provided for this consultation is reflective of the current views
of our member boards, on January 24, 2019, OPSBA consulted with school board’s Senior
Human Resources Officials. In addition, on January 25, 2019, OPSBA consulted with more than
300 elected school board trustees together with their Directors of Education who participated
in OPSBA’s Public Education Symposium (PES).
Class Size
Overall Class Size (K-12)
OPSBA’s view is that board-wide class size averages, together with a designated count date
(and in semestered secondary schools, two count dates), gives school boards much needed
flexibility, allowing them to provide the best learning environments for students.
OPSBA is not advocating for increases in class size, but rather, that board-wide class averages
provide much needed flexibility, which in one case might increase the size of a class, but would
decrease the size of another class. Flexibility and full funding are the drivers that allow school
boards to not only meet the needs of students but also manage their human and physical
resources in an effective manner.
Class size averages allow school boards to:
respond to fluctuations in student enrollment with minimal class disruption that, under
class size caps, forces students to change teachers after school has begun,
create learning environments to best meet individual student needs,
provide an environment for instructional continuity in the classroom for both students
and teachers,
create the best learning and teaching environments for students and teachers based on
local needs, and
deploy their most valuable resources, educators, in the most effective way.
Secondary schools deliver a wide variety of programming choices that require flexibility in
organization. A centrally determined rigid minimum or maximum number for class size in
secondary schools fails to consider:
2
the impact this would have on students’ ability to earn the credits required for
graduation,
the availability of specialized facilities,
the safety requirements in equipment based programs such as technical studies,
a school boards need for flexibility to support varied program choices that actively
engage students in their learning,
that the widest variety of options are ensured to support students in their career
choices, for example: specialist high skills major or skilled trade programming, and
that one size fits all does not work for all school boards given the variation in size and
geography across the province.
In summary, OPSBA believes that school boards require the flexibility that is afforded by class
size averages to provide the best learning environment for all students.
Kindergarten Delivery Model:
OPSBA has consistently supported the current two-educator model for the delivery of the full
day kindergarten program. The kindergarten program has evolved over time in its intentional
play based instructional approach with targeted assessment practices to monitor and report on
student progress. This support was reinforced in recent consultations because full day
kindergarten supports positive student outcomes and levels the playing field for all students.
Since the introduction of the new kindergarten program, positive impact has been made on
student readiness to learn as well as social and emotional learning and overall well-being. This
program allows for early intervention to maximize the outcomes for all learners and early
engagement of parents in their child’s learning which is a key factor in long term student
success.
In 2009, a document entitled With our Best Future in Mind was released. It outlined the
expansion of part time kindergarten programs to a delivery model that included the full day for
junior and senior kindergarten students. OPSBA suggests the government should review this
report together with more recent evidenced based research if it is considering changes to the
current model to address identified local needs, such as the inclusion of indigenous elders.
3
Regulation 274/12 – Teacher Hiring Practices
Since the introduction of Regulation 274/12 in 2012, which favours seniority as the most
important factor in teacher hiring, OPSBA has maintained that hiring is the responsibility of the
employer and that fair, equitable hiring practices that reflect local needs are critical to
improving student achievement and well-being.
There are many challenges that currently exist for school boards as a result of the introduction
of Regulation 274/12. They include:
an inability to address diversity and equity in hiring,

the limitations on boards to hire the teachers that reflect the needs of the school
community,
providing instructional continuity in the classroom where multiple postings are required,
the pressure occasional teachers feel to be on multiple school board lists,
the inability of permanent teachers to seek employment at a different school board, and
the restrictions for principals and vice-principals to return to teaching.
Seniority based hiring as required by Regulation 274/12 has created more inconsistencies in
teacher hiring in Ontario rather than reducing them. For example, under the regulation there
are different hiring requirements depending on the school board sector to which a teacher
applies. In the case of English public school boards there are differences between being hired
as an elementary teacher or secondary teacher even though the same individual may be
qualified to be hired in either panel. Some of these inconsistencies were brought about by the
five revisions (in 2013, 2015, 2016, June and November 2017) to the Regulation since 2012
which have essentially quadrified the regulation by sector. This regulation has also
disadvantaged teachers who are new to the profession and has become a deterrent to entering
the teaching profession. To become a teacher in Ontario you must first complete six years of
post-secondary education followed by an additional 16 months to qualify for permanent
employment as a teacher.
The many attempts to bring about improvements to Regulation 274/12 have been
unsuccessful. OPSBA has participated in each and every opportunity that has been provided in
an effort to bring about positive change. These opportunities have included: participating in
committees with the Crown and teacher unions, participating in writing the resulting reports
and recommendations from those committees, negotiated improvements, and ongoing
dialogue with both the Crown and teacher unions regarding the challenges and barriers the
Regulation has created. Local school boards have also attempted to bring refinements to their
hiring processes under this regulation, but have largely been unsuccessful.
4
Given these attempts at improving the regulation have not addressed the challenges and
inequities, OPSBA is not confident that further revisions to a fundamentally flawed regulation
will bring about the desired changes the government and school boards are looking for, and
would respectfully suggest that Regulation 274/12 be repealed. Instead all school boards
should commit to transparent, fair and equitable hiring practices as outlined below.
Fair and Equitable Hiring Practices:
1. Ensure that every school board has a hiring policy, procedure and process that is
equitable, transparent and monitored and must include the following principles:
A posting protocol for vacant positions, including timelines
Use of hiring teams that value equity and diversity
An interview process for every vacancy
Common and consistent set of questions and rubrics to evaluate applicants
Involvement of the Board Equity Officer/Board Integrity Officer/other
appropriate staff in the development of policies and procedures
Candidate debriefing upon request
Periodic auditing of the process
2. Ensure that school boards have (and post on their websites) recruitment and hiring
policies, procedures and practices that address:
Conflict of interest (that include reporting relationships with family members)
Whistleblowing
3. Other best practices that may be included in the establishment of a hiring policy include
(but are not limited to):
Use of Central Hiring teams
Creating a system where anonymous evaluation of applicants is implemented in
order to avoid bias, conscious or unconscious
Including all stakeholders in the development of the hiring policy/procedure
In summary, OPSBA continues to maintain that hiring is the responsibility of the employer and
that fair, equitable hiring practices that reflect local needs are integral to a strong public
education system that maximizes the opportunities for all learners.
Next Steps
OPSBA understands the fiscal challenges facing the province and appreciates the opportunity
the government has provided to help find solutions that balance fiscal responsibility with
supporting student achievement and well-being which is always the top priority for school
boards.
OPSBA is available for clarification, additional comment and feedback should the government
identify the need for further consultation on these matters.
5
February 14, 2019
To: The Honourable Lisa Thompson, Minister of Education
Cc. Martyn Beckett, Assistant Deputy Minister, Student Achievement Division

Andrew Davis, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education Labour and Finance Division.
From: W.R. (Rusty) Hick, Executive Director
Subject: Class Size and Hiring Practices Regulations Consultation
On January 23, 2019 the government released their Engagement Guides, inviting education
partners to provide input on teacher hiring practices (Regulation 274/12) and class sizes
(Regulation 132/12) in Ontario.
OPSBA has advocated on these matters over time and more recently hosted two consultations
with our member boards. On January 24, 2019, OPSBA consulted with Senior Negotiators from
across the province and on January 25, 2019, with member board Trustees and their Directors
of Education, at the Public Education Symposium (PES). Attached you will find OPSBA’s
submission to the Provincial Government regarding these regulations.
OPSBA wishes to extend its appreciation for providing the opportunity to be consulted on these
important matters.
Should you have any questions, we would be able to provide further input.
Best regards,
W.R. (Rusty) Hick

Executive Director
1
1
Some research attempts to e aluate Ontario s full-day kindergarten program include: J.P. Pelletier and J.E. Corter, A
Longitudinal Comparison of Learning Outcomes in Full-day and Half-day Kindergarten, The Journal of Educational
Research, January 2019 available at https://doi.org:/10.1080/00220671.2018.1486280 and the 2013 report A Meta-
Perspective on the Evaluation of Full-Day Kindergarten During the First Two Years of Implementation, conducted by the
Social Program Evaluation Group Queen s Uni ersit The Offord Centre for Child Studies McMaster, available at
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/kindergarten/fdkreport2013.pdf. Some studies have shown that full-day programs provide
short term academic and social gains with these gains fading over time. For example, see, J.S. Cannon et. al. Is Full Better
than Half? Examining the Longitudinal Effects of Full-day Kindergarten Attendance, (2006) 25 (2) Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management at 229-321; and M.D. Brownell et. al., Long-term Benefits of Full-Day Kindergarten: A
Longitudinal Population-Based Study, (2015) 185(2) Early Childhood Development and Care at 291-316.
2
Pelletier and Corter comment It is critical to understand both the conte t and the outcomes in FDK research
these contextual factors may affect the fade-out issue. More long-term follow up studies are needed to explore the
potential lasting effects of such programs and to consider the diversity in contexts in which such programs are
offered Indeed Baile et al urged us to continue to track longer-run effects of FDK. This is particularly important in
the context of the Ontario FDK program because this program differs from other full-da programs in important a s
(p.3).

Association franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques
Mémoire
Préparé par
LA cia i f a c -ontarienne des conseils scolaires

catholiques
(AFOCSC)
Effectifs de classe P a i e d e ba che
Février 2019
1
Table des matières
Introduction .................................................................................. 3
Effectifs des salles de classe ........................................................ 4
P af d fe e e effec if e à éche e d c ei c ai e .. 4
C a e de a e e e e de ja di d e fa .............................. 6
Effectif général des classes ......................................................... 7
Impact sur les immobilisations : ............................................... 8
Impact sur la main-d œ re : ................................................... 9
Pratiques d e ba che ................................................................ 9
Conclusion ................................................................................... 13
2
Introduction
LA cia i franco-ontarienne des conseils scolaires catholiques (AFOCSC) agit à titre de
porte-parole pour les huit conseils scolaires catholiques de langue française en Ontario.
Elle défend leurs intérêts et fait la promotion de éd ca i catholique en langue
française auprès de la communauté ontarienne et des gouvernements. Comme chef de
file, a cia i participe activement à la croissance du système scolaire catholique de
langue française de O a i en contribuant à la réussite scolaire et à la construction
identitaire de tous les élèves.
À aide de la concertation, du réseautage et des actions en partenariat, les membres de
AFOCSC cherchent plus particulièrement à assurer que le caractère distinct de
éd ca i catholique de langue française i èg e dans tous les aspects des
programmes d é de et du processus éducatif. Nous recherchons é i é pour les écoles
catholiques de langue française basée sur des besoins réels qui relèvent de notre
spécificité. Enfin, nous veillons aussi au respect des droits qui nous sont conférés par la
Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés.
Une des prémisses de base de éd ca i catholique est que toutes les personnes sont
membres à parts égales de leur communauté et e e ont toutes une responsabilité de
e aide pour atteindre leur plein potentiel. Puisque les écoles sont souvent au c
de leur communauté, il est tout à fait normal e e contribuent à leur essor.
L AFOCSC est heureuse de soumettre ses commentaires dans le cadre de la consultation
3
sur les effectifs des classe e de ai e d e ba che menée par le ministère de
Éd ca i
Effectifs des salles de classe
Bie e AFOCSC ec ai e e défi fi a cie a e e g e e e est
conf é i e de e e pas moins que pour tout changement important apporté au
dè e de fi a ce e de éd ca i e i i è e d i veiller à ce que ces modifications
ai e a à e c ed i ci e d é i é d fi a ce e de éd ca i en Ontario.
Le modèle doit offrir une flexibilité de gestion qui permet aux conseils scolaires
catholiques de langue française (CSCLF) de continuer à fournir une éducation de qualité à
e e b e de e é è e
Ce e e a c e de ce de c ai e e AFOCSC vous soumet ses
commentaires, par thème et non par question, en réponse à la consultation sur les enjeux
e ié à effec if de c a e
P af d fe e e effec if e à éche e d c ei c ai e
Pour les CSCLF, en raison des limites imposées par la démographie de leurs salles de
c a e e e ige ce i ée effec if de c a e de ie e e c e diffici e à
gé e a ec b iga i d af d fe e Dans la majorité des petites écoles, un 24e élève
pourrait vouloir dire une ou un nouvel enseignant, ce qui ajoute des coûts
4
supplémentaires. L a ica i d af d fe e è e e à la création de classes
multiples où certains défis se présentent.
Un plafond ferme cause aussi des problèmes pour les grosses écoles, car ce sont elles qui
permettent a c ei c ai e d a ei d e e a de % de classes ayant 20 élèves
ou moins afin de maximiser le financement.
L AFOCSC e da i effec if e a af d fe e ff e e ei e e
flexibilité de gestion aux CSCLF, car il permet d ganiser les classes en fonction des
besoins des élèves soit grâce à des classes à niveau simple ou multi âges, à des grandeurs
des classes variées, ou en organisant des classes pour favoriser une meilleure acquisition
du français par les élèves.
Une moyenne c ei e e elle existe présentement pour les classes de 4e à 8e année
demeure la façon la plus « juste » pour les CSCLF de gérer leur dotation et leur permettre
de se rapprocher des moyennes financées. Une première analyse de la Subvention de
base par élève que nous avons réalisée, démontre que pour les 8 CSCLF, il y aurait un
sous-fi a ce e de i e eig a e e eignants au palier élémentaire, dû à
i ibi i é e CSCLF d a ei dre les moyennes financées. L AFOCSC e d a i que
le ministère doit e i c e de ce e éa i é e c e e CSCLF a a d entamer des
modifications parce que la réalité des CSCLF est bien différente de la majorité des conseils
scolaires de langue anglaise. Nous recommandons au i i è e de Éducation de
c idé e de e e diffé e e e e b edéè e a c ei c ai e, par
5
exemple une moyenne pour les conseils scolaires de plus de 35 000 élèves et une autre
moyenne pour les conseils scolaires qui ont moins de 35 000 élèves.
Peu importe le modèle, le défi réside dans la qualité de la formule qui sera utilisée pour
le calcul de la subvention. Il est important qu e e soit le plus près possible de ce qui se
fait dans les conseils scolaires. Présentement, tous les conseils scolaires ont des processus
de dotation basés sur des moyennes-écoles, des moyennes-conseil et des limites sur ce
i ê à acce e c e a i da e a e de c a e selon le niveau de
la classe. Cette réalité que vivent les conseils scolaires milite e fa e d ef e de
financement équitable et flexible.
C a e de a e e e e de ja di d e fa
La mise sur pied du modèle actuel de a e e e e ja di d e fa s temps plein (M/JTP)
a ie sur des études qui démontrent e a c ab a i e e e eig a e
e eig a e e EPE j e ée à ga ea é a e i age a e jeu
e e ê e favorise le développement des enfants.
En septembre 2019, le programme de M/JTP entreprendra sa neuvième année
d e i e ce I a ai i a a a de cha ge e dè e d é a e i ce de ie
a bel et bien répondu aux attentes. Nous croyons que les réponses à ces questions
éie e c ac e e e e e eff éce ai e
6
Ceci dit, il est important de souligner que bien avant la venue du programme de M/JTP en
2010, les CSCLF avaient déjà un programme de M/JTP dans toutes leurs écoles. Nous
savons que ce programme a un impact positif sur le niveau de francisation des élèves
ayants droit et sur leur deg é de é aai à éc e. I e ec e ac iii de
la langue française se fait à cet âge et cette acquisition est très importante pour permettre
a éè e da i eb e ansition vers le programme de 1re année.
Avant de modifie e dè e e da i i e i a de bie c e de
les lacunes du modèle actuel. Par exemple, pour les CSCLF, certains des défis les plus
importants du présent modèle, pour plusieurs écoles, e yenne de classe plus
élevée a i ac défa ab e ac iii d f a çais par les élèves ayants droit qui
proviennent souvent de familles exogames.
Effectif général des classes
À i e de c e ai e gé é a c i e a ée i é de tirer des
conclusions sur le rendement scolaire en comparant les effectifs des classes au niveau
international, sans prendre en considération les réalités socioculturelles existantes.
Nous voulons toutefois attirer votre attention sur les éléments suivants :
Pour assurer une éducation de qualité, c i fa é i e de éd i e
a e i age de éè e à e i e f e a hé a i e Bie e
7
ec ai i e e fi a ce e de éd ca i d i e ba e de a a è e ce -
ci doivent offrir une flexibilité de gestion.
De e CSCLF e e e é e ée d effec ifs des classes, combinée à un
manque de flexibilité apporte un certain défi. La clientèle évolue constamment et amène
des demandes distinctes telles que le niveau de francisation, les milieux socio-
économiques différents, les nouveaux arrivants et les élèves à besoins particuliers.
Notre analyse démontre que la Subvention de base par élève, sous-finance les CSCLF pour
é i ae de i e eig a es ou enseignants. Il va sans dire que toute
augmentation des moyennes financées serait préjudiciable pour les CSCLF. De plus, même
i e i i è ea g e e e e e d effec if de c a e ac f i é a éa i é
démographique de plusieurs des écoles catholiques de langue française fait en sorte que
les CSCLF ne pourront pas bénéficier d économies dans leur processus de dotation. Par
c é e c i e ai e que le ministère considère un financement
basé sur de e e d effectif des classes différentes selon la grosseur de conseils
scolaires. Il faut réaliser que cha ge e a e e d effec if de c a e a a
des impacts tels que :
1. Impact sur les immobilisations :
U b e déè e ée é ai e ige de us grandes salles de classe,
donc des modifications aux immobilisations pourraient être nécessaires, ce qui
engendrerait des coûts supplémentaires.
8
De plus, une réduction dans le nombre de salles de classes occupées réduirait le
a d cc ai de éc e, ce qui pourrait avoir un impact négatif sur la
S b e i ef ci e e e a éfec i de éc e
2. Impact sur la main-d œ re :
Des modifications aux règles sur les effectifs des salles de classe auront un impact
sur la planification b dgé ai e de a ée c ai e -2020. De plus, si les
changements tardent à être connus, les CSCLF auront des difficultés à faire du
recrutement en raison des obligations contenues dans les différentes conventions
collectives e de a é ie d e eig a e e e eig a fa c h e
catholiques.
Pai e d e ba che
Les conseils scolaires francophones catholiques tels que vous le savez, ne sont plus
a je i a Règ e e e Pai e d e ba che e ce a i e à la
ég cia i de e e e ce ae -2107 entre le Conseil des associations
de e AFOCSC e ACEPO e AEFO
Par contre, les obligations qui se trouvaient dans le règlement a priori, sont incluses avec
quelques modifications, dans la convention collective depuis cette ronde de négociation.
Les modifications aux obligations ont permis aux conseils scolaires catholiques de langue
f a çai e d a e e ei e e abi i é da a a e de c a e de ab e ce e
9
déc a a a c de a ée c ai e ai i ce efficace i
les suppléances à long terme. Il est donc nécessaire que les changements apportés par le
gouvernement augmentent la souplesse du processus, ne créent pas des obstacles
é e ai e e é iminent pas les effets positifs des modifications apportées pour
les conseils scolaires francophones catholiques.
Malgré ces changements, les obligations qui ont été imposées pour la première fois en
2012 restreignent grandement nos conseils scolaires. En effe a cie eé ie a
c de b iga i e e e a a c ei c ai e de ace e a ei e e
enseignant(e) dans la salle de classe et ainsi, favoriser un meilleur apprentissage pour les
élèves. Il est important de comprendre que a cie eé é i a a éce ai e e
à une plus grande expérience ni à de meilleures compétences, ca i e ib e
enseignant suppléant enseigne depuis plusieurs années sans toutefois avoir acquis
e é ie ce e e c é e ce éce ai e pour offrir un enseignement de qualité
fa ia a e i age
Il est impossible de comparer les obligations des suppléants à court terme avec celles des
suppléants qui sont affectés dans un poste à long terme ou celles des enseignants
permanents. Par e e e e eig a éa àc e e a a a à fai e de
a ifica i de a égie d e eig e e e f ci d c ic i a ifie e
fonction des besoins de chacun des élèves, ce que font les enseignants permanents et les
suppléants à long terme. Considérant ces rôles distincts, il est difficile de concevoir que
des suppléants à court terme puissent avoir priorité à des postes de suppléance à long
terme seulement en fonction de leur ancienneté et de leurs qualifications.
10
De plus, ces obligations ralentissent grandement le processus de recrutement annuel des
c ei c ai e ce i a è e a ai e è ad e ai de a é ie
d e eig a fa c h e ca h i e Ce a e i e e fai e e e ie
ca dida acce e de e da da e i ce e d a e è e e
ai d offres tardives causées par le processus en place.
N e da i e a bi i é e e eig a de c ei f a c h e à
i é ie d è ef a c hone est importante tout en assurant une stabilité au sein
des conseils scolaires. Il serait de plus important que cette mobilité puisse aussi être
applicable aux directions et directions adjointes qui désirent retourner en salle de classe.
En effet, il peu a é e diffici e e di ec i de e e e a e de c a e e
ai de c a e de c e i c ec i e e ai e d e ba che
Nous sommes de plus favorable à é i i a i de la liste des suppléants à long terme et
de conserver e i e de éa ce à c di i e a cie eé e i a e
c i è e g ida e ba che Le c ei c ai e d i e i ch i i a ei e e
candidature en fonction du poste disponible pour pouvoir ainsi offrir le meilleur
enseignement à leurs élèves.
N e da i i e de ai a a i de i i e e b e de ca didatures
pouvant être considéré. Les conseils scolaires pourraient passer en entrevue toutes les
candidatures qui ont du mérite et choisir le meilleur candidat pour le poste. Actuellement,
e ca e e ic i e a à ce i e ê e e igé de affichage de
e Le a ifica i a ca e de O d e ce e è i a e ce e da
certaines autres exigences peuvent être très pertinentes pour pouvoir offrir le meilleur
11
enseignement et une expérience éducative des plus enrichissantes pour les élèves. En
voici quelques exemples;
Da e ca d ga e -études avec une spécialisation en soccer, il
serait très important de pouvoir prioriser les candidats ayant la certification et les
compétences pour être entraîneurs de soccer.
Il serait important de considérer le bilinguisme comme étant une compétence
i a e e e eig a i a e é à e eig e a g ai à leurs
é è e à é é e ai e
I e ai éfé ab e d a i de e é ie ce e de c é e ce e i e
une école offrant un programme de musique.
I e a i i a e eig e e c d e eig e e e igie e
e eig a ède de qualifications en théologie.
Le c ei c ai e de aie i e ige de c é e ce e de e é ie ce
pertinente au sujet enseigné, au-de à de a ifica i de O d e de e eig a e e
e eig a de O ai E ai d ce e ace, les conseils scolaires
ca h i e e e e affi e i e ba che j e ei e ca dida
pouvant assurer la meilleure expérience et le meilleur apprentissage pour leurs élèves.
Afi d a e a a a e ce e é i é da e cad e d ce d e ba che de
enseignantes et des enseignants, les conseils scolaires francophones catholiques ont en
place des processus rigoureux comprenant entre autres des grilles de sélection analysées
par les comités de sélection. Ces processus permettent aux employeurs de choisir le
12
meilleur candidat pour le poste disponible en fonction des qualifications, des
c é e ce de e é ie ce e de éa i é de éc e ce i e i ib e
ée e e e ai de c a e e ai e d e ba che Ces processus
é ie e é ac i a è e e e afi d e i e a ca dida e ai
e e e i a éé ee e ide ifie e i e à i e a é i e afi
d be i e da ef
Le ce d e ba che de e eig a e e de e eig a e i a d i ê e
restructuré pour être plus flexible et ainsi permettre à chacun des conseils scolaires
ca h i e de a g e f a çai e de ada e e f ci de be i de diffé e e
régio I d i de e e ea c ei c ai e de i ec e à e é ie
de a i ce e ê e à é a ge c idé a a é ie d e eig a fa c h e
en Ontario. Ce qui demeure le plus important pour les conseils scolaires est la mise en
ace d ce d e ba che i e e a de e e ei e ca dida afi
e e éè e i e fi e d ei e e eig e e e d e e é ie ce de
enrichissantes et ainsi devenir des citoyens accomplis et engagés.
Conclusion
L AFOCSC e e cie cha e e e e e i i è e de Éd ca i cca i de
e e ce é i e La c ai de e e b e de a e ai e e éd ca i e
e i a a e e O a i de e e e j idic i a eche che
et e e é ie ce i f e a i e de déci i a ec bjec if e e a e è e
13
scolaires financés par les contribuables soient à la hauteur des aspirations de notre
société.
Depuis la création des conseils scolaires catholiques de langue française, notre système a
fait des progrès fulgurants. Nos écoles sont performantes, et ce, grâce au travail de
chaque intervenant et des mesures mises en place par les conseils scolaires francophones
catholiques pour assurer le succès de leurs élèves. Que ce soit les membres du personnel
e eig a de ie de e b e de ad i i ai de c ei c ai e e
conseillères et conseillers scolaires élus et bien sûr les parents et autres partenaires, nous
travaillons tous pour assurer à nos jeunes la meilleure éducation possible.
14

Mémoire
Soumis au ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario
dans le cadre de la consultation sur
l’effectif des classes et les pratiques d’embauche des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario
Le 22 février 2019

INTRODUCTION
L’Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’Ontario (ACÉPO) représente les
quatre conseils scolaires publics de langue française de l’Ontario. Son mandat consiste à appuyer
ses membres afin d’assurer le développement durable et la vitalité du système d’éducation publique
de langue française de l’Ontario. Les écoles publiques sont inclusives et offrent une éducation de
haute qualité. Elles connaissent de loin la plus forte croissance du nombre d’inscriptions de la
province et répondent parfaitement aux besoins d’une population multiculturelle vivant dans une
société moderne et démocratique, comme en font foi les résultats académiques enviables de leurs
élèves. Le succès de l’éducation publique de langue française est d’autant plus remarquable que
seuls quatre conseils scolaires couvrent l’ensemble du territoire ontarien, ce qui fait de notre système
d’éducation le système le plus efficace au niveau de l’utilisation des ressources de l’Ontario.
Dans un monde où la réussite économique est étroitement déterminée par l’accès à des services
éducatifs de haut niveau, c’est d’abord et avant tout en misant sur les ressources de son capital
humain que l’Ontario réussit à bien se positionner dans une économie mondialisée. Le
développement du système scolaire de la province doit être une priorité essentielle pour le
gouvernement afin d’assurer les meilleures perspectives d’emploi aux générations futures et ce,
dans les deux langues officielles du Canada.
En tant que représentante des quatre conseils scolaires publics de langue française, l’ACÉPO est
heureuse de participer à la consultation sur les effectifs de classe et les pratiques d’embauche en
Ontario et de soumettre ce mémoire. L’ACÉPO souhaite mettre en avant quelques pistes de solution
pour le développement harmonieux de l’éducation en Ontario et ce, tout en tenant compte du
contexte économique de l’Ontario. L’ACÉPO demande au ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario de
prendre en considération les spécificités du système d’éducation publique francophone, ses besoins
et ses droits.
En offrant à leurs élèves une éducation de très grande qualité axée sur les compétences du XXIe
siècle, en donnant l’appui nécessaire au personnel enseignant et en établissant un environnement
inclusif et sécuritaire, les quatre conseils scolaires publics francophones de l’Ontario visent à
atteindre l’excellence pour leurs élèves et leur personnel. Les recommandations formulées dans ce
document visent à assurer une éducation de qualité et former des jeunes qui pourront contribuer de
façon engagée au développement économique, culturel et social de l’Ontario.
acépo | 2

Règlement 274/12 - Pratiques d’embauche
Le règlement 274/12 ne s’applique pas à l’égard des enseignants qui appartiennent à une unité de
négociation représentée par l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens.
Cependant, les obligations du règlement 274/12, auxquelles des modifications ont été apportées, se
retrouvent dans l’entente centrale des conseils scolaires francophones. Certaines de ces
modifications ont permis une plus grande stabilité au niveau des salles de classe, lors des absences,
en raison de la mise en œuvre d’un processus plus efficace de recrutement d’une suppléance à long
terme. L’ACÉPO est donc d’avis que si le gouvernement de l’Ontario décide d’apporter des
changements au règlement 274/12, il faudrait que le gouvernement prennent en considération l’effet
de ces changements sur les conseils de langue française lors de la prochaine ronde de négociations
centrales.
Il y a toujours des aspects des pratiques d’embauche qui causent des problèmes majeurs au sein
des conseils scolaires publics de langue française. Par exemple, l’ancienneté, comme critère
principal d’embauche, ne permet pas nécessairement l’embauche optimale. En effet, les années
d’expérience ne garantissent aucunement la compétence d’un suppléant ou d’une suppléante.
La lourdeur du processus d’embauche constitue également un défi pour les conseils scolaires
publics de langue française, tout particulièrement dans un contexte de pénurie de personnel
enseignant francophone qui nous place en concurrence avec les conseils scolaires de l’Ontario et du
reste du Canada.
En conclusion, l’ACÉPO demande un système d’embauche efficace, juste, équitable et plus flexible,
qui permet de s’adapter aux particularités des différentes régions et qui prend en compte les défis
particuliers associés à l’embauche du personnel enseignant de langue française. Il en va de la
qualité de l’éducation publique de langue française offerte à chacun et chacune de nos élèves.
Effectifs de classe (M-12)
L’ACÉPO est d’avis que lorsque les élèves sont moins nombreux par classe, cela crée un
environnement où le personnel enseignant peut avoir des interactions plus fréquentes avec chaque
élève, en utilisant un plus large éventail de stratégies pédagogiques, ce qui permet l’offre d’une
rétroaction descriptive à l’élève et lui donne la chance de préciser ses prochaines démarches pour
poursuivre son apprentissage. De plus, dans ce genre d’environnement, les élèves ont tendance à
apprendre davantage et à être plus engagés envers leur éducation, et les parents sont plus satisfaits
du parcours scolaire de leurs enfants. Pour toutes ces raisons, l’ACÉPO n’est pas en faveur d’une
hausse de l’effectif des classes.
Cependant, l’ACÉPO estime que l’effectif moyen des classes à l’échelle du conseil scolaire devrait
remplacer le plafonnement ferme de l’effectif des classes, qui est en vigueur présentement. En effet,
l’utilisation de l’effectif moyen des classes à l’échelle du conseil scolaire donne aux conseils scolaires
la flexibilité dont ils ont grand besoin non seulement pour fournir le meilleur environnement
d’apprentissage à leurs élèves, mais également pour gérer efficacement leurs ressources humaines
et matérielles.
acépo | 3

De façon concrète, l’utilisation de l’effectif moyen des classes à l’échelle du conseil scolaire se
traduirait par une gestion plus efficace des fluctuations causées par les inscriptions en début d’année
qui forcent des élèves à changer d’enseignant alors que l’année est déjà entamée. De plus,
l’utilisation de l’effectif moyen prendrait en compte les besoins locaux, tant des élèves que du
personnel enseignant, et maximiserait l’utilisation des ressources éducatives. Au palier secondaire,
la flexibilité accrue que permet l’adoption de l’effectif moyen des classes faciliterait grandement la
gestion de la diversité des programmes qui sont présentement offerts dans nos écoles secondaires,
en réponse aux besoins en évolution des élèves et aux exigences accrues du marché du travail.
Ceci étant dit, bien que l’ACÉPO est convaincue que le maintien des effectifs scolaires actuels et
l’adoption de l’effectif moyen des classes à l’échelle du conseil scolaire offrent le meilleur compromis,
il est primordial de rappeler au gouvernement de l’Ontario que cette solution aura des conséquences
différentes pour le système public de langue française. En effet, le modèle de l’éducation publique de
langue française, avec ses 4 conseils scolaires qui couvrent l’ensemble de la province, est le plus
efficace quant à l’utilisation des ressources de la province. Cependant, comme la superficie
moyenne de ces 4 conseil est de 55 000 km2 par rapport à 5 500 km2 pour les conseils de langue
anglaise, et que les communautés francophones sont plus restreintes et dispersées, cela ne permet
pas à nos conseils scolaires de consolider le nombre d’élèves par classe de la même façon que les
conseils anglophones ou catholique francophone. De plus, la transmission du Français et de la
culture requiert un personnel enseignant francophone avec des qualifications particulières et une
grande adaptabilité au niveau des conseils scolaires pour répondre aux besoins variés des élèves. Il
faudra donc tenir compte de ces spécificités, afin d’éviter de pénaliser nos conseils scolaires pour
l’utilisation efficace des ressources financières de l’Ontario.
Classes de maternelle et de jardin d’enfants
L’ACÉPO est d’avis que le modèle actuel de livraison de l’enseignement rejoint les besoins des
jeunes apprenants en leur offrant une base solide pour leur apprentissage futur, facilitant ainsi la
transition vers la 1er année, et en leur permettant de développer les compétences sociales et
émotionnelles qui leur serviront tout au long de leur parcours scolaire. Le modèle actuel permet
également le dépistage et l’intervention précoces qui maximisent les chances de réussite à court,
moyen et long terme pour l’ensemble des élèves.
Il est également important de rappeler que le système public de langue française avait adopté un
modèle à temps plein pour la maternelle et le jardin d’enfants bien avant l’implémentation du modèle
actuel, en raison entre autres de la reconnaissance de l’importance pour chaque enfant d’acquérir
les compétences langagières en français nécessaires à la réussite de leur parcours scolaire. La
composition de plus en plus diversifiée de la communauté francophone fait que l’apprentissage de
base de la langue revêt plus que jamais une importance fondamentale pour assurer le succès de nos
élèves.
acépo | 4

En conclusion
L’ACÉPO croit qu’il est primordial de mettre en œuvre des solutions qui permettent à chaque conseil
scolaire de créer un environnement d’apprentissage riche en opportunités et ouvert sur le monde
pour donner la chance à tous les élèves de développer leur plein potentiel. Après tout, il en va de la
vitalité économique et sociale de notre province. Cependant, ces solutions doivent et peuvent tenir
compte du contexte économique actuel de l’Ontario.
La présente consultation du ministère de l’Éducation est un bel exemple de collaboration qui

combine réussite des élèves et responsabilité fiscale. L’ACÉPO est heureuse d’y contribuer et
demeure disponible pour tout suivi.
acépo | 5
Class Size Engagement - Consultation Paper
In order to ensure your feedback is considered, please forward your electronic submission by
February 22, 2019 to EDULABFINANCE@ontario.ca
Name: Greg Anderson

Title (if applicable): Chair of Board
Organization (if applicable): Grand Erie District School Board Trustees
Hard Caps and Board-Wide Average Class Sizes

For Consideration:
1. Should the regulation continue to set hard caps on class sizes? Why or why not?
No
should be Board wide averages
input from schools helps schools meet needs of students
School Boards need flexibility
2. If hard caps are to be set out in regulation, what is an appropriate class size limit?
do not put this in regulation
3. If hard caps were removed from regulation, what would be an appropriate mechanism to
set effective class sizes?
The needs of individual schools
Use class average size
4. Are board-wide averages appropriate to set effective class sizes? Why or why not?
YES – see answer above in first question
5. Other than hard caps and board-wide averages, is there a different model for setting
effective class size that the ministry should consider?
No
Use board wide averages
Kindergarten Classroom
For Consideration:
1. What are the implications of the present “two educator’ model for:
a. Student outcomes?
b. Educator workload and working conditions?
c. Value-for-money?
o Two educator model is beneficial to kindergarten children and provides
good value for the money
o Two educators enables individual attention to take place in play-based
program and adds value to families of students.
2. Are there other models the ministry should consider?

Research has shown the success of the program for our students with a teacher and
Early Child Educator in the classroom
Class Size Engagement - Consultation Paper
Grand Erie District School Board Trustees
Overall Class Size

For Consideration:
1. To ensure quality education, for each panel, what class size would be considered too large
or too small? Why?
a. Kindergarten
b. Grades 1-3
c. Grades 4-8
d. Grades 9-12
No specific numbers provided because schools need the flexibility to address their
individual school needs
2. Do changes to class size, in the range of 1-6 students, affect educator workload and
working conditions?
a. If so, od these effects have an impact on students learning outcomes?
b. How could such effects be mitigated?
refer to HATTIE study on impact of class size on student success
3. Is there any other feedback that you thin should be considered that has not been addressed
so far?
School boards need to have flexibility around class sizes to meet students’ needs.
The Honourable Lisa Thompson
Minister of Education
900 Bay Street
Mowat Block
Toronto Ontario M7A 1L2
Dear Minister Thompson:
Re: Class Size Engagement Guide and Ontario School Boards Hiring Practices Consultation
The Bruce-Grey Catholic District School Board (BGCDSB) appreciates the opportunity to participate,
along with other stakeholders, in this public consultation about important issues affecting publicly
funded education. We note that invitations have also been extended to numerous other education
partners.
We understand that the Ministry is actively reaching out to stakeholders as a follow-up to the
government’s public consultation on education reform, which has sought input from parents, students,
educators, employers and sector organizations on a variety of issues. BGCDSB responds in the spirit of
its mandate as an organization dedicated to excellence in Christ- centered education.
BGCDSB recognizes the public policy importance of the issues raised by the Minister and their impact on
student success and achievement. We do therefore take this opportunity to raise and discuss
concerns, and to highlight challenges associated with the regulatory status quo. We would urge the
Ministry to consider these concerns in assessing new directions, and identifying options, should that be
the ultimate outcome.
We also acknowledge that certain aspects of hiring practices and class size have in past been the subject
of discussions with labour partners in the collective bargaining context. BGCDSB is, and remains,
committed to the collective bargaining process, the duty to bargain in good faith, and to the
constitutional protection of Catholic education.
Regulation 132/12 – Class Size
BGCDSB, in partnership with OCSTA, has consistently advocated for an education funding model built on
the following four principles:
Equity – A funding formula must distribute education dollars equitably among all Ontario school
boards and their students;
Adequacy – The level of funding for education must be adequate to ensure quality
education for today’s students;
Autonomy/Flexibility – The model must allow school boards the autonomy and flexibility
in spending they require to achieve the distinctive goals of their system, and to meet local
needs;
Accountability – The educational funding model must include mechanisms that ensure the
appropriate degree of accountability for all parties and transparent processes and
reporting mechanisms to support efficient and effective use of educational resources for
students.
These principles are rooted in student well-being and academic excellence, and flow from a desire to
make pedagogically sound decisions in the best interest of students. Creating classrooms based on
hard cap restrictions is not in the best interests of students and often unnecessarily restricts
classroom organization without a focus on maximizing student well-being. Additionally, the
principles set out above, flow from Catholic school boards’ commitment to be good stewards of
available resources and to provide programs to students as efficiently and effectively as possible. In
BGCDSB’s estimation, determinations with regard to class size should be similarly rooted. In this
regard, restricting school boards’ ability to make pedagogical and student well-being choices based on
requiring compliance with regulatory restrictions imposing hard caps, is neither pedagogically sound,
nor fiscally efficient.
Rather, opting for determinations of class size based on system averages would provide us with much
needed flexibility in allocating scarce educational resources. Such flexibility would allow school
boards the ability to distribute resources where they have the greatest impact on students, optimizing
the focus on student well-being. It would also reduce the requirement to create and reorganize
classes after the beginning of the school year, minimizing student, and staff, disruption. Maintaining
transparency, school boards would still be required to organize classes to meet system-wide
requirements, albeit within a more flexible model allowing for pedagogical decision-making on a
school by school basis, informed by input at the grassroots level. Finally, school boards currently
provide significant reporting to the Ministry with respect to classroom organization. Such
transparency and accountability would continue to be supported by school boards in a system wide
average revised model.
BGCDSB appreciates the significant investment that has been made in the full-day kindergarten
program. Many millions of dollars and countless hours have been spent at each of the provincial,
board and school levels putting in place a program that all hoped and anticipated would result in
meaningful and sustained gains for our youngest learners. We have experienced positive feedback
of the program in its current form. Additionally, initial information is promising, though to date
there is limited research that demonstrates a clear link between the program and prolonged
academic gains for students.1 The program as originally conceived and articulated in the 2009
report recommended a different structure than that which was implemented. Bearing all this in
mind, and to better inform any view, BGCDSB would support that a detailed review of the program,
and any accompanying gains, be undertaken to assess effectiveness, prior to any program changes
being implemented.2
Overall Class Size

With respect to overall class size, the matrix of considerations are broad and should be premised on
the needs of the students within a classroom/school. These include particular supports, including
special education, English as a second language, cultural diversity and a host of other differentiated
needs. Thereafter, significant issues such as existing school space and the ability to physically and
comfortably accommodate students and staff are very important considerations. BGCDSB reiterates
that allowing school boards flexibility with respect to staffing and class composition through
system-wide averages, can best assist in meeting the needs of our students.
Regulation 274/12 – Hiring Practices

Ontario Regulation 274/12 was first enacted in 2012 subsequent to an agreement signed exclusively
between OECTA and the Ministry of Education. Following the enactment of the regulation,
collective agreement language was imposed via the Putting Students First Act, through Orders in
Council. The Putting Students First Act was ultimately found to be unconstitutional.
BGCDSB believes that teacher hiring is critically important to student well-being and academic
excellence, and further that such hiring is the responsibility of the employer to conduct in a fair and
equitable manner, reflective of local needs.
Under these guiding principles, below is a list of challenges that have been articulated by our member
boards, as well as our own, with respect to Regulation 274/12.
1 Some research attempts to evaluate Ontario’s full-day kindergarten program include: J.P. Pelletier and J.E. Corter, A
Longitudinal Comparison of Learning Outcomes in Full-day and Half-day Kindergarten, The Journal of Educational Research,
January 2019 available at https://doi.org:/10.1080/00220671.2018.1486280 and the 2013 report – A Meta- Perspective on
the Evaluation of Full-Day Kindergarten During the First Two Years of Implementation, conducted by the Social Program
Evaluation Group – Queen’s University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies – McMaster, available at
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/kindergarten/fdkreport2013.pdf. Some studies have shown that full-day programs provide short
term academic and social gains with these gains fading over time. For example, see, J.S. Cannon et. al. Is Full Better than Half?
Examining the Longitudinal Effects of Full-day Kindergarten Attendance, (2006) 25 (2) Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management at 229-321; and M.D. Brownell et. al., Long-term Benefits of Full-Day Kindergarten: A Longitudinal
Population-Based Study, (2015) 185(2) Early Childhood Development and Care at 291-316.
2Pelletier and Corter (2019) comment, “It is critical to understand both the context and the outcomes in FDK research; these
contextual factors may affect the fade-out issue. More long-term follow up studies are needed to explore the potential
lasting effects of such programs and to consider the diversity in contexts in which such programs are offered….Indeed, Bailey
et. al. urged us to continue to track longer-run effects of FDK. This is particularly important in the context of the Ontario FDK
program because this program differs from other full-day programs in important ways.” (p.3).
Teacher Mobility
Many school boards have indicated that certain of the requirements of Regulation 274/12 impede the
ability of teachers to transfer between boards, in some instances despite significant teaching
experience. Smaller, northern boards have articulated the greatest concern in this regard, citing
exacerbated recruitment challenges.
Teacher Continuity in the Classroom

School boards have indicated that the requirements of Regulation 274/12 negatively impact on teacher
continuity in the classroom. School boards have noted that the posting and interview requirements of
the regulation can often be an impediment to having a position filled quickly and with a single teacher.
This can have a deleterious effect on student achievement and wellbeing. By way of example, in a large
Catholic board in each of 2016/2017 and 2017/2018, 12 classes had more than 2 long-term occasional
teachers over the course of a single academic year. Further, in a large Catholic board as of October 15
2016, 227 classes did not yet have a “permanent” long-term occasional teacher assigned. In 2017, 123
classes did not have a “permanent” long-term occasional teacher assigned by October 15, 2017.
Availability of Occasional Teachers

Many school boards have reported difficulty ensuring that all classes with an absent teacher are filled
quickly and consistently. It is reported that beyond increased absenteeism this may be due, in part, to
the limited availability of occasional teachers as many occasional teachers are employed with multiple
boards in order to increase their chances of obtaining long-term or permanent employment. In some
instances, teachers work very little for each of the boards with whom they are engaged and this does not
serve to foster a sense of community within a school and board.
Teachers Applying to Multiple Positions

Numerous school boards have indicated a concern with teachers applying to many positions, causing
ripple effects and significant delays in interviewing and filling positions. In addition, Regulation 274/12
provides no flexibility in granting an interview to candidates seeking to be placed on the occasional
teachers list if certain conditions are met, regardless of whether that teacher has been unsuccessful in
numerous previous interviews. In a large Catholic board to date in the 2018/2019 year, 156 candidates
each applied for in excess of 50 open positions (permanent and LTO combined) creating administrative
burdens and adding to delays in filling positions. A small number of candidates (2) have applied for in
excess of 300 open positions.
Qualifications
School boards have articulated that Regulation 274/12 is an impediment to filling positions with the
best candidates, particularly in specialized positons such as French, special education and high skills, as
some candidates have obtained qualifications but are not necessarily proficient or sufficiently
experienced for the position. Some school boards have reported what they view as a contradiction
between section 1(2) of Regulation 274/12 and the effect of the hiring process.
Administrative Burden and Process Inefficiencies
School boards have reported that Regulation 274/12 imposes a significant administrative burden on
principals and board staff. This is particularly exacerbated during the spring and fall, when numerous
vacancies (both permanent and long-term) must be filled. It is reported that the required processes
are, in large measure, not efficient sometimes necessitating that the same candidate be interviewed
numerous times, as outlined above in Teachers Applying to Multiple Positions. Additionally, some
boards report that the requirement to post all but the shortest long-term assignments, negatively
impacts efficiency in the filling of vacancies and can cause challenges to continuity of learning. In this
regard, it is interesting to note that a large Catholic board filled 534 LTOs in 2017/2018 and of those
46% were either full year/semester.
Equity, Diversity and Geographic Disparity

A number of school boards report that the process requirements of Regulation 274/12 can hinder
attempts to foster equity and diversity within certain schools. In some instances, a candidate who is
not available for hire given the required process, might have been placed at a school with a student
population that would benefit from strategic hiring in order for the students to see themselves
reflected in their classroom. In addition, some of our more rural and Northern boards report an inability
to maintain newly hired permanent teachers at specific, more remote locations where the successful
candidates do not live in the surrounding communities. At a small, rural board, one school has
experienced a teacher turnover rate of 41% over the last 3 academic years, and another school has
experienced a teacher turnover rate of 24% for the same time frame. This board reports that teachers
who do not live in the communities in which these schools are located will often seek transfers to
schools which are more proximate to their home, very shortly after obtaining permanent employment.
This has a detrimental effect on the students and school community.
The BGCDSB appreciates the opportunity to provide this input. We acknowledge the challenges
presented to our work and anticipate on going discussions and consultations as we work toward
improving the outcomes for students in the province of Ontario.
Sincerely,
Beverley Eckensweiler James McKinnon

Chairperson Director of Education
Bruce-Grey Catholic DSB Bruce-Grey Catholic DSB
Cc: Nancy Naylor, Deputy Minister of Education

Andrew Davis, Assistant Deputy Minister Education Labour and Finance Division
Susan Allen
75 Woolwich Street
P.O. Box 1298 Tel: 519-821-4600
Guelph, ON, N1H 6N6 Fax: 519-824-3088
www.wellingtoncdsb.ca @wellingtoncath
Preparing Our Students Today for the World of Tomorrow
1
Class Size and Hiring Practices Consultation
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Feedback on Ontario School Board Class Size
Submitted on behalf of the Durham Catholic District School Board s Durham Catholic Parent
Involvement Committee (DCPIC)
The following is a series of verbatim comments from members of the DCPIC in response to the
consultation paper from the Ministry of Education:
Member #1:
I think e need to tr and ensure class si es don t get to big I think we need to continue to cap
the amount of kids per/classroom as I feel that smaller classroom benefit children more. There
would be more opportunities for teachers to interact with students and offer help where
needed.
I also think that class caps should as be in forced or established for mixed grade classrooms. It s
tough enough as it is to teach to different grades, but have high numbers of students adds to
the difficulties in the classroom and make it difficult for teacher to help students and for
students to feel like they are heard or important.
I also find now that all types of students are integrated in classrooms it s reall tough for
teachers to give one on one attention to students as their focus is usually directed to correcting
behaviour of certain students, while the well behaved ones are left to their own devices to
work independently.
I think having caps are beneficial for all grades along with added support for all students with all
abilities to ensure all students have a chance to succeed.
Member #2:
- No specific comments regarding Harding Caps and Board-wide Average Class Sizes
Kindergarten classroom
The hard cap for Kindergarten classes is currently too large. Class sizes need to consider the
typical development of the children at that age. Kindergarten aged children are still developing
self regulation skills - they have more outbursts, they are less in control of their impulses, and
they have more emotional breakdowns. They can typically only commit shorter periods of
attention. And they are more easily over stimulated. Regardless of the lower student to teacher
ratio, the greater number of children in the class creates more distractions, which negatively
impacts learning outcomes.
The physical space of the classroom may not be able to effectively accommodate a larger
number of students. I am strongly against lifting hard caps and I am in favour of lowering the
cap si e for kindergarten classes M son s teacher has reported significant changes in his
behaviour this year and I believe that this is partially attributed to his class size of 24 versus 31
last year.
When considering alue for mone t o ECE s for JK could likel pro ide effecti e learning
outcomes, with a transition to one teacher and one ECE in SK in preparation for grade 1.
Member #3:
Many class sizes in Ontario are too high to produce positive student outcomes and
manageable workloads for teachers. A point that should be considered which is not
highlighted in this document is the number of children with IEPs or special needs in a
class. While all children are equal, each child has unique learning needs and have the
right to have these met in an appropriate learning environment - which includes an
effective class size.
I support a hard cap at no more than 20 students in a class across all grades. I believe
this number should be reduced when children with special needs are in the classroom
so that educators can allot additional time to support the inclusion of these students.
Educators are currently overburdened and spend much of their personal time preparing
for class and following up on tasks. Reducing class sizes would enable them to spend
less time marking and more time developing and executing innovative, holistic and
engaging lessons - a task far more valuable and essential to meet the needs of our
students and prepare them for their future.
Member #4:
I don't have feedback on the class size document. I am satisfied with the class size 'as is'. Survey
results show that the lower student to teacher ratio doesn't necessarily translate into high
performance.
Member #5:

1. The regulation should continue to set hard caps on class sizes because you need to have
a total limit for children in each class. However, flexibility should be granted to each
school to determine how many children without going over the class limit should be
placed in each class.
2. Appropriate class size limit in my opinion should be 24 children.
3. If hard caps are remo ed board ide a erages ith the input of the school s principals
should be utilized to set effective class sizes.
4. Board wide averages can be effective to set class sizes if other factors are being met.
More emphasis should be placed on building better classrooms with respect to a
Universal Design of Learning as well as multiple learning styles. Averages would have
more fle ibilit ith the school s being able to dictate ho man children in each space
would be beneficial for an enriching learning environment.
5. I think more emphasis on creating more resources for teachers and students should be
placed then on the emphasis for class sizes. If the classroom is set up with enough space
and resources to accommodate the man different IEP s as ell as a UDL the class si e
would not matter so much. The issue is having a hard cap set with 26 different children
at 26 different learning abilities in a classroom with sometimes only 1-2 teachers.
1. I think that the present t o-educator model is a beneficial one for student outcomes
However, I think one still needs to look at each classroom as a case by case method. In
order for all children to be able to learn at their own pace with the inclusive curriculum
sometimes more resources are needed in the classroom. Educational Assistants could
help the educator workload and working conditions that sometimes surface, when you
have different learning abilities, and learning styles all in one room.
2. With respect to the Kindergarten classroom one model to take into consideration
maybe could be the model that is used in a Early Childhood Education setting, possibly
placing the educator with an ECE and an EA to help with the various documentations,
learning abilities, and learning styles. Ratios being 1-8 (3 teachers to a room with 24
children).
Overall Class Size
1. Kindergarten class sizes in my opinion are considered too large, this is for some children
their first time in a classroom setting. They are away from their families and primary
caregivers for the first time and exposed to set schedules and activities often having to
learn to be independent for the first time. This is a very stressful time for the child, their
families and the educators in the room. Having smaller class sizes would help ensure an
easier transition and a happier learning environment for all.
2. Of course, changes in class size affect the educator workload and working conditions.
More children in the classroom equals more learning styles, more IEPs that need to be
considered as well as creating more diverse teaching methods. If educators are
spending more time with a child that requires more help in certain curriculum areas,
they are taking attention away from the other children in the class, this 100% affects the
student s learning outcome More resources allocated to the teacher s in the classroom
could help mitigate this outcome. More technology so that students can work ahead if
they understand concepts easier could be useful, as well as a resource teacher in the
classroom could help unburden workloads for the educators helping them use their time
more efficiently and effectively.
3. As much as it is important to ensure student success, I think emphasis should also be

placed on ensuring educator s success More often no students are entering the
classroom with behaviour, mental stress, and other factors that many educators are not
equipped to deal with. Educators are not trained psychologists, having workshops on
how to effectively manage stress and children could be beneficial or having access to
more professional resources to help bridge the gap could also be beneficial.
Ontario Catholic School Business Officials Association
Association des adminis ra e rs e des adminis ra rices d affaires des écoles ca holiq es de l On ario
Office 1190 Beals Street • Windsor, ON N9E 4A4 Tel. 519.980.4909 Email: marchinip@sypatico..ca
1
2
3
4
o
o
o
o
Consultation on Class Size
Submitted by Peter Joshua, Director of Education, on behalf of the Peel District School Board
For Consideration:
1. Should the regulation continue to set hard caps on class sizes? Why or why not?
2. If hard caps are to be set out in regulation, what is an appropriate class size limit?
3. If hard caps are to be removed from regulation, what would be an appropriate mechanism to
set effective class sizes?
4. Are board-wide averages appropriate to set effective class sizes? Why or why not?
5. Other than hard caps and board-wide averages, is there a different model for setting effective
class size that the ministry should consider?
1
For Consideration:
1. Wha a e he implica ion of he p e en o ed ca o model fo
c. Value-for-money?
Queen’s University “Final Report:

Evaluation of the Implementation of the Ontario Full-Day Early Learning Kindergarten Program ”
and McMaster University “The Full Day Kindergarten Early Learning Program Final Report
that students who had attended two years of full-day kindergarten
were less vulnerable entering grade 1 as measured by the Early Developmental Instrument
Any changes to the staffing composition of kindergarten will need to involve consideration for school
board obligations to their employees both statutorily and those required in collective agreements.
This includes notice and lay-off requirements as well as language regarding working conditions.
Overall Class Size
For Consideration:
1. To ensure quality education, for each panel, what class size should be considered too large or
too small? Why?
2
2. Do changes to class size, in the range of 1 6 students affect educator workload and working
conditions?
a. If o do he e effec ha e an impac on den lea ning outcomes?
3. Is there any other feedback that you think should be considered that has not been addressed
so far?
3
February 21, 2019
CODE
Council of Ontario Directors of Education
1123 Glenashton Drive, Oakville, Ontario L6H 5M1
Telephone: 905-845-4254 Fax: 905-845-2044
Representing:
CODEC – Conseil ontarien des directrices et des directeurs de l’éducation catholique • CODEP – Conseil ontarien des directions de l’éducation publique
ECCODE – English Catholic Council of Directors of Education • PCODE – Public Council of Ontario Directors of Education
225 CENTRAL AVENUE WEST, BROCKVILLE, ONTARIO K6V 5X1 TEL: 613-342-0371 FAX: 1-855-508-1590
225 CENTRAL AVENUE WEST, BROCKVILLE, ONTARIO K6V 5X1 TEL: 613-342-0371 FAX: 1-855-508-1590
Submitted by the Niagara Catholic District School Board
• Research varies on what is appropriate class size

• Research has not found a connection between class size and student success
• Research has gone into current class size
• Answer should be evidenced based and funded accordingly
• If set, current – 90% at 20 and under and 10% capped under 23 by a set date
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Submitted by the Niagara Catholic District School Board
• Research varies on what is appropriate class size

• Research has not found a connection between class size and student success
• Research has gone into current class size
• Answer should be evidenced based and funded accordingly
• If set, current – 90% at 20 and under and 10% capped under 23 by a set date
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

February 22, 2019
Class Size
Thunder Bay Catholic DSB appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the
government regarding its consultation on Kindergarten to Grade 12 class sizes and hiring
practices. The following submission represents the input from TBCDSB.
The government has identified the goal of maximizing student success in safe and
engaging classroom learning environments in a cost-effective manner. There are, of
course, many variables that contribute to this objective, only one of which is class
size. Another increasingly significant factor is the growing number of students with
complex learning needs.
1. Replace hard caps on individual class sizes with board-wide averages.
The greatest opportunity for the government, school boards and schools to achieve this
goal will come with fully funded flexibility to apply sound professional judgement to
support staff and students by balancing the needs of students in each class. This is not
always possible with the current hard caps on individual classes.
What is needed is the adoption of board-wide averages. The adoption of board-wide

averages will provide school boards with the flexibility to create school organizations that
minimize combined grade classes and better balance the number of students with
complex learning needs in each class. It is fair to say that TBCDSB has heard consistent
advocacy from teachers for larger classes at a single grade level rather than fewer
students in a combined grade class.
Replacing hard caps with board-wide averages would also allow for greater flexibility in
smaller schools, for example in rural areas.
If the government decided to maintain or minimally increase provincially funded average

class sizes and combined this with the replacement of hard caps with board-wide
averages, teacher workload and classroom learning environments could be more
effectively managed, resulting in consistent student achievement and delivering greater
value for the government’s investment in education.
2. Maintain the current model of 1 teacher / 1 E.C.E. team instruction at the

Kindergarten level.
Given the significant, relatively recent investments in large, purpose-built kindergarten

classrooms, and the many student-centered benefits of a highly-qualified team approach

in the kindergarten program, a two educator model for classes of 26-30 children is most
effective.
An additional factor that must be taken into careful consideration in any deliberation
around modification to the current model is the shortage of highly qualified Early
Childhood Educators, particularly in northern and rural Ontario.
2
RE: Ministry of Education Class Size Engagement Guide and Ontario School Boards
Hiring Practices Consultation
Hiring Practices and Class size engagement
Class Size
The Northwest Catholic DSB appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the provincial government
regarding its consultation on class sizes and hiring practices. We appreciate that we are able to present
our Northern Ontario perspective.
The government has identified the goal of maximizing student success in safe and engaging classroom
learning environments in a manner that is cost-effective. It is noted that in that regard it is pointed out
that many variables exist and class size is one component of a much larger picture as it relates to
student success. It is of significance to note that variables such as increasingly complex student needs
being identified have significant implications.
1. Replace hard caps on individual class sizes with board-wide averages
The greatest opportunity for the government, school boards and schools to support the government’s
goal above will come with fully funded flexibility to apply sound professional judgement to support staff
and students by balancing the needs of students in each class. This is not always possible with the
current hard caps on individual classes.
What is needed is the adoption of board-wide averages. The adoption of board-wide averages will
provide school boards with the flexibility to create school organizations that minimize combined grade
classes and better balance the number of students with complex learning needs in each class. It is fair to
say that The Northwest Catholic DSB has heard consistent advocacy from teachers for larger classes at a
single grade level rather than fewer students in a combined grade class.
If the government replaced hard caps with board-wide averages it would provide The Northwest
Catholic DSB the flexibility required, especially in light of our rural setting.
This would also provide us with greater flexibility and equity for students in our French Immersion,
English and Native Language Class settings.
If the government decided to maintain or minimally increase provincially funded average class sizes and
combined this with the replacement of hard caps with board-wide averages, The Northwest Catholic
DSB believe that teacher workload and classroom learning environments could be more effectively
managed, resulting in consistent student achievement and delivering greater value for the
government’s investment in education.
2. Maintain the current model of 1 teacher/ 1 E.C.E. team instruction at the Kindergarten level
Given the significant, relatively recent investments in large, purpose-built kindergarten classrooms and
the many student-centered benefits of a highly-qualified team approach in the kindergarten program,
The Northwest Catholic DSB believe that this two educator model for classes of 26-30 children is most
effective.
An additional factor that must be taken into careful consideration in any deliberation around
modification to the current model is the shortage of highly qualified Early Childhood Educators,
particularly in northern and rural Ontario where many of us have employees on letters of permission in
these positions.
Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board
Class Size Engagement Guide Consultation, February 2019
As representatives of the Principals and Vice-Principals in the province of Ontario, Association

des directions et directions adjointes des écoles franco-ontariennes (ADFO), Catholic Principals’
Council Ontario (CPCO) and Ontario Principals’ Council (OPC) welcome this opportunity to
continue to work collaboratively with the Ministry of Education. We understand that the
Ministry is actively reaching out to stakeholders as a follow-up to the government’s public
consultation on education reform, which has sought input from parents, students, educators,
employers and sector organizations on a variety of issues.
We join these voices in the spirit of our dedication to excellence in our publicly funded education
systems (English Catholic, French Catholic, English Public and French Public). We are a primary
source of information about how schools function and how initiatives affect student
achievement in our schools. In developing this submission ADFO, CPCO, and OPC solicited input
from a number of sources and sought feedback from our members through inviting written
commentary as well as initiating dialogue with numerous individuals holding deep experience in
these matters. This valuable feedback assisted in shaping this response and we are very grateful
for their contributions. ADFO, CPCO and OPC have made numerous submissions to all levels of
government on the management and delivery of educational programs and services, both with
respect to the system as a whole, and as they affect the day to day operation of our schools.
We also recognize the public policy importance of the issues raised by the Minister and their
impact on student success. We therefore take this opportunity to highlight challenges
associated with the regulatory status quo as well as provide some suggestions for consideration
and would urge the Ministry to consider these concerns in assessing new directions, and
identifying options, should that be the ultimate outcome. We do so as the Provincial advocate
for the Principals and Vice-Principals in Ontario’s school boards and in support of student
success and well-bein
We also acknowledge that certain aspects of class-size have been the subject of discussions with
labour partners in collective-bargaining. ADFO, CPCO, and OPC are and remain committed to the
collective bargaining process, the duty to bargain in good faith and to maintaining positive
relationships with all of our educational partners both at the provincial and local level. We are
also committed to Equity (distribution of education dollars equitably across the province,
Adequacy (adequate funding to ensure quality education), Flexibility (to allow school boards and
schools the autonomy to achieve their distinct local needs), and Accountability (transparent
reporting mechanisms to support effective use of resources for students). All of these principles
flow from a desire to make pedagogically sound decisions in the best interest of students.
Let us begin by saying that there is no number that creates the perfect class size. Fewer students
is generally considered better, especially in the early years, to allow for reflective, inquiry based,
collaborative learning. As well, teachers are better able to develop significant emotional
relationships with each student which supports student well-being and student success.
However according to research, a great deal depends on teachers, their training and skill set, as
well as the students and their individual needs all of which must be properly supported. The
actual physical size of the space must be considered as well as respecting student safety and Fire
Code regulations.
The challenge with hard caps especially in small schools is that they tend to create a lot of split
classes and reduce the flexibility of principals to create classes that best serve student learning.
For example, one class might be best served with having fewer students in the class while
another class might be able to function quite well with a higher number. Permitting principals to
have some discretion within the set parameters of class sizes would help to mitigate some of
these challenges. For example, a school that should have three classes of 20 students, could be
broken up into class sizes such as 17, 20, 23 (as determined by the school principal) as long as
the mean is at the regulated cap size. This could allow for more strategic planning and placement
in terms of students, d teachers by those most invested in the
school. At the same time, there are certain classes where hard caps should remain in order to
ensure student safety for example, in fitness rooms, technical education classes, science labs etc.
The cha ith board-wide averages is, which teachers are averaged in the Pupil Teacher
Ratio? If Special Education, planning time, specialized and FSL teachers are included in the
average, a class size funded at 25:1 can quickly turn into 28:1 or even 30:1 in the actual class.
Board-wide averages are most effective if used as a benchmark and for funding for staffing
allotments. But with regard to effective instruction, they should not be the only factor in
determining class size because they don’t take the individual needs of the classes and schools
into account. Class size needs to vary based on age/grade, program/pathway and learning needs
of students as well as facilities available. In some cases, an increase in class size may not be a
good idea because it could negatively affect individual feedback/attention and the grading of
student work with appropriate descriptive feedback in a timely manner. In secondary schools, it
is important to have flexibility to allow principals to make the best decisions for students in
regard to courses to be offered. Doing so would reduce the need to have combined
College/University strands in one group. Flexibility would allow school principals to distribute
resources where they have the greatest impact on students, optimizing the focus on student
well-being.
We believe that a better way to promote student learning and well-being would be to ensure
that special education students are provided with the supports that they need to be successful.
Too often identified students’ needs are not being met due to lack of personnel, training or both.
This prevents these students from learning and impacts them socially as their peers observe
them struggling or acting out. The number of students with special needs, the intensity of their
Individu behavioural management plans, and high needs safety plans as well
as Education Assistants allocations should also be strongly considered when looking at class
Students having mental, social and emotional challenges also need to have access to the support
that will enable them to succeed so that they can become productive members of society.
Typically, these students and their families are faced with long wait lists, and inconsistent or non-
existent supports, leaving families frustrated and in despair. Flexibility in class size decisions will
also assist this group of vulnerable students.
With regard to Full Day Kindergarten (FDK), the 2-educator model is working very well. The
Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) teacher in the classroom has the overall view of the education
system including the skills and curricula acquisition necessary to succeed in Grade 1 and beyond.
The Early Childhood Educator (ECE) is an expert in child development who can ensure the
learning tasks are developmentally appropriate and since our school model is K-12 there needs
to be a certified teacher in each grade/class. Studies have shown that FDK reduces the risk of
delays in: language and cognitive development, social competence, communication skills and
general knowledge. FDK also increases achievement in Reading, Writing and Math in Grade 1
overall by 5% www.edu.gov.on.ca/kindergarten/theresearchinisinhtml .
Kindergarten is funded at a 13:1 ratio which is the same ratio for child care centres and allows
enough contact with each child to determine any developmental, social/emotional or learning
challenges. Remediation at that age can save more time consuming and costly interventions
later. Also, any decrease in funding of class size beyond the current 26 to 1 in a Kindergarten
classroom would be extremely difficult as the physical size of the classroom would impact what
types of learning activities could be initiated, impacting student learning. The inquiry-based
learning model can be more effectively planned and delivered with the two-educator model.
Student learning can be more easily documented, assessed, and tracked. We recommend that
this model be continued.
Finally, research has shown that the most effective way to improve student learning is to
improve collective teacher efficacy (Hattie, 2017). As Principals we have been hindered from
facilitating professional learning on a regular basis over the past several years, as it has become
common practice that all planning time must be teacher self-directed. Principals, not just
teachers drive educational gains. If we were able to meet in Professional Learning teams with
our teachers, focusing on improving student achievement, it would have a profound impact on
student learning. “Because principals can have an impact on student achievement, improving the
quality of school leadership, is more important than improving the quality of a single teacher’s
practice” (Andreas Schleicher, Schools for 21st Century Learners, 2015)
Patrick Venne Jennifer Yust Larry O’Malley

President President President
ADFO CPCO OPC
February 20, 2019
MEMORANDUM
External
TO: Ministry of Education, Ontario
FROM: Amal Qayum, OSTA-AECO President
SUBJECT: Class Size Engagement Consultation
OSTA-AECO, Executive Council & Board of Directors

www.osta-aeco.org
www.osta-aeco.org
www.osta-aeco.org
www.osta-aeco.org
www.osta-aeco.org
Please accept this stakeholder submission with regard to the cap on class sizes on
behalf of moms and parents in the GTA We know that your job is difficult as you
weigh the costs of our education system and the fiscal challenges of our province
At the same time, we urge you to consider our perspective and voices as you
proceed to make decisions that will impact not only our children, but the future of
our society 485 parents filled out the survey of which 48 9 currently have
children in JK or SK
We would be grateful to meet with you to discuss this submission
Warmest Regards,
Mothers for Better Education

Co Founder, Lily Cheng
mothersforbettereducation gmail com
Mothers for Better Education was created to ensure the needs and perspectives of
children and families are taken into consideration as changes are considered for
our education system Inspired by what a group of concerned mothers were able
to do through Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Mothers For Better Education wants
to help families have a voice at the table when key decisions are being made that
impact their children s education and future The group welcomes parents of all
genders to participate
Q Should the regulation continue to set hard caps on
class si es
No Undecided
3.9% 1.6%
Yes 94 5
No 3 9
Undecided 1 6
Ye
94.5%
Q What do ou think of the current educator student

ratio
The a io can be inc ea ed. (Mo e den e ad l )
0.8%
The a io i j igh
15.9%
The ratio is too high The number of students per adult

is too high 82 7 5
The ratio is just right 15 9
The ratio can be increased The number of students per
adult can be higher 0 8
Undecided 0 6
The a io i oo high.
82.7%
Q Does our famil child have an e periences positive or negative where class si e
impacted the qualit of learning for our child Please see addendum for quotes from
responses
In general, most parents who were surveyed were concerned with class sizes and the ratio
of adults to kids in the classroom The key concerns when there are too many kids and or
not enough adults are:
Safet Too many kids with too few adults leads to improper supervision resulting in
increased opportunities for bullying and inappropriate behaviour One student in
kindergarten was traumatized when she was hit in the head with a garbage can Another
parent said her kindergarten son admitted to inappropriate sexual play with a female
student behind the teacher s desk
One mother shared how her Grade 2 son was held down on the ground and choked There
were also mentions of physical and verbal violence In one case the class has been
regularly evacuated due to a violent child There were also several stories of children
accidentally being left outside in the schoolyard or locked inside a lunchroom
Children with special needs are not supported This means that the ECE will often
have to support children with behavioural issues Therefore, even if there is 1 teacher and
1 ECE in a class of 30, the true ratio ends up being 1:29 if there is 1 behavioural student
Children s needs are overlooked Children come to school with a wide variety of needs
including undiagnosed autism, English language learners, behavioural and social
emotional challenges and anxiety Added to this, some kids are still toilet training and
accidents are inevitable Amidst all of these needs, children who are shy and need to be
drawn out, or children who are eager and ready to learn can easily be overlooked When
this happens, children lose their love of learning and going to school
Not Enough Space Classrooms are crowded when they are full This can mean no
space to play even though it is supposed to be play based learning One parent described
how kids are knocking over each others toys while they play due to lack of space
Classrooms that are crowded are also very noisy which can be overwhelming for teachers
and students
Teachers are overwhelmed Many parents feel the teachers are overwhelmed and can
only teach minimally because they are so busy managing behaviour
Do ou think the current two educator model in kindergarten one
teacher and one ECE is working
Undecided
1.9%
No
20.8%
Yes 77 3
No 20 8
Undecided 1 9
Ye
77.3%
Has our famil child had an experiences positive or negative

where the current two educator model in Kindergarten has impacted
the qualit of learning for our child
Overall parents are content with the way teachers and ECEs complement each other in the
classroom, however, the ratio of students to adults is too high Most agree that the
teacher ECE model allows each professional to tend to their areas of expertise For
example, ECEs are able to focus on children with special needs or circumstances when
required, while the teachers can focus on the regular activities for the remaining students
Likewise, in situations where teachers are unable to assist students, such as during
bathroom use or other personal care situations, the ECEs are able to step in This however
brings up the concern that with the current large ratio of students to adults, the teachers
and ECEs are spending significant time tending to special needs and behavioural issues As
a result, they are unable to provide adequate time and attention to actual lessons and
teaching Many believe that additional support is needed, such as professionals who are
trained in supporting special needs students
Recommendations
Smaller class si es
1 JK SK ratios should follow current daycare ratios
2 Setting a cap on class size should also take size of classroom into consideration in
the calculation
3 Cap ratio of adults to children to 1:15 some suggested 1:10
Special Needs
While children with special needs were not a subject in this consultation, it has become
clear that classes are deeply impacted when children with special needs and
behavioural issues take a lot of focus away from educators
1 Train all educators on dealing with behavioural issues
2 Increase resources for children with special needs and or behavioural issues
including dedicated EAs where needed
Staffing
1 Increase adult supervision in classrooms This could include parent volunteers or
parents paid at minimum wage
2 1 teacher and 2 ECE per classroom with current class sizes
3 Ensure any child with special needs has a dedicated EA
Summar
Thank you for taking the time to read our submission In summary, as parents, we
are concerned about the consideration of the removal of a cap on class sizes Many
of our children already struggle with learning environments that are crowded,
chaotic and sometimes dangerous For the most part, we are grateful for the
teacher ECE partnership that happens in kindergartens however, if children with
special needs or behavioural issues do not receive extra resources, the second
educator in the room does not benefit the majority of students
We recognize you have a difficult task before you as the government seeks to find
ways to reduce expenditures However, our children require more, not less
investment if the future of our society rests upon their shoulders
We would be grateful for an opportunity to discuss our concerns and experiences

further with you
Thank you for serving our children and our province
Mothers for Better Education Co Founders,

Carolina Alvarado
Safiya Bhabha
Lily Cheng
Bryna Kligman
Katrina Koo
Q Does our famil child have an e periences positive or negative
where class si e impacted the qualit of learning for our child Cont d
Quotes from the surve
These are very young children They are just beginning to socialize and having so many
children in the room makes it difficult for them to develop prosocial skills
More injuries occur, less learning happens when there are too many distractions
My son is being overlooked in his class because the children with major behavioural
issues demand a lot of the teachers attention
Needs of students vary In the elementary grades there are often on going behavioural
issues that teachers are competing with in addition to a slew of addition needs with
varying diagnoses attached to certain students in the classroom
When picking up my kids Teachers are not even aware of the right people are picking up
My daughter grade 4 is falling behind and we have had to get a tutor Many, many kids
in our school have to have tutors to keep up because there is no time for the teacher to
give adequate teaching in the classroom
My child…now in grade 5 and the class is 31 It is a huge challenge Learning is
compromised, opportunities are limited and my daughter for the first time, dreads going
to school some days
I think the class size is just right my child can remember all the classmate s names and
there is enough variety and diversity of children that they could benefit from their class
size age:4 grade:JK class size: 22
My son has adhd and he really struggles in a classroom size of over 23 kids As of
September my son was asked to do half days because he and I m sure the teachers
couldn t cope It s February finally at a full day but still struggling Big classrooms are
over stimulating
As an elementary school teacher, I have seen first hand students not receiving the
support they require due to not being the squeakiest wheel and there being too many
squeaky wheels in the class
My child with special needs could not receive enough attention despite the teacher and
ECE s best efforts He was disruptive to the other learners because he was not having his
needs met
where class si e impacted the qualit of learning for our child
My child is in a class of 34, more then 5 students require additional support none
availiable in their class, and several more students with have IEPs , the class room was
too small to accomodat the students, their desks, and the teachers desk furnituure had
to be removed so they could fit The admin struggled to find a way to manage the
volume of studets, it took 3 weeks of shuffling in september to get sorted out The
teacher struggled from september to manage the behaviourial problems multiple
parent complaints with concerns about individual children s learning, interventions
were attempted, new strategies tried 34 kids would be difficult to manage in the best
case with support, and this was a complex class the teacher has now gone on leave The
kids have done very little learning in 5 months, several families reported that their 9 10
yos found the class too stressful
The huge kindergarten classes traumatized my middle child, she went from outgoing
and social in a small preschool setting to introverted and refusing to participate in
learning It took years of work for both us and her teachers to bring her back out of her
shell
In his SK year the teacher had no control over the students The class was a total chaos I
volunteered a few times and as a result there were lots of behaviour problems and
bullying in the class which led to my son not wanting to go to school
Teachers are not therapist, they need proper training not a day course into behavioural
therapy or how to learn to use reward charts How will having more kids in classrooms
will benefit anyone How will throwing kids with special needs back into regular
classroom benefit anyone
There is simply not enough physical space in a classroom for high class size numbers In
some kindergarten rooms, there are barely enough cubby spaces for kids backpacks
and outerwear
Larger class sizes means teachers are constantly trying to just manage special needs
behavioura while the other kids often do not get the one on one time they also need
from their teachers
Yes, my daughters class watches screen time nearly daily, largely because teachers have
trouble coping with the sheer numbers of 4 5 year olds needing to get dressed to go
outdoors transition between activities etc
My other daughter was in the other class that was at the cap, but there were 5 known
needs in the class Many days she came home crying and upset because the class was so
disruptive It was horrible the things she saw and experienced!
I am being told by the teacher they only watch cartoons during recess or lunch time,
which is by itself concerning to me, in order to help keep kids quiet and finish their
lunches
As a teacher I can say that higher class sizes mean that I have trouble meeting all the
needs of my students I usually have 25 30 grade five students About 7 10 of these
students need significant support to help them academically and or emotionally
Because there were 4 or 5 disruptive kids in class grade 1, 27 kids , it took away the
teachers attention There was no homework assigned and upon speaking with the
teacher during parent teacher interview, it was evident that the teacher did not know our
son He regressed, no longer remembered how to write and most of not all of his activity
work books were blank
This year my son is in a smaller class from 28 in JK to 19 in SK and we have seen a
tremendous improvement in his literacy skills and feelings of safety and belonging to his
classroom
My son is one of millions who have been diagnosed with ADHD odd as well as autism
Too many students in this classroom make it difficult for him to have an opportunity to
build friendships and socialize appropriately as he is overwhelmed and outnumbered My
son also has admitted that he has participated an inappropriate sexual play in the
classroom with another girl behind the teacher s desk obviously the teacher was
outnumbered by students and not able to properly supervise my child
Two of my children are in kindergarten and their classroom is far too small to fit the
number of students it currently holds, especially with play based learning Children are
getting hurt because there is not enough space for 24 bodies to move around
My granddaughter was hit in the eye from a student who threw a garbage can across the
classroom
My son is special needs I feel for the other kids in his class as it not only impacts my son,
but also the other kids These could be the future doctors, scientists etc of the world and
this lack of resources for special needs kids could impact their success
Ihate that my child is seen as a burden, and to me it feels as though his teacher and
principal resent him It s the system thats failing them not the child that gets the title of
burden
My daughter had an physical accident at school which was a result of lack of enough
supervision!! Now she is left with a big mark of the cut on her face for the rest of her life
Yes My child is overstimulated in class by the noise of all the kids His needs are often
unmet because he is quiet
My nephew was in a kindergarten class of 30 Two kids had autism and another
behavioural student the class needed to be evacuated at least once a week because of
violent behaviour Classes should be weighted
There are children in his class, my son included, who have special needs and cannot get
the attention they need because the child to adult ratio is too high There is not enough
room in their cubby area, there isn t time to work with everyone
Q Has our famil child had an e periences positive or negative
where the current two educator model in Kindergarten has impacted the
qualit of learning for our child
If we increase the cap it may lead to more workload and possible neglect of kids in the
first year which sets the stage for their entire education years
My middle child had severe issues in kindergarten 30 students with 2 adults is absurd
Many kindergarten students are still completing toilet training Teachers are dealing with
separation anxiety, flagging students for possible diagnosis etc
Had 35 kids in their kindergarten classes sotwo teachers wasn t enough My kids learned
nothing and came home every day saying they were squished in class, had no room to
move around classroom was small for that huge number of kids , teachers never paid
attention to them because always dealing with the bad kids
The class often had to be evacuated as a child got violent This child needed a shadow
and didn t have one
The team partnership worked very well
As a current FDK teacher, my ECE is such a great teammate and partner There have been
times when I have had a runner a child who does not want to stay in the classroom , a
student with behavioural challenges, and a student who would have daily washroom
accidents all in the same classroom There is no way I could have safely managed this
classroom without a teaching partner
Children at such a young age need a lot of assistance 2 educators in a class of 29 kids
surely is not enough Possible 1 teacher 2 ECEs would be a great alternative, especially for
classes who have high needs children
Kids at this age are very demanding Having one educator only will raise a serious safety
and quality issues for sure
The ideal would be 1:8 max 1:10 ratio for Jk Sk, then Grades 1 4 1:25 Grades 5 8 1:28
MAXIMUM
Q Has our famil child had an e periences positive or negative
where the current two educator model in Kindergarten has impacted the
qualit of learning for our child
Yes, my daughter was able to connect with her teacher and ECE, in a loving and caring
manner They were able to give every child, a class of 25, the aloted time of one on one
learning
Yes my daughter is learning a new language much faster than she otherwise would be,
I m certain she is benefitting, but also can t imagine her size of class with only one
educator in the room She would be left behind almost for certain by children who
already spoke the language
When my 8 year old was in Kindergarten, he struggled very much even with a teacher
and ECE in the class It was way too congested and the excessive hustle and bustle of
having such a large class affected him very much It was a nightmare having to go
through that and I do not want my other son to go through the same thing No child
should have to learn in that type of environment What we need is smaller classroom
sizes and more support! Not the opposite
During an observation visit, I saw his teacher at the carpet with 10 jks, doing a readaloud,
while also trying to give instructions to sks working on writing at a table across the room
while the ece was trying to help another group of 10 kids learning to undress and just get
ready for the day While trying to wrangle the behavioural kid who was screaming and
having an emotional breakdown by the door What I saw were 2 teachers with their
attentions split between too many students trying to help every single student but really
meeting nobody s needs That was not quality learning That was just them managing
the high number of children in their care
ECEs also have a more play based background and way more background in child
development knowledge so they add so much to a kindergarten program
This model with two educators is good as kindergarteners are still looking to the adults
for guidance and need higher involvement from the teachers
I feel my daugter benefits greatly from having two educators in the classroom that offer
different perspectives, expertise and time
Going into jk my son didn t know his alphabets or his numbers He was a very clingy child
as he was in daycare prior to school However within three months into school he has
blossomed so much He recognizes all of the alphabet ,the numbers, can write his name
and even read some sight words its amazing to see his transformation and I owe it all to
his wonderful teacher and ECE They are so kind and patient and even a difficult son like
mine loves going to school because of their hard work and dedication He has grown
leaps and bounds and learnt so much independence He was also a slow speaker but
now is very fluent in his speech Although I was initially skeptical about the play based
system I can fully see the positive effects it has on my son
Having more adults in class smaller class sizes would allow teachers to have more
opportunities and different techniques to engage with children and stimulate their
learning with better quality tools
Having an ECE in my sons classroom throughout kindergarten was the only thing that
got my son through each day Later being diagnosed with ASD, if my sons classroom did
not have an ECE, no one would have been able to learn And working daily as a support
staff at school, I see how integral ECEs are
Kindergarteners require so much hands on support Two educators are required as one is
often helping with functional tasks and dealing with conflict
Because my son was showing special needs at a young age, he ended up having the ECE
working as a personal service worker instead Although grateful that he had this, that is
NOT what the ECE s in the classroom are for They aren t there to occupy the difficult
children But often that s what I see
Also in kindergarten, my 4 year old son was left in the lunch room for the entire lunch
time recess The ECE worker in his classroom noticed he was gone when the kids were
returned to the classroom He had been locked in the lunchroom for about 45
minutes He was found soiled, sobbing, terrified and we needed to have counselling for
him afterwards I strongly believe without the kindergarten classroom cap in place, they
wouldn t have noticed until attendance was taken
A teacher in every classroom is very important to me While I value the skills of an ECE, I
do not agree that ECEs alone can provide an optimal academic learning environment
I am a Kindergarten teacher AND a mother I can tell you first hand that the current
model is broken on SO many levels Because there are 2 adults, there are more children
While this may sound good when broken down mathematically e g 1:13 or 1:14 ratio , it
simply does not PLAY out mathematically There are multiple children with
exceptionalities in Kindergarten classes now There are children with anxiety disorders,
aggressive violent behaviours, speech or cognitive delays, etc These children often
NEED almost the full attention of one of the educators, leaving the other adult to
manage the other 27 or 28 If you think this is not typical, speak to a few Ontario
Kindergarten teachers THEN, there is the issue of all the adults in the Kindergarten
classes: an English teacher, a French teacher, 2 ECEs am and pm , 2 prep teachers for
each of the teachers It is a gong show
There are too many kids at different stages of development for two adults Teachers are
not adequately trained to manage emotions and behaviours and the class is too large for
one ECE to manage all different behaviours My son does not receive enough support to
encourage learning and how to self regulate in a new and overwhelming environment
which negatively impacts his learning
Two ECE should be in the class for SK and JK as they are more professionally trained
with young children and their development
Student Outcomes & the Two Educator Team
Educator Workload & Working Condition: Connection to the Benefits of FDK
RECEs in FDK Enhance Public Value for Money

https://www.oise.utoronto.ca/atkinson/UserFiles/File/Policy%20Commentaries/PFortin_Twelve_Flawed_Statements_of_t
he_Fraser_Institute.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1258456
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0891-0
ABC response to Ministry consultation
regarding Class Sizes
1. Should the regulation continue to set hard caps on class sizes? Why
or why not?
2. If hard caps are to be set out in regulation, what is an appropriate
class size limit?
3. If hard caps were removed from regulation, what would be an
appropriate mechanism to set class sizes?
4. Are board-wide averages appropriate to set effective class sizes?
Why or why not?
5. Other than hard caps and board-wide averages, is there a different
model for setting effective class sizes that the ministry should
consider?
- All decisions about education policy should be based on consideration

of how to best meet the very different needs of very different
students, within the constraints of limited resources and finite
budgets.
- “Class sizes” is a short-hand label for “what is the student to teacher
ratio in a class”?
- The purpose of capping class sizes, is to have a structure to
ensure that each teacher can effectively teach the group, AND
optimally meet the needs of and interact with each individual
student.
- The current focus on “just the numbers” seems to miss the point: the
purpose of class size guidelines is to help structure each class so that
teachers can best meet the needs of each student in it.
- The first section of Ontario’s Education Act (R.S.O. 1990, chapter
E.2, s. 0.1(2)) states that: “The purpose of education is to provide
students with the opportunity to realize their potential ...”
- The more diverse and disparate the learning abilities, needs, and
other issues of students, the harder it is for teachers to effectively
meet the needs and educate each student to their potential.
- We are less concerned about class sizes than about the ability
of every teacher to teach effectively to every student in the
class.
- Effective teaching occurs when properly trained, objectively
assessed, fully engaged teachers deliver lessons of an appropriate
level, pace, breadth, and depth for EVERY student in the class.
- It is not only the student to teacher ratio that is important to the
success of students in a classroom, but also the classroom
composition, and that the teacher be appropriately trained and
qualified to meet the needs of their students.
- Despite aspirational goals to move to more “inclusive” classes of

students of widely disparate abilities and needs, it is realistically not
presently close to possible for teachers to effectively do this in LARGE
classes.
- In order to meet the needs of all students in fully inclusive classes,
teachers need MUCH more training, and smaller class sizes, and more
part time and full time resource staff support to competently address
and support the broader range of student education needs.
- Teachers are not currently anywhere near sufficiently trained,

mentored, reviewed, coached, prepared, or realistically able to deliver
the level of differentiated education that advocates aspire to.
- It is absolutely unclear how this significant level of teacher re-
education and support will be funded in order to meet these
transformative models.
- With respect, until the UDL and ‘differentiation’ teaching models are
better taught, evaluated, and have student outcomes objectively
tracked, it is unfair, impractical, and irresponsible to move quickly into
‘fully inclusive’, large classrooms before teachers are effectively able to
support these aspirational classroom models.
- Stating that “Differentiation” and “Universal Design for Learning”

(“UDL”) will meet the needs of all children in the classroom, does not
make it so. In particular, research and student experience
conclude that “Differentiation” and “UDL” does not work and is
not sufficient for meeting the needs of bright and gifted
students.
- For bright and gifted students, research and extensive student

experience overwhelmingly conclude that a much better educational
structure is to have fully contained classes of bright and gifted
students, Intensive Support Programs for all or most courses,
or clustering in smaller boards that don’t have sufficient numbers
of same-level students to support fully contained classes.
- Having full class, full day or partial day groupings of like-
minded students, who learn in similar ways, at a similar
breadth and depth, and at a similar pace, is much better for:
o the bright and gifted students grouped together;
o students who learn differently or at a slower pace in other
classes who then do not feel outpaced or intimidated by
feeling ‘left behind’; and for
o teachers who can more effectively teach consistent and
appropriate lesson plans to a full class, targeted to a level
more appropriate for ALL students in their class.
- The more disparate the learning styles, levels, abilities, and needs of
the students, the more difficult and less effective teachers will be at
meeting more diverse educational needs in larger class sizes.
- In other words, a teacher can effectively teach a larger class
of like-ability students, but needs a smaller class if expected to
teach a class of a much larger range of abilities and learning
needs.
- A more multi-pronged approach should be built into consideration

of class sizes and student to teacher ratios. For example:
o Students can be grouped by ability into mixed age ability
groups, and different groupings may be appropriate for different
subjects.
o Also, staffing classes with teachers with relevant training,
relevant work experience, and demonstrated affinities for
particular types of student needs (instead of staffing just
by seniority within that board) would deliver more
effective education to more students in each classroom.
- Boards should be allowed some flexibility to independently better

manage diverse conditions across and within their very different
districts and students’ differing educational needs (‘one size does
NOT fit all’).
1. What are the implications of the present “two educator” model for:
c. Value-for-money?
- ABC Ontario was happy to see the Ministry of Education’s

implementation of the two-educator model for kindergarten. These are
our youngest students and some come to school with unidentified
needs that are first seen and addressed by the kindergarten learning
team. Unfortunately, often as a result of deliberate policies to NOT
identify giftedness in young students (until grade 3 or later), gifted
students, and ‘twice-exceptional students’ (those who are gifted and
have another exceptionality) are typically not identified, and therefore
not specifically supported in kindergarten.
We believe that having additional staff supporting the classroom

teacher (in this case, a DECE), provides the children with additional,
often necessary attention and a critical support system, particularly
when these children are not eligible for testing or referrals until the
start of grade 1 or even later. As parent representatives of children
with exceptionalities, we understand how challenging it can be for one
teacher to effectively meet the need of a class of children with a wide
range of strengths and needs, even when the teacher is aware of the
needs and the child has some access to additional supports. In a
kindergarten class, this is often not the case (i.e. teacher is not yet
aware of each child’s needs, and child does not yet have access to
appropriate, targeted, additional supports). Having a partnership
between two educators increases the amount of time children can
interact with adults and also allows one adult to address individual
concerns with one child or a group of children with full attention and
respect, while also respecting the needs of other children in the class.
- Early identification and intervention would greatly help improve

student outcomes, class dynamics, and education for the whole class,
and would allow for later, appropriately structured, more effective
classes, even if classes are not smaller.
- i.e. Early identification and intervention for gifted children:

http://www.positivedisintegration.com/Silverman1992b.pdf
Overall Class Size

1. To ensure quality education, for each panel, what class size would
be considered too large or too small? Why?
a. kindergarten
b. grades 1-3
c. grades 3-8
d. grades 9-12
2. Do changes in class size, in the range of 1-6 students, affect

teacher workload and working conditions?
a. If so, do these effects have an impact on students’ learning
outcomes?
3. Is there any other feedback that you think should be considered

that has not been addressed so far?
- Changes in class sizes may be feasible if like-ability students

with similar learning styles and needs can be taught at a pace,
breadth, and depth appropriate to their learning styles and
abilities.
- This can be accomplished by implementing within every board -

contained classes of sufficiently large cohorts of like-ability
bright and gifted students for:
o full day (for elementary students),
o partial day (grouped by subjects for secondary students),
or
o clustered groups in smaller school boards that may not
have sufficient, geographically proximate students for full
contained classrooms.
- Creating these types of full classes for bright and gifted

students works much more effectively to:
o meet their educational needs (intellectual, social,
emotional, and other developmental needs), and
o help them to realize their potential.
- Research also concludes that this also helps to allow other

students in other classes to ‘rise to be leaders’, take pride in
their accomplishments, and be motivated to continue to aspire
to do their best to reach their potential.
- Contained classes of bright and gifted students, taught by
teachers who know how to teach these students, creates
synergies in which students can also learn from each other.
- These synergies in which bright and gifted students in

contained classes learn from each other, occurs to a much
more significant extent than in ‘regular’ classrooms, in which
many bright and gifted students disengage, check out, lack like-
minded peers, misbehave due to boredom, coast at minimum
deliverable levels, and do not academically engage with their
classmates.
- Implementing the full range of Acceleration policies (which

include full-grade acceleration, subject acceleration, advanced
placement courses, etc.) will also help teachers teach more
effectively to full classes of students of similar abilities and
subject content understanding and progression.
- Please also see responses to questions above.
- We would be happy to provide more information or engage

with you or elaborate on these or any other issues affecting
bright and gifted students.
- Thank you very much for asking, and thank you very much
for listening.

Ontario - S Further Response To OECTA Production Request - Feb 6 2020 - Vol 1

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ontario - S Further Response To OECTA Production Request - Feb 6 2020 - Vol 1

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995

3. Addressing Violence in our Schools

Liz Stuart Marshall Jarvis

Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association

2. EFFICIENT PRICE SETTING ............................................................ 1

3. OUTCOMES-BASED FUNDING ....................................................... 3

4. ACCOUNTABILITY AND VALUE FOR MONEY...................................... 4

Mental Health .............................................................................. 5

Safer Schools for All ..................................................................... 6

Special Education ......................................................................... 7

Education Quality and Accountability Office ..................................... 8

Full-day Kindergarten ................................................................... 9

Indigenous Education ................................................................... 9

English Language Learners .......................................................... 10

Adult and Continuing Education ................................................... 11

Professional Development ........................................................... 12

Holding School Boards to Account ................................................ 13

5. OTHER EDUCATION FUNDING EFFICIENCIES ................................. 14

7. WORKS CITED ........................................................................... 17

2. EFFICIENT PRICE SETTING

3.04 It is also crucial to keep in mind that in addition to efficiency considerations,

4.0 ACCOUNTABILITY AND VALUE FOR MONEY

4.04 Mental Health

4.08 Safer Schools for All

4.10 Special Education

4.12 Catholic teachers were particularly disappointed by the government’s decision to

4.13 Education Quality and Accountability Office

4.17 Full-day Kindergarten

4.19 Ontario’s FDK program is a ground-breaking, world-leading initiative. The investment

4.20 Indigenous Education

4.23 English Language Learners

4.25 Adult and Continuing Education

4.27 Professional Development

5.0 OTHER EDUCATION FUNDING EFFICIENCIES

Boak, Angela, Hayley A. Hamilton, Edward M. Adlaf, Joanna L. Henderson, and

Canadian Education Association (CEA). (2015). What

Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Milbrey McLaughlin. (1995). “Policies that Support

Mackenzie, Hugh. (2018). A Blueprint to Fix Ontario’s Education

Mackenzie, Hugh. (2017). Shortchanging Ontario Students: An Overview and

Mackenzie, Hugh. (2015). Harris-era Hangovers: Toronto School Trustees’ Inherited

Mackenzie, Hugh. (2009). No Time for Complacency: Education Funding Reality

Miljan, Lydia, and Zachery Spicer. (2015). Municipal Amalgamation in Ontario.

Ministry of Education. (2014). Consultation Summary: School Board Efficiencies and

Ministry of Education. (2013). A Solid Foundation: Second Progress Report on the

Murray, T. Scott, and Richard Shillington. (2011). From Poverty to Prosperity:

Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA). (2017a). Workplace Violence

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2012). Starting

Pelletier, Janette. (2014). “Ontario’s Full-Day Kindergarten: A Bold Public Policy

Sharpe, Andrew, and Jean-Francois Arsenault. (2010). Investing in Aboriginal Education

Statistics Canada. (2018). “Canadian Classification of Functions of Government: Selected

SUBMISSION TO THE 2019-2020 EDUCATION FUNDING CONSULTATIONS

Efficient Price Setting

Accountability and Value-for-Money

Other Education Funding Efficiencies

L A ocia ion de en eignan e e de en eignan f anco-ontariens (AEFO) remercie la ministre de

L AEFO e n ndica i comp e en i on 500 membres et représente les enseignantes et les

Des besoins et des défis particuliers

En géné al le con eil colai e de lang e f ançai e n on pa la ma e c i i e d effec if po off i à la

De pl il fa a e e le financemen oi éellemen de iné à la salle de classe et à

Optimisation des ressources

L AEFO croit in e i dan l éd ca ion con i e n in e i emen ocio-économi e C e po oi

Finalemen no c o on e le ccè d ne o d n élève peut difficilement être évalué en fonction

6 Elemen a Teache Fede a ion of Ontario