The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 Report 11-090 Funding Advocacy Strategy Working Group Update 10 May 2011 Report No. 11-090 to the Board Re: Funding Advocacy Strategy Working Group Update ORIGINATORS: Michael Clarke, Chief Financial Officer PURPOSE: 1.To update the Board on the progress of the Funding Advocacy Strategy Working Group. BACKGROUND: 2.The Board, at its meeting of 08 February 2011, approved the following motion: A. THAT the OCDSB develop an Advocacy Strategy in order to secure additional funding for long standing student needs at the OCDSB, working collaboratively with other Boards when useful; B. THAT, as a first step in the development of this strategy, the Board appoint a Funding Advocacy Strategy Working Group comprised of four Trustees, supported by the Chief Financial Officer, to: (i) review OCDSB funding concerns in detail; (ii) provide preliminary recommendations to the Strategic Planning and Priorities Committee (SPPC) at its March 2, re funding; (iii) which will then stand down unless further tasked by the SPPC. The Board approved the extension of the working group at its 8 March 2011 meeting by the following motion: THAT the funding Advocacy Working Group continue to meet until the May meeting of the Strategic Planning and Priorities Committee. 3. The Board also approved at its 8 March meeting the following: A. THAT, short term (March to June 2011), the Board continue to pursue relief in funding areas unique to the OCDSB through further dialogue with MPP Yasir Naqvi, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education; B. THAT, in the short term (March to June 2011), the Board approach other school districts with a view to making common cause on medium and long term funding issues, and begin development of a detailed public education strategy and communications plan that would engage the support of other districts and local stakeholders, as relevant and appropriate; C. THAT, in the medium term (May to October 2011), the Board focus its advocacy on funding issues held in common with other large urban school districts; D. THAT, in the longer term (September 2011 and beyond), the Board advance its advocacy in common with other Ontario school districts for changes in the provincial funding formula and benchmarks that would make it more accurately reflect the actual costs borne by school districts and recognize the unique needs of each individual board, with greater sensitivity to on-the-ground costs of advancing student achievement and well- being. 4. Trustees Campbell, Fitzgerald, McKenzie and Scott comprise the committee. Staff Support is the Chief Financial Officer and Budget Services staff. 5. As reported to SPPC in Report No. 11-063 at the 2 March 2011 meeting, the working group is focusing its analysis on areas where the OCDSB can demonstrate that its costing factors are different from other school boards, particularly co-terminous boards. STATUS: 6. The analysis of the data suggests that the OCDSB has a different type of teacher salary grid issue than other comparable school districts. While most large urban boards have a grid issue, the variance in the early steps of the salary grid is significantly higher for the OCDSB. (See Appendix A.) 7. A comparison of transportation funding between the OCDSB and the Ottawa Catholic District School Board shows a wide infavourable discrepancy. The comparison of spending on OC at discrepancy. (See Appendix B.) 8. The working group also identified the diversity of capital needs in the OCDSB as being a potential difference. The simultaneous need for new pupil places in growth neighbourhoods AND a simultaneous need for renovations in existing schools is unusual in Ontario where the bulk of boards are in declining enrolment. 9. The City of Ottawa has taken steps to limit sprawl by restricting the urban boundary. Accordingly, development within this limited boundary of significant family-oriented communities has also seen an increase in density. This density creates significant growth pressures on schools that exist in these neighbourhoods and accelerates the OCDSB need to construct new pupil places. 10. In the older suburban and urban areas of the City, populations had stabilized or had experienced decline in the past decade. OCDSB schools in these parts of the city had been comfortably utilized, but now experience accommodations pressures on a number of new fronts: Ministry initiatives such as Primary Class Size reductions and the implementation of Full-Day Kindergarten have all had significant impact on available space. These pressures are compounded because they have occurred at a time where we are also seeing an acceleration in the birth rates. Whether in older heritage buildings, or mid-century suburban schools, the need to add additional classroom space is complicated by the cost of retrofitting existing space which might have been previously grandfathered for Ontario Building Code compliance, or by the fact that school historically had much smaller and less flexible sites, or because sites have Heritage designation. 11. The group also reviewed the changes in additional support to students since the start of the existing funding model in 1998. While the provincial government has improved class size, it has not fully funded the cost of the additional teachers needed to lower class sizes. School boards, including the OCDSB, have had to find budget reductions elsewhere in the budget to pay for the shortfall. 12. The concern expressed by stakeholders has been that the budget trade-offs have significantly reduced the resources for students. 13. Staff undertook an analysis of this issue to determine if the size of the reductions could be quantified in support of an advocacy campaign. The analysis was divided in two parts. 14. Appendix C shows the traditional grouping of Special Education staffing special education teachers, psychologists, social workers, speech language pathologists and educational assistants. To compare to 1998, when these staffs were all concentrated in Special Education and not allocated to other funding envelopes based on students served, staff had done the same groupings for later years. Combining envelopes, there has been in increase in staff since 1998, despite the overall decline in student enrolment. While there is the issue of growth in Special Education population while overall enrolment has fallen, it is hard to obtain reliable special education students is up. 15. Appendix D shows the changes in other teacher numbers (non-class size) since 1998. Here there has been a decline. However, the fall in enrolment must also be factored in. Doing so shows a decline of 108. 16. However, this must be weighted with the improvement in class size numbers, and the substantial investment by the Ministry and OCDSB in specific professional development aimed at classroom with Class Size. In both cases, teacher per thousand pupils are up from the start of the existing funding model. 17. The Board must now determine its strategy to seek additional funding from the provincial government. NEXT STEPS: 18. The Chair of the Board will contact boards identified as having similar issues to explore the potential for joint campaigns. Fact sheets will be prepared for trustees for local advocacy meetings with MPPs. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS : 19. Additional funding would allow the continuation of resources now financed yearly through reserves. New funding beyond this level would allow an expansion of student services. CONSULTATION: 20. Trustee input is sought. SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION. _____________________________ _______________________ Barrie Hammond Michael Clarke Director of Education and Chief Financial Officer Secretary of the Board Appendix B i 2010-2011 Transportation Funding Comparison Between the Ottawa-Carleton DSB and the Ottawa-Catholic DSB Ottawa Carleton DSB Ottawa Catholic DSB 1 Transportation Grant $27,872,495$23,670,811 Student Enrolment Elementary43,46322,307 Secondary23,01014,242 Total Enrolment66,47336,549 Transportation Grant per Student$419.31$647.65 Above information based on Ministry Publication entitled "Funding Projection by Board" 1 Net of Provincial Transportation in the amount of $5,868,365 Funding Shortfall for Elementary and Secondary Panels Student Enrolment for the Ottawa-Carleton DSB66,473 Multiplied by: Transportation Funding per Student for the Ottawa-Catholic DSB$647.65 Revised Grant for the Ottawa-Carleton DSB$43,051,238 Less: Current Grant for the Ottawa-Carleton DSB$27,872,495 Calculated Transportation Funding Shortfall$15,178,743 Funding Shortfall for Secondary Bus Passes Amount spent by the Ottawa-Catholic DSB on Student Bus Passes$2,217,734 Divided by: Secondary Enrolment for the Ottawa-Catholic DSB14,242 Allocation per Secondary Student for Bus Passes$155.72 Multiplied by: Secondary Enrolment for the Ottawa-Carleton DSB23,010 Revised Allocation per Student for Bus Passes for the Ottawa-Carleton DSB$3,583,117 Less: Amount spent by Ottawa-Carleton DSB on Student Bus Passes$1,279,487 Calculated Funding Shortfall for Ottawa-Carleton DSB Bus Passes$2,303,630 5/6/2011 Appendix B ii 2010-2011 Transportation Funding Comparison Between the Ottawa-Carleton DSB and the Ottawa-Catholic DSB Ottawa Carleton DSB Ottawa Catholic DSB 1 Transportation Grant $27,872,495$23,670,811 Student Enrolment Elementary43,46322,307 Secondary23,01014,242 Total Enrolment66,47336,549 Transportation Grant per Student$419.31$647.65 Above information based on Ministry Publication entitled "Funding Projection by Board" 1 Net of Provincial Transportation in the amount of $5,868,365 Impact of Funding the Ottawa-Catholic DSB at the Ottawa-Carleton DSB Rate Student Enrolment for the Ottawa-Catholic DSB36,549 Multiplied by: Transportation Funding per Student for the Ottawa-Carleton DSB$419.31 Revised Grant for the Ottawa-Carleton DSB$15,325,361 Less: Current Grant for the Ottawa-Catholic DSB$23,670,811 Calculated Decrease in Transportation Funding($8,345,450) 5/6/2011 Appendix D iii C E w C W N 2 s 0 RSC N N U O N- N O O O N r CO N r CO- N 4 N r M CO r N LO r N CO- N 830.00 830.00 1.00 O O r CO 00 CO 00 O N 4 N CO I` CO CO r CO r Lt) 4 CO N r M CO O O N r O) O O N M O O N O ti i N O) N M N O O N- LC) N C3) O) N N N M N 810.75 810.75 1.00 LO I` r r 00 LO C3) M CO CO 4 N O O O O O O N 4 CO O r CO r 1,322.00 2007 -2008 CO N CO N LC) M N CO r N CO CO 4 N r LC) N M N 853.71 853.71 0.50 r N 4 LC) 00 00 N- 4 0) LC) 4 N CO O O 00 LC) O Ln CD CD r r CO r 1,338.33 N.- O O N 00 O N r LC) O) CSI 00 N N- O) M N CO O r 0 r 00 M r 0) N M N 799.32 0.14 (0 LC) 4 ti 6) N O) N- r N N O 00 f` CO r O O Lt) N I` N- O CO CO O C) N O co r CO r 1,352.34 2005 -2006 N- O CO N M O N CO - N I� LC) 00 N M 6 N I` CO r - N 775.00 775.00 1.50 O LC) CD N- N- N CO 6 N- N Lt) N N- O CO O O O CO CO r 1• CD O CD M r 2004 -2005 I` I` N.: 1 N - N I` LC) N- I` N- O) N CO r - N 802.60 802.60 1.50 O r 4 O 00 N CO r O 4 LC) N CO O CO O CD O N N CO r 1,346.83 2003 -2004 CO N- C3) LC) co - N CD LC) r N O) (NI LC) 4 co r - N 837.56 837.56 4.50 CO O N 4 00 I` CY) 4 co LC) N CO CO CO CO - CO O r co r CD r CO r M r 2002 -2003 N N 0) Ln CV 4 LC) N O) (-NI CO 0) r Ln N 830.26 830.26 N O CO 00 N N O) 00 CD- N < Z 0 O 2001 -2002 r C7) 00 CO N- CD N r LC) C) CD 00 CD CO 4 r r CD N 891.47 891.47 3.50 N- O) 4 0) 00 M LC) O r N N- N O O 4 LC) 4 r 0 0 4 LO ' r 2000 -2001 LC) I` N- Lo I` LC) N LC) N r- co r CD Lo ti co LC) N 891.38 891.38 0.75 M r N M O N O I` CD N 00 O O 4 r CO 0 O ' r O O CV 0) 0) O r LC) CO cfl co LC) Ln N LC) N CO N cfl 4 co Ln LC) Ln N 862.50 862.50 1.50 O O O 00 N- LC) LC) 4 CD N CO 00 LC; 00 CO r 1,385.83 O) O O r oo CD CA r CO I` O r Ln N CO LC) I` co O a) r 4 Ln N r r O CO Ln N C— r 6 r Cr) C— O r LC) (15 6 r Cr) r— CD (O r Cr) CO I` CD N- CO CD N N- r 4 Lt) CO r 1,354.17 Actual Enrolment C) N Lt M CO M Lt) N' 0 Cl, C■ U) M M 2009 -2010 CO 00 CO N CO N N- O 2008 -2009 O I` LO CO r I` LC) r N- r O ti 2007 -2008 co N- M r CO CO LC) N- 2006 -2007 CO N- CO CO M Ln LC) r 2005 -2006 CO CO CO Ln Ln LC) r 2004 -2005 CO O CO LO N- r CO r M M C) 2003 -2004 N- CO CD co CO N M 2002 -2003 as Z Z 2001 -2002 CO 0000 CO LC) N N- r ti CO 2000 -2001 O I` CO N- O) 4 M 1999 -2000 O 00 O CD N I` O) CO Co CD 1998 -1999 O N- LO CO r CO CD O r r ti Lti CD N i' O O CO U C) OU 0 U) u) d) c co s >' >' v) c.) co co co 0 D o U O co c- ° L s Q Q " 4- I- = Q g m co O ca co ti5 -a s c I = c cn c)C)CD = oo p L O ' 0 0 0 0 •Q O O O _0 N L w Cn N (I1 C!1 W C/) o �_ o CL _ V H 0 .L I- 0 r CU _ �+ U r CU CO ! CO +(a • fA Q O L E . O N- O: O Cv N-a O }' O o O 0 0 d }' C!1 V ��OH V) /� ��0 H I- COOU)(1)°- )Zfn 0. 00 to E CC CC in in M 'Ct 0) CD Ln CD co co O Staff per 1000 students CD co CD CD 0 CD O' CO 0 Co Total Staff per 1000