A Proposed Balanced Budget Action Plan for The Toronto Catholic District School Board

Transcription

1 A Proposed Balanced Budget Action Plan for The Toronto Catholic District School Board Submitted to Oliver Carroll, Chair of the Toronto Catholic District School Board The Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Education Province of Ontario By Mearl Obee, Special Assistance Team Fred Deacon, Special Assistance Team Pierre Filiatrault, Financial Advisor November 30, 2006

2

3 November 30, 2006 Chair Oliver Carroll The Honourable Kathleen Wynne Dear Chair Carroll and Minister Wynne: The Special Assistance Team is pleased to provide you with a Report and recommendations on the feasability of a proposed multi- year budget plan to eliminate the deficit at the Toronto Catholic District School Board. The Team has sought to balance the need to reduce costs and the impact those reductions will have on students and staff. In developing our recommendations we were conscious of the board=s desire to provide, within a Catholic learning environment, high quality programs focussed on inspiring students to reach their full potential. As well trustees conveyed their deep concern regarding the need to be respectful of their current employees and to the renewal of buildings within the board. We wish to express our appreciation to the trustees, the Director and senior staff for the sharing of pertinent information and their expertise with us. As well we are grateful to the senior staff at the Ministry for the data, information and counsel they provided. We want to acknowledge the major contribution of Pierre Filiatrault in analysing ministry and board historical statistics and financial data. His analytical skills and clarity of thought proved very beneficial. As Special Assistant Team members we would like to thank you both for inviting us to accept this challenge. Our Report, we hope, will stimulate the Board to begin consultations and deliberations that will lead to the approval of a multi-year balanced budget. Yours truly, Mearl Obee Fred Deacon

4

5 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Background... 1 The Toronto Catholic District School Board...1 Our Approach... 2 Context... 3 Arriving at a Plan...5 The Deficit Elimination Plan...7 Description... 9 Section A. Budgeted Pools for Future Temporary & Permanent Hiring Occasional Teachers Supply Pool...11 Teacher Assistants Supply Pool...12 School Office Clerk Typist Pool...12 Elementary School Secretarial Pool...12 Secondary School Secretarial Pool...12 Contract Firms Used for Temporary CYW Services...13 Section B. Staff Included in 2006B2007 Budget but Not Hired to Date...15 Elementary Teachers B Declining Enrolment...15 Special Education Staff...15 Teacher Assistants...16 Administration/Catholic Education Centre (CEC) Staff...16 Secondary Teachers B Special Circumstances...17 Coordinators and Consultants...17 Elementary Preparation Time...18 Section C. Staff Reductions by Attrition...19 Vice-Principals...19 Special Education Staff...19 Secondary Class Size...20 CEC Staff Reductions Year Two...20 Section D. Staff Reduction by Reassignment or Future Non-Hires...21 Elementary Preparation Time Grant in 2007B Elementary Travel/Preparation Time...21 Preparation and Travel Time...21 The Operational Model...22 Section E. Restructuring and Delays in Services...25 Marks Management Program...25 Staff Development...25 Amortization of SAP...25 Section F. Reduction in Expenditures...27 Textbooks and Supplies...27

6 Transportation...28 Trustees Services...29 Membership in Ontario Catholic School Trustees Association Board Policy B Trustee Service Fund...30 Facilities Maintenance...31 Continuing Education...32 Staff Cost Slippage During Year...33 Management Challenge...33 Reorganization of Special Education Delivery Model Components of the Special Education Model...34 Conclusions re Special Education...37 Section G. Add Staff...39 Middle Management...39 Other Issues...41 Capital Leases Pupil Accommodation Issues In Toronto...42 Other Considerations...45 Credit Recovery and Student Success Programs...45 Primary Class Size...46 Enrolment Variance...46 Local Priorities Alternatives to Reductions Contained in the Deficit Elimination Plan...47 Transportation Funding...49 TCDSB Teachers= Salary Grid...50 Learning Opportunities Grant...51 Declining Enrolment Grant...51 Special Education...52 Per Pupil Funding...52 Adjustment to Grants Relating to High Incidence of Local Taxation Conclusion TCDSB Deficit Elimination Plan B Summary Table...57 Description TCDSB Deficit Elimination Plan Year-end balances...58 Recommendations...59 Appendix Terms of Reference...67

7 Appendix Mathematical Model...68 Appendix Elementary Panel Pupil Teacher Ratios for TCDSB=s Neighbouring Boards Appendix Operational Model...70

8

9

10

11 Introduction Background The Toronto Catholic District Catholic School Board (TCDSB) requested of the Minister of Education an extension of the time line for the submission of a budget plan due to the difficulties of balancing their budget The Minister responded indicating that she would grant the request for an extension. This led to the appointment of a Special Assistance Team (SAT) the purpose of which was to assist the board in the further development of a balanced budget. The specific terms of reference are outlined in Appendix 1 (p. 67). The Toronto Catholic District School Board The board is the largest Catholic board in the province of Ontario serving approximately 58,000 elementary and 29,100 secondary students for a total of 87,100 full time equivalent students. There are 198 schools in the system, 32 of which are secondary and 166 of which are elementary. The board=s jurisdiction covers the City of Toronto. The board articulates the following mission statement and Catholic School Graduate Expectations: MISSION STATEMENT In a school community formed by Catholic beliefs and traditions, our Mission is to educate students to their full potential by providing: $ leadership in the shared responsibility for education that exists among schools, students, families, parishes and the community; $ a safe and welcoming learning environment that is an example of Christian community; $ role models of Gospel values and Catholic doctrines, teachings and beliefs; $ guidance in what students need to learn; $ instruction in the learning process itself; $ religious, academic and technological instruction; $ integration of Catholic, Christian beliefs into the total learning experience; and $ feedback on students' proficiency and performance. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 1

12 ONTARIO CATHOLIC SCHOOL GRADUATE EXPECTATIONS $ A discerning believer formed in the Catholic faith community who celebrates the signs and sacred mysteries of God=s presence through word, sacrament, prayer, forgiveness, reflection and moral living; $ An effective communicator who speaks, writes and listens honestly and sensitively, responding critically in light of gospel values; $ A reflective, creative and holistic thinker who solves problems and makes responsible decisions with an informed moral conscience for the common good; $ A self-directed, responsible, life-long learner who develops and demonstrates his/her God-given potential; $ A collaborative contributor who finds meaning, dignity and vocation in work which respects the rights of all and contributes to the common good; $ A caring family member who attends to family, school, parish, and the wider community; $ A responsible citizen who gives witness to Catholic social teaching by promoting peace, justice and the sacredness of human life. Our Approach The team approached the task committed to respecting the unique contribution which a Catholic school system makes to the Ontario educational mosaic. Mindful of the challenges in the board mission statement and the graduate expectations the team reviewed all expenditures with a view to maximizing the benefits of the available resources to students. In the team=s view this approach creates the greatest potential for the TCDSB to continue to function as a stable high-quality Catholic learning environment for its students, staff and communities. The team recognized that the board is under a legal and moral obligation to provide appropriate programs for the students in their care within the context of the resources available. The team recognized the role of the board as an advocate for resources where it believes that the resources available are insufficient to meet the needs of the system. The team understands that its role is to provide advice which will assist the board in arriving at a budget plan that fulfills the legal requirement to present a balanced budget, and a deficit elimination plan which is acceptable to the Ministry of Education. 2 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

13 The team met with all employee groups both unionized and non-unionized. Trustees were interviewed as well as senior and managerial staff. All groups were invited to contact the team at any time if they wished to give further input, to ask questions or seek information. A number of meetings were held with administrative staff in order to gain clarity on specific issues. The Ministry of Education was asked to provide comparative data from boards across the province based on standardized reporting procedures. Ministry staff was asked to provide detailed information regarding funding mechanisms and program initiatives. Context This board has been through a significant number of financial difficulties during its past however the attached chart would seem to indicate that the new funding formula assisted the board considerably during its early years of implementation in so far as the board had the ability to accumulate substantial reserves. Year Reserve (Deficit)/Surplus (beginning of year) Surplus for the Year Reserve (Deficit)/Surplus (Year-End) 1995 ($17.1 million) $3.5 million ($13.6 million) 1996 ($13.6 million ) $7.4 million ($6.2 million) 1997 ($6.2 million) ($17.4 million) ($23.6 million) 1998 short year ($23.6 million) $13.2 million ($10.4 million) 1998B1999 ($10.4 million) $8.7 million ($1.7 million) 1999B2000 ($1.7 million) $1.3 million ($0.4 million) 2000B2001 ($0.4 million) $0.5 million $0.1 million 2001B2002 $0.1 million $4.6 million $4.7 million 2002B2003 $4.7 million $11.9 million $16.6 million 2003B2004 $16.6 million $9.8 million $26.4 million 2004B2005 $26.4 million ($14.7 million) $11.7 million 2005B2006 $11.7 million ($16.2 million) est. ($4.5 million) Commencing in the 2004B2005 budget year the board began to significantly draw down its reserves to fund current operating expenditures. This draw down continued in the 2005B2006 budget year with the consequence that the reserves have now been depleted. Under most circumstances boards use reserve funds for one time expenses that will not reoccur in the subsequent year or to Abuy time Ain which the board can systematically make structural changes that will assist in overcoming the budget shortfall in the longer term. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 3

14 The board estimates that the operating deficit for the 2005B2006 year will be $4.5 million. This sum, in addition to the portion of the 2005B2006 budget which was funded from reserves, forms a significant impact on the next budget. Under current legislation the first charge against the 2006B2007 budget is the previous year=s deficit. While the final audited statements are not yet issued for the 2005B2006 year it is estimated that the total impact of these two areas will be in excess of $12.5 million. This board has experienced a 4.7% decrease in enrolment over the period from This is a faster rate of decline than the provincial average of 2.2%. While the decline has levelled off in 2006B07, it is forecast to continue in the future. A decline in enrolment must be viewed from a budget perspective as a process that occurs over time. While a board may make adjustments in staffing and supplies budgets to accommodate the decline there are costs such as maintenance and utilities that are not immediately recoverable. In 2006B2007 the board=s proposed expenditures exceeded revenues in 13 of the 16 Ministry of Education spending categories. It was within this context that the board is developing the 2006B2007 final budget. 4 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

15 Arriving at a Plan Primary amongst the directions given to the special advisory team was the requirement to work co-operatively and transparently with the Toronto Catholic District School Board in its budget process to achieve a balance budget. It is with this in mind that the team set as its first task the development of a plan to address the projected deficit with which the board was faced. The team felt that they wanted to pursue their task only after a thorough review of the suggestions made by staff. As you proceed through this report you will find that the team agrees with a number of the staff recommendations; however, we have made several suggestions that go beyond those made by the staff. This is reflective of the development of new information and of the fact that the team is developing their report after the school year has begun, and thus had access to more complete data. In building our recommendations we were conscious of the board=s desire to provide high quality programs focussed on developing students to their full potential. Trustees conveyed their deep concern regarding the need to continue to renew the buildings within the board. We were also keenly aware of the desire of the board to be respectful of their current employees. These areas of priority guided the team in our search for expenditure reduction possibilities. The reductions chosen were those that the team felt will have the least direct impact on programming for students. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 5

16

17 The Deficit Elimination Plan In arriving at a deficit elimination plan, we examined all areas of the board=s operations. It was felt that the deficit would not be eliminated by focusing on a few relatively large reductions in specific areas. The team, in fact, makes a fairly large number of recommendations, some of which constitute relatively small savings. When taken as a whole, the plan is cohesive and results, in our estimation, with the least disruptive effect on the students. We did identify four areas where the board=s expenditures far outstrip the available grants. These are: $ Transportation, $ Special Education, $ Plant operations and maintenance, $ Specialist teachers. It is an undisputable fact that board staff understands the operations of the board much better than we do, given the short time frame available to produce such a plan. That is the reason that the starting point in developing the deficit elimination plan was the August 23 rd Report submitted by board staff to trustees. While we did hear that the August 23 rd Report was not well received, we felt that it contained many elements that were sound. The board staff was working on a two year window in which to eliminate the deficit, including accumulated deficits. This two-year window resulted from Ministry of Education directives. We are recommending a three year plan that features the following: $ Reducing the first year structural deficit to 1% or less of the total operating budget; $ Completely eliminating the total structural deficit before the end of the second year, and $ Completely eliminating the accumulated deficits by the end of the third year, thus restoring the board to a compliant balanced position. The addition of a third year to the plan, in which accumulated deficits will be eliminated, was a major factor in eliminating the more unpalatable reductions recommended in the August 23 rd Report. However, the approach of recovering accumulated deficits in the third year of the plan is not consistent with existing regulations. We nonetheless urge the Ministry to accept this approach, as to do otherwise would cause more drastic reductions with more severe negative impacts on students. Our plan also differs from the recommendations contained in the August 23 rd Report in that it includes more reductions in the first year, thus minimising as quickly as possible the negative impacts of accumulated deficits. This strategy would not have been possible were it not for the prudent management of this year=s operations to date. For this, we congratulate the board and its staff. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 7

18 The August 23 rd Report recommended, albeit reluctantly, using the 2006B07 Facilities Renewal grant as a stop gap measure to balance the budget. Given the pressures of a two-year window, we can understand the motivation of doing so, but we cannot support it. The Facilities Renewal grant is dedicated by regulation to a particular sphere of activity, and its use for operating purposes is not permitted. Over and above this, while the board=s schools are not in worse condition than those of most other boards, they are in sufficient need of repairs that to forego one year=s worth of renewal work is simply not sound business practice. The plan we are recommending does eliminate a certain number of positions, but all of these should be attainable through attrition. While we structured our plan to minimize direct impact on students, a reduction of the order of more than $30 million of operating expenditures will have some impact on students, but we feel that the resulting budget still provides sufficient resources for the board to continue to offer a high quality level of education. It will mean, however, that the management of the board will have to be tighter than it's ever been, as many contingencies that were built into the budget will have been eliminated, and some reductions will require a higher level of monitoring and control on the part of board staff. We have assumed that normal inflationary pressures on the major components of the budget will be compensated by additional grants in future years. The Ministry of Education has already announced additional levels of funding to deal with the provincial framework issues. If further inflationary pressures occur, the board will have to manage them as they arise by further adjusting their budget planning. The objective was to reduce budget expenditures or increase revenues by a total of $30,126,000 which is the projected structural deficit. Reductions must surpass this amount to enable the board to recover the anticipated $4,500,000 deficit for 2005B06, and the further anticipated deficit of $5,505,000 for 2006B07. In capsule form, our plan is the following: Budget Adjustment 2006B B08 Budgeted pools for future temporary and permanent hiring $4,316,000 $440,000 Staff included in budget but not hired to date $5,169,000 $320,000 Staff reductions by attrition $177,000 $3,910,000 Staff reductions by reassignment or future non-hires $2,631,000 Restructuring and delays in services $1,609,000 Reduction in expenditures $13,350,000 $2,703,000 Additional Staff ($300,000) Total $24,621,000 $9,704,000 8 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

19 All of the above reductions are deemed to be permanent. The following sections of our report will discuss the individual components of each of these groupings, and their potential impacts. The deficit elimination plan is organized as follows: Category Description Section A. Budgeted Pools for Future Temporary & Permanent Hiring p. 11 A.1. A.2. A.3. A.4. A.5. A.6. Occasional Teacher Supply Pool Teacher Assistants Supply Pool School Office Clerk Typist Pool Elementary School Secretarial Pool Secondary School Secretarial Pool Contract Firms Used for CYW Services Section B. Staff Included in 2006B07 Budget but Not Hired to Date p. 15 B.1. B.2. B.3. B.4. B.5. B.6. B.7. B.8. Elementary Teachers B Declining Enrolment Special Education Staff Teacher Assistants Administration/CEC Staff Temporary Research Positions Secondary Teachers B Special Circumstances Coordinators & Consultants Elementary Preparation Time Section C. Staff Reductions by Attrition p. 19 C.1. C.2. C.3. Vice-Principals Special Education Staff Secondary Class Size C.4. CEC Staff Reductions Year Two Section D. Staff Reduction by Reassignment or Future Non-Hires p. 21 D.1. D.2. Elementary Preparation Time Grant in 2007B08 Elementary Travel/Preparation Time Section E. Restructuring and Delays in Services p. 25 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 9

20 Category Description E.1. E.2. E.3. Marks Management Program Staff Development Amortization of SAP Section F. Reduction in Expenditures p. 27 F.1. F.2. F.3. F.4. F.5. F.6. F.7. F.8. Textbooks and Supplies Transportation Trustee Services Facilities Maintenance Continuing Education Staff Cost Slippage During Year Management Challenge Reorganization of Special Education Delivery Model Section G. Add Staffp. 39 G.1. Middle Management 10 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

21 Section A. Budgeted Pools for Future Temporary & Permanent Hiring This section of the deficit reduction plan contains reductions to what are essentially contingency funds in the projected budget. They are funds that are to be used in case of absences by permanent staff or for short-term temporary help. They are used to pay salaries for temporary or occasional staff, or in some cases, to outside firms on a contractual basis to provide temporary help. In some cases, there is a double counting of salaries in both the pool budget and the regular salary budget. Thus, when a regular employee leaves his job and is replaced by a temporary employee until the re-hiring process is complete, the amount had been budgeted for a full year in the regular salary budget, and an amount for such contingencies was budgeted in the pool budget. In other cases, this expenditure will be managed by tightening controls on the use of temporary help, or by lengthening the amount of time that a position remains vacant. In all cases, no permanent employee is affected, and no permanent positions are eliminated. All of the following recommendations are contained in the August 23 rd Report. A.1. Occasional Teachers Supply Pool The August 23 rd Report included a reduction of $2,000,000 to this expenditure. We are leery of this type of reduction, as to a great degree occasional teachers= cost is beyond the control of the board. However, careful monitoring and management of absenteeism has yielded positive results in other boards, and board staff deems this to be a reasonable target, based on the previous year=s experience. Declining enrolment and the deficit elimination plan will result in fewer teachers, and therefore, less need for occasional teachers. The introduction of two additional professional development days should also reduce costs in this area. We are inclined to include this reduction in the board=s deficit elimination plan. Recommendation: That the occasional teachers budget be reduced by $2,000,000 beginning in 2006B07. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 11

22 A.2. Teacher Assistants Supply Pool We agree with the recommendation contained in the August 23 rd Report to reduce the Teacher Assistant (TA) supply pool. Recommendation: That the Teacher Assistants Supply Pool be reduced by $976,000 beginning in 2006B07. A.3. School Office Clerk Typist Pool We agree with the recommendation contained in the August 23 rd Report to reduce the School Office Clerk Typist Pool. Recommendation: That the School Office Clerk Typist Pool be reduced by $500,000 beginning in 2006B07. A.4. Elementary School Secretarial Pool We agree with the recommendation contained in the August 23 rd Report to reduce the Elementary School Secretarial Pool. Recommendation: That the Elementary School Secretarial Pool be reduced by $300,000 beginning in 2006B07. A.5. Secondary School Secretarial Pool We agree with the recommendation contained in the August 23 rd Report to reduce the Secondary School Secretarial Pool. Recommendation: That the Secondary School Secretarial Pool be reduced by $100,000 beginning in 2006B TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

23 A.6. Contract Firms Used for Temporary CYW Services We agree with the recommendation contained in the August 23 rd Report to reduce the amounts budgeted for contract firms used for temporary CYW services. Recommendation: That the amount budgeted for contract firms used for temporary CYW services be reduced by $440,000 beginning in 2006B07. That the amount budgeted for contract firms used for temporary CYW services be reduced by a further $440,000 beginning in TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 13

24

25 Section B. Staff Included in 2006B2007 Budget but Not Hired to Date The team has identified a number of staffing areas in which the hiring process has not yet been undertaken for a variety of reasons. In looking at these areas we have identified situations that provide opportunities to reduce costs in 2006B2007 and that would have minimal impact on the programs offered to students. Since these are unoccupied positions they do not represent any employee reductions. B.1. Elementary Teachers B Declining Enrolment Each Superintendent has reduced his/her staff allocation by.5 from the original staffing projections to reflect a decline in enrolment in the areas that they serve. This represents a total of 5.7 teachers. The team agrees that the board should reduce staff to reflect the decline in enrolment. This has been accommodated through the hiring process this year and therefore will not have an impact on current staff. Recommendation: That the teachers salary budget be reduced by $454,000 beginning in 2006B07 to reflect the elimination of 5.70 positions due to declining enrolment. B.2. Special Education Staff There is a significant number of staff employed in this area which focuses on the special education programs offered by the board. In light of a shift of focus in special education funding and the movement towards emphasizing the programming aspects of the special education function, the team feels that it would be prudent to leave vacant any positions which support the current model of special education until roles are clarified through a study of delivery models in Special Education. We are told that this would affect five positions in year one and the same in year two. Recommendation: That the professional and para-professional budget be reduced by $398,000 beginning in 2006B07 to reflect the non-hiring of five vacant positions in special education staff, pending a review of the model for delivery of special education services to the students. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 15

26 B.3. Teacher Assistants In reviewing with the staff the strategies used to assure service is available in the area of teacher assistants, the team believes there are areas that hold the potential to produce in-year reductions without any staff layoffs and without impacting in any significant manner student programming. The budget contains a contingency fund equivalent to the cost of 50 teacher assistants. This reserve is held to allow the staff to respond to unforeseen situations that arise over the course of the school year. The reserve was in last year=s budget and was not fully utilized. It represents an area in which reductions can be achieved without reducing service levels or reducing staff as this reduction is in actuality a pool of contingency money. Recommendation: That the teacher assistants budget be reduced by $1,320,000 beginning in 2006B07 to reflect the removal of 40 positions budgeted for contingencies, and that any emergencies arising be accommodated from the remaining pool of 10 positions or through direct approval of the Director of Education. B.4. Administration/Catholic Education Centre (CEC) Staff We accept the recommendation contained in the August 23 rd Report that six positions can be reduced in the area of Teachers= Consultants. These positions are currently vacant. Two more can become vacant in year two through attrition. This reduction will bring costs closer in line with the grant. A structural reorganization should take place to balance expectations in curriculum development, implementation and assessment. Recommendation: That the budget for administration and centralized consultants be reduced by $789,000 beginning in 2006B07, and by a further $196,000 beginning in 2007B08 by eliminating eight positions. B.5. Temporary Research Positions The August 23 rd Report on potential reductions included a $98,000 reduction in staff development by eliminating two temporary research positions. 16 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

27 While the board does not overspend in this category compared to other boards, we concur with the recommendations that this budget area can be reduced by the two research positions. Recommendation: That the staff development budget be reduced by $98,000 by eliminating two temporary research positions. B.6. Secondary Teachers B Special Circumstances The Secondary Superintendent of the board holds in reserve 9 FTE teachers. These teachers are held in reserve to accommodate emerging needs within the system. The August 23 rd Report suggests the elimination of these positions. The advisory team recognizes that there will be emerging situations that need to be addressed quickly and would suggest that this reserve be maintained at least at five. Since these positions are hired over time there will be no current programs or teachers affected. Recommendation That the budget for secondary teachers salaries be reduced by $320,000 beginning in 2007B08 by eliminating four unassigned teacher positions. B.7. Coordinators and Consultants The current staffing levels for coordinators and consultants, when compared to other similar Catholic boards on a per pupil basis, do not seem excessive. We note, however, that the board has significantly increased staff in this area since 2002B03. It is somewhat surprising that these increases occurred at a time when enrolment was declining, and when the board was already experiencing financial difficulties. The year by year staffing levels from 2002B03 to 2005B06 are as follows: 2002B B B B We feel that a reduction by 3.0 FTE positions, given the financial and demographic contexts, is appropriate. There are currently three vacant positions in this area. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 17

28 Recommendation: That the coordinators and consultants budget be reduced by $270,000 beginning in 2006B07 by eliminating 3.0 FTE positions through attrition. B.8. Elementary Preparation Time The team is aware that staff had planned for implementation of the additional preparation time which was required in 2006B2007 by placing in the initial budget an allocation for additional staff. As the staff reviewed the actual requirements they determined that they were able to accommodate the requirements through re-allocating some of the current staff. Thus the full complement of staff provided for in the budget was not required and was therefore not hired. This provides a savings equal to 23 teachers. Recommendation: That the elementary teachers salaries budget be reduced by $1,840,000 beginning in 2006B07 by eliminating 23 positions that were budgeted for additional preparation time but were not required and not hired. 18 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

29 Section C. Staff Reductions by Attrition This section reviews those positions that are to be reduced through attrition. Normal staff turnover has been taken into consideration when making recommendations in these areas. C.1. Vice-Principals The administration recognizes that the effect of declining and shifting enrolment patterns has necessitated a review of the administrative structure of the schools. In two schools this has already been manifested in the reduction of 2 vice-principal positions. Such a review of all administrative positions will result in a future reduction of 3 positions in 2007B2008. The effect of the reduction of 5.0 FTE vice-principals positions in relation to the total complement is manageable and was in the August 23 rd Report. Recommendation: That the vice-principals budget be reduced by $177,000 beginning in 2006B07 by eliminating two positions through attrition, and by a further $276,000 beginning in 2007B08 by eliminating three positions through attrition. C.2. Special Education Staff There is a significant number of staff employed in this area which focus on the special education programs * offered by the board. In light of a shift of focus in the special education funding and the movement towards emphasizing the programming aspects of the special education function the team feels that it would be prudent to leave vacant any positions which support the current model of special education until roles are clarified through a study of delivery models in Special Education. We are told that this would affect five positions in year one and the same in year two. Recommendation: That the professional and para-professional budget be reduced by $398,000 beginning in 2007B08 by eliminating * The budget reductions in year two are being captured through attrition and for this reason this paragraph is repeated in both Sections B and C. It should be noted that these are two distinct reductions of five staff. Year 1 reductions are staff included in 2006B07 budget but not hired, Year 2 savings are obtained through staff reductions through attrition. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 19

30 five positions in special education, and that all staff hiring pertinent 20 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

31 to special education be deferred, pending a review of the model for delivery of special education services to the students. C.3. Secondary Class Size The Ministry of Education through the Pupil Foundation Grant, funds an average class size of 22 pupils at the secondary level. The staff report that currently the secondary programs are offered with an average class size of They indicate that to raise the class size to 21.7 would reduce the current staff complement by 38 teachers. There is some concern that the reduction may be impacted by the class caps in the secondary teachers= collective agreement. Such a reduction would result in the system as a whole being much closer to the class size caps that are in the collective agreement. It is the team=s belief that this reduction is achievable in the second year of the plan through attrition and that collective agreements can be respected. Recommendation: That the board establish an average class size as close to 22:1 as possible in the secondary panel, while respecting the current collective agreement, and that the secondary teachers salaries budget be reduced by $3,040,000 beginning in 2007B08 to reflect the increased average class size. C.4. CEC Staff Reductions Year Two Two of the positions identified in section B.4. (see p. 16) will be accommodated through attrition in 2007B2008. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 21

32 Section D. Staff Reduction by Reassignment or Future Non-Hires The savings generated through this grouping will be achieved mainly by tightening up staff deployment surrounding the preparation time issue and reassignment of a limited number of staff. D.1. Elementary Preparation Time Grant in 2007B08 D.2. Elementary Travel/Preparation Time PREPARATION AND TRAVEL TIME The SAT has determined that significant savings are attainable through careful management of the allocation of the staff assigned to fulfil collective agreement requirements for preparation time. It is recognized that preparation time at the elementary panel is a complex issue to manage for a variety of reasons: $ Logical blocks of time that work from a programming point of view are not always perfectly aligned with the amount of preparation time to be allocated to each teacher as per the collective agreement. $ The specialist staff providing the preparation time are by and large itinerant, requiring a certain amount of travel time between classes, and in some cases, from school to school. The amount of travel time between classes is variable, depending on the configuration of the school. The amount of travel time between schools varies according to distance and traffic conditions. $ The specialist staff=s timetables do not always fit perfectly into the school organizational model. There is some evidence that historically, this part of the board=s operations was very loosely controlled. Under the new senior administrative team, there have been some steps taken to correct this situation. $ Responsibility for allocating teaching staff has been given to one superintendent of schools. $ The projected budget for 2006B07 called for the addition of 23 FTE positions to provide preparation time positions which were not filled. $ The staff budget elimination plan recommended a reduction of 10 FTE positions in preparation time providers for 2007B08. $ Intermediate teachers receiving more than the allocation prescribed in the collective agreement are increasingly being assigned to other preparation time duties. 22 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

33 Hindering this current administration=s efforts is a lack of resources that can provide strategic analytical review of complex issues such as this one. We address this issue in Section G ( p.39 ) of this report. The current elementary teachers collective agreement provides 180 minutes of preparation time for 2006B07. This is to become 190 minutes in 2007B08, and 200 minutes in 2009B10. Because of the complexities described above, it is difficult to ascertain precisely how much staff is necessary to provide the required preparation time. We analysed this issue using three different approaches. We calculated, on a purely mathematical basis, the staff required to provide the prescribed amount of preparation time, without accounting for travel time and administrative duties for library staff. We calculated how much preparation time is being provided by specialist staff based on senior administration=s information as to actual workloads of the specialist staff; this method does take into account travel time and administrative duties and is labelled AThe Operational Model.@ Finally, we compared overall elementary teachers staffing at the board with that of its neighbouring boards, through a comparison of the 2005B06 Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR). We found that under all three methods, the board was employing more staff in this area than was required. The excess staff involved varied from 79 teachers as calculated by the operational model to 151 teachers as calculated by comparing the PTR of neighbouring boards. The mathematical model suggests an excess of 114 teachers. We felt that the operational model most realistic, and our recommendations are based on this model. THE OPERATIONAL MODEL Based on information supplied by board staff, there are four sources of preparation time at the elementary panel: $ Core French courses, $ Music, instrumental or vocal, $ Library, $ Early dismissal of morning kindergarten classes. Also based on information supplied by board staff on specialists= actual workload, that is, time actually spent with students, we can determine that the excess preparation time compared to the requirements of the collective agreement for classroom teachers is equivalent to teachers. Spread out among the 2, classroom teachers, this represents an average of minutes more of preparation time than called for in the collective agreement.. This does not mean that every classroom teachers benefits of the same amount, and there may well be wide discrepancies in the amount of preparation time among teachers. The staff that provides the preparation time appears to be a second source of additional savings. For the providers of preparation time, it is harder to evaluate how much preparation time TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 23

34 is available, as there is the provision of travel time to factor into this analysis. Since we did not have the data or the time to analyse each individual situation, we assumed that the difference between the stated workload and the mandated preparation time, and the full 1,500 minute work-week was all allocated as travel time. It is thus calculated that on average, Core French staff and music staff are provided with an average of 43 minutes of travel time daily. This seems excessive, as most staff=s travel time is confined to a single school to allow for travel between classes. We applaud the staff initiative of not hiring the 23 FTE positions to provide preparation time which were included in the 2006B07 projected budget. We also fully endorse the staff recommendation of reducing these positions by 10 FTE positions in 2007B08. However, given the size of the excess preparation time and travel time that seems to exist, we feel that the board can go further. We are confident that the current senior administration can manage this factor more tightly, especially if they are provided with additional resources in the appropriate areas. We thus feel that the following goals are attainable: $ An additional reduction of 6 FTE (over and above the 10 included in the August 23 rd Report) for 2007B08. $ No additional hiring in this area to accommodate the increase of 10 minutes of preparation time for 2007B08, to reflect the fact that the average preparation time for classroom teachers is already higher than the benchmark. $ Given an additional year of analysis and planning, no additional hiring to accommodate the increase of 10 minutes of preparation time for 2008B09, to reflect the fact that the average preparation time for classroom teachers is already higher than the benchmark. The total reduction of 16 FTE positions, by attrition, should be attainable from the current complement of FSL, Music, and Library staff. This could be achieved by reducing this staff=s excess preparation time where applicable, or by tightening up on travel time. It will require a more rigorous control mechanism. There are other boards in the province that have excellent tracking measures in place, and the board may well want to study some of these for helpful solutions. Since classroom teachers benefit on average from 220 minutes of preparation time, the additional requirement of 10 minutes for 2007B08 and 2008B09 could be implemented without hiring additional staff by redistributing this excess time equitably throughout the teaching staff. This will require more stringent planning exercises from all parties involved in the staffing process. It is to be noted that services to students are not affected by these savings Even after implementation of the above measures, there is still a large amount of excess preparation time in the system. Further reductions would require a complete review of the programming choices and the delivery models involved. We encourage the board to review as quickly as possible this area of their operations, including the board policy of utilizing non-certificated staff for providing preparation time. These additional potential savings could be in excess of $2,000,000 annually, but were not included in the deficit 24 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

35 elimination plan. If any or all of these savings are realized, they could be substituted for some of the other reductions in the plan that more closely impact students. Recommendations That the staffing for positions providing preparation time be reduced by $1,280,000 (16 FTE) in 2007B08. That, in consideration of the fact that average preparation time for classroom teachers at the elementary panel is already higher than the collective agreement requirements, no additional staff be hired for 2007B08 for preparation time purposes, and that the 2007B08 additional grants for preparation time of $1,351,000 be utilized to reduce the deficit. That no additional staff be hired for 2008B09 to accommodate the requirement for an additional 10 minutes of preparation time to reflect the fact that the average preparation time for classroom teachers is already higher than the benchmark, utilizing the additional grants for preparation time of $1,900,000 to reduce the deficit. That the board undertake a thorough review of the specialist teaching issue, with a view to further reduce the excess preparation time that would remain after other adjustments, and to further rationalize travel time of itinerant staff, and that any savings thus realized be substituted for other elements of the budget elimination plan that would more directly impact students. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 25

36 Section E. Restructuring and Delays in Services Certain expenditures can be delayed and the costs avoided for a period of time. At other times it is possible to direct grant money to existing programs while still meeting the objectives of the grant. The restructuring of a large expenditure to spread the costs over a number of years has distinct budgeting advantages. E.1. Marks Management Program The Marks Management Program is an additional program to assist teachers in marking. It has not yet been initiated. A delay in the initiation of this program will maintain the status quo. Recommendation That the initiation of the Marks Management Program be indefinitely delayed, and that the budget be reduced by $465,000 beginning in 2006B07. E.2. Staff Development The Ministry of Education provides a grant in 2006B2007 for Teacher Induction. The redirection of certain current staff development activities to the Teacher Induction Program will result in the grant being transformed into a savings. Recommendation That the staff development budget be reduced by $300,000 beginning in 2006B07 to reflect the transfer of some staff development activities to the Teacher Induction Program. E.3. Amortization of SAP The MySAP is the updated version of an internal information system that is to be upgraded and enhanced in the current school year. The cost of implementation of this update was estimated at $6,000,000. By amortizing this expense over 4 years it becomes an annual cost of $1,500,000 in the budget The cost of implementation has been reviewed with the provider and the revised actual cost is now $2,622,171. This produces annual savings of $844,457 over the next 4 years. 26 TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

37 Senior Staff have recommended that $194,225 of this savings be left in the budget as contingency fund for School Operations. In view of the size of the deficit challenge we feel the entire savings should be directed to the reduction of the deficit in year one. Recommendation That the appropriate budgets be reduced by $844,457 beginning in 2006B07 to reflect the annual savings realized from the MySAP implementation. TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 27

38 Section F. Reduction in Expenditures The savings generated by this grouping will be achieved by reducing existing levels of expenditures, and will mean a reduction in service in some areas. F.1. Textbooks and Supplies The August 23 rd Report recommended a $3,100,000 reduction in the first year, and a further $600,000 reduction in Year 2 to the textbooks and supplies spending category. These reductions are to be achieved from both the school budgets and the centralized budgets. Reducing expenditures for this category is not a step that is taken lightly. Mitigating the impact of this reduction are the following factors : $ There have been additional funds invested in textbooks by the government over and above the GSN grants. $ There are ever increasing sources of alternative learning materials, most notably from IT based sources. $ The board has been spending more than the provincial average in this spending category over the last few years. We have noted that average spending for all Ontario boards is below allocation over the last three years, by an average of 12.5%. The TCDSB, for the same period has under spent its total allocation for this spending category by an average of 2.5%. While such spending patterns on the part of boards should not be misconstrued as a lack of needs, it is an indication that alternative solutions are present and being used as a way of meeting more urgent priorities. 3 year average over/(under) allocation 3 year average % over/(under) allocation Provincial Total (67,559,592) (12.5)% TCDSB (254,875) (2.5)% We partly concur with the August 23 rd Report recommendation; however, we do not feel that the 2 nd year reduction should be implemented. We attempted to minimize the first year reduction, but encourage the board to consider this expenditure category for additional investments should any surplus funds by available within any year. Recommendation: That the textbooks and supplies budget be reduced by $2,950,000 beginning in 2006B TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT

39 F.2. Transportation The August 23 rd Report recommended reducing the transportation budget by $3,274,290 in order to match the grants for this spending category. While the budget plan was not specific about how these savings were to be achieved, a subsequent staff report to the board provided details for $4.1 million in potential cuts, with a view of eliminating the $3.2 million between transportation expenditures and revenues. Among those suggested cuts were the following: $ Elimination of noon-hour transportation for kindergarten students by changing the program delivery model to a full-day, alternate day model. $ Elimination of the temporary costs relating to relocated schools. $ Elimination of the non-compliant routes. $ Elimination of the extenuating circumstances routes. $ Elimination of the subsidy for TTC passes for families in financial need. Not included as a costed item, but mentioned as a possible source of further reductions, were potential savings flowing from a review of school bell times and drop-off windows. Given the uncertainty about the timing and the outcome of a transportation review, we concur with the staff recommendation to reduce transportation expenditures. However, we think it unwise to reduce them to such an extent that it would cause a loss of enrolment, thus exacerbating the board=s financial position. A key element to the staff recommendation of balancing transportation revenues and expenditures would be the elimination of noon-hour transportation for kindergarten students by changing the program delivery model from half-day, every day to full-day alternate days. There are 54 out of 72 boards in Ontario that do not provide noon-hour transportation. We have found no empirical research that would indicate that the half-day every day model is pedagogically superior; indeed, there may well be advantages to the full-day alternate day model. However, it is not by coincidence that the 18 remaining boards that follow the half-day model are made up of 9 coterminous board pairings. Given general perceptions about this type of change, we feel that a shift in program delivery models at this time should preferably be implemented as a joint decision with its coterminous board. Since TCDSB and TDSB are partners in a transportation consortium, the decision of one party to eliminate noon-hour transportation will impact the other partner=s costs. We are therefore not recommending at this time that noon-hour transportation be eliminated. We do think that the board should review available research as to the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages of each delivery model, and should initiate talks with its coterminous board with a view to hopefully jointly effect savings. However, some reductions in transportation expenditures should be made. Board staff has indicated that the $600,000 outlay for transportation for secondary school students temporarily housed in alternate sites while the construction of their schools is finished will not be required beginning in September of As well, there is a possible savings of $280,000 which would result from eliminating bus routes that were added for Aextenuating circumstances@. It is our understanding that these routes were added even though they would not qualify under the provisions of the board policy. Since the board has not seen fit to amend its policy, we feel that only TCDSB SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TEAM REPORT 29