Save Arbor Glen

After carefully reading and understanding the TDSB’s funding information, Candy followed up with a note to Mari by some observations and suggestions. Here is Mari’s reply ( blue text )  on Apr 19.

Dear Candy,

Thank you for taking the time to reach this deep level of understanding. Unfortunately, while the school board knows and has repeatedly explained the numerous discrepancies and misalignments of funding you outline below, we have had difficulty having some of these problems addressed. I am copying your analysis to some of the people in our board and in the ministry of education as I think they might also find it of interest. They may also have comments for you that they’d wish to share with us. See my further comments below.

Mari

Hi Mari

After studying the information you forwarded earlier, we have the following observation: While enolment declines, costs don’t decline at the same rate - Although there is decline in the no of students, you still have to pay the same expenses for maintaining the school.

Fixed costs (costs that do not change when the volume of activities or enrolment changed).

e.g. you still need the school being maintained though no. of students declines. Airconditioning, heating, maintenance and repair won’t change though you may have less people.

This is absolutely true! And it is an ongoing problem. Our difficulty, as with the step costs you site next, is in determining where to draw the line. When is the decline in a specific school’s population enough that it no longer makes sense to continue supporting the cost of keeping a whole building open? What other factors, such as proximity to other schools, need and cost of using busses, physical state of the building, availability of community use space, availability of community greenspace, affect where the line is drawn? But it is more complex than that. See next answer.

Step costs (these costs tend to stay at the same level until the next level of change is reached)

No. of teachers/salaries – these tend to stay at the same level until the no. of students is reduced by say 20 to 25 per class, even when you have 18 students, you still have to pay for one teacher. This is a good example for step costs.

This is a good example and, in fact, some have pointed out that the decline in overall student population that we have experienced over the last 5 years works out to about 2 or less students per class – so how can we possibly reduce the number of classes? Unfortunately, the reality is that, in the aggregate, we have still lost more students than most school boards in this province have in total. In five years time, we anticipate that 25% of our school space will be empty. If students were widgets (which of course they aren’t) and we could fill up each school to 100% capacity (which is the direction the provincial government would like us to move towards), this would mean we would not need and could close one in four schools in this city. But, again, reality is not so neat and tidy. As I know you know, there are all kinds of problems with this ranging from different levels of population growth and decline in different neighbourhoods, to unpredictable elements in future population projections, loss of greenspace and loss of community use. See square footage discussion in your proposed funding base below for further difficulties.

Variable/Semi variable costs (costs that change according to the volume of activities or enrolment)

e.g. for supplies and stationeries, fewer students mean lower consumption of supplies.

This at least is something that we can deal with quite well! Unfortunately, because funding is given per student, fewer students also means less funding, so it is not as if there are any savings to be made here that we could use anywhere else.

ESL

Again our question is who’s subsidizing who? School or the program.

At this point, the amount of funding that we are given for ESL is most definitely subsidizing many other unfunded or underfunded cost pressures. But there is a bit of what might be seen as a shell game going on here. The amount of funding given here, some say, is deliberately more than would otherwise be given for ESL precisely so we can use the funding for other things. I have been told, in fact, that the rate at which this funding is given is based on old population statistics that are higher than our current reality and that this is done to give us extra money. It’s a bit frustrating, though, to have this funding labelled as ESL. It allows the provincial government to say, on the one hand, that they give us plenty of money for ESL and then, on the other hand say they don’t need to give us money for energy costs or other things because we can use the money from ESL.

Learning Opportunities Grant

Reduced by 23% since 2005. Over $100 million from the grant were used to help cover gap in funding for teachers’ salaries.

The situation here has much in common with ESL above.

This also adds to the fact that declining in enrolment do not necessarily result in reduction in salaries. That’s why salaries need to be subsidized from other programs/grants.

In fact, declining enrolment has nothing and everything to do with reductions in salaries.

With respect to individual employees, having less funding has nothing to do with how much each employee is paid. This is determined through collective agreements. As I think I’ve mentioned before, many of our employees make more than people in similar jobs in other parts of the province, in part to compensate for the costs of living in a large city.

With respect to teachers, they are funded in the variable cost way you describe above. Fewer students means less funding for teachers. On the other hand, the province has given us more funding in the last 2 years for certain kinds of teachers, such as those for the class cap of primary elementary grades. On a per teacher basis, though, the school board still comes up short by about 2% (which, considering the tens of thousands of teachers we have, adds up to about $3.5 million) because of our higher than average individual teacher salaries. So, overall, we certainly don’t make money and, in fact, lose some money here.

Proposed funding basis

1. Certain expenditure should be funded per sq ft e.g. energy, repair/maintenance. (p 13 of 2006-7 TDSB final budget – downloaded from the TDSB website). Square footage: elementary school remain same at 2,320,252 from 2005-6 to 2006-7 , whereas secondary schools edged up from 1,585,773 to 1,608,878 Therefore expenses relating to energy, repair/maintenance should increase.

Such expenditures are funded per square foot. Our problem is that the rate was set back in the mid 1990s and has barely budged since then. Interestingly, the provincial government allows more for energy and maintenance per square foot for their own buildings than they allow us. Queen’s Park can afford to be kept up and shiny, but schools can’t. (MPPs have also raised their salaries to four times or more what trustees are paid and, like councillors, have several staff members to assist them, benefits and large expense accounts. TDSB trustees make the most of any in the province at about $25,000 a year with no funding for staff assistance, no benefits and very small expense accounts. Not that I’m complaining. . . . .)

1. Caretakers, principal, specialty teachers, librarian – these cost should not change based on decline in enrolment.

Of course every school needs these people, and, in fairness, the government has given us some money towards making sure they are there. The problem (if it is a problem), again, is that this is tied to the number of students. So, if we keep a lot of buildings open with few students in each, we don’t have enough of these people to go around (or we need to take money from ESL and LOI etc. in order to pay for the extra people to staff each building – see ESL/LOI above).

1. No of teachers/salaries – decline should reach a certain level before teachers salaries can be reduced i.e. decline in enrolment has to reach 20 to 25 students per school before the no of teacher can reduce by one.

That is, in fact, what happens. With a “class-worth’s” drop in enrolment, a school loses a teacher. But we also lose a teacher’s worth of funding. So it doesn’t help.

Above points 2 and 3 are further proven by the fact that despite decline in enrolment from 257,280 in 2004-5 to 249,658 in 2006-7 i.e. 3% (p 9 of 2006-7 TDSB final budget) , number of teachers and school based staff remain rather static (“TDSB School Staff and Enrolment” p13 of TDSB’s Environment over the next 4 years – Presentation to Trustees Nov 25, 2006), before accounting for primary class size. In addition teachers salaries/benefits increased by $56 million or 3.7% from $1,522M in ‘05/06 to $1,579M in ‘06/07 (p 119 of 2006-7 TDSB final budget), probably reflecting adjustments for inflation, additional incentive to cover higher cost of living in the city to attract good teachers, and also partly due to primary class size (JK to grade 3 – 20 students per teacher by 2008?)

Teachers salaries/benefits account for about 70% of the total TDSB budget of $2,255 million. 3% decline in enrolment will translate into $67 million reduction in funding as funding is based on enrolment ($2,255M x 3%) i.e. $47 million for teachers salaries/benefits ($67M x 70%) reduction in funding. As indicated above, teachers salaries/benefits in fact projected to increase by $56 million, the gap is further widen by $103 million ($47M + $56M), before factoring in the primary class size funding allocation. In our recent school council meeting at Arbor Glen on March 22, you mentioned that your ‘06/07 budget deficit is $90 to 110 million. This apparently is the majority of it. True! But there is also a substantial amount from our underfunded energy and maintenance costs and an amount that stems from Toronto items, such as pools, for which we get no provincial funding. In addition, what is not reflected in our annual budget dilemma, but looms terribly over us, is the enormous backlog of repairs and maintenance – over $1 billion – that has been repeatedly neglected year after year in order to keep school programs strong.

We have also copied in our MPP David Zimmer, Councillor David Shiner and Education Minister Kathleen Wynne on this note so that we can have their inputs as well. Councillor David Shiner mentioned in his letter of April 12, 2007 that “a thorough review of the projected funding needs is required, as well as a review of the current funding“. (Thanks a lot David for your letter).

We believe this is what we need to address in order to reformulate a more equitable and realistic funding allocation other than just enrolment i.e. % of fixed, step costs and variable/semi variable costs as explained above.

Please let me know if the above makes sense. It makes sense to me! Thanks, Candy, for working on this and for helping to bring it to the attention of others. – Mari

Thanks!

Candy Fung

Arbor Glen Community and Concerned Parents

The following is a note sent to Trustee on Feb 8. It explained why Arbor Glen should be kept:

Dear Mari,

Thanks for providing the web linkage. I clicked onto the web and read about the seven core value statements for the Revitalization Program. I discussed with some parents and residents within our community. Summarized below are some facts and comments collected from our research and discussion.

With response to the “The vision-driven process for the Revitalization Program, brings together parents, schools, students, staff and community leaders to consider core values about education and what these mean for their community. During initial meetings in October and November 2006, communities of Areas 1 and 8 had the opportunity to examine seven core value statements with a view to generating what those statements should look like in their local community/schools”:

• Schools and programs that make the best use of our available resources and are sustainable into the future.

• Arbor Glen makes the best use of resources – it is adjacent to a large playground, socceer field, baseball field and tennis court – without having to cross any roads (Highland is separated from all these facilitates by a street, so making it dangerous for younger kids to cross the road to access these wonderfully maintained facilities). Arbor Glen also has a lot of funding activities such as book sale, very successful after-school programs, both are beneficial to the students while making resources available for the school. Recent improvement includes implementing numerous computer stations that help the kids to focus on learning various knowledge available from the web based information. In addition, there has also been extensive improvement to the library, more shelves were set up to display new books which make it more accessible to the students. Our kids love the book bags which bring home exciting and interesting books from the library every week. One of the proposal under the new plan is to lease out the school property which is well maintained and in good condition – this is another good example of waste of resources which is contradictory to this core value statement.

• Schools that have qualified teachers in areas that require specialized knowledge to prepare students for a spectrum of future career options and meet their special interests.

• Arbor Glen is very renowned in bringing in special programs that broaden the students’ knowledge base, which in turn also make them aware of the world around them, and what they can contribute to their environment. You can see this everywhere in the school with display of work from the students. In addition, it is also blessed with a very dedicated team of teachers:

• who cut short their lunch break to provide excellent lunch activities for the kids e.g. choir, dancing, recorder club;

• who organize fabulous after school program such as chess, multi-sports, mad science, pottery for the kids, promoting learning, co-ordination, problem-solving and teamwork through playing;

• who spend their evening sending out emails to parents updating them about the activities of their children during the day.

• Schools that offer a full range of programs to help students succeed.

• Arbor Glen excels both academically and in behavoural education.

• Academic achievement includes excellent results in public testing (EQAO testing) and was ranked No 1 by Simon Fraser Institute for the past five years’ results.

• Arbor Glen have just been short-listed for Garfield Weston Awards for Excellence in Education recently. These awards acknowledge school teams whose skill, hard work, perseverance and enthusiasm have contributed significantly to their students’ academic performance. Schools that are invited to participate in these awards represent the top 1% of Ontario’s schools.

• Very focused in behavoural education, adopting Second Step program. This will definitely be treasured by students through their lives.

• Elementary schools that offer a number of grades in one location so the number of transitions from school to school is reduced.

• Arbor Glen offers JK to Grade 6 education. It is running at about 80% capacity, the required level for funding, and expected to increase in the projection put forward by the School Board. Cliffwood is running at about 65% to 70% capacity and is expected to drop further in the projection. If Cliffwood’s regular English students accounts for about say 40% of this 60%, 24% can join Arbor Glen to make up to a 100% capacity.

• As for Highland (currently Grade 7 to 9), it is proposed to expand into JK to Grade 8, is located at a very busy intersection that is also well known for frequent traffic accidents, is definitely not a safe location for young kids. In addition, the 3 long sets of stairs that provide accessibility to higher levels could also post potential danger for younger kids. Other than this, the lockers are human size lockers, which are also potentially dangerous for kids. According to information from graduating students, the Design and Technology room is filled with carpenter machineries, it has a variety of drills, saws, buffers for materials of wood, plastic and metal. The Family Studies room has sewing machines, cusinary knives and ovens. The music rooms contain some heavy musical instruments like Basses and Tubas; plus, scientific chemicals from the science rooms, these are all dangerous to younger children. In addition, the back doors of these rooms are often opened for fresh air, children can easily enter the room during recess even with the locked front doors.

• Therefore instead of spending money to “retrofit” Highland to accommodate the younger kids, a better solution is either to keep it at the current level – according to the latest information from the School Board, it is already at almost 100% capacity!; If this is expected to drop in the projection, another option is to expand its home district boundary to accept more students from the nearby neighborhood to relieve the crowded situation – some nearby schools are using portables.

• Schools that are clean, well equipped, and modern.

• Thanks to our wonderful caretakers at Arbor Glen, the building is well maintained, clean and well equipped with all modern facilities that are required to foster good learning environment for the students. In fact the floor has been just refurbished.

• Schools that are safe, caring, equitable, and inclusive.

• Arbor Glen is very focused on keeping kids safe. This is evident from the daily morning announcements reminding kids to treat others as they like to be treated, also it’s open concept of classrooms discourages bullying or undesirable behaviour by eliminating hidden corners.

• School is barrier free with all on one floor and with wheel chair accessibility. Each class room has an exit to the outside in case of emergency.

• Students are from various ethnic backgrounds, the school makes it a point to impart knowledge on different ethnic history, background and special festivals to the students. We can see this in their variety shows and from the homework. It is a very closely knitted community where everybody knows everybody.

• Schools that are close to home and/or easily accessible.

• Arbor Glen is within 5 to 15 minutes walking distance for all residents in the area. Even if we include regular students from Cliffwood, the school is still within easily accessible distance from the area.

With all these excellent values that echo your seven core values in the Revitalization program, Arbor Glen definitely does not fall into the category of schools that are old and need lots of repair, nor is it so under capacity that it becomes a waste of resources. On the contrary it is clean, well maintained and in very good condition. In addition, the capacity is reasonably well at about 80% which could improve if Cliffwoord’s English regular is “consolidated” into Arbor Glen instead of Highland. Therefore we strongly urge you to reconsider and give Arbor Glen, its beloved students and the community a chance to preserve this wonderful school in our community.

Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter.