Education Matters Online

District 11 Submission to the 2006 Ontario Pre-Budget Hearings

The funding formula generates the funding for the operating costs of the board, however, they have been so seriously underfunded for so long and have not yet been brought up to reflect cost of living and inflation increases, that many of the funding lines continue to be underfunded even though in the last two years there have been modest increases. In particular, benefits costs continue to rise dramatically beyond even inflation and this puts huge pressure on budgets and compensation packages.

In addition, a considerable problem exists in Thames Valley around declining enrolment. At present, this board has many more schools open than the funding formula supports, and furthermore, the board is in a declining enrolment situation. At the same time, the government requested a moratorium on school closures and so the board must continue to operate those schools.

Not only does the Thames Valley District School Board have the second-largest number of excess “pupil places” in the province, but the pupil places it does have are in the wrong areas. There are some schools filled to bursting in high-growth areas, and others which are half empty in other areas. A long-term accommodation study commissioned by the board from C. N. Watson and Associates recommended the closure and/or consolidation of quite a number of schools in some areas of the board, and the building of additions or new schools in others, and these recommendations are being studied by the board of trustees and the senior administration in the development of the Capital Plan. In the meantime, however, the result is that staff and resources are shifted from larger schools to smaller ones, or smaller schools get fewer staff, resources and budget, and in either case, all are stretched much too far.

Let me give you a concrete example of what happens when this is done. In Thames Valley, we have twenty-nine secondary schools and one grade 7-9 school serving high school students. In order to have a qualified Teacher-Librarian available to teach informational literacy and research skills every period of the day, all year, each school would need 1.33 full-time equivalent Teacher-Librarians. Contractually, one full-time Teacher-Librarian is assigned to the library for 6 of the 8 periods over the course of a school year. Therefore, for thirty schools, Thames Valley would require 40 Teacher-Librarians. However, the funding formula only generates 1 full-time Teacher-Librarian per 909 full-time equivalent students, and so for Thames Valley’s total secondary student population, the funding formula generates only 27.67 Teacher-Librarians. As a result, only 3 very large high schools have a Teacher-Librarian for all 8 periods over the course of the year. Four high schools have a Teacher-Librarian for 7 of the 8 periods. Twelve high schools have a Teacher-Librarian for 6 periods, three high schools have a Teacher-Librarian for 5 periods, three high schools have a Teacher Librarian for 4 periods, and three high schools have a Teacher-Librarian for only 3 periods out of the 8.

Given the fact that a well-staffed and well-stocked library is critical to literacy development and enhancement and to the education of all students, here is an example of a benchmark factor seriously in need of updating. Every high school, regardless of size, should have a Teacher-Librarian available for every period of the day.

While it is true that as of 2005, the government moved the funding for additional credits from the Teacher Compensation Grant where a board could apply for funding for up to 7.5 average student credits (base funding prior to 2005 being calculated at 7.2 average credits per student) to the Foundation Grant, it also kept the average number of credits that are funded at a maximum of 7.5. This will continue to impact negatively on school boards since in most boards, students take an average of more than 7.5 credits. In the Thames Valley District School Board, secondary school students take an average of 7.7 credits. On the surface, this doesn’t sound like much of a difference, however, if 7.7 credits were used, the funding formula would generate over 38 more full-time teachers for the board. However, if those teachers can’t be hired, the only other thing that can happen is that class sizes go up. Neither situation–not enough teachers and larger class sizes–are good for student learning and for student success. If the board decides to hire the teachers anyway, then the money must come from other parts of the budget, possibly shortchanging other areas.

Students take more classes for a wide variety of reasons. Some students take more courses beyond the required number for graduation, in order to have a wider range of post-secondary options. Others need to retake a course they have failed. Still others wish to upgrade courses in order to have a better chance of post-secondary admissions. Some don’t feel ready for post-secondary education at only 17 years of age. There are many good and valid reasons why students take more courses than necessary but boards are being penalized by inadequate funding as a result when the funding is based on a lower average number of courses than students actually take.

The funding formula does not generate enough support staff positions nor is the funding that is allocated for those positions restricted for use in those areas. As a result, when a board is looking for places to take funding from to cover shortfalls in other areas, it is from these areas that it is often taken leaving schools with fewer professional personnel such as psychologists, speech-language pathologists and attendance counsellors, and fewer secretaries, custodians and technical support staff.

This has two negative effects on the school system. First, the workload of those remaining goes up, and often some of their duties are downloaded to teachers, and second, there are fewer adults in the schools. Let me give you some examples. If two custodians must do the work previously done by three custodians, and there aren’t fewer classrooms to clean and they have the same number of hours, it follows that they are spending less time cleaning each classroom or the time elapsed between cleanings is longer. In either case, this negatively affects the learning environment of the students and the working environment of the teachers. Or similarly, where there are fewer secretaries, some of the work they used to do (typing exams, photocopying, mark entry, for example) is downloaded to teachers. This adds to the amount of “paper-shuffling” teachers have to do, taking them away from more useful work such as lesson planning, assessment and evaluation or providing additional assistance to students outside of class.

In both cases, these situations mean that there are fewer adults in any given building and that gives rise to more potential for behaviour problems among students. With Safe Schools being a priority for teachers, education workers, administrations, the government and the public at large, it makes no sense to have fewer adults in a school. The higher the number of adults in a building, the less likely it is that there will be problems with bullying, violence or intruders. Video cameras are sometimes helpful but nothing can replace adult presence in a building in order to maintain a peaceful and safe atmosphere.

One of the first actions taken by Mike Harris in 1995 was to end the ability of students over the age of 21 to attend regular classes. In addition to directing adult students to continuing education classes, the funding for them was cut 75 percent. An adult day school receives no money for guidance, library, school administration, supplies or equipment, and only a fraction of the Accommodation Grant. Attendance and enrolment rules are severe and discriminatory. As a result, adult education enrolments in Ontario went from over 80,000 prior to the slashing of this funding, to under 8,000 a decade later. This forces more young adults to rely on more expensive government programs, such as social assistance because they are not ready to compete in Ontario’s job market. Adult day schools provide a second chance; they lead to meaningful jobs and further education.

The government report Ontario Learns: Strengthening Our Adult Education System indicates that improving and enhancing adult education has far-reaching and long-term benefits to all aspects of society. Page 11 of that report refers to an OECD/UNESCO report which found that “Adult education and training can contribute directly to the goals of higher performance for underachieving students in the K to 12 system when the adults in their lives gain the language, literacy, and numeracy skills that they need to effectively participate in their children’s education.” Given that this is the case, we should be doing everything possible to provide and expand adult education opportunities for the communities served by this board and across the province, but in order to do so, the funding for adult education must be increased.

The enhancement of adult education programs would fit in very logically with the literacy and numeracy initiatives at the elementary level and the Learning to 18 initiatives such as the TVDSB’s Destinations and the Reconnecting to Your Future programs at the secondary level in the board. Learners, whether they be elementary or secondary or adult learners, need to have high quality programs to meet their needs which will in turn benefit society and future generations. In the Thames Valley District School Board, we already have the infrastructure in place to accomplish these goals in that there is already a high-quality albeit under-funded adult education program and space in existing schools to expand; all we need is the funding to be able to do it.