1.0 2 Agendas and... · 3.1.2 Halton District School Board Meeting, May 4, 2016 3.2 Approval of Business Transacted in Private Session 3.3 Order Paper 3.4 Action Items 3.4.1 Code

1

HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

J.W. Singleton Education Centre, 2050 Guelph Line, Burlington, Ontario

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Public Session: 7 p.m. (Private Session precedes Public Session)

P U B L I C S E S S I O N A G E N D A

1.0 – Opening

1.1 Welcome, Call to Order and Roll Call

1.2 Approval of the Agenda

1.3 Declarations of Possible Conflict of Interest

2.0 – Communication to the Board

2.1 Delegations

2.2 Presentations

2.3 Acknowledgement of Delegations by Chair

3.0 – Ratification / Action page

3.1 Minutes of the Regular and Special Meetings

3.1.1 Halton District School Board Meeting, May 18, 2016 page 2

3.2 Approval of Business Transacted in Private Session

3.3 Order Paper page 8

3.4 Action Items

3.4.1 Special Education Plan (M. Zonneveld) – Report 16084 page 12

3.4.2 Close the Gap Initiatives (G. Cullen) – Report 16088 page 14

3.4.3 “Fix the Finances” Campaign (K. Amos) – Report 16090 page 15

4.0 – Communication to the Board page

4.1 Student Trustee Reports

4.2 Information Items (including Notices of Motion and future actions)

4.2.1 Notices of Motion

For Action: June 15, 2016

4.2.2 2016-17 Capital and Operating Budget (L. Veerman) – Report 16097 page 16

4.2.3 Program Viability Report (D. Boag) – Report 16096 page 64

4.2.4 Community Planning & Partnerships (L. Veerman, G. Cullen) Report 16095 page 83

4.2.5 Summer Authority (S. Miller) – Report 16098 page 88

4.2.6 Multi-Year Plan (K. Amos, S. Miller) – Report 16102 to be distributed

For Information June 1, 2016

4.2.7 Review of Internal Processes for Public Concerns (D. Boag) – Report 16099 page 89

4.3 Committee Reports

4.4 Director’s Report

4.5 Communications from the Chair 5 mins.

4.6 Trustee Questions and Comments 10 mins.

5.0 – Adjournment

5.1 Motion to Adjourn

2

HALTON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

7 p.m. – Public Session

M I N U T E S

1.0 -- Opening

1.1 Welcome, Call to Order and Approval of Agenda



2.0 -- Communication to the Board

2.1 Presentations

2.2 Delegations

2.3 Acknowledgement of Delegations by Chair

3.0 -- Ratification / Action

3.1 Minutes of the Regular and Special Meetings

3.1.2 Halton District School Board Meeting, May 4, 2016

3.2 Approval of Business Transacted in Private Session

3.3 Order Paper

3.4 Action Items

3.4.1 Code of Ethics Draft Policy (A. Collard, K. Graves) – Report 16082-Revised

3.4.2 Community-Based Facilities Enhancements Policy (S. Miller) – Report 16077

3.4.3 Motion to Suspend M11-0213 (A. Collard) – Report 16073-Revised

4.0 -- Communication to the Board

4.1 Student Trustee Reports

4.2 Information Items (including Notices of Motion and future actions)



4.2.2 “Fix the Finances” Campaign -- Report 16090 – (K. Amos)

4.2.3 Special Education Plan -- Report 16084 – (M. Zonneveld)

For Information May 18, 2016:

4.2.4 The Centre/Gary Allan High School Update (S. Miller) – Report 16089

4.2.5 2016 Bell Time Changes Report (L. Veerman) – Report 16091

4.2.6 Home to School Transportation Policy Exemptions (L. Veerman) – Report 16085

4.2.7 Halton Student Transportation Services 2014-15 Annual Report – (L. Veerman) -- Report 16092

4.2.8 Capital Update – (G. Cullen) – Report 16086

4.2.9 Close the Gap Initiative (G. Cullen) – Report 16088

4.2.10 Board Report Update (S. Miller) – Report 16087



4.5 Communications from the Chair

4.6 Trustee Questions and Comments

5.0 -- Adjournment

5.1 Motion to Adjourn

3

Halton District School Board

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Present: K. Amos, A. Collard, D. Danielli, T. Ehl Harrison, J. Gray, K. Graves, A. Grebenc, A. Harvey Hope,

J. Oliver, R. Papin, L. Reynolds, J. Sahi, S. Schneider

Regrets:

Agenda Item 1

1.1 Call to Order

K. Amos called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m. noting regrets from J. Sahi for Private Session.

M16-0078 L. Reynolds / D. Danielli

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board move into Private Session.

Carried Unanimously.

The Board rose from Private Session at 7:26 p.m.

The Chair called the Public Session to order at 7:39 p.m. J. Sahi joined the meeting for public session.


M16-0079 A. Grebenc / L. Reynolds

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board amend the agenda for May 18, 2016

to omit the delegation, and to move Item 4.2.4 The Centre/Gary Allan High School

Update to Presentations (Item 2.2) and that the agenda be approved as revised.



The Chair reminded Trustees of the requirement to declare any potential conflicts of interest.

Agenda Item 2

2.1 Delegations

The Chair noted there were no delegations, as the listed delegate indicated her intent to withdraw.

2.2 Presentations

S. Miller highlighted Report 16089 and introduced Lisa Rizzato, CEO of The Centre. L. Rizzato responded to

the offerings available at The Centre, plans for the new location, and the opportunities for The Centre with

Syrian newcomers entering the area.

2.3 Acknowledgement of Delegations by the Chair

The Chair thanked the presenters for their presentation.

Agenda Item 3

3.1 Approval of the Minutes

A. Collard cited wording amendments for Item 4.2.2, asking that the first sentence read: “A. Collard indicated

that she would request S. Miller to speak to Report 16072 before making her comments.” She also asked that

the last two sentences be reordered to read: “A. Collard indicated her intent to withdraw item 4.2.2 at this time,

pending the development of an administrative procedure. A. Harvey Hope requested consideration for a parent

policy related to the admin procedure.”

For Item 4.2.3, A. Collard requested the introductory sentence read “A. Collard indicated that she would be

withdrawing this motion and she requested S. Miller speak to Report 16073 before making her comments.” She

also asked the last sentence read: “A. Collard agreed to revise the report as suggested.”

M16-0080 L. Reynolds / A. Grebenc

Be it resolved that the minutes for the Meeting of the Halton District School Board for

May 4, 2016 be approved as amended. Carried Unanimously.

3.2 Ratification of Business Transacted in Private Session

M16-0081 K. Graves / D. Danielli

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board accept the tender from Tambro

Construction Ltd., in the amount of $12,135,000.00 as contained in Tender No. RFT 16-78 for

the construction of the new Martin Street PS in Milton, Ontario, subject to final Ministry

approval to proceed.

4

Halton District School Board (May 18, 2016) page 2

M16-0081 K. Graves / D. Danielli (continued)

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve a budget of 14,763,596.00 for the

construction of the new Martin Street PS. This project is to be financed as follows;

Capital Priorities Funding of $11,403,739.00,

Full Day Kindergarten Funding of $988,568.00 and

Proceeds of Disposition of $1,521,557.00 as allocated by the Ministry in May 2014

subject to final Ministry approval to proceed;

Demolition Funding of $484,022.00 as allocated by the Ministry in December 2015; and

Educational Development Charges in the amount of $365,710.00.


M16-0082 K. Graves / A. Harvey Hope

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the audit plan for the fiscal year

ended August 31, 2016, prepared by the Board’s external auditors, Deloitte LLP (Appendix A).

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the 2016/2017 Internal Audit

Plan prepared by the Board’s internal auditor (Appendix B).

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the 2016/2017 Regional Internal

Audit Plan prepared by the Regional Internal Auditor (Appendix C). Carried Unanimously.

M16-0083 K. Graves /A. Collard

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the resolutions from the Halton

District School Board meeting in Private Session, May 18, 2016, respecting Personnel Matters.

Carried Unanimously

3.3 Order Paper

The Chair called attention to the Order Paper.

3.4 Action Items

3.4.1 Code of Ethics Draft Policy

A. Collard and K. Graves spoke to Report 16082 (revised).

M16-0084 A. Collard / R. Papin

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board’s Code of Ethics policy, as appended to

Report 16082 (revised) be posted on the Board’s website for public input for a period not less

than 25 days, and that any input return to the Board for consideration at the second Board

meeting in June 2016. Carried Unanimously.

3.4.2 Community-Based Facilities Enhancements Policy

S. Miller spoke to Report 16077. A. Harvey Hope suggested a minor wording revision, changing

“Due to” to “Depending upon”.

M16-0085 L. Reynolds / A. Grebenc

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Community-Based Facility

Enhancements Policy, as appended to Report 16077. Carried Unanimously.

3.4.3 Motion to Suspend M11-0213

A. Collard referenced Report 16073 (revised).

M16-0086 A. Collard / J. Gray

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board temporarily suspend Motion 11-0213 for

the current year (2016). Carried Unanimously.

Agenda Item 4

4.1 Student Trustee Report

S. Schneider and J. Sahi spoke to the recent student trustee elections, and provided a more formal

introduction for Dasha Metropolitansky (White Oaks Secondary School) and Zaid Haj Ali (Abbey Park

High School), the successful candidates for student trustees 2016-17. They also highlighted the very

successful Student Leadership Symposium, with the theme “transitions”, and the response from students to

the sessions.

5


The Student Trustees also spoke to the upcoming OSTA/AECO conference to be held May 26-29 in

Toronto, and the opportunity for trustees to attend.

4.2 Information Items (including Notices of Motion)


A. Collard indicated she would be bringing forward a notice of motion to add a goal area for

“Trustees” within the Multi-Year Plan.

J. Sahi left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.


4.2.2 “Fix the Finances” Campaign

K. Amos passed the gavel to K. Graves, and spoke to Report 16090. Trustees contributed to the

discussions commenting on the importance of raising the awareness about this issue, continued

involvement of the MPPs, how the campaign would be developed and implemented.

4.2.3 Special Education Plan

M. Zonneveld spoke to Report 16084 highlighting the review process, and the format of the plan

in reflecting current year’s changes.

M. Zonneveld outlined the supports in place and capacity of instructional staff in meeting the

needs of students with special needs within their classrooms. He highlighted the 5:1 ratio of

teachers to students within the six-week learning centre program, and that the majority

(approximately 1440 students) with identified learning needs are supported within their

classrooms, while approximately 80 students participate in the learning centre program once

during their Grade 4-6 years.

M. Zonneveld also highlighted the capacity building done by instructional staff to meet the

instructional and assistive technology needs for students. He indicated he would share his speaking

notes with trustees.

S. Miller responded to trustee questions regarding whether the Board was meeting its legal

obligations to students. He commented on a ruling in British Columbia that was publicly touted as

similar to the discontinuation of the learning centres, citing a legal opinion indicating it was not

analogous to the Halton scenario.

Trustees posed additional questions regarding the format of the plan, access to the draft document

before considering it for approval, and implications of the Standards outlined in the report.

S. Miller commented on the concept of doing a complete review of the Board’s special education

programming, previously mentioned at SEAC and Committee of the Whole. He indicated the

timeliness of an external consultant to conduct a review in light of further Ministry funding cuts

anticipated in future years. He responded to trustee questions on this matter, particularly the

potential for a connection to the internal audit discussions by the Audit Committee, and support for

the concept by SEAC.

For Information: May 18, 2016

4.2.4 2016 Bell Time Changes Report

L. Veerman spoke to Report 16091, highlighting the school requests for changes to bell times.

She responded to trustee questions.

4.2.5 Home to School Transportation Policy Exemptions

L. Veerman spoke to Report 16085, highlighting the changes for the upcoming year. She

responded to questions relating to the exemptions, communication with parents notifying them of

changes, and timing of the notification. Trustees also commented on information sharing regarding

potential changes, the Board’s empty seat practice, and timing.

M16-0087 R. Papin / J. Gray

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board extend the meeting beyond 10 p.m.


6


4.2.6 Halton Student Transportation Services (HSTS) Annual Report

L. Veerman called attention to Report 16074.

4.2.7 Capital Update

G. Cullen spoke to Report 16086, highlighting the addition at Alton Village Public School, work at

Craig Kielburger Secondary School, and responded to trustee questions.

4.2.8 Close The Gap Initiative

The Chair highlighted this report as being for action, indicating it will come back to the Board on

June 1 for decision. G. Cullen spoke to Report 16088, and responded to trustee questions regarding

timing and scope of the projects, as well as any limitations to the designated use of the funding.

He indicated a revised project list will come back to trustees in the future.

4.2.9 Board Report Update

S. Miller spoke to Report 16087, highlighting the changes from the last update including plans to

bring the Multi-Year Plan to Board on June 15, with the Operational Plans coming back in

September.

A. Collard asked if there was an anticipated timeline for a Special Education review. S. Miller

indicated a report would likely come in the fall (September), but dates are tentative at this point.


D. Danielli spoke to today’s meeting of the Equity and Inclusive Education Committee meeting, indicating a

more fulsome look at the accessibility equity lens would take place next year. She also highlighted the PIC

planning meeting held earlier this month.

R. Papin spoke to the accomplishments of the Accessibility Coordinating Committee, in preparing updates for

the annual review. Other actions were shared.


S. Miller spoke to the prestigious honour awarded to Gerry Cullen at the recent Ontario Association of School

Business Officials (OASBO) conference. G. Cullen was presented with the McCordic Award recognizing his

contributions to education provincially and locally.

S. Miller recognized Hamish Guthrie inducted to the White Oaks Secondary School wall of fame at the

school’s 50th–anniversary. Guthrie has taught at White Oaks Secondary School for the past 40 years, and is

known for his exemplary coaching of the school’s debate team, facilitating students’ participation at national

and international debating competitions.

4.3 Communications from the Chair

K. Amos spoke to the student success at the recent Canadian French Public Speaking Competition. She

highlighted upcoming events including the grand opening of Oodenawi Public School, the multi-year planning

consultation with community members, and reflected on the White Oaks Secondary School anniversary

celebrations. She also highlighted a special delegation night (Monday, June 13) for delegates interested in

speaking to the Program Viability report. The report comes to the Board on June 1.

4.4 Trustee Questions and Comments

J. Oliver highlighted the first Oakville High School Super Council on May 10, an initiative she instigated to

address the needs and challenges of secondary schools. She also offered congratulations to junior and

intermediate speech competition winners.

J. Gray recognized the efforts of staff and students at McKenzie-Smith Bennett Public School and Acton High

School for their coordination and participation at the Inside and Out conference in Milton, attended by

approximately 350 students.

T. Ehl Harrison commented on the recent Multi-Year Plan discussions, specifically graduation attributes. She

also commented on local fundraising efforts in support of Fort McMurray residents displaced because of the

recent wildfires. S. Miller commented on the fundraising efforts taking place at many Halton schools, citing

one example where a small school (250 students) raised approximately $1500. He also indicated allocations

were being made for students arriving from Fort McMurray regardless of documentation.

7


R. Papin spoke to a garden renovation project at Tecumseh Public School, made possible with thanks to local

community partners.

D. Danielli expressed her appreciation to those who assisted in resolving parent concerns regarding a potential

equity issue. She asked if trustees could obtain a current list of Instructional Program Leads (IPLs) within the

system.

K. Graves spoke to the PW Merry Public School fire and the loss to the community. Offered her appreciation

to G. Cullen and his team for their handling of the matter..

L. Reynolds expressed her appreciation to students and staff at Tom Thomson Public School for their

participation in Active Transportation initiatives, and highlighted the May 27 free fitness night hosted at

Aldershot High School.

Agenda Item 5

M16-0088 J. Gray / T. Ehl Harrison

Be it resolved that the Board adjourn at 10:47 p.m. Carried Unanimously

.......................…….……………..... Recorder ……......……….............................Chair

8

Wednesday, June 1, 2016 (Items shaded and/or marked in bold have been completed and will be deleted from the list prior to the next edition.)

ORDER PAPER Motion # Resolution Responsibility

M12-0119

(NOTE: The following motions have been summarized without the “notes” that appear in the report)

Be it resolved that the new Burlington NE high school, (SRA #101 Alton), provide Grade 9 & 10 English programming in 2013-14, add Grade 11 in 2014-15 and add Grade 12 in 2015-16.

Be it resolved that the new Burlington NE high school, (SRA #101 Alton), provide Grade 9 & 10 French Immersion programming in 2013-14, add Grade 11 in 2014-15, & Grade 12 in 2015-16.

Be it resolved that Grade 11 and 12 English program students within the SRA #101 (Alton) boundaries, attending Nelson, Robert Bateman, Lester B. Pearson and/or M.M. Robinson High Schools in 2013-14, continue to attend these high schools until graduation and transportation be provided subject to the Board’s Transportation policy

Be it resolved that Grade 11 and 12 French Immersion program students within the SRA #101 (Alton) boundaries, attending Nelson and M.M. Robinson High Schools in 2013-14, continue to attend these high schools until graduation and that transportation be provided subject to the ‘French As A Second Language’ policy of the Board.

Be it resolved that due to the ’grandfathering’ provision in the Alton Elementary Boundary Review recommendation #4 (see below), the new boundary for French Immersion students residing in north Headon Forest (directing them to M.M. Robinson HS) will begin as of September 2016. Transportation will be provided subject to the ‘French As A Second Language’ policy of the Board.

Senior Admin

M12-0204 Be it resolved that…. the Board develop a governance process to monitor School Generated Funds including School Council Funds and school businesses, and refer this item to the Policy, By-law & Governance Committee.

Policy, By-law & Governance Cmte

M13-0073 Be it resolved that in recognition of the role of SEAC and the motions passed at the SEAC Meeting of April 2, 2013 and conversations at the table this evening, that the Halton District School Board defer the Assessment of Gifted Entry/Gifted Screening Process Review, and that the Board direct the Director to:

1. develop and implement a consultation plan to seek input from SEAC, parents of gifted students, teachers and school staff on improving our gifted assessment process.

Director of Education

M13-0171 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve a structure for Board policy that includes governance policies and framework policies as per the appendices to Report 13083.

PB&G Committee

M13-0172 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve a structure for administrative procedures and supporting guidelines, implementation handbooks, and protocols as contemplated in Report 13083.


M14-0039 Be it resolved that the Community Funding of Facilities Enhancements be referred to Policy, By-law and Governance Committee for the development of a Framework Policy governing this admin procedure

PB&G Cmte

M14-0142 Be it resolved that the Director direct staff to conduct a review of the supervision of students who have high safety risks beginning September, 2014;

AND THAT the review cover any and all parts of the legal school day, including getting to class, nutrition breaks, recess, etc.;

AND THAT the review include the process for training staff, the supervision levels for students, and if students’ safety needs are being appropriately addressed;

AND THAT SEAC members be invited to participate in this review.


deferred to 2017

M14-0158

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board consider the following option related to the establishment of a second entry point (Grade 5) for French Immersion: Option C (Defer the decision on second French Immersion entry point): Defer the decision regarding a second French Immersion entry point until we have implemented Primary Core French.


M15-0015 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board refer the Trustee Code of Conduct policy to the Policy, By-law & Governance Committee.

PB&G Chair

M15-0026 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the approach to the Close the Gap initiative as outlined in Report 14199; and

THAT specific projects be undertaken as follows, funded subject to these cost estimates and budget availability: 1. Support for installation of classroom projection equipment (IT Plan), $100,000 2. Library Services, $500,000 over 2 years 3. Special Education rooms, $600,000 over 2 years 4. Specialty Classrooms, $600,000 over 2 years 5. Electrical upgrade and air conditioning in secondary schools, second and third floor areas, $3,600,000

6. Electrical upgrade and air conditioning in elementary schools, second and third floor areas, $4,700,000

Superintendent of Facility Services

M15-0071

Be it resolved that Halton District School Board support HSTS utilizing a third-party consultant to undertake a bell time analysis study for elementary and secondary schools, in order to find route efficiencies and determine the financial impacts or cost savings, and;

THAT prior to the analysis being undertaken, study parameters will be established jointly by the Halton District School Board and the Halton Catholic District School Board; and

THAT the cost of undertaking a bell time analysis study be provided to trustees for approval.

Superintendent of Business

M15-0122 THAT subject to Ministry approval and Board approval of the specific project that the Halton DSB appoint the architectural firm of Hossack and Associates Architects Inc. to prepare the design and tender documents (Phase 2) for the proposed new elementary school, ERA127 (Milton #10) to be built in Milton using the guidelines developed.


9

June 1, 2016 page 2


M13-0274 to M13-0287

Be it resolved that effective in the 2014-15 school year, the Halton District School Board introduce 40 minutes/week of Primary Core French beginning in Grade 1 in 24 Halton District School Board schools, with a commitment for a full roll-out by 2017-18, with an annual review of the roll-out to be brought back to trustees each year, and; (a) THAT schools selected for the initial phase of this program represent a variety of school organizations

(K-8, K-6, Dual Track, Single Track English, large and small enrolments) across the four geographic areas within the Halton District School Board, (Halton Hills, Milton, Oakville, Burlington).

(b) THAT students in these schools will receive the following minutes of Core French instruction between Grades 1- 8: 40 minutes / week Grades 1-3 120 minutes / week Grades 4 160 minutes/ week Grade 5 200 minutes / week Grades 6-7-8 (Appendix 5)

(c) THAT no later than June 2018, the Halton District School Board will assess the impact of this Primary Core French experience in relation to student engagement, student attitude, English proficiency and the impact on Grade 1 French Immersion uptake associated with these schools.

(d) THAT under the leadership of the System Principal for French Second Language, School Programs and Human Resources, the Halton District School Board will develop a long-term recruitment and staff development plan to ensure the Halton District School Board hires and retains the highest quality French teachers available and that this plan is shared with the Board of Trustees.

(e) THAT the Halton District School Board continues to provide staff development programs that include teaching strategies, modifications and accommodations to address students with diverse learning needs and students who arrive in Halton without prior experiences in either French Immersion and Core French.

(f) THAT the Halton District School Board develop and implement a 5-year plan whereby all Halton District School Board elementary schools with Intermediate Divisions have one classroom dedicated for the teaching of Grade 7-8 Core French (Appendix 6), whereas if it will not require additional portables.

Be it resolved that effective in the 2014-2015 school year, wherein a triple grade configuration has been possible (due to 23 or fewer students enrolled in three consecutive grades), the School Superintendent will assess the impact on the learning environment and opportunities for students and will consider and recommend for Board approval one of the following strategies;

staff as a Grade 1-2 blended class; staff as a Grade 1-2-3 blended class; redirect the Grade 1 students to a neighbouring school for their program and;

Wherein a triple grade configuration has been possible (due to 23 or fewer students enrolled in three consecutive grades for two consecutive years) the School Superintendent will consider and may recommend for Board approval a boundary review.

Be it resolved that effective in the 2014-2015 school year the Halton District School Board: a) establish and communicate a consistent Grade 1 French Immersion February registration deadline

for current Halton District School Board families, with a review of the effects of this procedure be undertaken by September 2014.

b) allow students who have not been in Senior Kindergarten within the Halton District School Board, register in Grade 1 French Immersion up to the first week of school.

c) communicate and implement the assessment and admission procedure for students with French proficiency arriving in Halton after the registration deadline.

d) All elementary schools that offer Grade 1 programming must host a Grade 1 Information Evening that includes information about English program, French Immersion program and Special Education placements. If the home school does not offer French Immersion, the school their students would be directed to for French Immersion cannot host their Grade 1 Information Evening at the same time. The Special Education presentation is to be scripted by the Board’s Special Education department, to include a description of all elementary Special Education placements.


M15-0137 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board present the following options for the delivery of French Immersion to the public in the Fall of 2015 for the purpose of receiving feedback, considerations and comments. Feedback will be brought to the Board for consideration in the delivery of French Immersion programming:

1. Option 1: Grade 1 (early) French immersion remains a 50% French 50% English delivery model, but entry to FI would be capped. The method of capping would be determined at a later date.

2. Option 2: Grade 1 (early) French Immersion remains at 50% French and 50% English, however all FI programs would be delivered in single track FI schools. French Immersion would be phased out of dual track schools and no new dual track schools would be considered. The location of the single track schools would be determined at a later date.

3. Option 3: French Immersion would commence at a later entry point (mid entry); Grade 4. This would result in the delivery model of FI moving from a 50% model to at least a 80% French Immersion model. In addition the delivery of FI would occur in dual track schools only.

4. Option 4: French Immersion would commence at a later entry point (mid entry); Grade 4. This would result in the delivery model of FI moving from a 50% model to at least an 80% French Immersion model. In addition the delivery of FI would occur in single track FI schools only.

Director of Education/ Associate Director

10

June 1, 2016


M15-0139 Whereas the work of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) regarding residential schools in Canada concluded its work in June 2015, resulting in 94 far reaching Calls to Action, including a number specifically focused on education; Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board: i) Commit that all students graduate with knowledge of residential schools and their effects on

Aboriginal communities in Canada and see themselves as contributors to reconciliation. ii) (At least) Annually during a Board meeting recognize the history of our area and give respect and

honour to its First Peoples, by including in the Chair’s welcome, "We would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of First Peoples."

iii) Correspond with the Ministry of Education, urging collaboration with Aboriginal communities and the Ontario Public School Board Association to include treaty education, the history and legacy of residential schools and the impact of the Indian Act in curriculum in a way that gives voice to First Peoples. Recognizing that this will take time, also requesting that the Ministry immediately provide school boards with resources to develop and share best practices.

Director of Education / School Operations

M16-0024 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board use a portion of the Board Leadership and Team Development account to cover the registration, accommodation and transportation costs for the OPSBA HDSB Director(s) and the OPSBA Central West Regional VP/Chair to attend the 2016 OPSBA AGM in Ottawa, at a cost up to a maximum of $2,100 per participant. Upon return from the conference the OPSBA Director(s) and/or OPSBA Central West Regional VP/Chair will provide the Board with an update.

Chair / Trustees

M16-0045

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board authorize staff to work with the City of Burlington and Nelson User Group to develop a fundraising plan as outlined in the HDSB Community Funding of Facility Enhancements Administrative Procedure regarding proposed enhancements to the sports facilities at Nelson High School.


M16-0081

Be it resolved that Halton District School Board accept the tender from Tambro Construction Ltd., in the amount of $12,135,000.00 as contained in Tender No. RFT 16-78 for the construction of the new Martin Street PS in Milton, Ontario, subject to final Ministry approval to proceed. Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve a budget of 14,763,596.00 for the construction of the new Martin Street PS. This project is to be financed as follows;

Capital Priorities Funding of $11,403,739.00,

Full Day Kindergarten Funding of $988,568.00 and

Proceeds of Disposition of $1,521,557.00 as allocated by the Ministry in May 2014 subject to final Ministry approval to proceed;

Demolition Funding of $484,022.00 as allocated by the Ministry in December 2015; and Educational Development Charges in the amount of $365,710.00.

Superintendent Facility Services

M16-0082 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the audit plan for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2016, prepared by the Board’s external auditors, Deloitte LLP (Appendix A). Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the 2016/2017 Internal Audit Plan prepared by the Board’s internal auditor (Appendix B). Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the 2016/2017 Regional Internal Audit Plan prepared by the Regional Internal Auditor (Appendix C).

Superintendent of Business Services

M16-0085 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Community-Based Facility Enhancements Policy, as appended to Report 16077.


M16-0086 Be it resolved that Halton District School Board temporarily suspend M11-0213 for the current year (2016). Cross referenced

with M11-0213

11

June 1, 2016 page 4

PENDING REPORTS – JUNE 1, 2016 (Items will be shaded when completed.)

Motion & Date Resolution Presentation Date

M11-0213 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Operating Plan for any given year prior to approval of the budget for that same year

Spring Annually

M11-0216

Be it resolved that the Special Education Plan be brought to the Board in each year prior to approval of the budget for that same year.

Spring Annually

M12-0088 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board direct the Director to provide a full and complete list of all HDSB policies and administrative procedures noting : a) whether or not the policy/administrative procedure has been adopted by board motion, b) the date that the policy/administrative procedure was last reviewed, c) the date that the policy/administrative procedure is next scheduled to be reviewed and d) whether or not the policy/administrative procedure suggests an impact to the roles and/or responsibilities of trustees or board of trustees (directly or through referenced policy or admin procedure)..

June / Sept. 2012 Review of policies undertaken (on-going)

M15-0059

Be it resolved that the Director direct staff to conduct a review of the Educational Assistant allocation process that considers the extent to which the process:

is driven by individual student needs

considers the health, safety, educational and social needs of students

informs and involves parents

involves the Student Services and Equity and Inclusion departments

AND THAT recommendations are brought before the Board by February 2016, to be considered for implementation in Spring 2016; AND THAT SEAC members be invited to participate in the review.

February 2016 Deferred to November 2016

M15-0043 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board initiate a committee to examine program viability in both the English program and the French Immersion program and to make a recommendation to the Board no later than June 2015. The committee will be chaired by the Associate Director and will be composed of the Superintendent of Program, Superintendent of Student Success, System Principal of French Program, System Principal of School Program, Principals of dual track elementary schools, elementary single track English schools, elementary single track French Schools, French Immersion programs in High School, single track English programs in high schools and three trustees who currently sit on the French advisory committee.

June 2015

M15-0173 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the timelines for the public/community consultation process (Report 15114) and that the completion of that process will result in a recommendation coming to the Board no later than May 2016 with implementation of September 2017 for any significant changes in the delivery of either French Immersion or English programming.

May 2016 (to June 2016)

M16-0004 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board staff review the current internal processes for public complaints in light of the Office of the Ombudsman’s new mandate to investigate public complaints regarding school boards and report back to the Board by the end of the 2015-16 school year.

May/June 2016

M16-0084 Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board’s Code of Ethics policy, as appended to Report 16082 (revised) be posted on the Board’s website for a public input period not less than 25 days, and that any input return to the Board for consideration at the second Board meeting in June 2016.

June 2016

12

Report Number: 16084 Revised

Date: May 12, 2016

FOR DECISION

TO: The Chair and Members of the


FROM: Mark Zonneveld, Superintendent of Education - Student Services

Stuart Miller, Director of Education

RE: 2016-2017 Amendments to the Special Education Plan

RECOMMENDATION:

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Special Education Plan

2016-2017, as amended.

Background:

The Ministry of Education requires boards to annually update, submit to the Ministry, and make available

to the public, a report on the programs and services offered in the area of special education. Our Board has

continued to refer to this report as the Special Education Plan (referred in this report as “the plan”). Each

year a review of the plan is conducted by Student Services Department staff and the Special Education

Advisory Committee (SEAC), and appropriate areas of the plan are modified to reflect changes made in

programs and services. Other areas of the plan are refined to continue to provide more clarity for parents

and the public about special education programs and services available in the Halton District School

Board. The Special Education Plan 2015-16 is posted on the Board website.

This year an extensive review of the Special Education Plan was conducted, supported by a review

committee made up of members of SEAC and the Student Services Department. SEAC also dedicated

time during meetings to review the plan and the recommendations of the committee. This will serve as

a summary of revisions based on feedback of these stakeholders.

Standard 3: Roles and Responsibilities - the responsibilities of the Halton District School Board were

expanded to include the Ontario Human Rights Code, with a link to the OHRC site.

Standard 4: Early Identification Procedures and Intervention Strategies – this has been updated to

align with the Early Years programming in Kindergarten and the assessment practices used. As the

Halton District School Board will no longer employ a gradual entry for Junior Kindergarten this

revision was also made to the plan. The Problem-Solving Pathway was updated, with ongoing

communication with parents being highlighted in bold text and larger font.

Standard 5: The Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) Process and Appeals -

reflects that a parent must request a review of an IPRC decision by submitting this request in writing

within 15 calendar days of receipt of that decision.

13

Report 16084 page 2

Standard 6: Educational and Other Assessments - has a more fulsome description of the work of the

Child and Youth Counsellors (CYC) and the Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) Facilitators. Wait

times for assessments have been revised to align with our practice (i.e. Psych Assessments 8 months to

1 year and Speech Language Assessments approximately 3 months).

Standard 9: Special Education Placements Provided by the Board – was updated to reflect the

discontinuation of the Early Language Development Centres (ELDC). These services will be provided

in kindergarten classes by Teachers, Early Childhood Educators, SERTs and Speech Language

Pathologists. All other references to the ELDC in the Plan have been removed.

Standard 12: Special Education Staff - is reflective of the staffing allocation known to the department

at the time of review, and will have the number of classes for each placement and program updated

once those are finalized, including the addition of three Communication Classes. Staff roles and

descriptions have been updated in some cases (addition of Assistive Technology Lead; revision of

Itinerant Resource Teacher and removal of Itinerant Teachers for Students with Gifted or Learning

Disability Identifications).

Standard 15: Accessibility of School Buildings - was updated to reflect The TeachAble Project, units

and plans available through the Ontario Education Services Corporation and the Government of

Ontario. Feedback was received to update the HDSB School Accessibility charts found in this

standard. It was also recommended the SEAC brochure be removed from the appendices, to be

replaced when a revised edition is available.

As determined through an online vote conducted on May 11, 2016, SEAC is not supporting the Special

Education Plan 2016-2017. For most members that did not support the plan, their concerns rested with

the proposed changes connected to the Board budget and provincial funding reduction. A full list of all

revisions to the plan will be included as an appendix to the Special Education Plan 2016-2017. The

revised plan is expected to be completed and posted on the Board website by July 31, 2016.

Conclusion

The proposed amendments to the Special Education Plan provide a clearer and more current description

of the special education service delivery model in the Halton District School Board.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Zonneveld, Stuart Miller,

Superintendent of Education - Student Services Director of Education

14

Report Number: 16088

Date May 10 2016

FOR DECISION



FROM: G. Cullen, Superintendent of Facility Services

RE: Close the Gap – Funding Update Spring 2016

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board apply to the Ministry of Education for

approval of the transfer of funds to the Close the Gap program as follows; $9,000,000 from

Proceeds of Disposition (POD), and approx. $2,650,000 from New Pupil Places (NPP) Build

Capacity (pending finalization of expenses for the Heritage Glen Addition project).

Background:

In Report 14199, the Board created the Close the Gap (CTG) approach to addressing the needs of older

school. To enhance the funding of the CTG program all future Proceeds of Disposition (POD) are to be

directed toward increasing this funding balance. Recently the Board sold a portion of the White Oaks SS

North campus creating additional POD funds to go to CTG.

Facility Services staff have reviewed the existing list of projects and have recommended extending the list.

An additional source of funding has also become available from the former capital project funds known as

NPP Build Capacity. With these two recent additions to the CTG fund we feel that sufficient funds have

been generated to address several years of CTG projects. This has created the potential to reallocate some of

the original CTG funding to other Board priorities.

Current CTG Funding 18,717,891

POD Transfer (WOSS North excess land sale)- Pending Ministry Approval 9,000,000

NPP Build Capacity Transfer – Pending Ministry Approval 2,650,000

Revised Funding Balance 30,367,891

Current projected costs for the CTG list 12,525,148

Additional 2017/18 Projects 12,486,688

Required CTG funds 25,011,836

Additional Funding to extend the Project List 5,356,055

The CTG updated project list now extends until 2018. Staff suggest that the additional funding remain for

future project assessment.


Gerry Cullen Stuart Miller

Superintendent of Facility Services Director of Education

15

Report Number: 16090 Revised

Date: May 11, 2016

FOR DECISION



FROM: K. Amos, Chair,

Trustee, Oakville Wards 5 & 6

RE: “Fix the Finances”

RECOMMENDATION:

Be it resolved the Halton District School Board create an ad hoc committee to create a public

awareness campaign, “Fix the Finances”, to raise awareness about how the HDSB is financed and

repercussions of reductions in funding and create an action plan, to return to the Board for approval

by the last Board meeting in Sept. 2016.

Rationale

As we complete the budget process, it has become evident that some of the general public does not understand

how school boards are funded. As an example each year many of our municipalities in Halton share a “fact” sheet

of how the tax dollar is divided, and how the funds are spent. A public awareness campaign to raise the

communities’ awareness of how the HDSB is funded and the fact it is the lowest funded school board in the

province, with a general indication of how the funds are spent would raise the public’s awareness.

It is also important to share the information that some funds are “enveloped” or specifically directed to certain

items and cannot be spent on other items. Another area where awareness needs to be raised in the reduction in

funding to the Special Education (High Needs allocation) which has resulted in a significant reduction in funding

to the HDSB, and in fact there is a projected cumulative impact of $18.8 million over 4 years.

The HDSB has always been fiscally responsible and this funding challenge has made the last 2 years’ budget

processes very difficult, and the community and government needs to be made aware in a public awareness

campaign.

An example of a current campaign primarily targeted at Special Education funding is occurring at Durham Public

School Board has a current campaign to #FundtheNeed http://www.ddsb.ca/Trustees/OneInFour-

FundTheNeed/Pages/default.aspx .

I believe the Halton District School Board should consider a campaign to raise awareness of how this Board is

funded and the impact to the reduction of the funding of the Special Education (High Needs allocation) within our

Board. #Fix the Finances


Kelly Amos

Chair, Halton District School Board

Trustee, Oakville Wards 5 & 6

http://www.ddsb.ca/Trustees/OneInFour-FundTheNeed/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.ddsb.ca/Trustees/OneInFour-FundTheNeed/Pages/default.aspx

16


Date: May 12, 2016

FOR DECISION



FROM: Stuart Miller, Director of Education

Lucy Veerman, Superintendent of Business Services and Treasurer

RE: 2016/2017 Operating Budget and Capital Budget

Warrant

The Education Act requires all School Boards in Ontario to approve an annual balanced budget within the

definitions set by the Ministry of Education regulations. The 2016/2017 Operating and Capital Budget

included in this report meets this requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION:

Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees approve the 2016/2017 Halton District School Board PSAB

Operating Budget in the amount of $712,046,580 and that the Superintendent of Business Services and

Treasurer be authorized to proceed with the expenditure of funds as outlined in Appendix A.

Be it resolved that the Board of Trustees approve the 2016/2017 Halton District School Board PSAB

Capital Budget in the amount of $48,938,443 and that the Superintendent of Business Services and

Treasurer be authorized to proceed with the expenditure of funds as outlined in Appendix B.

Background

The fiscal year for all School Boards in Ontario is in alignment with the school year and runs from September

1 to August 31. According to Ministry of Education reporting and accountability requirements, a School

Board’s budget must be submitted to the Ministry by the end of June preceding the start of the fiscal year in

question. Consequently, the 2016/2017 budget will be submitted prior to the end of June 2016.

Beginning in 2010, all school boards were required to convert to a PSAB (Public Sector Accounting Board)

basis of accounting. This results in a new definition of balanced budget including the requirement to approve

a capital budget in addition to an operating budget. The PSAB standards follow more closely private sector

finance and expenditure principles including, but not limited to, a statement of amortization, deferred capital

contributions and future liabilities (retirement gratuities).

The following appendices provide information regarding the 2016/2017 Budget:

Appendix A - 2016/2017 Operating Budget: Summary of Revenues and Expenditures

Appendix B - 2016/2017 Capital Budget: Summary of Revenues and Expenditures

Rationale

The Halton District School Board has always been financially responsible with a clear focus on providing the

system with the resources and supports necessary to ensure that we inspire and support learning; create safe,

healthy and engaging environments; and provide opportunities for challenge and choice. The budget

presented for the 2016/2017 school year continues this approach.

17

Report 16097 page 2

In 2016/2017, the Halton District School Board welcomes approximately 63,000 students in 86 elementary

and 18 secondary schools. This enrolment projection results in an overall increase of 1.5% as compared to the

2015/2016 school year. Enrolment growth will continue to be experienced in Milton (534 students), Oakville

(494 students), and Burlington (46 students) for the 2016/2017 school year. This is as a result of new

residential development and a younger demographic in these communities. Halton Hills will experience a

decline in growth, with enrolment projected to decrease by 129 students mainly as a result of limited servicing

capabilities in this area. As we move forward, overall enrolment in HDSB is projected to increase by 3,000

students by the year 2025/2026. This will be primarily as a result of new residential development in Milton

and Oakville.

The Ministry of Education allocates funding to School Boards using a model that is based on enrolment and

the needs of students in each board. For 2016/2017, the HDSB expects to receive 90.6% (approximately $645

million) of total operating revenue from the Ministry of Education. On March 24, 2016, the Ministry of

Education released information with respect to education funding for 2016/2017. The 2016/2017 Grants for

Student Needs (GSN) supports the education sector’s continued focus on key student achievement goals. The

level of funding demonstrates the government’s sustained commitment to investing in education, despite

declining enrolment (provincially) and a challenging fiscal situation.

The key objective of the Budget Development Process is to align the allocation of resources with the Strategic

Plan of the Board, the Multi-Year Plan, and the Special Education Plan, identify school based staffing

requirements, identify budget challenges and opportunities, and gather input from the various stakeholder

groups. Updates on the Budget Development Process were presented to the Trustees in April and May 2016.

In addition, communication and stakeholder input was requested via HDSB website. All budget development

documentation was posted on the HDSB website; invitation for parental and community input was made

available using Checkbox Software on HDSB website. This opportunity for input was communicated using

news releases to parents/school councils and newspaper advertisements in all local newspapers.

The Halton District School Board is committed to every student. The 2016/2017 Budget Development

process included challenges resulting from an increase in operational pressures (such as utility costs, fuel,

facility maintenance etc.); increased demand in resources to support student achievement; Ministry of

Education redistribution of the Special Education Grant (Differentiated Special Education Needs Amount);

and a per pupil level of funding that is significantly below the provincial average. These challenges

necessitated a review of both salary and non-salary expenditures in order to achieve a balanced budget.

Despite these challenges, Administrative Council is confident that we will continue to provide excellent

educational programs.

In addition to the information included as part of this report, a document providing details of the 2016/2017

operating and capital budgets is appended and will be posted on the HDSB website.

Conclusion

The 2016/2017 Operating and Capital Budgets of the Halton District School Board have been developed with

the mission of inspiring and supporting learning; creating safe, healthy and engaging environments, and

providing opportunities for challenge and choice.

Respectfully submitted

Lucy Veerman Stuart Miller

Superintendent of Business Services and Treasurer Director of Education

Appendix A.1

Draft

Budget Budget Increase/

2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Revenue

Provincial Grants - Grants for Student Needs 645,324,504 622,921,004 22,403,500

Provincial Grants - Other 1,837,374 3,220,665 (1,383,291)

Federal Grants & Fees 263,992 263,992 -

School Generated Funds 19,000,000 19,000,000 -

Investment Income 1,250,000 1,225,000 25,000

Other Fees & Revenues

Tuition Fees 6,086,720 3,100,000 2,986,720

Rental Income 1,439,545 1,424,493 15,052

Cafeteria Income 60,000 30,000 30,000

Miscellaneous Income 95,442 34,000 61,442

Education Development Charge (EDC) 9,600,000 9,000,000 600,000 *

Other Fees & Revenues Subtotal 17,281,707 13,588,493 3,693,214

Amortization of Deferred Capital Contributions 27,089,003 25,493,805 1,595,198

Total Revenue 712,046,580 685,712,959 26,333,621

Transfer to/(from) Accumulated Surplus 7,224,267 10,869,950 (3,645,683) **

Total Revenue Net of Transfer to Accumulated Surplus 704,822,313 674,843,009 29,979,304

Total Expense 704,822,313 674,843,009 29,979,304

* Revenue adjustments per PSAB requirement

** Additional information included on Transfer to/from Accumulated Surplus per Ministry Compliance Definition


2016/2017 Draft Budget

Summary of Revenue

Appendix A.2

Draft


EXPENSE 2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Instruction

Classroom Teachers 363,410,103 345,540,148 17,869,955

Supply Staff 14,456,564 13,106,751 1,349,813

Educational Assistants 41,273,523 39,073,904 2,199,619

Early Childhood Educators 14,095,366 13,477,904 617,462

Textbooks and Supplies 20,280,923 19,267,158 1,013,765

Computers 3,701,518 2,895,722 805,796

Professionals, Para-professionals & Technical 22,081,656 20,839,338 1,242,318

Library and Guidance 13,479,128 12,473,150 1,005,978

Staff Development 3,697,530 3,437,805 259,725

Department Heads 797,720 782,292 15,428

Principals and Vice-Principals 26,800,826 26,157,980 642,846

School Office 16,704,132 15,721,890 982,242

Coordinators and Consultants 7,257,473 7,299,044 (41,571)

Continuing Education 2,281,963 2,231,295 50,668

Instruction Total 550,318,425 522,304,381 28,014,044

Administration

Trustees 324,263 322,429 1,834

Director and Supervisory Officers 2,618,484 2,683,504 (65,020)

Board Administration 11,782,076 11,300,017 482,059

Amortization - Administration 125,581 124,106 1,475

Administration Total 14,850,404 14,430,056 420,348

Transportation

Pupil Transportation 15,454,025 14,770,217 683,808

Transportation - Provincial Schools 203,364 185,040 18,324

Transportation Total 15,657,389 14,955,257 702,132

Pupil Accommodation

School Operations and Maintenance 57,860,377 56,398,922 1,461,455

School Renewal 3,116,454 3,116,454 -

Amortization - Pupil Accommodation 27,535,330 25,950,497 1,584,833

Other Pupil Accommodation 14,108,732 14,423,544 (314,812)

Pupil Accommodation Total 102,620,893 99,889,417 2,731,476

Other Expense

Education Program Other Projects (EPO) 831,813 2,853,225 (2,021,412)

Provision for Contingencies 1,000,000 867,284 132,716

Permanent Financing of NPF 543,389 543,389 -


Other Expense Total 21,375,202 23,263,898 (1,888,696)

Grand Total 704,822,313 674,843,009 29,979,304

Halton District School Board2016/2017 Draft Budget

Summary of Operating Expense by Ministry Category

Appendix B

Board Allocated

Capital Funding **

Ministry Funded

Education

Development

Charges

Proceeds of

Disposition

Total

Financing per

EFIS

Accumulated

Surplus

New Schools - Land 16,900,000 16,900,000 16,900,000 16,900,000

Existing Schools

(Additions) Building,

Equipment and Land

Prep* 15,245,402 12,940,103 2,111,500 15,051,603 193,799 15,245,402

Closing the Gap 2,822,000 2,822,000 2,822,000 2,822,000

School Renewal 5,535,231 5,535,231 5,535,231 5,535,231

School Condition

Improvement 8,435,810 8,435,810 8,435,810 8,435,810

48,938,443 26,911,144 16,900,000 4,933,500 48,744,644 193,799 48,938,443

* Includes balance of expenditures for Ministry approved projects - New Martin Street P.S., Alton Village P.S. addition and Craig Kielburger

S.S. addition.

** This represents the balance of funding for the Craig Kielburger S.S. Greenhouse that is to be constructed along with the 10 classroom

addition.

Halton District School Board2016/2017 Draft Budget

Capital Budget

Capital

Expense

Ministry Approved Capital Financing

Total

Financing

2016/2017 Operating & Capital Budget

June 2016

Executive Summary

Section 1: Key Highlights

Enrolment Statistics - Average Daily Enrolment (ADE)

Chart - Enrolment History

Operating Budget Changes - Salary and Non-salary

Section 2: Operating Revenue

Summary of Revenue

Provincial Grants - Grants for Student Needs (GSN)

Charts - Total Revenue; Total Provincial Grants (GSN)

Glossary of Terms - Total Provincial Grants (GSN) Chart

Education Program Other (EPO) - Outside GSN

Section 3: Operating Expense


Charts - Total Operating Expense; Total Instruction

Glossary of Terms - Total Instruction Chart

Operating Expense by Ministry Category Variance Description

Summary of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) by Ministry Category

Expense by Funding Source

Instruction Expense

Detail of Instruction - Textbooks and Supplies Expense

Decentralized School Budget Allocation Model

Detail of Instruction - Computers Expense

Detail of Instruction - Staff Development Expense

Administration Expense

Transportation Expense

Pupil Accommodation Expense

Other Expense

Section 4: Capital Budget Detail

Capital Budget

Section 5: Ministry Compliance

Detail of Ministry Compliance

Detail of Special Education Compliance

Transfer to/(from) Accumulated Surplus per Ministry Compliance



Index

1


2016/2017 Budget

Executive Summary

The Halton District School Board has always been financially responsible with a clear focus on

providing the system with the resources and supports necessary to ensure we inspire and support

learning; create safe, healthy and engaging environments, and provide opportunities for

challenge and choice. The budget presented for the 2016/2017 school year continues this

approach.

In 2016/2017, the Halton District School Board will welcome approximately 63,000 students in

86 elementary and 18 secondary schools. This enrolment projection results in an overall increase

of 1.5% as compared to the 2015/2016 school year. Enrolment growth will continue to be

experienced in Milton (534 students), Oakville (494 students), and Burlington (46 students) for

the 2016/2017 school year. This is as a result of new residential development and a younger

demographic in these communities. Halton Hills will experience a decline in growth, with

enrolment projected to decrease by 129 students mainly as a result of limited servicing

capabilities in this area. As we move forward, overall enrolment in HDSB is projected to

increase by 3,000 students by the year 2025/2026. This will be primarily as a result of new

residential development in Milton and Oakville.

The Ministry of Education allocates funding to School Boards using a model that is based on

enrolment and the needs of students in each board. For 2016/2017, the HDSB expects to receive

90.6% (approximately $645 million) of total operating revenue from the Ministry of Education.

On March 24, 2016, the Ministry of Education released information with respect to education

funding for 2016/2017. The 2016/2017 Grants for Student Needs (GSN) supports the education

sector’s continued focus on key student achievement goals. The level of funding demonstrates

the government’s sustained commitment to investing in education, despite declining enrolment

(provincially) and a challenging fiscal situation.

The key objective of the Budget Development Process is to align the allocation of resources with

the Strategic Plan of the Board, the Multi-Year Plan, and the Special Education Plan, identify

school based staffing requirements, identify budget challenges and opportunities, and gather

input from the various stakeholder groups. Updates on the Budget Development Process were

presented to the Trustees in April and May 2016. In addition, communication and stakeholder

input was requested via HDSB website. All budget development documentation was posted on

the HDSB website; invitation for parental and community input was made available using

Checkbox Software on HDSB website. This opportunity for input was communicated using news

releases to parents/school councils and newspaper advertisements in all local newspapers.

The Halton District School Board is committed to every student. The 2016/2017 Budget

Development process included challenges resulting from an increase in operational pressures

(such as utility costs, fuel, facility maintenance etc.); increased demand in resources to support

2

student achievement; Ministry of Education redistribution of the Special Education Grant

(Differentiated Special Education Needs Amount); and a per pupil level of funding that is

significantly below the provincial average. These challenges necessitated a review of both salary

and non-salary expenditures in order to achieve a balanced budget. Despite these challenges,

Administrative Council is confident that we will continue to provide excellent educational

programs.

Ministry of Education Regulations

The Education Act requires all school boards in Ontario to approve an annual balanced budget

within the definitions set by Ministry of Education regulations.

The fiscal year for all school boards in Ontario is in alignment with the school year and runs

from September 1 to August 31. According to Ministry of Education reporting and

accountability requirements, a school board’s budget must be submitted to the Ministry by the

end of June preceding the start of the fiscal year in question. Consequently, the 2016/2017

budget will be submitted prior to end of June 2016.

Beginning in 2010, all school boards were required to convert to a PSAB (Public Sector

Accounting Board) basis of accounting. This results in a new definition of balanced budget

including the requirement to approve a capital budget in addition to an operating budget. The

new PSAB standards follow more closely private sector finance and expenditure principles

including, but not limited to, a statement of amortization, deferred capital charges and future

liabilities (retirement gratuities). The new balanced budget definition also allows school boards

to allocate a portion of the unrestricted accumulated surplus (not to exceed one percent of the

Ministry’s Grants for Student Needs) funding to balance its budget.

Conclusion

The 2016/2017 Operating and Capital Budgets of the Halton District School Board have been

developed with the mission of inspiring and supporting learning; creating safe, healthy and

engaging environments, and providing opportunities for challenge and choice.

Lucy Veerman, B. Comm., CPA, CA

Superintendent of Business Services and Treasurer

3

Section 1


Key Highlights

4

Draft

Budget Budget Projected %

Description 2016/2017 2015/2016 Growth Change

Elementary

Burlington 13,083.00 13,140.00 (57.00) (0.4%)

Oakville 15,118.00 15,020.00 98.00 0.7%

Milton 11,756.00 11,394.00 362.00 3.2%

Halton Hills 4,618.00 4,718.00 (100.00) (2.1%)

Elementary ADE 44,575.00 44,272.00 303.00 0.7%

Secondary - pupils less than 21 years

Burlington 5,851.53 5,748.49 103.04 1.8%

Oakville 7,906.19 7,510.53 395.66 5.3%

Milton 2,570.69 2,398.48 172.21 7.2%

Halton Hills 2,024.63 2,053.33 (28.70) (1.4%)

Secondary - pupils less than 21 years ADE 18,353.04 17,710.83 642.21 3.6%

Total Day School

Burlington 18,934.53 18,888.49 46.04 0.2%

Oakville 23,024.19 22,530.53 493.66 2.2%

Milton 14,326.69 13,792.48 534.21 3.9%

Halton Hills 6,642.63 6,771.33 (128.70) (1.9%)

Total Day School ADE 62,928.04 61,982.83 945.21 1.5%

Students 21 years and over - ADE 219.00 193.00 26.00 13.5%

Notes:

ADE calculations are based on 50% of the October 31 Full Time Equivalent and 50% of the

March 31 Full Time Equivalent.

Secondary includes ADE for those students exceeding 34 credits.



Enrolment Statistics

Average Daily Enrolment (ADE)

5



Enrolment History

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2007/08Actuals

2008/09Actuals

2009/10Actuals

2010/11Actuals

2011/12Actuals

2012/13Actuals

2013/14Actuals

2014/15Actuals

2015/16Revised

2016/17Projected

Elementary

Secondary

Combined

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2007/08Actuals

2008/09Actuals

2009/10Actuals

2010/11Actuals

2011/12Actuals

2012/13Actuals

2013/14Actuals

2014/15Actuals

2015/16Revised

2016/17Projected

Elementary

Elementary

-

1,500

3,000

4,500

6,000

7,500

9,000

10,500

12,000

13,500

15,000

16,500

18,000

19,500

2007/08Actuals

2008/09Actuals

2009/10Actuals

2010/11Actuals

2011/12Actuals

2012/13Actuals

2013/14Actuals

2014/15Actuals

2015/16Revised

2016/17Projected

Secondary

Secondary

Combined

6

Staff/ Non-Salary FTE

Estimated

(Savings)

Cost

Instruction and School Support

Learning Centre Teachers Staff (8.0) (680,000)

Learning Centre Transportation Non-Salary - (95,000)

Special Education Learning Resource Teachers Staff (5.0) (425,000)

Special Education Itinerant Teachers Staff (4.5) (382,500)

Child & Youth Counsellor (Behaviour class) Staff 0.5 33,650

Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) Trainer Staff 1.0 67,700

IPRC Area Secretarial Staff Staff 1.0 48,700

Special Education Contingency Staff/ Non-Salary - 500,000

Professional Development (Increase Teacher Capacity) Non-Salary - 300,000

Itinerant Teacher/IPL - International Students Staff 1.0 96,000

Increase International Student Secretary Staff 0.5 25,000

Social Worker - International Students & Refugees Staff 1.0 110,000

Decentralized School Budgets Non-Salary - 178,000

School Connects/EDSBY Support Contractual Staff - 73,000

International Language Supervisors Staff - 25,575

Research Instructional Program Leader Staff (1.0) (96,000)

Administrative Computer Replacement Non-Salary - 135,500

Labour Relations Officer Position Staff 1.0 80,000

Purchasing Agent and Buyer Staff 2.0 126,000

Caretaking Supplies/Equipment Non-Salary - 100,000

Subtotal (10.5) 220,625

Transfer From Accumulated Surplus - 3,543,796

Total Change (10.5) 3,323,171



Budget Changes Under Consideration by Administrative Council*

System and Corporate Responsibility - Growth and Compliance

*Changes have been incorporated into attached schedules, however, all changes are subject to Trustee

approval.

7

Section 2


Operating Revenue

8

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Revenue

Provincial Grants - Grants for Student Needs 645,324,504 622,921,004 22,403,500

Provincial Grants - Other 1,837,374 3,220,665 (1,383,291)

Federal Grants & Fees 263,992 263,992 -


Investment Income 1,250,000 1,225,000 25,000


Tuition Fees 6,086,720 3,100,000 2,986,720

Rental Income 1,439,545 1,424,493 15,052

Cafeteria Income 60,000 30,000 30,000

Miscellaneous Income 95,442 34,000 61,442

Education Development Charge (EDC) 9,600,000 9,000,000 600,000 *

Other Fees & Revenues Subtotal 17,281,707 13,588,493 3,693,214

Amortization of Deferred Capital Contributions 27,089,003 25,493,805 1,595,198

Total Revenue 712,046,580 685,712,959 26,333,621

Transfer to/(from) Accumulated Surplus 7,224,267 10,869,950 (3,645,683) **

Total Revenue Net of Transfer to Accumulated Surplus 704,822,313 674,843,009 29,979,304

Total Expense 704,822,313 674,843,009 29,979,304

* Revenue adjustments per PSAB requirement

** Additional information included on Transfer to/from Accumulated Surplus per Ministry Compliance Definition



Summary of Revenue

9

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Provincial Grants - Grants for Student NeedsGeneral Operating Allocation

Pupil Foundation 334,487,969 326,804,666 7,683,303

School Foundation 40,766,548 39,687,915 1,078,633

Special Education 83,752,730 84,333,727 (580,997)

Language 17,804,051 16,531,627 1,272,424

Learning Opportunity 7,075,651 6,195,566 880,085

Adult and Continuing Education and Summer School 3,113,001 2,861,537 251,464

Qualification and Experience 40,688,038 30,398,958 10,289,080

Early Childhood Educator Qualification and Experience 4,042,190 3,725,341 316,849

New Teacher Induction Program (NTIP) 657,759 870,197 (212,438)

Transportation 15,489,595 14,885,199 604,396

Administration and Governance 15,934,338 15,466,393 467,945

School Operations 58,911,857 57,392,081 1,519,776

Community Use of Schools 799,363 777,997 21,366

First Nation, Métis and Inuit Education 935,187 795,265 139,922

Safe Schools 992,127 964,797 27,330

Temporary Accommodation 3,376,475 4,137,372 (760,897)

School Renewal 8,651,685 8,593,063 58,622

Capital Interest (Debt and Short Term)

Short Term Interest on Capital 102,750 304,525 (201,775)

Capital Debt Support Payments - Interest Portion 12,901,693 13,394,659 (492,966)

Capital Grant Land 100,000 - 100,000

Other


Restraint Savings (266,661) (266,661) -

Transferred to Deferred Capital Contribution

School Renewal (5,535,231) (5,476,609) (58,622) *

Total Provincial Grants - Grants for Student Needs 645,324,504 622,921,004 22,403,500

* Grant adjustment per PSAB requirement



Provincial Grants - Grants for Student Needs (GSN)

10



Provincial Grants - Grants for Student

Needs 90.6%

Provincial Grants - Other 0.3%

School Generated Funds 2.7%

Investment Income 0.2%


2.4%

Amortization of Deferred Capital

Contributions 3.8%

Total Revenue $712M (Accumulated Surplus - $7M)

Pupil Foundation 51.4%

School Foundation 6.3%

Special Education 12.9%

Language 2.7%

Qualifications & Experience 6.9%

Transportation 2.4%

Administration and Governance

2.4%

School Operations 9.7%

School Renewal 1.3%

Other Grants 2.0%

Capital Interest 2.0%

Total Provincial Grants - GSN $645M

11

The revenue categories reflected on the chart are consistent with the Ministry's defined revenues.

Pupil Foundation - is a per-pupil allocation that supports the components of a classroom

education that are required by, and generally common to, all students.

School Foundation - supports the costs of salaries and benefits for Principals, Vice-Principals,

and School Secretaries, as well as supplies for school administration purposes.

Special Education - provides funding for exceptional pupils and other students who need special

education programs and supports. This funding is intended to support the additional programs,

services, and equipment required to meet the educational needs of these students.

Language - grants for French as a Second Language and English as a Second Language.

Qualification & Experience (Q&E) - the Teacher and Early Childhood Educator Q&E allocation

provides funding to recognize the placement of teachers and ECE's on the qualifications and

experience grid respectively.

Transportation - provides funding for home-to-school and school-to-school transportation of students,

including transporting students with special needs.

Administration and Governance - a capped amount of funding for central administration and governance,

including the costs of operating board offices and central facilities.

School Operations - provides funding for caretaking, maintenance, and utilities for schools, as well as

school renewal. This also includes funding for Community Use of Schools, as well as funding for the relocation

and leasing of portables.

School Renewal - provides funding for costs of major repairs and renovation of schools.

Other Grants - includes grants for Learning Opportunities, Continuing Education, First Nation, NTIP,

Safe Schools, MOU Labour Enhancements and Copyright related savings.

Capital Interest - provides funding for the interest portion of supported capital debt, as well as bridge

financing of not permanently financed capital projects.



Glossary of Terms - Total Provincial Grants (GSN) Chart

12

Autism Supports and Training $94,245

Community Use of Schools - Outreach Coordinators $108,000

Early Years Leads Program $180,720

Technology and Learning Fund $908,238

Well Being: Safe Accepting and Healthy Schools and Mental Health $158,237

Funds to support Ontario's renewed vision to transform and modernize education by

investing in deeper learning practices and fostering 21st century global competencies,

enabled by technology.

Funds to support the school board's work around the ministry's goal of promoting well-

being, including continued development and implementation of school board mental

health and addictions three year strategies and action plans; further implementation of

whole school approach to promoting safe, inclusive and accepting schools; and support

for strategies and activities aligning with the Foundations for a Healthy School

resource.



Education Program Other (EPO) - Outside GSN

Funds to support hands-on practical training modules on Applied Behaviour Analysis

(ABA) instructional methods, with increasing skill development to implement ABA

instructional methods in the classroom, targeting school based teams, including

teachers and other educators working with students with Autism Spectrum Disorder

(ASD).

Funds to enable school boards to hire Outreach Coordinators who help ensure the

effectiveness of Community Use of Schools program at the local level through activities

such as program coordination, outreach, information sharing, and data collection. The

Community Use of Schools program helps all schools offer affordable access to indoor

and outdoor school space to not-for profit groups outside of school hours.

Funds to continue to support a minimum of a .5 FTE Early Leads position to lead

system-wide implementation of the vision set out under the Ontario Early Years Policy

Framework.

13

Section 3


Operating Expense

14

Draft


EXPENSE 2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Instruction

Classroom Teachers 363,410,103 345,540,148 17,869,955

Supply Staff 14,456,564 13,106,751 1,349,813

Educational Assistants 41,273,523 39,073,904 2,199,619

Early Childhood Educators 14,095,366 13,477,904 617,462

Textbooks and Supplies 20,280,923 19,267,158 1,013,765

Computers 3,701,518 2,895,722 805,796

Professionals, Para-professionals & Technical 22,081,656 20,839,338 1,242,318

Library and Guidance 13,479,128 12,473,150 1,005,978


Department Heads 797,720 782,292 15,428

Principals and Vice-Principals 26,800,826 26,157,980 642,846

School Office 16,704,132 15,721,890 982,242

Coordinators and Consultants 7,257,473 7,299,044 (41,571)

Continuing Education 2,281,963 2,231,295 50,668

Instruction Total 550,318,425 522,304,381 28,014,044

Administration

Trustees 324,263 322,429 1,834

Director and Supervisory Officers 2,618,484 2,683,504 (65,020)

Board Administration 11,782,076 11,300,017 482,059

Amortization - Administration 125,581 124,106 1,475


Transportation

Pupil Transportation 15,454,025 14,770,217 683,808

Transportation - Provincial Schools 203,364 185,040 18,324


Pupil Accommodation

School Operations and Maintenance 57,860,377 56,398,922 1,461,455

School Renewal 3,116,454 3,116,454 -

Amortization - Pupil Accommodation 27,535,330 25,950,497 1,584,833

Other Pupil Accommodation 14,108,732 14,423,544 (314,812)


Other Expense


Provision for Contingencies 1,000,000 867,284 132,716




Grand Total 704,822,313 674,843,009 29,979,304




15



Instruction 78.1%

Administration 2.1%

Transportation 2.2%

Pupil Accommodation 14.6%

Other 3.0%

Total Operating Expense $705M

Classroom Teachers 66.0%

Supply Teachers 2.7% Early Childhood Educators

7.5%

Educational Assistants 2.6%

Textbooks and Supplies 3.7%

Computers 0.7%

Professionals, Para-professionals and Technical

4.0%

Library and Guidance 2.4%

Staff Development 0.7%

Department Heads 0.1%

Principals and Vice-Principals

4.9% School Office

3.0%

Coordinators and Consultants

1.3% Continuing Education

0.4%

Total Instruction $550M

16

Classroom Teachers Elementary & Secondary

Salaries, benefits and mileage related to Teachers.

Supply Teachers

Educational Assistants

Early Childhood Educators

Textbooks and Supplies

Computers

Classroom computers (hardware only) and the associated network costs.

Professionals & Para-professionals and Technical

Library & Guidance

Staff Development

Department Heads


School Office


Continuing Education

Includes all current salary, benefits, supply and service expenses relating to the delivery

of Continuing Education, Summer School and International Languages programs

(non-day school program).

Includes professional development expenses and professional memberships for teaching, school

support staff and Supervisory Officers.

Includes Department Head allowance only.

Includes expenses relating to the management and administration of schools, including for example,

Principal and Vice-Principal salaries, benefits and related supplies & services.

Includes expenses relating to the management of schools, including for example, Secretarial salaries,

benefits and related supplies & services.

Includes expenses relating to Coordinators & Consultants, curriculum development or program

support.

Textbooks, workbooks, resource materials, updating library resource materials, instructional software,

CD ROMs, DVDs and internet expenses.

Salaries and benefits for staff who provide support services to students and Teachers, such as

Attendance Counsellors, Student Supervisors, Hall Monitors, Social Workers, Child and Youth

Counsellors, Community Workers, Computer Technicians, Psychologists, Psychometrists

and Speech Pathologists.

Includes expenses relating to library and guidance services within schools, including salaries of

Teachers and Library Technicians.



Glossary of Terms - Total Instruction Chart

Charges for Supply Teachers hired as a result of a short or longer-term absence of a Teacher. Also

includes Teachers hired in order to provide release time for a Teacher.

Includes salaries of Educational Assistants and Teacher Assistants who support Teachers in the

classroom.

Includes salaries of Early Childhood Educators who support Teachers in the Full Day Kindergarten

program.

17

$K= Thousand

Classroom

Teachers

Supply Staff

Educational

Assistants

Early Childhood

Educators

Textbooks and

Supplies

Computers

Professionals,

Para-

professionals &

Technical

Library and

Guidance

Staff

Development

Department

Heads

Principals and

Vice-Principals

School Office

Coordinators and

Consultants

Continuing

Education

Administration

Transportation

Pupil

Accommodation

Other

The $702K increase reflects an increase in operator costs per contractual agreements and

projected service delivery.

The $2,731 increase reflects the implementation of central labour agreements, projected

increases in utilities, amortization and contract cleaning, partially offset by reduction in

insurance cost and capital interest.

The $1,889 decrease is a result of Ministry initiative to transfer EPO funding into the Grants

for Student Needs.

The small increase of $15K represents the increase of department head allowances based

on shifting enrolment between secondary schools and impact of the central labour

agreement.

The $643K increase includes the addition of 1 Elementary Vice-Principal and estimated

impact of the central labour agreement once finalized.

The $982K increase includes the addition of 5.2 Clerical Support Staff due to enrolment

growth, 1.25% across the board salary increase per the central labour agreement and

increase in administrative computer replacement.

The $42K decrease includes turnover and job classification savings, partially offset by

implementation of central labour agreements.

The $51K increase includes the impact of central labour agreements as well as addition of

International Language Supervisors.

The $420K increase includes the impact of central labour agreements and the upgrade of

financial system software. Also included is the continued support for Records Management

implementation.

The $260K increase includes professional development and training to increase teacher

capacity specifically related to special education.

Halton District School BoardDraft 2016/2017

Operating Expense by Ministry Category Variance Description

The $17,870K increase includes the addition of 17.5 Elementary Teachers and 38.1

Secondary Teachers due to enrolment growth, 1.25% across the board salary increase and

removal of the delay in grid movement per the central labour agreement. This is partially

offset by the reduction of 17.5 Elementary Special Education Teachers to reflect change in

delivery model.

The $1,350K increase reflects the impact of projected rising trends in usage and the impact

of the central labour agreement.

The $2,200K increase includes the addition of 35 Educational Assistants and 1.25% across

the board salary increase per the central labour agreement.

The $617K increase includes the addition of 1 Early Childhood Educator, 1.25% across the

board salary increase and removal of the delay in grid movement per the central labour

agreement.

The $1,014K increase includes the addition of a new decentralized school budget

supplement based on the School Needs index and transfer of Education Program Other

(EPO) funding into the GSN including Outdoor Education, partially offset by a reduction in

fees paid to other boards for e-Learning.

The $806K increase reflects the acquisition of school technology funded through the

Technology Learning Fund 21st Century Learning EPO.

The $1,242K increase includes the addition of .5 Child and Youth Counsellor, 1 IPRC

Clerical Support, 1 Applied Behaviour Analysis Trainer and 1 Social Worker for International

Students and Refugee Support. This increase is also reflective of central labour

agreements.

The $1,006K increase includes the addition of 2.5 Elementary and 3 Secondary Library and

Guidance Teachers due to enrolment growth, 1.25% across the board salary increase and

removal of the delay in grid movement per central labour agreements.

18

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Instruction

Teachers

Classroom Teachers Elementary

Classroom Teachers 2,228.6 2,217.1 11.5 Note 1

English Language Learners 53.0 48.0 5.0 Note 1

Transitions 2.0 2.0 -

Learning Resource (LRT) 24.0 24.0 -

Math Coaches 8.0 8.0 -

Care, Treatment, Custody and Corrections 4.0 4.0 -

Special Education Learning Centre - 8.0 (8.0) Note 2

Special Education Learning Resource (LRT) 5.0 10.0 (5.0) Note 2

Special Education Itinerant 17.1 21.6 (4.5) Note 2

Special Education Self-Contained 138.1 138.1 -

Special Education SERT 170.0 169.0 1.0 Note 1

Classroom Teachers Secondary

Classroom Teachers 1,060.7 1,025.3 35.4 Note 1

English Language Learners 17.3 16.3 1.0 Note 1

HOPES 2.0 2.0 -

Native Studies 3.0 5.5 (2.5) Note 1

Inclusive Education 1.0 1.0 -


Special Education Itinerant 2.0 2.0 -

Special Education Self-Contained 44.0 42.0 2.0 Note 1

Special Education SERT 65.5 63.3 2.2 Note 1

Teachers Total 3,863.3 3,825.2 38.1

53


Schools 278.0 277.0 1.0 Note 1

Early Childhood Educators Total 278.0 277.0 1.0


English Language Learners 4.0 4.0 -


Special Education 808.5 773.5 35.0 Note 3

Educational Assistants Total 814.5 779.5 35.0

56

Professionals, Paraprofessionals and Technical


Food Schools 13.0 13.0 -

Child & Youth Counsellors


Note 1) Reflects impact of enrolment fluctuation and compliance

Note 2) Reflects changes under consideration by Administrative Council

Note 3) Board Report 16004 (January 2016)




19

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Professionals, Paraprofessionals and Technical

Clerical and Secretarial

Media 10.0 10.0 -

Schools 2.0 2.0 -


Psychoeducational Consultants

Special Education 21.0 21.0 -

Social Workers

Safe Schools 5.0 5.0 -


Other 1.0 - 1.0 Note 2

Speech-Language Pathologists


Management and Support Staff

Applied Behavioural Analysis 4.0 3.0 1.0 Note 2

Full Day Kindergarten 2.0 2.0 -

Information Technology 6.0 6.0 -

Media 2.0 2.0 -

Program Services 2.0 2.0 -

Safe Schools 0.6 0.6 -

Schools 1.0 1.0 -

Understanding and Managing Aggressive Behaviour 2.0 2.0 -


Technical & Specialized

Director's Office 1.8 1.8 -


Special Equipment Amount 2.0 2.0 -

Student Supervisors

Schools 71.8 71.8 -

Continuing Education Assistants

Gary Allan HS 3.8 3.8 -

Professionals, Paraprofessionals and Technical Total 295.9 292.4 3.5

Library and Guidance

Classroom Teachers Elementary

Guidance 14.8 14.5 0.3 Note 1

Library 49.5 47.3 2.2 Note 1

Classroom Teachers Secondary

Guidance 43.5 40.5 3.0 Note 1

Library 17.0 17.0 -

Library Technicians

School Administration 26.5 26.5 -

Library and Guidance Total 151.3 145.8 5.5






20

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

58

Staff Development


Staff Development 1.0 1.0 -

Principals

System Principal 1.0 1.0 -

Staff Development Total 2.0 2.0 -

61


Principals



Vice-Principals

School Administration 102.0 101.0 1.0 Note 1


Principals and Vice-Principals Total 206.0 205.0 1.0

62

School Office


School Administration 251.5 246.3 5.2 Note 1




School Office Total 273.2 268.0 5.2

59



System Support 10.4 9.9 0.5 Note 2

Director and Supervisory Officers

Student Success 1.0 1.0 -

School Effectiveness 1.0 1.0 -

Instructional Program Leaders (IPL)

e-Learning 1.0 1.0 -

English Language Learners 1.0 1.0 -

Equity/Inclusive Curriculum 2.0 2.0 -

Ontario Focused Intervention Partnership 1.0 1.0 -

Program Services Elementary 17.0 17.0 -

Program Services Secondary 10.0 9.0 1.0 Note 2

Research 3.0 4.0 (1.0) Note 2

Special Education Elementary 7.0 6.0 1.0 Note 4

Special Education Secondary 1.0 2.0 (1.0) Note 4



Note 4) Change in panel




21

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)



System Support 3.0 3.0 -

Principals

System Principals 5.0 5.0 -

Vice-Principals

System Vice-Principals 2.0 2.0 -

Coordinators and Consultants Total 65.4 64.9 0.5

63




Vice-Principals


Continuing Education Total 4.0 4.0 -

Instruction Total 5,953.6 5,863.8 89.8

Administration

64

Trustees

Trustees 11.0 11.0 -

Trustees Total 11.0 11.0 -

65

Director and Supervisory Officers

Associate Director 1.0 1.0 -

Business Services 1.0 1.0 -

Director 1.0 1.0 -

Facility Services 1.0 1.0 -

Human Resources 1.0 1.0 -

Information Technology - 1.0 (1.0) Note 5

Program Services - - -

School Superintendent 6.0 5.0 1.0 Note 5


Director and Supervisory Officers Total 12.0 12.0 -

Note 5) Reflects impact of realignment




22

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Board Administration

Caretakers

J.W.Singleton 3.0 3.0 -

Cleaners

J.W.Singleton 0.5 0.5 -


Business Services 8.0 7.0 1.0 Note 2

Director's Office 3.0 3.0 -


Business Services 21.0 20.0 1.0 Note 2

Director 4.0 4.0 -

Human Resources 35.0 34.0 1.0 Note 2


Planning 6.0 6.0 -

School Operations 5.0 5.0 -


Halton Learning Foundation

Learning Foundation - - -

Board Administration Total 95.5 92.5 3.0

Administration Total 118.5 115.5 3.0

Pupil Accommodation

70

School Operations and Maintenance

Caretakers

Facility Services 290.9 290.7 0.2 Note 6

Maintenance 31.0 29.0 2.0 Note 6

Cleaners

Facility Services 4.1 6.3 (2.2) Note 6





Health & Safety 6.0 4.0 2.0 Note 5

WSIB 4.0 6.0 (2.0) Note 5

School Operations and Maintenance Total 364.0 364.0 (0.0)

Pupil Accommodation Total 364.0 364.0 (0.0)

Grand Total 6,436.1 6,343.3 92.8


Note 5) Reflects impact of realignment

Note 6) Reflects change in job classification




23

Category FTE Revenue Expense Variance

Instruction 5,953.6 541,356,706 550,318,425 (8,961,719)

Administration 118.5 17,803,788 14,850,404 2,953,384

Transportation 15,557,756 15,657,389 (99,633)

Pupil Accommodation 364.0 109,728,861 102,620,893 7,107,968

Other 20,375,202 21,375,202 (1,000,000)

Total 6,436.1 704,822,313 704,822,313 -



Expense by Funding Source

24

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Instruction

Classroom Teachers

Salaries and Benefits 363,320,103 345,450,148 17,869,955

Supplies and Services 90,000 90,000 -

Classroom Teachers Total 363,410,103 345,540,148 17,869,955

Supply Staff


Supply Staff Total 14,456,564 13,106,751 1,349,813



Educational Assistants Total 41,273,523 39,073,904 2,199,619


Salaries and Benefits 14,095,366 13,477,904 617,462

Early Childhood Educators Total 14,095,366 13,477,904 617,462


Supplies and Services 17,603,607 17,227,816 375,791

Fees, Contractual and Rentals 2,572,716 1,934,742 637,974

Other 104,600 104,600 -

Textbooks and Supplies Total 20,280,923 19,267,158 1,013,765

Computers

Supplies and Services 2,355,939 1,535,112 820,827

Fees, Contractual and Rentals 1,345,579 1,360,610 (15,031)

Computers Total 3,701,518 2,895,722 805,796

Professionals, Para & Technical


Supplies and Services 375,100 378,731 (3,631)

Fees, Contractual and Rentals 896,121 344,298 551,823

Other 28,990 55,130 (26,140)

Professionals, Para & Technical Total 22,081,656 20,839,338 1,242,318



Instruction Expense

25

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Instruction



Instruction Expense

Library and Guidance


Supplies and Services 17,000 17,000 -

Library and Guidance Total 13,479,128 12,473,150 1,005,978

Staff Development


Staff Development Total 3,697,530 3,437,805 259,725

Department Heads

Salaries and Benefits 797,720 782,292 15,428

Department Heads Total 797,720 782,292 15,428



Staff Development 296,825 294,278 2,547


Other 47,750 46,138 1,612

Principals and Vice-Principals Total 26,800,826 26,157,980 642,846

School Office



Supplies and Services 244,835 109,560 135,275


School Office Total 16,704,132 15,721,890 982,242


Salaries and Benefits 7,016,376 7,045,638 (29,262)



Other 3,100 3,100 -

Coordinators and Consultants Total 7,257,473 7,299,044 (41,571)



Supplies and Services 79,445 73,559 5,886

Fees, Contractual and Rentals 284,140 284,140 -

Continuing Education Total 2,281,963 2,231,295 50,668

Grand Total 550,318,425 522,304,381 28,014,044

26

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Instruction


Supplies and Services

Care, Treatment, Custody and Corrections 92,193 107,305 (15,112)

Decentralized School Budgets 12,488,084 12,317,610 170,474

Equity Inclusion 21,320 21,320 -

Family of Schools 199,000 199,000 -

Full Day Kindergarten 11,815 12,500 (685)

Health Supplies 70,000 70,000 -

Integration New Schools/Boundary Reviews 60,000 60,000 -

Math Software 10,000 120,000 (110,000)

Media & Library 134,876 136,376 (1,500)

Program Services Subject Specific 810,414 825,930 (15,516)

Safe Schools 41,591 50,700 (9,109)

School Effectiveness Framework 35,586 35,586 -

School Innovations 25,000 25,000 -

Special Education Resources and Support 62,313 122,504 (60,191)

Special Equipment Amount 2,772,160 2,709,839 62,321

Specialist High Skills Major 12,000 12,000 -

Student Success 5,280 5,280 -

Tell Them From Me Survey 85,586 85,586 -

Outdoor Education 375,109 - 375,109

Other Resources and Support 291,280 311,280 (20,000)

Supplies and Services Total 17,603,607 17,227,816 375,791

Fees, Contractual And Rentals

Copyright 6,606 6,606 -

e-Learning Tuition Other Boards 31,175 250,000 (218,825)

Internet Connectivity 168,565 169,596 (1,031)

Internet Redundancy 73,000 72,284 716

Media & Library 66,000 66,000 -

Parent Engagement 67,297 65,373 1,924

Science & Tech Ed Safety 117,000 117,000 -

Software Fees 515,417 311,904 203,513

Special Education Resources and Support 160,000 6,000 154,000

Specialist High Skills Major 745,114 733,316 11,798

Other Resources and Support 622,542 136,663 485,879

Fees, Contractual and Rentals Total 2,572,716 1,934,742 637,974



Detail of Instruction - Textbooks and Supplies Expense

27

ELEMENTARY BUDGET MODEL SECONDARY BUDGET MODEL

Base Allocation per school $5,300.00 Base Allocation per school $5,300.00

General per pupil $38.00 General per pupil $58.00

Student Fee Offset per pupil $20.00 Student Fee Offset Per Pupil $35.00

School Council Allocation per school $200.00 School Council Allocation per school $200.00

School Council Meeting Expense Supplement $300.00 School Council Meeting Expense Supplement $300.00

School PD - per FTE $4.50 School PD - per ADE $4.50

Textbooks per pupil Grades 1 - 3 $20.00 Textbook Allocation per ADE $60.00

Textbooks per pupil Grades 4 & 5 $30.00 Library Allocation per pupil $25.00

Textbooks per pupil Grades 6, 7 & 8 $38.00 School Office Allocation per pupil $20.00

Textbooks per pupil Self Contained (incl. Gifted) $38.00 Native Studies Start-up Yr. 1 per course $2,000.00

Library Allocation per pupil $20.00 Native Studies Yr. 2 and beyond per course $1,000.00

School Office Allocation per pupil $20.00 Immersion Library per school $1,000.00

New Classes FDK $6,100.00 Core Library per school $1,170.00

New Classes Gr. 1-8 $3,500.00 ESL Supplement (per identified student) $25.00

French Immersion Library – Primary (1-3) $10.50 Tech - Level 1 per credit $15.00

French Immersion Library – Junior (4,5) $12.00 Tech - Level 2 per credit $30.00

French Immersion Library – Int. (6,7,8) $14.00 Tech - Level 3 per credit $45.00

ESL Supplement (per identified student) $25.00 Students with IEPs - Regular Class $15.00

Grade 7-8 (tech / music) Allocation $20.00 Self Contained - Secondary per student:

Elementary SPED JK - 3 FTE $2.00 Positive Return of Pupils to School (PROPS) $20.00

Students with IEPs - Regular Class $10.00 Life Skills $100.00

Self Contained per pupil – (except Life Skills) $20.00 Centres $100.00

Self Contained per pupil - Life Skills $100.00

Special Supplements: Special Supplements:

New School Opening Celebration $1,000.00 New School Opening Celebration $1,000.00

50th Anniversary Celebration $1,000.00 50th Anniversary Celebration $1,000.00

Athletic Supplement Variable International Baccalaureate $12,000.00

School Needs Index $178,000.00 Athletic Supplement Variable



Decentralized School Budget Allocation Model

28

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Instruction

Computers


Classroom Computer Support 2,071,074 1,240,247 830,827

Computers & Audio Visual 149,638 149,638 -

Network Security-Firewall 11,000 11,000 -

Repairs-Furniture & Equipment 102,727 112,727 (10,000)

Storage Area Network 16,500 16,500 -

Vandalism 5,000 5,000 -

Fees, Contractual and Rentals

CHATT - 88,488 (88,488)

Classroom Computer Support 47,148 59,910 (12,762)

Maintenance Fees 206,407 103,009 103,398

Network Security-Firewall 237,190 228,333 8,857

Wide Area Network 854,834 880,870 (26,036)

Computers Total 3,701,518 2,895,722 805,796



Detail of Instruction - Computers Expense

29

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Instruction

Staff Development

Contractual PD 42,550 40,050 2,500

e-Learning 18,000 18,000 -

Full Day Kindergarten 25,800 25,800 -

Health & Safety 193,200 209,200 (16,000)

Leadership 6,500 24,047 (17,547)

New Teacher Induction Program 607,759 779,314 (171,555)

Program Services Subject Specific 1,049,212 978,746 70,466

Research 3,000 3,000 -

Safe Schools 91,704 83,704 8,000

Safety & Well Being 37,900 37,900 -

Special Education 717,450 379,600 337,850

Student Success 834,676 793,990 40,686

Technology 69,779 64,454 5,325

Staff Development Total 3,697,530 3,437,805 259,725



Detail of Instruction - Staff Development Expense

30

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Administration

Trustees

Salaries and Benefits

Trustees 204,665 202,831 1,834

Student Trustees 5,098 5,098 -


Computer Lease 3,000 3,000 -

Mileage 11,000 11,000 - Student Trustees 17,500 17,500 - Telephone/Cell/Fax 28,000 28,000 - Trustee Supplies 55,000 55,000 -

Trustees Total 324,263 322,429 1,834 Director and Supervisory Officers


Staff Development 73,000 77,000 (4,000)


Other 74,340 79,800 (5,460)

Director and Supervisory Officers Total 2,618,484 2,683,504 (65,020)

Board Administration




Admin Building Maintenance 65,000 65,000 -

Furniture & Equipment 45,000 45,000 - Labour Relations 43,892 43,892 - Meeting Expenses 19,862 17,862 2,000 Mileage 29,500 29,000 500 Office Supplies & Services 280,273 332,945 (52,672) Recruitment of Staff 85,000 85,000 - Telephone/Cell/Fax 199,782 78,509 121,273 Utilities - Hydro 133,412 133,412 - Utilities - Natural Gas 19,035 19,035 -


Attendance Management 7,500 7,500 -

Audit & Professional Fees 140,000 142,500 (2,500)

Board Website Upgrade - 100,000 (100,000)

Communications 13,000 7,000 6,000

Communications Audit 10,000 - 10,000

Human Resources Contractual Support 84,000 84,000 -

Legal Fees 315,000 350,000 (35,000)

Other Resources and Support 95,035 73,950 21,085

Payroll Fees 241,000 231,000 10,000

Professional Fees 21,940 21,940 -

Records Management Project 200,000 - 200,000

Software Maintenance Fees 684,004 949,004 (265,000)

Other 175,933 159,824 16,109

Board Administration Total 11,782,076 11,300,017 482,059

Amortization - Administration

Amortization and Write Downs 125,581 124,106 1,475

Amortization - Administration Total 125,581 124,106 1,475




Administration Expense

31

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Transportation

Pupil Transportation

Administration 982,431 1,002,473 (20,042)

Regular

Bronte Creek Transportation 115,000 113,613 1,387

Bus Passes 75,000 75,000 -

English Language Learners (ELL) Transportation 115,000 56,029 58,971

Essential Level Transportation 275,000 264,812 10,188

Gary Allan High School Transportation 19,500 38,200 (18,700)

Home to School (Includes French Immersion) 7,747,762 7,555,764 191,998

HOPES Transportation 72,000 61,800 10,200

Late Buses Transportation 16,500 15,810 690

Safety Programs 82,567 85,443 (2,876)

School Bus Orientation Day 3,275 3,020 255

Specialist High Skills Major Transportation 145,000 43,891 101,109

Other Transportation 109,990 135,600 (25,610)

Special Education

Care, Treatment, Custody and Corrections Transportation 293,500 348,362 (54,862)

Early Language Development Transportation 245,000 214,491 30,509

Gifted Transportation 1,235,000 1,115,900 119,100

Home to School Special Needs Transportation 2,452,500 2,163,052 289,448

Mobility Accessible Transportation 692,000 602,530 89,470

Special Education Wheel Chair Transportation 315,000 357,831 (42,831)

Special Education Transportation 462,000 432,509 29,491

The Learning Centre Transportation - 84,087 (84,087)

Pupil Transportation Total 15,454,025 14,770,217 683,808

Transportation - Prov Schools

Provincial Schools 203,364 185,040 18,324




Transportation Expense

32

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Pupil Accommodation

School Operations and Maintenance


Staff Development



Cafeteria 145,000 45,000 100,000

Caretaking 1,108,000 1,108,000 -

Day to Day Maintenance 5,195,679 5,127,544 68,135

Office Supplies & Services 83,641 120,575 (36,934)

Utilities - Fuel Oil 88,000 88,000 -

Utilities - Hydro 8,605,428 7,880,478 724,950

Utilities - Natural Gas 2,520,340 2,275,803 244,537

Utilities - Water/Sewage 1,495,000 1,435,801 59,199

Vandalism 600,000 600,000 -

Other Resources and Support 210,000 210,000 -


Contract Cleaning 3,892,505 3,747,743 144,762

Garbage Collection 310,000 300,000 10,000

Insurance 816,253 1,159,497 (343,244)

Lockdown/Lockout 10,000 10,000 -

Maintenance Contracts 1,179,000 1,179,000 -

Snow Removal 1,500,000 1,500,000 -

Software Maintenance Fees 19,479 18,205 1,274

Special Education 175,000 175,000 -

Surveillance 405,000 405,000 -

Temporary Accommodation 4,993,175 5,054,072 (60,897)

Other Resources and Support 234,999 234,710 289 Other 2,755 2,755 -

School Operations and Maintenance Total 57,860,377 56,398,922 1,461,455

School Renewal


Renewal Projects 3,116,454 3,116,454 -

School Renewal Total 3,116,454 3,116,454 -

Amortization - Pupil Accommodation

Amortization and Write Downs 27,535,330 25,950,497 1,584,833

Amortization - Pupil Accommodation Total 27,535,330 25,950,497 1,584,833

Other Pupil Accommodation

Interest Charges on Capital 14,108,732 14,423,544 (314,812)

Other Pupil Accommodation Total 14,108,732 14,423,544 (314,812)




Pupil Accommodation Expense

33

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Other Expense

Provision For Contingencies 1,000,000 867,284 132,716







Other Expense

34

Section 4


Capital Budget Detail

35

Board Allocated

Capital Funding **

Ministry Funded

Education

Development

Charges

Proceeds of

Disposition

Total

Financing per

EFIS

Accumulated

Surplus

New Schools - Land 16,900,000 16,900,000 16,900,000 16,900,000

Existing Schools

(Additions) Building,

Equipment and Land

Prep* 15,245,402 12,940,103 2,111,500 15,051,603 193,799 15,245,402

Closing the Gap 2,822,000 2,822,000 2,822,000 2,822,000

School Renewal 5,535,231 5,535,231 5,535,231 5,535,231

School Condition

Improvement 8,435,810 8,435,810 8,435,810 8,435,810

48,938,443 26,911,144 16,900,000 4,933,500 48,744,644 193,799 48,938,443

* Includes balance of expenditures for Ministry approved projects - New Martin Street P.S., Alton Village P.S. addition and Craig Kielburger

S.S. addition.

** This represents the balance of funding for the Craig Kielburger S.S. Greenhouse that is to be constructed along with the 10 classroom

addition.



Capital Budget

Capital

Expense

Ministry Approved Capital Financing

Total

Financing

36

Section 5


Ministry Compliance

37

Class Size

Class Size parameters have been included in the budget according to Ministry regulation as follows:

Primary Class Size (JK to Grade 3):

> At least 90 percent of primary classes have 20 or fewer students

> 100 percent of primary classes have 23 or fewer students, and

> 100 percent of combined Grade 3-4 classes have 23 or fewer students

Junior and Intermediate (Grade 4 to 8):

> Board-wide average 25.1 students, a reduction of .5 students from 2008-09

Secondary (Grade 9 to 12):

> Board-wide average 22 students

Administration and GovernanceExpense:

Trustees 324,263

Directors / Supervisory Officers 2,618,484

Board Administration 11,782,076

Total Expense 14,724,823

Revenue:

Administration and Governance Allocation 16,112,950

Less: Amount of Compensation Restraints savings (163,713)

Administration and Governance Allocation adjusted 15,949,237

Other Revenue Sources 1,728,970

Total Revenue 17,678,207

Revenue over Expense 2,953,384

Amount by which board is non-compliant with enveloping provision for Admin & Governance -

Temporary AccommodationExpense:

Expense for Portable moves, leases and purchases 4,076,475

Revenue:

Current year Temporary Accommodation Allocation 3,376,475

Amount of revenue to be received for Temporary Accommodation 3,376,475

School Renewal

Expense:

School Renewal - Enveloping Maximum Operating Expenses Permitted 3,116,454

Revenue:

Current year School Renewal allocation 8,651,685

Less: School Renewal - Enveloping Capital Expenditure (5,535,231)

Amount of deferred revenues available of non-capitalized school renewal expense 3,116,454

Amount of deferred revenue to be transferred out to revenues 3,116,454

School Condition ImprovementExpense:

Capital expense for School Condition Improvement 8,435,810

Revenue:

Total School Condition Improvement deferred revenues available for the school year 8,435,810

Amount of deferred revenues to be transferred to Deferred Capital Contribution (DCC) 8,435,810




38




Mental Health LeaderExpense:

Mental Health Leader - Salaries and Benefits 155,068

Revenue:

Current year Mental Health Leader allocation 121,161

Amount by which board is non-compliant with enveloping provision for Mental Health Leader -

New Teacher Induction Program (NTIP)Expense:

NTIP Expenses 657,759

Revenue:

NTIP Teacher Amount 607,759

NTIP Board Amount 50,000

Total Revenue 657,759

Amount of revenue to be received for NTIP 657,759

Learning Opportunity Grant (LOG) Student AchievementExpense:

Student Achievement Category Total 4,125,977

Revenue:

Literacy and Math Outside the School Day 406,981

Student Success, Grades 7 to 12 1,251,213

Grade 7 and 8 Literacy and Numeracy and Student Achievement 696,166

School Effectiveness Framework 345,758

OFIP Tutoring 261,990

Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM) 626,760

Outdoor Education 537,109

Total Revenue 4,125,977

Amount by which board is non-compliant with enveloping provision for Student Achievement

Category -

Library StaffExpense:

Library Staff 189,860

Revenue:

Library Staff 189,860

Amount of revenue to be received for Library Staff 189,860

First Nation, Metis, and Inuit (FNMI) Per-pupil AmountExpense:

FNMI - dedicated position to Support FNMI policy framework 93,049

FNMI - expenses to support Board Action Plans on FNMI Education (BAP) 72,471

Total Expense 165,520

Revenue:

FNMI Enveloping - Minimum Allocation 165,520

Amount of revenue to be received for FNMI 165,520

39

Draft


2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Care, Treatment, Custody and Corrections 2,975,532 2,967,701 7,831

Special Education

Instruction

Classroom Teachers


Supplies and Services 10,000 10,500 (500)

Classroom Teachers Total 43,735,530 43,134,642 600,888

Supply Staff


Supply Staff Total 2,574,488 2,108,945 465,543



Educational Assistants Total 40,940,261 38,764,926 2,175,335


Supplies and Services 3,192,576 3,209,345 (16,769)


Textbooks and Supplies Total 3,352,576 3,215,345 137,231

Professionals, Para & Technical


Supplies and Services 257,180 262,311 (5,131) Fees, Contractual and Rentals 223,071 169,168 53,903 Other 25,810 24,450 1,360

Professionals, Para & Technical Total 11,348,321 10,907,306 441,015

Staff Development


Staff Development Total 727,100 408,600 318,500




Coordinators and Consultants Total 1,204,971 1,253,454 (48,483)

Other Expense

Provision for Contingencies 500,000 - 500,000

Other Expense Total 500,000 - 500,000

Grand Total 107,358,779 102,760,919 4,597,860

Revenue

Special Education Per Pupil Amount (SEPPA) 45,755,106 44,481,236 1,273,870

Special Education Equipment Amount (SEA) 2,774,307 2,710,476 63,831

Differentiated Special Education Needs Amount 31,134,055 33,160,382 (2,026,327)

Approved Special Incidence Portion (SIP) 850,500 756,000 94,500

Care, Treatment, Custody and Corrections 2,975,532 2,967,697 7,835

Behaviour Expertise Amount 263,230 257,936 5,294

Self-Contained Adjustment 8,326,538 7,383,804 942,734

Total Revenue 92,079,268 91,717,531 361,737

Expenditures in Excess of Revenue (15,279,511) (11,043,388) (4,236,123)



Detail of Special Education Compliance

40

Draft


Transfer to/(from) Accumulated Surplus 2016/2017 2015/2016 (Decrease)

Available for Compliance - Unappropriated

Operating Accumulated Surplus (3,543,796) - (3,543,796)

Total Unappropriated (3,543,796) - (3,543,796)

Available for Compliance - Internally Appropriated

Operating

Retirement Gratuities (1,133,000) (1,133,000) -

Full Day Kindergarten (325,000) - (325,000)

Records Management (200,000) - (200,000)

Technology (200,000) (400,000) 200,000

School Renewal - Closing The Gap - (1,255,000) 1,255,000

Other Accommodation (193,799) - (193,799)

Capital

Committed Capital Projects - Non-Ministry Funded (155,518) 896,793 (1,052,311)

Committed Sinking fund interest earned (222,591) (222,591) -

Total Internally Appropriated (2,429,908) (2,113,798) (316,110)

Unavailable for Compliance - Externally Appropriated

Employee Future Benefits - Retirement Gratuities 4,546,157 4,546,157 -

Retirement Health, Dental 56,102 56,102 -

Employee Future Benefits - Other - 105,848 (105,848)

Interest to be Accrued 134,494 142,503 (8,009)

Revenues recognized for land - EDC 8,361,218 8,133,138 228,080

Revenues recognized for land - site prep - non EDC 100,000 - 100,000

Total Externally Appropriated 13,197,971 12,983,748 214,223

Total Transfer to/(from) Accumulated Surplus 7,224,267 10,869,950 (3,645,683)



Transfer to/(from) Accumulated Surplus per Ministry Compliance

41

64

Report Number 16096

Date: May 27, 2016

FOR DECISION



FROM: David Boag, Associate Director


RE: Program Viability of Elementary English and French Programming

Warrant:

The Program Viability Committee was created as per Board motion M15-0043 to study and make

recommendations with respect to English and French programming viability in Halton District School Board

elementary schools. The Program Viability Committee undertook this work with the assumption that all schools

with a primary division will have implemented Primary Core French by 2017/2018 as per Board motion. This

report provides an update on the work of the Program Viability Committee and provides a recommendation to

improve program viability in both English and French programs.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board adopt Option 6, Grade 2 Entry to the French Immersion

program at 100% intensity in existing single and dual track schools, as outlined in Report 16096.

2. Be it resolved that this model begin in Grade 2 of school year 2018/19. Entry into Grade 1 of our

current FI model will cease after the 2016/17 school year and the 2017/18 Grade 1 cohort will be

English program only.

3. Be it resolved that students enrolled in our current FI model be grand parented and allowed to complete

elementary school in the current model.

Background:

High uptake into French Immersion (FI) programs in the Halton District School Board has created issues with program

viability in both English and French programs in elementary schools. The two key challenges identified as a result of the

high FI uptake are:

1. Challenges keeping up with the hiring of qualified and high quality French teachers. This has been a challenge that

has resulted in hiring difficulties, French teacher vacancies needing to be re-posted because of lack of suitable

candidates and subsequently extended periods of time with a non-French speaking supply teacher in class while the

hiring process continues. This challenge persists despite constant attention being directed to the Board’s French

teacher recruitment process. Challenges with French teacher recruitment were presented to Trustees in Board

Report 16001.

2. Small English cohorts exist in many dual track (both English and French Immersion) schools because of the

high uptake of students entering grade 1 French Immersion from kindergarten. The resulting small English

cohorts, in many schools less than 15 students, make class building a challenge. In many cases combined grade

classes are required and often these classes are smaller than typical classes. This is problematic because these

cohorts of students are so small, the students are likely to remain with the exact same group of students through

much of their time in elementary school with less likelihood of being mixed from year to year with other same

age peers. This limits opportunities for social interactions with a larger number of peers as typically afforded in

most other schools. In addition, it is not cost effective to run classes that are significantly smaller than our

expected class sizes and so triple grade classes are sometimes considered.

65

Report 16096 page 2

The Program Viability Committee was initiated in March 2015 to study these two challenges and make

recommendations to improve viability of both the English and French Programs. Board Report 15081outlined the

initial work of the Program Viability Committee, including the potential options to be shared with the community

for feedback. These options were developed from a list of 14 different scenarios initially considered by the

committee. Of these, four options were chosen to share with stakeholders, as it was felt that a manageable number

of options were required for stakeholders to consider and respond to. The four options chosen would garner specific

feedback on the issues of entry (early entry vs mid entry), school type (dual vs single track schools) and intensity (%

of instruction in French language) and capping of enrolment as well as any other suggestions or alternatives

stakeholders might wish to offer.

Board Report 15114 outlined timelines and a plan for community consultation and feedback from a variety of

stakeholders. This consultation consisted of community information nights in each region of Halton in the fall of

2015, followed by the opportunity for input from the following stakeholder groups: parents/guardians and the

general public, staff, students, School Councils and the Special Education Advisory Committee. In addition, parent

feedback was obtained through a variety of Focus Groups held in each Halton community.

At the Feb 3, 2016 Board Meeting, Report 16019 was shared to provide an update on the various stakeholder

consultations, as well to provide information on the implementation of Primary Core French. Stakeholder

consultations were well underway at the time of this report and finished the third week of March. The update for

Primary Core French Implementation showed that the board is currently in its 2nd year of implementation with 39

schools currently offering Primary Core French. An additional 14 schools are scheduled to begin Primary Core

French in 2016/17 and the remaining 28 schools will follow in 2017/18, although this remains a considerable

challenge.

Program Viability Committee Mandate:

The PVC was tasked with studying and making recommendations to address the challenges identified above. While

the French Immersion model was a significant focus, it was clear that the work of this committee was to ensure

viability in both English and French programs. The committee identified three key objectives:

Maintain efficient and effective English and French program streams

Ensure students in both streams have equitable access to quality programming

Ensure the sustainability of both program streams

In addition, the PVC established criteria to measure English and French program viability:

Viable student enrolment in English and FI programs within each school and/or across the system

Sufficient number of highly skilled teachers to staff elementary (and secondary) English and French

programs across the system

Distribution of overall enrolment across schools to maximize quality

Accommodation of students in permanent school facilities and minimal use of portable classrooms for

optimal learning experiences for all students

Reduce need for triple-grading and/or combined classes

Stable, long-term boundaries for schools and programs with sufficient resources to support learning for all

students

Fiscal responsibilities (e.g., transportation, program materials)

Minimize the travel distance for students in English and French Immersion programs

These objectives and the identified criteria for program viability helped direct and steer the work of the Program

Viability Committee.

Stakeholder Feedback:

A key mandate of the Program Viability Committee was to consult a full range of stakeholders in order to gather

information and opinions on English and French language program viability in the Halton District School Board.

Feedback was sought from a breadth of stakeholder sources representing a variety of perspectives.

66

Report 16096 page 3

In general, feedback was centred around four proposed options:

Option 1: Grade 1 (early) French immersion remains a 50% French and 50% English delivery model, but

entry to French Immersion will be capped (method of capping to be determined at a later date).

Option 2: Grade 1 (early) French Immersion model remains at 50% French and 50% English, however, all French Immersion programs will be delivered in single track French Immersion schools. French Immersion will be phased out of dual track schools and no new dual track schools will be considered. The location of the single track schools will be determined at a later date.

Option 3: French Immersion will commence at a later entry point (mid entry); Grade 4. This will result in the delivery model of French Immersion moving from a 50% model to at least an 80% French Immersion model. In addition, the delivery of French Immersion will occur in dual track schools only.

Option 4: French Immersion will commence at a later entry point (mid entry); Grade 4. This will result in

the delivery model of French Immersion moving from a 50% model to at least an 80% French Immersion

model. In addition the delivery of French Immersion will occur in single track FI schools only.

While these four options were meant to highlight issues for consideration such as capping, intensity of French

language instruction, school type (single vs dual track) and entry point, it was made clear that these 4 options were

not the only options that could be considered. Hybrid options, or new options, would be considered as part of the

ongoing feedback, discussion and analysis. It was also made clear to stakeholders that this was not a “vote” for an

option and due consideration would be given to stakeholder feedback, research and other Halton specific factors

such as our current FI model, Primary Core French implementation, potential boundary reviews, staffing,

population growth, etc…

All data, perspectives and opinions were considered in concert by the Program Viability Committee from March

2015 to April 2016 and were used to shape the direction of the Program Viability recommendations moving

forward. Feedback from each of the consultation options that follow were all considered.

Public Feedback

Using input from several areas of the HDSB organization including Planning, Communications, Research and

School Programs departments, a feedback form was created to capture valuable demographic and opinion-based

information regarding the viability of English and French programming in the Halton District School Board.

Further to this, the feedback form also provided an opportunity for open comments and suggestions by each

individual respondent.

The survey was created using Checkbox software and the invitation was sent via a Syner-email message

delivered to all parent/guardians. In addition, a link was posted from the PVC information page on the Halton

District School Board website. The feedback form was open from January 6th, 2016 through January 29th, 2016.

School principals were also sent a hard copy of the feedback form to distribute to any stakeholders who wished

to complete their responses on paper.

There were 2979 complete responses to the feedback form. None of the items on the survey required a mandatory

response, so the number of responses varied by item. The first chart shows the response rate by geographic area.

67

Report 16096 page 4

When asked about their child’s grade range, the responses were:

Not yet enrolled in school (e.g., age 0-3.8) 4.19%

Kindergarten (JK or SK) 22.42%

Grades 1 to 3 34.47%


Grades 7 and 8 7.83%


Unsure 0.1%

Not Applicable 1.08%

Of all of the respondents who indicated that their child was in elementary school:

o 33.92% were in an English program, 63.66% were in French Immersion and 1.08% were in the

extended French program.

Of all the respondents who indicated that their child was in secondary school:

o 57.75% were in an English secondary program, while 37.43% were in a French Immersion

secondary program and 1.6% were in an Extended French secondary program.

1.47% of respondents indicated that their child was an English Language Learner

10.39% of respondents indicated that their child had an IEP

The feedback form also contained a series of questions aimed at gathering information about preferences in

overall program delivery, specifically in the areas of entry point (early entry versus mid-entry), school model

(single-track versus dual-track) and intensity of language.

With regards to entry point for students into a French Immersion program, the responses from all participants

who chose to respond to this item are aggregated below:

In your opinion, when is the best time to begin a French Immersion program?

68

Report 16096 page 5

With regards to preferred delivery model for an immersion program, the responses from all participants who

chose to respond to this item are aggregated below:

When asked about preferred intensity levels in an early entry French immersion program, the largest portion of

respondents (59.6%) indicated that a 50% English and 50% French delivery model was most favourable. When

asked about the preferred intensity level of a mid-entry French Immersion program, the largest portion of

respondents (49.3%) indicated that less than 80% intensity in French is preferred.

When asked to respond specifically to the idea of enrolment caps;

● (22.8 / 10.9) 33.7% of all those who responded to this item agreed or strongly agreed that caps are an

appropriate method of ensuring viability in English and FSL programs, whereas (22.2 / 24.8) 47.0%

disagreed or strongly disagreed

● In terms of capping methods, there was 74.2% general disagreement to the statement: ‘Use of a lottery is

an appropriate method of determining which school a student will attend for FSL’

● Similarly, there was 60.6% general disagreement to the statement: ‘Use of first-come, first-served is an

appropriate method of determining which school a student will attend for FSL programs

Participants were also invited to provide additional feedback in the form of an unlimited, open text response.

What follows are some general conclusions based on trends observed in the final open text opportunity in the

feedback form.

These open text responses indicated:

● A very strong early entry voice

● A very strong voice for neighbourhood schools

● A very strong voice against changing the models of current schools with consideration given as to why

many families had relocated and/or purchased their homes in the locations where they did

● Many assumptions and some misinformation on the part of the respondents:

o Several suggestions that the HDSB invest in strong recruiting practices to find high quality,

qualified French teachers (e.g., go outside of the province)

o Several suggestions that the HDSB review academic research around language acquisition

o Several participants expressed anxiety about their children who are currently enrolled in a

program, assuming that any future changes will impact students who are currently enrolled in

programs as they exist today

Please indicate your preferred type of school for the delivery of a language program

69

Report 16096 page 6

● Though many respondents wondered why the feedback form did not explicitly ask about parent/guardian

perceptions of the French Immersion program overall (i.e., why did you enroll your child in a French

Immersion program? What is your perception of children who are enrolled in a French Immersion

program?), many offered de facto opinions on this anyway, beginning several such statements with

phrases like “I’ve heard from all of the parents on my street that…” or “all of the parents at my child’s

school think that…”

● A strong voice for the status quo

● A strong voice for the rights of parents and students to French Immersion education, often tied to our

status in Canada as a bilingual nation

● A strong voice against capping or limiting access in arbitrary or discriminatory ways, often tied to rights

of the taxpayer or the rights of all children to an equitable education.

Parent Focus Groups

Ipsos Reid was commissioned to conduct community focus groups between February 16th and March 10th, 2016.

Over twelve sessions, 116 people participated from all over Halton [randomly selected from a group of 717 who

responded to the initial invitation]. The participants all identified themselves as belonging to one of the

following groups: parents of children attending single track English elementary schools; parents of children

attending the French track of a dual track elementary school; parents of children attending the English track of a

dual track elementary school; parents of children attending a single track French Immersion elementary school

and finally, other interested and engaged parent stakeholders.

The focus groups centered discussions and feedback around three key themes: capping or limiting enrolment in a

specific program, early versus mid entry into French Immersion and dual-track versus single-track French

immersion schools. Feedback on the four options originally presented in the online community feedback form

was also sought.

In their detailed presentations of their findings, Ipsos Reid stated that “The main objectives of the focus groups

were to provide parents with an opportunity to receive more information on the challenges facing the HDSB and

to discuss and deliberate on the options for moving forward”. They also caution that – just as with the online

feedback form, “due to the small number of people taking part and the fact that random sampling / statistical

weighting have not been applied, the findings cannot be extrapolated to the population at large. This should be

borne in mind when …interpreting the findings”.

Broadly shared among all parents who took part in the focus groups was the idea that capping was the least

preferred option. A cap was seen as unfair; it could potentially contribute to what some perceive as “existing

elitism” of the French Immersion community and it also could potentially divide communities. Should capping

become necessary, however, a first-come, first-served model for selection was seen as a more preferable option,

especially in contrast to a lottery selection method.

In terms of entry point, the respondents were divided in their preference. Many parents who supported early

entry also cited research showing that early exposure to languages is best. Those who supported mid-entry

recognized that this option allowed for a more informed decision on the part of both parents and students in terms

of learning style and the child’s potential for success.

In terms of the preferred delivery model, there was no clear consensus on whether French Immersion should be

offered in a single track or dual track setting. Single track schools were seen to be better at fostering a cohesive

school community, whereas dual track schools were preferred because they create and support communities

around schools.

Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) Feedback

During the month of December, Director Miller shared the Program Viability information with SEAC. Associate

Director Boag then followed up with an abbreviated presentation at the February 2016 SEAC Meeting.

Following this presentation and discussion, SEAC members were asked to discuss the implications of the

proposed options for students with special education needs.

70

Report 16096 page 7

Though members recognized the benefit of an early entry program in terms of overall exposure to a second

language, several concerns were raised around the implications of early entry to French Immersion for students

with special needs. It was felt that immersion programming might complicate or mask the identification of

special needs of younger students, which in turn could possibly delay the provision of accommodations and

supports for students. The possibility of a middle entry was discussed as a positive option for students who, it

was felt, would have the opportunity to develop a stronger foundation in English language skills. Additionally,

later entry in French Immersion would provide more time for educators to understand the learner’s profile and

needs. SEAC members also noted that a middle entry timeline aligns more favourably with the typical timing of

psycho-educational assessments.

Dual track schools likely present fewer transitions for students with special education needs (especially those

who may transfer from one stream to the other). On the other hand, dual track schools with small cohorts in

English programs produce challenges with increased need for combined grades and lower diversity among the

peer group. SEAC members also had questions about the consistency in the level of support from Educational

Assistants (EAs), Special Education Resource Teachers (SERTs) and other school staff available for support in

French in single track French Immersion schools.

Students with special education needs should be supported and encouraged when making a choice to enrol in a

French Immersion program, regardless of the delivery model. English is mandatory; French Immersion is

optional; Special Education is not optional.

School Council Feedback

During the month of February, 2016, all school administrators were asked to make Program Viability a priority

for their agenda at School Council meetings. School principals were provided with a presentation to deliver

information on the issues of program viability in Halton. After the presentation, school administrators led their

school councils in discussion and feedback gathering so that the PVC could have a summary view of the

perspectives of program viability from every elementary and secondary school in the Board.

Seventy elementary and seven Secondary schools provided written feedback. Among all responses, there were

an overwhelming number of questions, largely centered on the process and details of any implemented change.

Many school councils were in favour of an earlier entry point, as they felt that more and earlier exposure to a

language is better for learning. Many elementary school councils also expressed an interest in offering core

French, starting in grade 1, at all schools. Though not the majority, a significant number of elementary school

councils did support a middle entry French Immersion model. These schools most commonly suggested that a

later start in an immersion program was important to ensure that students had the appropriate skills and

characteristics required to be successful in a French Immersion program.

Many school councils voiced concern over the attrition rates in French Immersion, particularly by the end of

grade 12. In addition, some schools expressed concern that if the current French Immersion delivery model were

to be changed too drastically, the Halton District School Board may lose students to our coterminous Board or

local private institutions. Overall, school councils of both elementary and secondary schools expressed concern

at how changing the current French Immersion model may change the composition of their school communities

and neighbourhoods (e.g., students and families changing designated schools).

Student Senate Feedback

During the December Student Senate meeting, Director Miller spoke to the group and presented the issues on

program viability. At the February Student Senate Meeting, Associate Director Boag followed up with an

abbreviated presentation, similar to the presentations for SEAC and school councils. After the presentation,

Student Senators were asked to complete an abbreviated version of the public feedback form in order to gain their

opinions regarding program viability in Halton.

Twenty four student senators completed the feedback form. Of these responses, there was a strong preference

toward an early entry point for French immersion. Generally, this group also preferred a mix of dual and single

track schools for immersion programming, as in the current model, with a slight preference for purely dual track

schools over purely single track schools. Half this group disliked the idea of capping enrolment to French

Immersion.

71

Report 16096 page 8

Staff Feedback

During the period from February 29th, 2016, through March 13th, 2016, all HDSB staff were invited to provide

feedback to the Program Viability Committee via an online feedback form. This form collected some

demographic data specific to employee groups and workplace setting; however the remainder of the items were

the same as the questions found on the public feedback form.

In all, 181 complete responses to the feedback form were recorded. Of these, 72.9% identified as ETFO

employees (elementary teachers), with 7.7% identifying as OSSTF employees (secondary teachers) and 7.7%

identifying as HEPA employees (elementary administrators). The remainder of respondents were distributed in

smaller numbers across all other employee groups. 46.4% of respondents indicated that they worked in a dual

track setting, while 27.6% responded that they worked in a single-track French Immersion setting and 21%

indicated their place of work as a single-track English school. Of all ETFO and OSSTF members who responded

to this survey, 49% indicated that they provide instruction in Core French, French Immersion, or Extended

French.

When asked about their preference between single track and dual track for French Immersion, respondents

indicated a strong preference for single-track French Immersion (53.4%), followed by a mix of dual and single

track schools and then by dual track only. When asked explicitly whether delivering French Immersion in

single-track schools only would ensure the viability of both the French and the English program, 69% indicated

that they believed it would.

The respondents also came out strongly in favor of early entry (66.9%) over middle entry (26.1%) for students to

begin a French Immersion program. Of the early entry options, grade 1 was the most desired starting point (37.9%).

When asked explicitly about capping as a method to ensure viability of both the English and French programs in

the Halton District School Board, 52% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that capping was appropriate,

whereas 35.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed. In terms of specific methods of capping, however, 67.4% of all

respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the use of a lottery to determine a student’s admittance into a

French Immersion program and 64.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed with a first come, first-served method of

capping.

In terms of the intensity level of a French Immersion program, 48.3% of all respondents support a 50% English /

50% French delivery model, whereas 39.8% support a greater level of French intensity in an immersion program.

Additional Feedback Shared with the PVC

During the course of the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years, the Program Viability Committee frequently

met and examined other sources of information and data surrounding English and French as a Second Language

programming options. Some of this information examined past practices at other Ontario school districts, the

New Brunswick Ministry of Education, as well as the European Framework of Content and Language Integrated

Learning (CLIL). In addition, the PVC was presented with comprehensive information regarding the current and

future staffing needs and recruiting strategies in place at the Halton District School Board.

Analysis and Discussion of Feedback:

The Program Viability Committee spent several meetings reviewing the stakeholder feedback. The committee

also reviewed other French Immersion delivery models across the province prior to discussing the advantages

and challenges of each option. During deliberations, two additional options were also considered. These options

were tabled to allow due consideration of early entry, higher intensity options which exist in many other districts

across Ontario.

OPTION 5: Early Entry with Increased Intensity Grade 1 entry in both dual and single track schools (current sites). Increased intensity to 100% in grade

1 and 2, reduced intensity to grade 4 as shown below:

Gr 1 – 100%

Gr 2 – 100%

Gr 3 – 75%

Gr 4 – 50 %

72

Report 16096 page 9

OPTION 6: Grade 2 Entry with Increased intensity.

Grade 2 entry in both dual and single track schools with 100% intensity and reduced intensity after that

as shown:

Gr 2 – 100%

Gr 3 – 80%

Gr 4 – 50%

In addition to the discussion about the advantages and challenges associated with each of the 6 options,

consideration was given to the number of potential boundary reviews required to transition to a new model.

Boundary reviews are required when there is a significant change in the grade or program configuration of a

school that results in students being redirected to other schools. In these circumstances a boundary review is

conducted to determine the new boundaries for both English track and French track students in the affected

school community. Boundary review analysis was prepared by the HDSB Planning Department and is shown for

selected options in Appendix A.

Consideration of the Boundary Review analysis showed that there were some options that stood out as being

much more practical to implement because of the reduced need for boundary reviews. These were Option 1

(Status Quo with capping), Option 5 (Grade 1 Entry, 100% Intensity) and Option 6 (Grade 2 Entry, 100%

Intensity). In each case the proposed model is a modified variation of our current model and as such we would

predict minimal additional boundary reviews. Other options that cause a significant change to the grade or

program configuration of schools result in substantially more boundary reviews. For example, a change to a

single track only model would require all dual track schools to become English only or French only schools and

thus students would need to be displaced to other sites. Similarly, a change to a dual track only model would

require single track schools to now accommodate an additional track causing movement of students from other

sites. In both these examples, boundary reviews would be required to create new boundaries to determine English

and French boundaries for affected schools.

In addition, a hybrid of Option 3 and 4 was considered ie: a grade 4 mid entry in our current complement of

single and dual track schools. It had a relatively low number of boundary reviews associated with it because of

the mix of single and dual track schools thus minimizing the change in school types associated with a pure single

or pure dual track entry model.

Three Options Preferred by The PVC:

After considerable discussion, analysis and deliberation, the PVC has identified three options that best fit the

criteria for program viability. These options are outlined below.

OPTION 2: Early Entry with Single Track Schools Only Grade 1 (early) French Immersion model remains at 50% French and 50% English. However, all French

Immersion programs will be delivered in Single Track French Immersion schools. French Immersion will be

phased out of dual track schools and no new dual track schools will be considered. The location of the single

track schools will be determined at a later date.

HDSB data shows that when students need to leave their school to access a French Immersion program, the

uptake is significantly reduced e.g. an uptake on average of 27% vs an average uptake of 61% in dual track

schools. This option would eliminate dual track schools as they would be morphed into either single track French

Immersion schools or single track English schools. Having only single track French Immersion schools is very

likely to significantly reduce the uptake into French Immersion and therefore resolve both the issues of French

teacher recruitment and hiring and small English cohorts in dual track schools.

There are some challenges associated with this model. First and foremost is the loss, or perceived loss, of the

neighbourhood school concept. Having only single track French Immersion schools would mean that students

would need to be directed to a French Immersion school potentially outside of their immediate neighbourhood.

Students living near these single track French Immersion schools wanting the English program would also need

to access single track English schools outside of their immediate neighbourhood. In both cases, there may be an

increase in transportation costs.

73

Report 16096 page 10

Converting dual track schools to single track French Immersion schools or English schools will require numerous

boundary reviews and the movement of students from one school to another. Boundary reviews will be required

as new boundaries would need to be created for every existing dual track school as it morphs to either single

track French or single track English schools. Catchment areas will either shrink, expand or be redefined to

accommodate students in the new configuration of each school. Boundary review analysis can be found in

Appendix A.

Moving to single track schools has implications for kindergarten. First, moving to a grade 1 – 8 configuration,

means that schools would need to convert existing kindergarten spaces back to regular classroom spaces. The

current design of kindergarten classrooms looks quite different from a more traditional primary classroom and so

there could be potential costs involved. The second issue regarding kindergarten is connected to recent

amendments to legislation (O. Reg 224/10 and O.Reg 221/11) that requires all elementary schools hosting grade

1 classes to also host kindergarten classes, unless the school is a single track French Immersion school in boards

(like HDSB) that have a grade 1- 8 FI model for single track FI schools. To convert a dual track school to a

single track French Immersion school would require that all English program students, including kindergarten,

move out of the school in the year of transition. Grandfathering of students currently in the English program

could not occur because as long as there are English track students in the school, the school is not deemed to be a

single track FI school and therefore must also host kindergarten.

OPTION 3: French Immersion will commence at a later entry point (mid entry) Grade 4 Entry. This will result in the delivery model of French Immersion moving from a 50% model to at least

an 80% French Immersion model. In addition the delivery of French Immersion will occur in Dual Track

schools only.

A key advantage identified with a grade 4 entry model is time for families to understand their student as learners

prior to making the decision to enrol in French Immersion. Three years in addition to kindergarten provides time

to develop foundational English language and numeracy skills. The grade 4 entry means students will have also

had three years of core French, thereby establishing some competency in French prior to entering French

Immersion. By the end of grade 3, students also know themselves better as learners and have more ‘voice’ than

they would have had in kindergarten and therefore are more able to participate in the decision making process.

All these factors contribute to families having more information and being in a better position to make a decision

about whether French Immersion is the right program for their child. This later entry model combined with the

increased intensity (80%), will require a more thoughtful decision by families and is likely to reduce uptake into

the French Immersion program, ultimately reducing demand for French teacher hiring and recruitment and

reducing the issue of small English cohorts in dual track schools, which were the two key areas identified for

program viability.

The dual track mid entry model supported by the PVC has some drawbacks, most notably a number of potential

boundary reviews caused by the morphing of existing single track French Immersion schools to dual track

schools. These boundary reviews will result in a redistribution of students as new English and French boundaries

are created for these schools. A modification to this model would be to maintain a mixture of dual and single

track schools e.g. our current school configurations. Some boundary reviews would still be likely as populations

change and adjust to the later French Immersion entry. For example, current single track schools (gr 1 – 8) would

need to change to single track schools (gr 4 – 8), or morph to dual track schools, both of which are likely to cause

a small number of boundary reviews, albeit significantly less than the number predicted with a mid-entry dual

track only option.

An additional challenge with this model is the implementation plan. With a grade 4 entry, a decision would need

to be made about timing. One option would be to wait for students in the current FI program to continue and not

start the new mid entry until the grade one FI cohort for 2016/17 is entering grade 5. The new grade 4 cohort

could then start the program in school year 2020/21. Alternatively, grade 4 entry could begin in 2017/18 with

two distinct models running concurrently for five years. The challenge in this case is that most students entering

grade 4 would already have had an opportunity to enrol in French Immersion when they were in grade 1and

chose not to.

74


There may be some students interested in entering at grade 4 in 2017/18 if they are new to the system, or if

families were not initially thinking about French Immersion in grade 1 and have since changed their mind.

Numbers of students could be quite small for this entry point and there may be a challenge forming viable FI

classes for these cohorts until after the students in the current model have moved on to grade 5. Should numbers of

students entering the program be significant, reasonable size classes could be formed but this would cause

additional teacher hiring pressures for the five years that both distinct models are operating. A third alternative

would be to end our current early entry mode and redirect students back to the English program until students enter

grade 4 to re-enter French Immersion. This approach would cause considerable disruption including students

experiencing additional changes in schools.

Further challenges with this particular model will be a readjustment by schools of their staffing expertise. For

example, in our current model, there are significant numbers of primary teachers with French expertise. In this new

model there will be a need for a reduction in the need for primary French teachers and an increase in junior and

intermediate French teachers. Adjustments to teacher assignments, hiring and teacher training in specific

curriculum areas, will be required to accommodate this change.

Lastly, a potential drawback of this model is that students in grade 5 – 8 will have only 20% of each day in

English. This will mean that students will have either only English language taught in English and therefore math

in French for grades 5-8 or math taught only in English and have no English language instruction for grades 5-8. In

either case, there may be some implications in adequately preparing students for expectations entering high school.

OPTION 6: Grade 2 Entry, 100% intensity in both Dual and Single Track Schools

Grade 2 Entry into French Immersion at both dual and single track schools with 100% intensity and reduced

intensity after that as shown:

Gr 2 – 100%

Gr 3 – 80%

Gr 4 – 50%

This model provides for an early entry option, although not as early as Option 2. A grade 2 entry means students

will have a year of primary core French and the grade 1 year to develop English language skills prior to making a

decision about entering French Immersion. Grade 1 is an important year for students to learn to read in English

and this additional time will allow teachers and parents/guardians to acquire a better understanding of the student

as a learner in a more typical classroom environment and understand whether French Immersion is the right fit

for their student. The slightly later entry combined with the increased intensity (100%) presents a more

significant decision for families. It is likely to reduce uptake into the French Immersion program creating viable

English program cohorts in dual track schools and reducing the demand on French teacher hiring and

recruitment.

Two years (grades 2 and 3) of increased intensity has the added value of truly “immersing” the student in French

language for 2 years to help support French language acquisition prior to returning to an intensity of 50% in

grade 4.

Boundary reviews and disruption to the system are much less likely with this option since the current school

configurations will remain the same and the changes in overall enrolment numbers will not drastically change in

any one year. While boundary reviews will continue to be something that occurs because of normal growth and

decline within HDSB schools, this model is not likely to have a significant impact.

With respect to implementation, this model could provide for almost 2 years of planning time prior to

implementation. Current grade 1’s in French Immersion could be “grand parented” and the new model starting in

school year 2018/19 in grade 2. A challenge associated with this model will be connected to curriculum,

resources and teacher training because of the change in French emphasis in grade 2 and grade 3. While this may

not be a huge undertaking, the planning time associated with a 2018/19 implementation, could be used to

continue to focus on French Teacher recruitment in addition to investigating any training or curriculum needs

associated with this model. See Appendix B for details related to implementation.

75


In our current FI model, mathematics is generally taught in English. A potential criticism of this option might be

that in a 100% model, students must learn mathematics in French and would therefore be exposed to

mathematics in both English and French during their elementary years. This is a reality of a 100% model. A

second potential criticism is that there will be less emphasis on English language instruction in the early years

and that students might fall behind in this area due to the increased emphasis on French language instruction.

While this may be true, research has shown that in early French Immersion programs where there has been a high

intensity of French, English language skills may lag in the early years, but English language skills catch up or

surpass the rest of the grade cohort in the junior years. The foundation in French language has been shown to

cause an accelerated learning of an additional language, in this case English.

Financial Implications:

Each of the three options outlined in this report have financial implications associated with them as would be

expected with any change. Determining exact costs are challenging because it is difficult to predict with

certainty, student enrolments, exact impact on numbers of teachers and classes, results of boundary reviews

including the identification of specific sites (e.g. what schools would be identified as single track FI schools in

Option 2) and transportation requirements. However, with each option there are areas that are likely to result in

costs or potential cost savings as outlined below.

Option 2 (Gr 1 Entry, 50% French, Single Track Schools)

Boundary Reviews – significant allocation of staff time and resources for more than one year

Facility modifications to convert FDK classrooms into grade 1classrooms

Probable increase in transportation costs

Option 3 (Mid Entry, 80% French, Dual Track Schools)

Boundary Reviews – significant allocation of staff time and resources for more than one year

Facility modifications to create FDK classrooms in the existing single track FI schools

Staff development –curriculum, instruction and assessment

Curriculum resources for grades 4 – 8 (purchased or developed in house)

Probable decrease in transportation costs

Option 3 (Mid Entry, 80% French, Single and Dual Track Schools)

Boundary Reviews – some possible boundary reviews

Staff development –curriculum instruction and assessment, (grades 4 – 8)

Curriculum resources for grades 4 – 8 (purchased or developed in house)

Option 6 (Gr 2 Entry, 100% French, Single and Dual Track Schools)

Boundary Reviews – some possible boundary reviews

Staff development – curriculum, instruction and assessment (grades 2 and 3)

Curriculum resources for grades 2 and 3 (purchased or developed in house)

Selected Option 6:

The three options preferred by PVC were shared with Administrative Council. Administrative Council

deliberated and provided advice to the Director and the recommended option is Option 6. This option has been

chosen for the following reasons:

1. This option meets the criteria set by the Program Viability Committee to address the challenges of both

English and French program viability.

2. Parents will have an additional year compared to our current model to better understand their child as a

learner prior to making a decision to enroll in French Immersion in grade 2. This additional time

provides more opportunities for teachers to speak to parents about their child and for parents to make a

more informed decision about whether FI is the right fit for their child.

3. This option still provides for a relatively early entry compared with some other models considered. Early

entry was supported through stakeholder feedback.

76


4. Higher intensity in the first two years of FI will “immerse” students in French language to support

French language acquisition in the first two years of the program.

5. The implementation plan for this model is not likely to cause significant challenges related to boundary

reviews as in other options. Current dual track and single track configurations can be maintained and as

such, implementation and transition to this model should be much less disruptive than other options.

Primary Core French:

As noted earlier, Primary Core French is currently in its second year of implementation with plans to be fully

implemented in school year 2017/18. The Primary Core French model provides for 40 minutes per week of

French language instruction in grades 1 to 3. Currently in the 2nd year, implementation of Primary Core French

has been considered to be successful by students, families and educators. Staff looked at the possibility of a

modest increase to 50 minutes per week which can be incorporated into an elementary timetable structure. As

part of the ongoing discussion of options moving forward, the Program Viability Committee considered an

increase in the number of minutes of French in the primary years, but was not supportive of a change from the

current 40 minutes a week.

Summary:

The Program Viability Committee (PVC) has been in existence for just over a year to review both English and

French program viability in HDSB elementary schools. Considerable stakeholder consultation was done and

feedback was brought to the PVC for review, analysis and recommendations. After careful analysis of the

feedback provided, the PVC identified 3 preferred options. Of these options, Option 6 has been recommended as

the preferred option. This option has been recommended as it will provide an additional year for parents to

understand their child as a learner prior to making a decision to enter French Immersion, it provides a relatively

early entry point as preferred by stakeholders and provides for a greater intensity in the first two years of the

program which supports French language acquisition. The recommended model also requires few if any

additional boundary reviews, maintains our current dual and single track school configurations and as such will

provide for a simpler and less disruptive implementation plan and transition to the new model.


David Boag Stuart Miller

Associate Director Director of Education

APPENDIX A: POTENTIAL BOUNDARY REVIEWS

Burlington

Area Option 2 Option 3 Option 6

Option 3 Dual and

Single Track

- boundary review required - possible boundary reviews - possible boundary reviews - possible boundary reviews

- program changes required - no program changes - no program changes - no program changes

^ grade reconfiguration

required+ grade reconfiguration required ~ grade reconfiguration required + grade reconfiguration required

- boundary review required - no boundary reviews - no boundary reviews - no boundary reviews




- boundary review required - boundary review required - possible boundary reviews - possible boundary reviews

- program changes required - program changes required - no program changes - no program changes



- no boundary reviews - boundary review required - no boundary reviews - no boundary reviews

- no program changes - program changes required - no program changes - no program changes

- no grade reconfiguration + grade reconfiguration required ~ grade reconfiguration required + grade reconfiguration required






- program changes required - no program changes- no program changes

- no program changes

^ grade reconfiguration required + grade reconfiguration required ~ grade reconfiguration required + grade reconfiguration required

- boundary review required - possible boundary reviews - no boundary reviews - possible boundary reviews



ERA 107

ERA 105

ERA 106

ERA100

ERA101

ERA 102

ERA 103

- boundary review required - possible boundary reviews - no boundary reviews - possible boundary reviews




- boundary review required - possible boundary review - possible boundary reviews - possible boundary review




- boundary review required - no boundary review - no boundary reviews - no boundary review



* School undergoing phased single-track FI implementation.

^ JK/SK classes may be moved

+ Grades 1 to 3 FI classes removed

~ Grade 1 FI classes removed

Oakville


Option 3 Dual and

single Track

- no boundary review - boundary review required - possible boundary review - possible boundary review


- no grade reconfiguration + grade reconfiguration required ~ grade reconfiguration required + grade reconfiguration required



- no grade reconfiguration+ grade reconfiguration required ~ grade reconfiguration required + grade reconfiguration required

- boundary review required - boundary review required - possible boundary review - possible boundary review




- boundary review required - possible boundary review - possible boundary review - possible boundary review





ERA 108

ERA 109

ERA 113

ERA 110

ERA 115

ERA 114

ERA 111

ERA112










- no grade reconfiguration+ grade reconfiguration required ~ grade reconfiguration required + grade reconfiguration required

- boundary review required - possible boundary review - possible boundary review - possible boundary review

ERA 118- program changes required - no program changes - no program changes - no program changes



*Phased FI implementation underway.




Milton


Option 3 Dual and

Single Track

- boundary reviews required - possible boundary review - possible boundary review - possible boundary review












ERA 121

ERA 117

ERA 120

ERA 119

ERA 115

ERA 116

- boundary reviews required - no boundary review - no boundary review - no boundary review








*Phased FI implementation underway.




Halton Hills


Option 3 Dual and

Single Track

- boundary review required- possible boundary review - possible boundary review - possible boundary review




- boundary review required - possible boundary review - no boundary review - possible boundary review




- boundary review required - no boundary review - no boundary review - no boundary review







ERA 127

ERA 126

ERA 125

ERA124

ERA 123

APPENDIX B: POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES FOR 3 OPTIONS

Option 2 - Early Entry - Single Track Schools Only*

2016/17 Initiate boundary review process for conversion of Dual Track to Single Schools

2017/18 Boundary Reviews



* Conversion of Schools to Single Track to be phased over time to accommodate multiple boundary

reviews

Option 3 - Mid Entry, Delayed Start with Grandfathering

Gr 1 Gr 2 Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr 6 Gr 7 Gr 8

2016/17 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2017/18 ENG 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2018/19

ENG 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2019/20

ENG 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2020/21

80% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2021/22

80% 50% 50% 50%

2022/23

80% 50% 50%

2023/24

80% 50%

2024/25

80%

Option 3 - Mid Entry - Double Cohorts With Grandfathering*


2016/17 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2017/18 ENG 50% 50% 50%/80% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2018/19

ENG 50% 50%/80% 50%/80% 50% 50% 50%

2019/20

ENG 50%/80% 50%/80% 50%/80% 50% 50%

2020/21

80% 50%/80% 50%/80% 50%/80% 50%

2021/22

80% 50%/80% 50%/80% 50%/80%

2022/23

80% 50%/80% 50%/80%

2023/24

80% 50%/80%

2024/25

80%

*would there be enough uptake in grade 4 in the first 3 years to form viable FI classes?

Option 3 - Mid Entry - Discontinuation of Early Entry and Re-entry at Grade 4


2016/17 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2017/18

ENG ENG 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2018/19

ENG 80% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2019/20

80% 80% 50% 50% 50%

2020/21

80% 80% 50% 50%

2021/22

80% 80% 50%

2022/23

80% 80%

2023/24

80%

Option 6 - 2018 Start With Grandfathering


2016/17 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2017/18 ENG 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2018/19

100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2019/20

80% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2020/21

50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2021/22

50% 50% 50% 50%

2022/23

50% 50% 50%

2023/24

50% 50%

2024/25

50%

Option 6 - 2017 Start with No Grandfathering


2016/17 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2017/18

100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2018/19

80% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2019/20

50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

2020/21

50% 50% 50% 50%

2021/22

50% 50% 50%

2022/23

50% 50%

2023/24

50%

83


Date: May 18, 2016

FOR DECISION



FROM: Lucy Veerman, Superintendent of Business Services

Gerry Cullen, Superintendent of Facility Services

RE: Identification of Community Planning and Partnership Opportunities

Warrant:

At its October 21, 2015 meeting, the Halton District School Board approved the Community Planning and

Partnerships policy. This policy implemented the Community Planning and Partnerships Guidelines released by the

Ministry of Education on March 26, 2016 to support partnership opportunities in open and operating schools, co-

build opportunities for proposed schools, underutilized schools that may be impacted by closure, and sites that may

be considered for future disposition.

This report identifies schools within the Board that present suitable opportunities for community partnerships,

based on criteria indicated in the Community Planning and Partnerships policy.

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the list of schools for community

partnerships; and,

THAT staff be directed to notify community partners of opportunities for sharing of space and

undertake the annual Community Planning and Partnerships meeting.

Background

On March 26, 2015, the Ministry of Education circulated memorandum 2015:B09 “Release of New Pupil

Accommodation Review Guideline and Community Planning and Partnerships Guideline”. The Ministry required

all schools boards in Ontario to amend their existing policies to reflect the changes in the new guidelines. The

revisions to the guidelines support sharing of planning information between school boards and community partners

on a regular basis, and enhances opportunities to share underutilized school space and space in new buildings, as

well as greenspace/parkland. The shared use of facilities has the potential to reduce facility costs; enhance

programs and services to students and the wider community; as well as strengthen relationships with community

partners. In addition, it will ensure a strong, vibrant and sustainable publically-funded education system in Halton.

To implement the revised Ministry guidelines, Halton District School Board adopted a new Community Planning

and Partnerships (CPP) policy on October 21, 2015, along with a new Program and Accommodation Review policy

on February 17, 2016. The CPP policy outlines the procedure with respect to partnership opportunities in open and

operating schools, co-build opportunities for proposed schools, underutilized schools that may be impacted by

closure, and sites that may be considered for future disposition. Partnerships will be managed using a cost

recovery model, as stated in Section 3.6 of the CPP policy.

Planning information is shared with community partners through the annually released Long Term

Accommodation Plan (LTAP). The LTAP provides enrolment projections for a 10 year forecast period, i.e. 2016

to 2025, for each Elementary and Secondary Review Area (ERA and SRA) in the Board as well as for each

elementary and secondary school within the system. In addition, it lists where and when new schools will be

needed based on enrolment projections, schools that will remain well-utilized, as well as open and operating

schools with unused space.

84

Report 16095 page 2

All community partners identified in Appendix 1 of the CPP policy are notified once the LTAP is approved. On

May 4, 2016, Trustees approved the LTAP. Community partners listed in the CPP policy, including all

municipalities and the Region of Halton, have been notified of its approval and invited to review its content for the

purposes of CPP. Through the LTAP feedback process and notification of LTAP approval, community partners

have been provided with sufficient time to review its content with respect to potential partnerships.

The LTAP is also used by the Board to identify facilities suitable for community partnerships. For unused space in

schools that are not declared surplus, the CPP outlines criteria for selecting schools for community partnerships.

Surplus space identified and offered for sale or lease will continue to follow the circulation process outlined in

Ontario Regulation 444/98.

Opportunities for Sharing Unused Space in Schools

In determining suitable facilities for community partnerships, the following criteria was applied, as stated in

Section 3.5 of the CPP policy:

a) Projected 200 or more excess pupil places and/or 60% utilization or less for 2 years;

b) Ability to identify and create distinct and contiguous space within a facility, separate from the students;

c) Space not required for Board programming or other uses;

d) Appropriate access to space;

e) Parking availability;

f) Zoning and site use restrictions;

g) Facility condition; and,

h) Other criteria as appropriate.

An analysis was conducted based on data from the recently approved LTAP and the application of the above

mentioned criteria to identify open and operating schools with unused space that present opportunities for

community partnerships. Based on the criteria, 7 elementary schools and 6 secondary schools are suitable for

community partnerships. These schools are listed below with the year of availability indicated in parentheses.

Additional details regarding individual schools are provided in Appendix 1.

Elementary Schools:

Aldershot School (2016). The secondary portion does not meet Criteria a.

Frontenac PS (2016)

Oakwood PS (2016)

Ryerson PS (2016)

Paul A. Fisher PS (2017)

Pineview PS (2017)

Tecumseh PS (2017)

Secondary Schools:

Burlington Central HS (2016). The elementary portion does not meet Criteria a.

Lester B. Pearson HS (2016)

M.M. Robinson HS (2016)

Nelson HS (2016)

Robert Bateman HS (2016)

T.A. Blakelock HS (2016)

Expressions of interest will be received by the Board and evaluated based on the Partner Selection Criteria outlined

in Section 3.6 of the CPP policy.

Surplus Space in Schools

Schools with surplus space being offered for sale or lease follow the circulation process outlined in O. Reg. 444/98.

At this time, no schools have been identified to have surplus space.

85

Report 16095 page 3

Co-build Opportunities

In addition to unused space in open and operating schools, opportunities exist for community partnerships in the

form of co-builds for new schools as well as schools expected to undergo additions and significant renovations.

The 2015/2016 LTAP proposes 6 capital projects in Halton from 2018 to 2020. The proposed capital projects are

all new schools and listed below with the year of impact in parentheses. Details of the capital projects are presented

in Appendix 2. It should be noted that timing of these capital projects are contingent on Ministry funding, site

acquisition and issuance of municipal approvals and building permits.

Elementary Schools:

Milton SW #10 ps (2018/2019)

Oakville NE #2 ps (2018/2019)

Milton SW #11 ps (2020/2021)

Oakville SW #1 ps (Subject to a Program and Accommodation Review)

Secondary Schools:

Milton SW #1 hs (2019/2020)

Oakville NE #1 hs (2020/2021)

Another co-build opportunity is with respect to a proposed new Board Administrative Centre, which is currently

being studied. The projected size of the new facility is approximately 95,000 sq .ft , while the timing is still to be

determined.

As per the CPP policies, the Board will notify interested partners 1 to 3 years prior to the potential construction

start date of a new school or significant addition. This will also be supported by a Board resolution inviting

expressions of interest, as stated in Section 3.4 of the CPP policy. In addition, any deadlines relating to student

accommodation needs or funding parameters will be made clear to community partners as information becomes

available.

Conclusion

Based on the 2015/2016 LTAP, 6 new projects have been identified in Halton from 2018 to 2021. As well, there a

proposed new Board Administrative Centre is another project identified as a co-build opportunity. Eligible

partners can express interest in co-building partnerships to the Board, by way of a letter to the Director of

Education. Co-build opportunities with eligible partners will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the

Board encourages community partners to provide notification to the Board regarding proposals or plans to build

their own new facilities.

Seven (7) elementary schools and six (6) secondary schools were identified as suitable for community partnerships

due to unused space in schools through the criteria stated in the CPP policy.

The annual CPP meeting is tentatively scheduled to take place on June 22, 2016 (7:00 pm), where partners and the

public will be notified of the list of schools and proposed capital projects, and potential opportunities discussed.

With the approval of the identified schools suitable for community partnerships, notifications regarding the date of

the CPP meeting will be circulated to all identified community partners, and it will also be posted in local

newspapers and the Board website.


Lucy Veerman Gerry Cullen

Superintendent of Business Services Superintendent of Facility Services

Appendix 1 – Unused Space in Schools for Community Partnerships

Elementary Schools

School Review Area

Municipality School Org.

OTG Excess Pupil

Places/ Low Util.

Max. No. of Rooms Avail.

Year Avail.

Physical Sep. of Space

Space Req. for

Prog.

Access to

Space

Parking Avail.

Zoning 1

Aldershot School (Elementary)

ERA100 Burlington 7-82 460 Y 9 2016 Y N Y Y R2.1

Frontenac PS ERA103 Burlington JK-8 777 Y 12 2016 Y N Y Y R3.2

Oakwood PS ERA112 Oakville JK-5 360 Y 6 2016 Y N Y Y CU

Paul A. Fisher PS ERA105 Burlington JK-6 305 Y 4 2017 Y N Y Y R3.2

Pineview PS ERA126 Halton Hills JK-5 307 Y 4 2017 Y N Y Y I

Ryerson PS ERA102 Burlington JK-6 527 Y 7 2016 Y N Y Y R3.2

Tecumseh PS ERA102 Burlington JK-8 442 Y 8 2017 Y N Y Y R3.1

Secondary Schools

School Review Area

Municipality School Org.

OTG Excess Pupil

Places (2016)

Util. Rate

(2016)

Year Avail.

Physical Sep. of Space

Space Req. for

Prog.

Access to

Space

Parking Avail.

Zoning 1

Burlington Central HS (Secondary)

SRA100 Burlington 9-122 870 302 65% 2016 Y N Y Y R3.2

Lester B Pearson HS SRA100 Burlington 9-12 642 245 62% 2016 Y N Y Y R3.2

M.M. Robinson HS SRA100 Burlington 9-12 1347 658 51% 2016 Y N Y Y R3.1

Nelson HS SRA100 Burlington 9-12 1341 348 74% 2016 Y N Y Y R2.2

Robert Bateman HS SRA100 Burlington 9-12 1323 522 61% 2016 Y N Y Y R3.1

T.A. Blakelock HS SRA102 Oakville 9-12 1335 226 83% 2016 Y N Y Y CU

Notes 1 See respective municipal zoning by-laws for site use restrictions at each school site. 2 Aldershot School and Burlington Central HS contain a Grades 7-8 elementary portion and Grades 9-12 secondary portion within the same building. Only the portion indicated

meets the criteria for 200 or more excess pupil places and/or 60% or less utilization. The OTG indicated only applies to the respective portions of the building. It should be noted

that elementary and secondary portions of the school are not physically separated within the building; thus, the potential of using areas within other parts of the school for CPP

exists.

Appendix 2 – Proposed Capital Projects Available for Community Partnerships

Capital Project Type of Capital Project School Configuration Review Area Municipality Year of Impact

Milton SW #10 ps New School Elementary ERA127 Milton 2018/2019

Oakville NE #2 ps New School Elementary ERA118 Oakville 2018/2019

Milton SW #1 hs New School Secondary SRA104 Milton 2019/2020

Milton SW #11 ps New School Elementary ERA127 Milton 2020/2021

Oakville NE #1 hs New School Secondary SRA108 Oakville 2020/2021

Oakville SW #1 ps New School Elementary ERA111 Oakville TBD 1

New Board Administrative Centre New Building 2 N/A N/A TBD TBD

Notes

Timing of all capital projects are contingent on Ministry funding, site acquisition and issuance of municipal approvals/building permits. 1 Subject to undertaking a Program and Accommodation Review (PAR). 2 The proposed Administrative Centre will be approximately 95,00 0 sq.ft. GFA

88

Report: 16098

Date: May 26, 2016

FOR DECISION



FROM: S. Miller, Director of Education

RE: Director of Education, Summer Authority

RECOMMENDATION

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board delegate authority during the summer

months of 2016 to the Director of Education with regard to awarding tenders for capital

projects, or other emergent business matters as required.

Be it resolved that the Director of Education report on any capital projects awarded, or other

decisions made through delegated authority, to the Board at the end of Summer 2016.

Rationale:

For the past several years, in the absence of regularly scheduled Board meetings during the

summer months, the Halton District School Board has delegated authority to the Director for

emergent matters. This could include awarding contracts to allow work to continue on capital

projects, potentially avoiding any delay in construction projects.

Staff is recommending the Board authorize the Director of Education to:

Award tenders for projects based on the following::

1. the project is planned and listed in the LTAP;

2. the required funding for the project has been confirmed by the Ministry of Education;

3. the project is within budget;

4. the delay in starting the project could result in a delay in the planned opening.

5. the Director shall notify trustees electronically prior to authorizing any tender approvals.

Make decisions on emergent business, with:

1. timely electronic notification from the Director of Education to trustees.

Any decisions made under this authority will be presented to the Board at the end of the summer.


S. Miller,


89


Date: May 25, 2016

FOR INFORMATION



FROM: David Boag, Associate Director


RE: Ombudsman Process Review

Warrant:

At the Jan 6, 2016 Board Meeting, Board Motion M16-004 was carried unanimously.

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board staff review the current internal processes for public

complaints in light of the Office of the Ombudsman's new mandate to investigate public complaints

regarding school boards and report back to the Board by the end of the 2015-2016 school year.

Background:

Effective September 1, 2015 the Ontario Ombudsman obtained jurisdiction over school boards. In the fall of 2015,

the ombudsman’s office requested a list of procedures the public can access regarding a potential challenge. A list

of several of the Board’s Administrative Procedures were provided and in addition, there has been a commitment

to review these procedures and others as appropriate to ensure there is transparency and clarity for the public with

respect to the process for initiating or escalating a formal complaint. A scan was performed of our existing

Policies, Administrative Procedures, guidelines and other processes to determine areas where potential concerns

might arise from the public and these documents were reviewed by Administrative Council.

Documents Reviewed:

The Ombudsman’s office was contacted regarding the criteria they would apply to administrative processes in the

event of a complaint. Several documents were reviewed using the guiding principles identified through that

conversation:

Is the process clearly communicated, fair and transparent?

Does the process require a dispute resolution mechanism?

Where a dispute resolution mechanism is warranted, is the process clearly outlined in the document, in

legislation or referenced in another board document?

The Board has a general administrative procedure, Dealing With Public Concerns, which would be the default

mechanism for the public to contest a Board decision, failing a more specific mechanism being included in another

procedure. As a result, particular attention was paid to this process.

In addition, several other documents were reviewed including:

Transportation Policy

Growing Success Administrative Procedures

o Cheating and Plagarism

o Late and Missed Assignments

o Reporting Grades for Marks Lower than 50%

Safe and Inclusive Schools Administrative Procedures

o Bullying Prevention and Intervention

o School Climate – Progressive Discipline

o Suspension and Expulsions

o Violence Threat Risk Assessment

o Discrimination and Harassment

Program and Accommodation Review Administrative Procedure

Policy Development and Review Policy

90

Report 16099 page 2

Elementary Optional Attendance Administrative Procedure

Secondary Optional Attendnace Administrative Procedure

Student Dress Code Administrative Procedure

Actions Taken:

Based on the review, a number of actions have occurred:

1. An administrative procedure outlining the process in responding to Ombudsman requests and complaints has

been created (attached).

2. Modifications were made to the Dealing with Public Concerns Administrative Procedure (attached).

3. A link to the HSTS Appeal Procedure is suggested for inclusion in the Transportation Policy.

4. The Growing Success administrative procedure (currently in revision) will be updated to include a process of

appeal for students/parents/guardians.

5. Minor editing of other administrative procedures, guidelines and processes to provide clarity for the public has

been completed.

Based on this review and the actions taken, there appears to be clear processes in place for members of the broader

school board community to raise issues, concerns or initiate complaints. As new policies, administrative

procedures, guidelines, etc. are developed, they will be reviewed to ensure clarity and transparency and where a

dispute resolution mechanism is warranted, that the process is clearly outlined.


D. Boag S. Miller

Associate Director Director of Education

91

Halton District School Board Administrative Procedure

Topic: Ombudsman Requests and Responses to Complaints

Effective: June 2016

Cross-Reference: Public Sector and MPP Accountability and Transparency Act, 2014

Halton DSB Admin Procedure: Dealing With Public Concerns

Revision Date: September 2017

Responsibility: Associate Director of Education

INTENDED PURPOSE:

The Halton District School Board is committed to providing cooperative and timely responses to issues

identified by the Ontario Ombudsman as they relate to the processes followed by the Board.

PROCEDURES

Issues or concerns identified by the Ontario Ombudsman will be forwarded to the Associate Director

as the single point of contact for these matters.

The Associate Director will involve senior staff as required to investigate Board processes, (including

policies, procedures and practices), in order to provide the Ombudsman with the appropriate

information in response to the Ombudsman’s identified area of concern.

If further investigation is required, the Associate Director in consultation with the appropriate senior

staff will follow up on the identified concerns raised by the Ombudsman, and report back to the Office

of the Ombudsman.

Should the Ombudsman issue a report or recommendations regarding the Board’s processes, the

Associate Director in consultation with the senior administrative team will review the report and/or

recommendations, and refer the matter to the appropriate area for response. For example, matters

dealing with Policy will comply with the Board’s “Policy Development and Review Policy”;

administrative procedures will be reviewed by senior administrative team and presented to the Board

for information; practices will be reviewed by the various departments in consultation with the

respective superintendents.

An annual information report will be provided to the Halton District School Board of Trustees in

September each year, summarizing issues or concerns identified by the Ombudsman relating to the

Halton District School Board.

92

Halton District School Board Administrative Procedure

TOPIC: Dealing with Public Concerns

EFFECTIVE: September 2016

CROSS-REFERENCE:

REVISION DATE: September 2018

RESPONSIBILITY: Director of Education

INTENDED PURPOSE:

It is the practice of the Halton District School Board that public concerns and questions should be dealt with at

the level closest to the issue. Therefore, the following procedures have been set out to help members of the

public, staff and trustees expeditiously deal with questions and/or concerns. This procedure does not supersede or

apply to any other administrative procedure where an escalation process is separately identified and/or defined.

PROCEDURES

Students/Parents/Guardians should follow the following guidelines for addressing questions or concerns.

1. Where a parent/guardian has a concern about his/her child’s classroom or program, the issue should be

addressed with the teacher.

2. Should the parent/guardian not be satisfied by the teacher’s response, then the parent/guardian should

address the concern to the school principal.

3. Should the parent/guardian not be satisfied with the principal’s response, then the parent/guardian

should address the concern to the Superintendent responsible for the school.

4. If the Superintendent is unable to satisfactorily resolve the matter, the parent/guardian should address

the concern to the Associate Director, who may then consult with the Director of Education on the

matter.

5. If the Associate Director/Director of Education is unable to resolve the issue, then the parent/guardian

may ask his/her trustee to meet with the Director of Education to attempt to bring closure to the matter.

Members of the public should follow the following guidelines for addressing questions or concerns

1. If a member of the public has a concern regarding the operation of a specific school, it should be

addressed to:

a. the Principal responsible for that school; or

b. should the Principal not be able to resolve the matter, the issue should be directed to the

Superintendent responsible for that school.

2. A concern regarding a physical plant (school/building) should be addressed to the Superintendent of

Facility Services.

3. A concern regarding Board finance should be addressed to the Superintendent of Business Services.

4. A concern regarding health and safety or staff should be addressed to the Executive Officer of Human

Resources.

5. If the Superintendent(s)/Executive Officer is unable to satisfactorily resolve the matter, concerns may be

addressed to the Associate Director who may then consult with the Director of Education on the matter.

6. Where a member of the public has a concern about a matter relating to the decisions of the Board of

Trustees, the issue should be addressed with their local trustee. The trustee may redirect the issue to the

Director, depending on the nature of the issue, and may choose to follow-up on the issue with the member

of the public.

How to Resolve Issues and Concerns

Classroom Concern?START HERE

Contact Teacher Concern Resolved?

NO

NO

School Concern?START HERE

Contact Principal

Trustee

Concern Resolved?

Board or Community Concern?

START HERE

Concerned about a Board of

Trustees’ decision?START HERE

Contact appropriate Superintendent

For assistance with this process: Toll-free: 1-877-618-3456 • Tel.: 905-335-3665 • Email: [email protected]

Find your Trustee and/or Superintendent on your school’s website or at www.hdsb.ca

Concern not Resolved?

Concern not Resolved?

Call Director’s Office


Date: May 26, 2016

FOR DECISION



FROM: Stuart Miller, Director of Education

Kelly Amos, Chair of the Board, Oakville Trustee Wards 5 & 6

RE: Halton District School Board Multi-Year Plan

Warrant

Ontario’s school boards are required by legislation to develop and have in place a multi-year plan for three or

more years. According to Section 169.1 of the Ontario Education Act, multi-year plans must be aimed at

achieving the following goals:

promoting student achievement and well-being;

ensuring effective stewardship of the board’s resources; and

delivering effective and appropriate education programs to its pupils.

The plan must cover three or more years with annual reviews of progress and opportunities to update the plan.

The current plan ends in 2016, necessitating the development of a new multi-year plan for the system.

The Board of Trustees, Senior Administrative staff and community stakeholders have been actively involved

since March, under the facilitation of former Director of Education David Euale. The team reviewed the

previous Multi-Year Plan: its Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals.

RECOMMENDATION:

Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board approve the Mission, Vision and Values as

well as Goals outlined in the 2016-17 Multi-Year Plan, (Report 16102).

Background

Beginning in March 2016, the Board of Trustees and Administrative Council launched the development of the

new Multi-Year Plan. The process started with an invitation to key educational stakeholders to review the

current plan, and determine areas for continuation and/or growth. Trustees considered the community input,

and a review of potential gaps and challenges the Board may face in upcoming years, before working with

senior staff to refine the Mission Statement, Vision and Values. Further consultation was sought with

community partners on the revised draft, and trustees considered that input in finalizing the statements for

approval.

A series of strategic goals were also established with senior staff and trustees reviewing them to ensure a fit

with the mission, vision and values, and the input received from the consultation sessions. These goals will

form the basis for targets and strategies for the annual Operational Plan

The following statements represent the consensus of the Board of Trustees and Administrative Council for the

Halton District School Board’s new Mission, Vision and Values as part of its Multi-Year Plan.

Respectfully submitted

Kelly Amos Stuart Miller

Chair, Trustee Oakville Wards 5 & 6 Director of Education

Appendix A

Mission: Together we inspire every student to learn, grow and succeed.

Vision: Every student will explore and enhance their potential, passions and strengths to thrive as contributing global citizens.

Values: As a learning organization our actions will be guided by our values….

Accountability

Collaboration

Creativity

Empathy

Equity

Integrity

Goals: (upon approval by the Board, these goals will form the basis for targets for the annual Operational Plan.

From the Operational Plan, the Board Improvement Plan for Student Achievement (BIPSA) will be developed.

From the BIPSA, schools develop School Improvement Plans for Student Achievement (SIPSA).

STUDENTS STAFF SYSTEM

ENGAGEMENT

and

ACHIEVEMENT

Every student will be socially

engaged in their school and

intellectually engaged in their

learning.

All staff will contribute to

collaborative and inclusive learning

environments to enhance innovative

practices and build a strong learning

organization.

We will engage stakeholders using

strategies to build relationships

and enhance confidence in our

public education system.

STEWARDSHIP

and

RESOURCES

Every student will be supported by

research-based instructional

strategies, resources and

interventions differentiated to their

strengths and needs.

All staff will use data to inform

actions, validate decision-making and

allocate resources.

We will provide and maintain

facilities as safe, accessible and

engaging learning environments.

We will optimize resources and

technology through innovative and

creative opportunities and

partnerships.

EQUITY

and

WELL-BEING

Every student will learn in an

inclusive and caring environment

that promotes their well-being.

Every student will learn in a

respectful culture of high

expectations that values diversity,

and will see themselves reflected in

their learning.

All staff will engage in learning and

model a culture of equity, inclusion

and student well-being.

We will engage the organization in

furthering a culture of respect

including students, staff, families

and community.

We will update our approach to

student accommodation to reflect

the changing needs within our

communities.