Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
Funding Model Schools and Inner-City programsFunding Model Schools and Inner-City programs
How does equity-based funding work at the TDSB?
How are its equalizing effects threatened?
What is the impact of private fund-raising?
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
Equity-based funding - Three acronyms
1. LOG: Learning Opportunities GrantLearning Opportunities Grant, from province to Boards
2. LOI: Learning Opportunities IndexLearning Opportunities Index - gives a value to each school based on the social and economic characteristics of its population associated with risks of academic difficulties.
3. LOS: Learning Opportunities SupplementLearning Opportunities Supplement - an amount given to each school for program support based on the LOI
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
PART 1. The LOG and the TDSB
1. The LOG described by the Ministry
2. Amounts of the LOG allocated to TDSB, last ten years
3. TDSB enrolments, Ministry figures, last ten years
4. Per-pupil amounts of the LOG for the TDSB, last ten years
The Learning Opportunities Grant (LOG)How is it calculated?
The largest portion of LOG funding … is flowed through the Demographic Allocation, which provides funding based on social and economic indicators that have been associated with a higher risk of academic difficulties.
(MoE - Technical Paper, 2011-2012)
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
The LOG - Why is it allocated?
The Demographic Allocation supports boards in offering a wide range of programs to improve the educational achievement of these students. Examples of programs include breakfast programs, homework clubs, reading recovery, and resource withdrawal.
(MoE - Technical Paper, 2011-2012
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
The LOG
Can Boards decide freely how to spend it?
Boards have considerable latitude in determining the kinds of programs and supports that they provide with this funding.
(MoE - Technical Paper, 2011-2012)
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
The unbroken paragraph
The Demographic Allocation supports boards in offering a wide range of programs to improve the educational achievement of these students. Examples of programs include breakfast programs, homework clubs, reading recovery, and resource withdrawal. Boards have considerable latitude in determining the kinds of programs and supports that they provide with this funding.
(MoE - Technical Paper, 2011-2012
Ontario’s Learning Opportunities Grants to TDSB
from 2002-2003 to 2011-2012
LOG year by year to TDSB (millions of dollars)
73
122
150 153
125 130 134 133 139 143
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Total TDSB enrolment as reported to Ministry of Education
from 2002-2003 to 2011-2012
Ministry-reported enrolments for TDSB
270602261786 256503 252771 248591 244130 241092 239593 238740 237458
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Learning Opportunities Grant expressed on a gross per-pupil basis
at the TDSB from 2002-2003 to 2011-2012
LOG per TDSB pupil (elementary & secondary combined)
$270
$465
$586 $605
$504 $531 $555 $555$583 $602
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Learning Opportunities Grants
Revenue and Model-School Expenditures
TDSB 2011-2012
LOG revenues and expenditures in the TDSB 2011-12
143
1830
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
LOG revenue Model Schools expenditure Total MSIC + LOI other
Am
ount
(m
illi
ons)
Learning Opportunities Supplement
1. Allocated annually to school budgets and posted on each school’s website
2. Available for program support, not staffing
3. Allocated on a per-pupil basis, weighted by the Learning Opportunities Index
4. % of total school budgets: about 3.5% elementary, about 2.5% secondary
5. Not directed to any particular program; Principal has discretionary power
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
Distribution of LOS for Program Supportto TDSB Elementary Schools by LOI Range
2011-2012 in thousands of $
Learning Opportunities Supplement (LOS)Board-wide distribution - Elementary Schools
$1,181
$590
$190
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
All MSIC (LOI 1-150) LOI: 300+
Schools by Learning Opportunities Index (LOI) range
LO
S a
mou
nt (
thou
sand
s)
Distribution of LOS for Program Supportto TDSB Secondary Schools by LOI Range
2011-2012 in thousands of $
Learning Opportunities Supplement (LOS)
586
381
54
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
All MS range LOI 71 +
Schools by Learning Opportunities Index (LOI) range
LO
S (t
hous
ands
)
PART 2. Private fund-raising for TDSB Schools
1. Arms’ length fundraising for students in need:
– Toronto Foundation for Student Success (TFSS)
– Toronto Educational Opportunity Fund (TEOF)
2. TDSB central fund (Business Development)
3. School-based fundraising for school program support
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
Private Fundraising in TDSB Schools
as reported to Canada Revenue Agency and Ministry of Education
2009-2011
Private fundraising for TDSB schools (millions)
$12.00
$0.14 $1.40
$44.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
TFSS 2011 TEOF 2010 TDSB Central2011
School-based 2009
Source (Canada Revenue Agency and Ministry of Education date)
School Budgets (SB) for Program Support
1. Impact of Learning Opportunities Supplement (LOS)
2. Impact of all School-Based Fundraising
3. Impact of Fundraising by Parent Councils/Foundations
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
School Budgets (SB) for Program Support
1. Comparing School Budgets per pupil for elementary Model Schools or the equivalent LOI ranked secondary schools and the rest
2. Comparing School Budgets per pupil for schools with highest need with schools with schools with least need
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
1. Model Schools or equivalent compared to the rest
– Elementary Model Schools ranked 1-150 (LOI 0.75 or higher)
• K-5/6 (89 Model Schools and 182 others) • K-8 (33 Model Schools and 18 others)• Not included are schools that have no kindergarten or primary grades
– Secondary School ranked with a LOI of 0.75 or higher
• Selected secondary schools (20 comparable to Model Schools and 59 others)• Not included are alternative and special schools
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
K-5/6: Model Schools--All Schools--Non-Model Schools
Impact of Learning Opportunity Supplementand School-based Fundraising on School Budgets
by Broad LOI Category:K-5 and K-6 schools in TDSB 2009-2010
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
SB before LOS SB SB + all fundraising SB + parent fundraising
Funding Mix
Per
-pu
pil
am
oun
ts
Model School range (LOI 1-150) n=89
All K-5/6 Schools n=271
Other Schools (LOI 151-475) n=182
K-8: Model Schools--All Schools--Non-Model Schools
Impact of Learning Opportunity Supplementand School-based Fundraising on School Budgets
by Broad LOI Category:K-8 schools in TDSB 2009-2010
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
SB before LOS SB SB + all fundraising SB + parent fundraising
Funding Mix
Per
-pup
il am
ount
s
Model School range (LOI 1-150) n=33
All K-8 Schools n=113
Schools outside MS range (LOI 151-475) n=80
Secondary: LOI over 0.75--All Schools--LOI Under 0.75
Impact of Learning Opportunity Supplementand School-based Fundraising
on School Budgets by Broad LOI Category:Secondary schools in TDSB 2009-2011
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
SB without LOS SB net SB + all fundraising
Funding Mix
Per
-pu
pil
amou
nts
In Model School range (LOI 0.75+) n=20
All Secondary Schools n=79
Outside Model School range (LOI under 0.75) n=59
2. Schools with most need compared to the least disadvantaged
– Elementary Schools ranked highest and lowest on the LOI
• K-5/6 (30 and 47)• K-8 (9 and 13)• Not included are schools that have no kindergarten or primary grades
– Secondary ranked ranked highest and lowest on the LOI
• Selected secondary schools (10 and 10) • Not included are alternative and special schools
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012
K-5/6: Highest Need--All Schools--Lowest Need
Impact of Learning Opportunity Supplementand School-based Fundraising on School Budgets (SB)
by Extremes of LOI Category:K-5 and K-6 schools in TDSB 2009-2010
0
100
200
300
400
500
SB before LOS SB SB + all fundraising SB + parent fundraising
Funding Mix
Per
-pup
il am
ount
s
Schools highest on LOI (1-50) n=30
All K-5/6 Schools n=271
Schools lowest on LOI (400-475) n=47
K-8: Highest Need--All Schools--Lowest Need
Impact of Learning Opportunity Supplementand School-based Fundraising on School Budgets
by Extremes of LOI Category:K-8 schools in TDSB 2009-2010
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
SB before LOS SB SB + all fundraising SB + parentfundraising
Funding Mix
Per-
pupi
l am
ount
s
Schools with most need (LOI 1-50) n=9
All K-8 Schools n=113
Schools with least need (LOI 400-475) n=13
Secondary: Highest Need (10)--All Schools--Lowest Need (10)
Impact of Learning Opportunity Supplementand School-based Fundraising on School
Budgets by Extremes of LOI Category:
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
SB without LOS SB net SB + all fundraising
Funding Mix
Per
-pu
pil
amou
nts
Highest need on LOI n=10
All Secondary Schools n=79
Lowest need on LOI n=10
Conclusions
1. TDSB uses only a small proportion of the LOG for intended purposes
2. The equalizing effects of Model-School and LOI-sensitive funding in the TDSB are wiped out by private fund-raising
3. There is no justification for cuts to Model Schools and LOI-sensitive funding as long as conclusions 1 and 2 are true
Inner City Advisory CommitteeInner City Advisory CommitteeSeptember 12, 2012September 12, 2012