Changes to Educational Finance in Ontario 2000

8/14/2019 Changes to Educational Finance in Ontario 2000

1/21

Changes to Education Finance in Ontario

copyright 2000

Part I : Introduction

"The Harris Conservatives came into office with an agenda to turn our

education system inside out and upside down. They intentionally created

a crisis. And in Oct 97 with Bill 160, they sparked a political protest by

teachers, supported by parents and students, the like of which has never

been seen in Ontario. Students, parents and teachers are reeling from

chaos that never seems to end."NDP Fact Sheet on Bill 160, 1997

From Boom, Bust to Echo.

Over the last 30 years, Ontario's spending patterns in education have changed in response to thedemands of society. In the late 1960's, early 1970's, education spending was 1/3 of the provincialbudget, as compared to 1/5 spent on health care. In the early 1970's the baby boom generationrequired more classrooms than ever before. By 1975, the Province paid 60% of all educationalcosts.

During the baby bust beginning in the 1980's, when costs relating to oil and gas, heating,maintenance, inflation and wages increased, the spending from the province remained static.During the baby boom echo which began filling up elementary schools in 1991, the provincialshare was approximately 40% of expenditures. The rest was raised through local taxation.

In 1995, the situation had been reversed, health spending was 1/3 of the overall budget, whileeducation was 1/5 or 16% of the total provincial budget. During this period the largest growthsector in Provincial spending was debt payments which in 1995 also took approximately 16% ofthe total provincial budget. The same percentage spent on education.

Delegation of Power

In terms of trends within the institutional framework of Ontario's educational system, theMinistry of Education is now responsible for what was once divided up into many separateMinistries, such as the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the Ministry of Skills, and the

Ministry of Education. Streamlining these portfolio's into just one Ministry of Education andTraining was done over a period of time under the rubric of administrative convenience.

TheEducation Act, R.S.O.,[1990] (hereinafterE.A.1990.)gives the Ministry virtually unlimitedpower to regulate in the matter of education in infinite detail. School boards are not independentcreatures but are created by the Education Act, and thereby bound by law to carry out the will ofthe Minister. (s.58.1 Ed. Act)


2/21

The Ministry of Education and Training has the duties outlined in s.2 of theE.A.1990.

S.2(2) E.A.1990 : The Minister "shall preside over and have charge of the Ministry."

S.2(3) E.A. : The Minister of Education "is responsible for the administration of the Act and the

regulations .. . as may be assigned to the Minister by the Lieutenant in Council

s. 2(4) : "The Minister may in writing authorized the Deputy Minister or any other officer oremployee in the Ministry to exercise any power or perform any duty that is granted to or vestedin the Minister under this or any other Act."

Part II : History of Funding Formula.

In 1894, municipalities were given the right to raise revenue from tax onproperty and local levies to help establish schools. In 1907, the

government first began to pay a sliding scale of grants based on localability to raise money, and in 1924, the government decided to use theamount of property assessment as the measure of local wealth. (FN35)

Origins of Old Model

In 1964, the Minister of Education implemented the Ontario Foundation Tax Plan which basedthe cost of education on a model school program. These costs were estimated from actual costs insample boards across Ontario. The province set a mill rate that had to be levied by all boards andthen provided grants to bring all boards up to the foundation level or "grant ceiling." (the average

per pupil cost.)

Every year a basic per pupil amount would be declared as well as a standard mill rate necessaryto raise the recognised ordinary expenditure per pupil or R.O.E. of a board from local residentialand commercial property assessments. Boards could increase this mill rate to raise additionalfunds. The municipalities collected the taxes on behalf of the boards. School boards in wealthyassessment communities could raise more money per mill than poorer assessed municipalities.Therefore the local revenue generated did not supply the funds necessary to support the ceilingamount of a great many students, especially in rural communities.

To remedy this disparity, the Province provided a basic per pupil grant that would close any gaps

between the amount raised locally by the provincial mill rate and the expenditure ceiling.Responding to local community pressure, boards who wanted to spend over the ceiling couldorder additional funds for educational programs and services by directing the municipality toraise the mill rate.

Boards with strong commercial and industrial assessment bases were able to generate moremoney with fewer mills. Some boards spending went well beyond the ceiling without having totax a higher rate at all, while other boards' local tax base wouldn't even support the expenditure


3/21

ceiling.

The Ottawa Board of Education had almost twice the provincial average of per pupil propertyassessment wealth, while Metro Toronto had more than twice the provincial average.

The Ministry also provided additional grant allocations to take into account such board specificfactors as sparsity of population, distance from an urban centre, the need to maintain smallschools, and provide for programs such as Special Education, French as a Second Language andInternational Languages.

By allowing boards to spend funds beyond the grant ceiling, as long as the money was raisedfrom local taxes, the government acknowledged local needs; at the same time, however, this builtin a continuing source of spending inequity across boards.

The Historical Process of School Board Budgets

1. Assess potential revenues from property taxes.2. Establish program priorities. (80% of school board spending is in salaries)3. Guesstimate probable GLG revenue from province.4. Set budget and determine allocations.5. Send tax requisition to municipal city hall. (board adjusted mill rate)6. Hope that guesstimate was reasonably accurate.7. Hope tax payers are willing to pay and to reelect.

Regulations Made Under the Act

School boards assessments do not usually compare net expenditures, but rather use expendituresbased on "cost of operating." This cost is the amount a board would charge in tuition fees forstudents who do not reside within its boundaries but whom the board is educating. (FN30)

Elementary and secondary education funding has always been governed by General LegislativeGrant Regulations (GLG Regs.). Today as in the past, these regulations authorized the Ministerto distribute funds to school boards and set conditions for distribution.

Funding for 1995

Each year the province would establish a dollar amount per pupil which represented the cost ofproviding a base level of education for a student. This amount was reviewed each year to reflectchanges in costs.

In 1995, for elementary this amount was $3,795 per pupil and $4,803 per pupil for secondary.Added to this amount was support for special education programs, and pooling amounts.

In 1995, the special education amount was $293 per elementary pupil and $217 per secondarypupil.


4/21

Added together the basic per pupil amount for elementary students was $4,184 and $5,116 forsecondary pupils. This basic per pupil amount was then multiplied by board enrolment numbersto arrive at the recognised ordinary expenditure per pupil or R.O.E. of a board.

The Mill Rate

A mill represents $1 of tax for every $1000 of property assessment; i.e. a property assessed at$100,000 with a mill rate of 25 will attract taxes of $2,500. Local taxation was raised by levyinga mill rate on the assessed value of real property according to :

Amount = M.R./1000 * E.A.

Where amount is amount of $ raisedM.R. = mill rateE.A. = equalized local assessment. (compensation for undervalued assessed property). All taxesassessed on nominal value for real properties.

Relevant Educational Reports

Education funding has been reviewed in numerous commission studies and other governmentreports over the past fifty years.

The Hope Report1950

TheHope Report1950, acknowledged the tradition of local autonomy and recognized the needfor greater decentralization of administration and supervision in educational institutions. Localinvolvement in education is appropriate to ensure there is flexibility and autonomy to respond tolocal needs and preferences. The report also recommends more special education funding andprogramming. (Hope Report, 1959) p.380

The Macdonald Commission Report1985

The Macdonald Commission Report1985, recommended to continue per-pupil grants for specialeducation programs and services, conditional upon annual approval by the Ministry of Educationor a Program Review Committee; that appropriate costing, accounting and reporting mechanismsbe developed for special educational programs and services; that the Ministry of Educationcontinue to fund, on an individual program approval basis, specific special education programsand services provided by school boards. (E.A.P.E.1999)

The Royal Commission on Learning,For the Love of Learning, 1994

The Royal Commission on Learning, 1994, concluded that there were several sources of inequityin the previous funding system.

For example, relating to commercial and industrial revenue,


5/21

"There is a difference in the way some commercial and industrial revenue is determined and whoreceives it. For example: ... "A pulpandpaper company in the area covered by the Red LakeBoard of Education pays stumpage fees for the trees it cuts, not taxes on the land on which thetrees are cut. The fee is paid to the Province of Ontario, not directly to the local school board,..."

This was the equivalent of an educational tax exemption.

As well, tax revenue from corporate head offices supported inequity,

"Commercial and industrial revenue is often generated in one place but paid to a municipality inanother. ... For instance, major corporate head offices tend to be clustered in a few large urbanareas, while corporate income comes from across the province."

The Commission also recognized inequity in the funding scheme between public and separateboards. In the collection of taxes,

"People who for various reasons do not specifically direct their taxes to the separate school boardare assumed to be public school supporters. ... This is done under what is known as the 'defaultprovision', and has generally resulted in public school boards getting more than their share ofproperty taxes..."

Each resident can elect to support a local Roman Catholic or French board with their residentialproperty tax. If a resident does not indicate a separate board there is a presumption that themoney is to go to the public board in the municipality..

The Province declined to change this built in inequity with the EQIA, 1997. True equity couldnot have been the motivation for change behind the financing of educational in light of the factthat many recommendations were ignored which were designed to achieve equitable goals, suchas the tradition of commercial pooling which was finally eliminated by theEQIA 1997.

Commercial and industrial property taxes for education are levied under the discretion of theMinister of Finance and are set at different levels for different districts. The reforms eliminatedcommercial pooling funding strategies that attempted to address this inequity.

Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force, final Report, 1996.

This task force represented the Progressive Conservative position on education in Ontario. "Thecurrent economic and social climate reinforces our opinion (The Ministry recommends), thatthe level of education programs and services we have been enjoying cannot be maintained underour present governance and funding systems. If we dont change both these systems, our abilityto education our children will be threatened." Final Report p.18.

The panel noted that school boards are required by law to provide special education programsand services.

The reasoning of the Harris Revolution relies on the fact that our educational system cannot be


6/21

supported and it lacks funding. This recognition requires a change to the governance and fundingsystems threatened by the PC policies. Therefore, the system must change and become better.Not only must PC's stop increasing money spent on education, they must also subtract additionalmoney to support other political interests.

Part III : Student Focused Funding, A New Delivery Model

Under the direction of the Harris Progressive Conservatives, thefinancing of elementary and secondary schooling has undergonesignificant structural and substantive changes since 1 January 1998.Changes to theEducation Act, (hereinafterE.A.1990) andaccompanying regulations created a sudden and drastic shortfall offunding that undermined existing special education programs and

services considered adequate, necessary, and effective by the expert staffof the Ottawa Carlton District School Board.

The Purpose of the New Model

In January 1997, the Legislature of Ontario began a series of reforms resulting in new provisionsfor funding municipal services, including education finance reforms. In May, 1997, the provincecut the education portion of residential property taxes in half, from $5 Billion to $2.5 Billion,with the province taking on a greater share of the costs of education. In Dec. 1997, thegovernment announced that the Minister of Finance would set a uniform tax rate for the portionof the residential taxes that continued to go towards education.

The reduction of 2.5 billion in residential property taxes for education (FN36) providedmunicipalities with opportunity to tax in order to fund new local downloaded services, includingsocial housing, police, water and sewers, public health, municipal and Go Transit, and landambulances. Overall, the government will gain money in this transfer, and this is the realmotivation for changing property tax assessment regulations.

Minister John Snobelen announced in January of 1997 that school boards lacked accountabilityfor spending habits and that residential property taxpayers shouldn't be expected to pay spiralingeducation taxes set by school boards. He attributed rising education costs to excessive indulgencein perks and opulent administrative centres. (FN39)

The Ontario government began reform of our children's educational system with the enactmentof Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, in force 24 April 1997, which changed thestructure and organization of every school board in the province, including the addition of 9 newFrench-language boards. The Act reduced the total number of school boards from 129 to 72resulting in an estimated savings of $150 M.(FN89) The number of school-board trustees woulddecline from about 1,900 to 700. Trustee remuneration was limited to $5,000. (Paquette)


7/21

As a result of Bill 104, the Ottawa Board of Education and the Carleton Board of Educationamalgamated and became the OttawaCarleton District School Board (O.C.D.S.B.).

The common sense revolution continued with Bill 160, The Education Quality Improvement Act(E.Q.I.A. 1997) in force 8 December 1997.

The Minister sets a standard provincial mill rate for residential property taxes and proscribes amultiple of mill rates for various municipal business property taxes levied throughout theprovince for educational purposes. TheE.Q.I.A. 1997 allows the Minister of Finance to set taxrates for residential and business properties in the province of Ontario, effectively eliminating theparticipation of local school board trustees from setting tax rates which maintain existing specialeducation programs and services in O.C.D.S.B.

Bill 160's formal purpose was in the words of John Snobelen, "to set standards for quality. Thesestandards would include the amount of instructional time, length of the school year, and enhancestudent access to professionals with the special expertise they need."

Legislative Context.

Relative to the size of Bill 160 (two hundred plus pages) and its complexity, the governmentallowed only four weeks for discussion. Often major pieces of legislation are preceded by awhite or green paper that outline the issues and options and that invites public discussion. Bill160 had no such papers, and its public discussion was truncated. Only about 50 or the 217amendments had been debated at the time of closure.

Bill 104 established the Education Improvement Commission which was to oversee the transitionprocess and its recommendations were gathered in the report called, "The Road Ahead." Many oftheir recommendations were incorporated into Bill 160. The Report found a need to address theever expanding demands upon the system in a time when enrolments are increasing.The RoadAhead recommends giving boards the flexibility they need to delivery programs effectively. TheReport placed importance "on the need to give boards more flexibility in their programmedelivery and school organization, while ensuring that educational quality is maintained orenhanced. The Commission believes that such programmes are the key to addressing the everexpanding demands upon the system.

InE.A.P.E. 1999 Lawrence Greenspon identifies the issue as, "How can we take funding awayfrom school boards like Ottawa-Carleton and Metro Toronto, yet expect to maintain servicewhen demand is increasing?"

StudentFocused Approach to Funding

In 1997, the total provincial budget for education was $12.9 B. This amount increased by $252M for the school year of 19981999. The projected amount for 19992000 is $13,250 M. M.E.T.figures indicate there is an overall projected increase in 19981999 to 19992000 of $133,633,137.Special education envelop funding may increase $37,196,214.Under the new approach, property taxes are still being used to support education. Municipalities


8/21

collect on behalf of the Boards except the Minister of Finance sets a uniform residential tax ratein each municipality. The Minister also sets property tax rates for business properties, businesstax rates vary from one municipality to another. These taxes are then "distributed among theboards in proportion to enrollment as determined and calculated by the Minister". The Ministerbases the calculation of the average daily enrolment under s.2 of the Regulation made under the

Act entitled "Calculation of the A.D.E. for the 19992000 Fiscal Year." Business taxes aredistributed to local boards in proportion to enrolment numbers (S.257.8 Ed.Act) while residentialtaxes are distributed based on intention of resident to support public or separate board. (s.257.9Ed.Act).

Using the new studentfocused approach to funding the Minister determines each board's overallneeds. Every year each school board must submit a financial statement, on a date set by theMinister, containing estimated costs. (s.252 Ed. Act). Local property tax revenues provide part ofthe funding. The additional funding comes from government grants which top up allocations toarrive at the per pupil expenditure base foundation level. The new approach is supposed toprovide more funding for students and teachers in classrooms and less for administrative

purpose. In effect it is the same as the old scheme, except for a new accounting method, and theelimination of commercial pooling. Most boards slightly benefit, except METRO and OCDSB,which incur heavy loses.

Although the new taxation system will equalize the amount of money spent by each school boardon a per pupil basis, it is a disaster for boards in large urban areas such as the OttawaCarletonBoard of Education and the GTA public boards. These large urban boards no longer control thelevers to raise money to support their current spending patterns and student needs. They areobliged to conform to a system that is committed to seriously reducing previous operatingbudgets in order to afford the tax cut dream of PC politicians looking for extended popularity.Before theEQIA, actual funding for students varied widely across Ontario. Today, every schoolboard receives funding allocation based on a standard calculation. In theEQIA along with thetwoFair Municipal Finance Acts, the government claims to make property taxes fairer and moreconsistent across the province. With these changes, owners of residential properties with thesame assessed value would pay the same education property tax, no matter where the property islocated. (FN36) Even though the Ministry recognizes that different needs must be accordeddifferent treatment

The province recognizes that each board will have different and unique needs, just as they realizethat different students will have different needs and require different educational programs.Therefore, each board should have the flexibility to decide how to use funding and meet localpriorities. Yet there is a limit to this flexibility.

School boards can no longer raise additional revenue from local property taxes but they can raisemoney through other means if they choose. The situation is such that between public andseparate residential tax assessment the funding is determined by competition of votes. Separateschool share is determined through participation in the taxation period, in the shadow of thepublic board collection. Residential taxes are not collected, appropriated, and distributed in aninequitable manner, only if the tax payer indicates on the form to direct their residential tax to theseparate board do they get funding.


9/21

Business taxes are distributed equally but only within the area of the collecting municipality, asbetween municipalities business tax is not shared equally. Overall, business tax assessmentallows for spending inequity between regional school boards depending on their commercial andindustrial base, but distributed equally to boards within the region. Residential tax is still

distributed inequitable after the changes as between public and separate school boards.Residential property with the same assessed value would pay the same education property tax, nomatter where the property is located, however the distribution of the funds remains inequitable.

The New Model

Foundation Grant

Basic funding starts with the Foundation grant. The grant is allocated to school boards on a perstudent basis. The Cabinet determines the basic cost for providing an education program to astudent for one school year. The foundation grant is calculated by multiplying the average daily

enrolment by the per pupil basic cost.

The Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force Report 1996 and the Minister's AdvisoryCouncil on Special Education 199697 both recommended that the province establish a new"realistic" level for the recognized ordinary expenditure because the last actual cost sampling toestablish a baseline was done as part of the Ontario Foundation Tax Plan 1964. We have yet todetermine exactly what criteria is applied to determine the per pupil basic cost.

The basic cost for the school year of 19992000 in elementary is $3367, and $3,953 forsecondary.

According to the Ministry, the Foundation Grant does not include the additional costs associatedwith a student's special needs. Yet it does cover classroom spending such as classroom teachers,teacher assistants, textbooks and learning materials, classroom supplies, classroom computers,library and guidance services, professional and paraprofessional support ( psychologists, speechtherapists, social workers, child/youth workers.) The Foundation Grant also covers non-classroom spending such as teacher prep time, and teacher consultants.

Current staffing levels can be cut under a variety of categories. The new job description given tospecial education professional staff is that of a consultant, they operate in the classroom inconjunction with the teacher on a consultation basis. To this extent the Student Focused FundingModel provides the incentive to cut special education staff which is money not spent on a non-

classroom expense. (FN 18)

For example teacher assistants (in JK K), speech therapists, and child/youth workers can befunded by the Foundation Grant as a non-classroom expense. The staff described by theMinistry is also capable of being funded by the S.E.P.P.A. grant, or the ISA grant. Thiscategorization is allows the same jobs to be funded by two different envelopes. ISA fundsattaches to the student, allocations from the Foundation Grant are discouraged by the Ministry ina non-classroom category.


10/21

Currently, all ISA funding is frozen until the Ministry finishes it's review of current ISA claims.In the recent past, O.C.D.S.B.'s psychologists, speech therapists, social workers, and child/youthworkers were there to provide support for special need students in programs designed to meettheir needs. Yet today, unless your claim for ISA funding was received in the first operating year

of 1998-99 and subsequently approved you may not apply in 1999-2000 for your envelopedfunding.

Special Education Grant

Regulation 306 : Every board shall maintain the special education plan in respect of the boardand ensure that the special education plan is amended from time to time to meet the currentneeds of the exceptional pupils of the board.

An exceptional pupil is a pupil whose behaviour, communication, intellectual, physical ormultiple exceptionalities are such that he/she is considered to need placement in a special

education program by an IPRC of the Board.(Ed.Act Reg 181.) The Special Education AdvisoryCommittee is a statutory committee established under MET Reg 464/97 to makerecommendations with respect to the establishment, development and delivery of programs andservices for exceptional students.

The first level of support for students experiencing difficulties in school is at the classroom level.The classroom teacher makes every effort to differentiate/ modify program content, teachingstrategies and evaluation. These in-class efforts to differentiate/modify the learning environmentby the classroom teacher are the initial and most important steps to meet the needs of students.

Total Special Education funding is set up like a layered pyramid. At the base of the pyramid isthe Foundation Grant. It is given for every student enrolled whether or not the student is anexceptional child. The money in this grant area can go toward staff such as teacher assistants,psychologists, social workers etc. The next layer would be the Special Education Grant. Thespecial education grant is divided in two with the SEPPA (Special Education Per Pupil Amount)used for the assessment and assistance needed by most exceptional students, and the ISA(Intensive Support Amount) being used to provide high-cost assistance to a relatively smallnumber of students who need very intensive support.

The total Ontario Special Education grant was $1.052 Billion in 9899. OttawaCarleton`s share is$43 Million. School boards are required by Regulation 306 to maintain a special education planfor programs and services for exceptional students, and to submit annually to the Minister, anyamendment to their special education plan. (FN8) In June 1998 the Ministry announced $40million of additional funding to be allocated for special education across the province to helpmake the transition from the old model to the new. Students who have been receivingindividualized special education services, such as support from Educational Assistants cancontinue to do so, according to the Ministry (FN 27) However, O.C.D.S.B. spent $35.680 of themitigation grant on classroom teachers and Teacher Assistants in 98/99. In 99/00, that grant is cutback half.


11/21

Within the OCDSB Budget there are four special education departments. The Special Education& Student Services Department is responsible for EA's, Personal Care Asst. and Youth Workerswith a budget of $23.625. The Secondary Special Education Department pays for classroomteachers a total of $7.683. The Elementary Special Education Department (includingDevelopmental Delayed Program) hires Teachers and Secretarial Staff for a total of $21.422. And

the Alternative Schools Department is running a budget for teachers and secretarial staff for$2.812.

The government claims it protects specific spending for special education purposes. (FN15) Butthe funding mechanisms of special education are completely entwined with the classroomteacher expenses and the foundation grant. To subtract from the foundation grant in order to letspecial education survive will deprive the other students of an equal per pupil share, to subtractspecial education funding from the Foundation Grant is to benefit the regular student at theexpense of the exceptional pupil.

The new Special Education Grant requires that special education funds be used for special

education purposes only. The Ministry has created a new "streamlined application process" anddefined the types of spending for which the grant can be used. The Resource Manual for ISAGrants acts as a list of allowed costs that boards are required to respect. However, it should benoted that although many reports recommended the implementation of some sort ofaccountability mechanism to ensure a "sealed envelop" spending habit, such mechanisms are notin place under the current scheme. Currently the only accountability mechanisms created by theMinistry ensures against fraudulent ISA applications.

Special Education Per Pupil Amount (S.E.P.P.A.)

S.E.P.P.A. provides flexible funding for students with special need. This funding must be usedonly for students with special needs. Funding is for programs that address relatively commonexceptionalities that do not require a high level of financial support for the individual students.(FN 27)

The SEPPA grant is based on school board enrolment. The base level special education cost asset by the Minister is $362. The SEPPA grant is calculated by multiplying this number by thedaily average enrolment. (s.15 Regulation under Education Act.) This funding will allow boardsto respond to local needs using locally designed programs and services. The funds support thecost of student assessments and services prior to any formal designation of exceptionality. Theycan be used for hiring support personnel needed by exceptional pupils, including specialeducation teachers, educational assistants, social workers, psychologists, speech therapists,physiotherapists, and occupational therapists. However, there is some overlap with many of theprofessional and paraprofessional staff who are also listed as being funded from the FoundationGrant. For example, funds for teacher assistants are provided though either SEPPA and/or theFoundation Grant.

Intensive Support Amount (I.S.A.)

The second part of the Special Education Grant is the Intensive Support Amount (ISA). It meetsthe needs of students who require intensive or specialized staff assistance. ISA is for one on one


12/21

support, the funding stays with student, and can cover the cost of specialist teachers, educationalassistants, child and youth workers. (FN27) The ISA is a further layer above the FoundationGrant and the SEPPA. It is based on the specific needs of a single student and it will follow thestudent if they change schools. The ISA will cover costs such as oneonone support as well asspecialized equipment that is necessary for the exceptional pupil.

Since the ISA funding "attaches" to the individual as required to meet the needs of a specificstudent, the student must meet with the criteria of the ISA funding. There are four level of ISAfunding (FN40) :

ISA Level 1 for special individualized equipment needs, cost exceeding $800ISA Level 2 for students with moderate to severe needsISA Level 3 for students with severe to profound needs andISA Level 4 for education programs offered in care, treatment, or correctional facilities.To qualify for ISA level 1, a student must provide an assessment from an appropriately qualifiedprofessional and attach proof of the cost of equipment to be purchased. The assessment must

indicate that a particular device is essential in order for the student to benefit from instructionand that the disability device would help him improve. But there is a catch to ISA level 1funding, there is a deductible fee of $800 for every child. This means that a student who hasthree claims of $1200 a total of $3600 would only be funded $2800 of grant money from ISA,after paying the deductible. While three children with three claims of $1200 would be funded$400 a piece after paying the first $800. It seems absurd that the government would guaranteesspecial education money and then attach a deductible fee. It is expected that the board will useSEPPA funds or other special education funds (such as reserves) to cover the $800 deducted fromthe ISA claim. Therefore the more ISA claims for equipment that a board has the less SEPPAmoney it spends on general special education resources. If these new reforms are suppose toprotect student funds, why do they internally play against each other, one category losing to theother? Does this model consider the best interest of the student? Does it ensure an adequateeducation for exceptional pupils? School boards have the illusion of funding when one grantamount is subtracted by the use of another grant.

For ISA level 2 and 3, the government has asked an expert panel to review eligibility criteria forISA funding. In 19992000, new eligibility criteria will be assessed through a provincewidereview process. School boards and the Ministry of Education will evaluate the refined criteriarecommended by the expert panel. It seems that the government is trying to refine specificcriteria to raise the qualifications necessary qualify for ISA level 2 and 3. They are designing away to prevent exceptional pupils from qualifying. The government may explain that they arerefining the criteria to exactly match student need but every child is unique, and may or may notfit in the predefined categories set by the province. Students in need may find it harder qualifyfor the new specific qualifications and then be abandoned by ISA funding altogether, yet still bedisabled.

Special Incidence Portion (S.I.P.)

At the top of the special education funding pyramid is the Special Incidence Portion (S.I.P.). Thisnew element will support children who were eligible in 19981999 for ISA level 3 and have


13/21

extraordinary needs for staff support necessary to maintain their health and safety. There is noSIP or ISA level 4 funding this or any year at the OCDSB.

Other Grant Categories that Fund Special Education

A school board uses other grants to also support special education, such as the Transportation

Grant, which covers the cost of transporting pupils to their special education programs. The PupilAccommodation Grant builds wheelchair ramps, and the School Board Administration andGovernance Grant helps support the cost of the administration of the special education programsand services. But with the cuts that the OttawaCarleton school board is facing, the last thing theywill do is spend money from "non special education" grant categories in order to support specialeducation. They already have trouble coping with the dramatic changes in their budget as eachslash requires cutting jobs or programs.

Mitigation Grant

The O.C.D.S.B. announced layoffs of 1,870 employees in response to the new funding formula.

100 administration people, 700 classroom teachers, 470 school support workers, 240 teacherassistants, and 375 custodial and maintenance workers were on the cutting table, over 25% of allemployees. The layoffs also include education assistants, plant support staff, psychologists,social workers, speechlanguage pathologists, office staff, technicians and managers. (FN 42)Whether or not any of these employees were actually laid off is unknown to us but it doesrepresent the sustainable level of programs at currently Ministry allocations.

The new funding system is being buffered by a one time phasein grant so that boards can copewith the decrease of revenue. Where change in revenue is 4% or more, either positively ornegatively, an adjustment will be made to the board's grant allocation. To calculate the phase inadjustment, the government follows this equation: (FN41. p.30)

Change in operating revenue = Operating revenue for 19992000 / Operating revenue for19981999

Adjusted change in operating revenue = ( Change in operating revenue) x ( 199899 AverageDaily Enrolment)

(19992000 ADE)

Part IV : Changes

Financial Changes to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board

To see a summary of numbers consult the Appendix.

One of the obstacles to tracking expenditures during the transition from one funding model toanother is caused by the change in Educational Fiscal Year which used to end Dec. 31. Startingon September of 98, it currently follows the school year.

In 1996, before the two boards were fused together, the net expenditure of the Ottawa Board of


14/21


15/21

Alberta also reduced their total number of school board from 181 to 57, saving money onadministrative charges in the process. That province provides 100% of funding for publiceducation boards. Separate boards may collect their own taxes and receive a perpupil grant fromthe province. (FN9)

In the long run, the system may prove to be fair and provide quality education to the children inthis province. But today it is disastrous for the large urban boards that have lost a huge sum offunding dollars because of the new equitable funding formula. These assessment "rich" boardshave to deal and cope and suffer with this situation. Unfortunately, as is always the case, it isthose who are vulnerable, the special education students, who will suffer most from the neglectof adequate funding and staffing levels.

Capped ISA Funding

A newspaper article in the Windsor Star 08 July 1999 entitled Special Feature : Special NeedsPupils on Hold; Funding Frozen Pending Reviewprovides that a list of recommendation was

given to the Minister concerning funding for special education students. The announcement wasmade during a sixhour emergency meeting on the special education funding crisis. The sessioninvolved more than 110 school board directors, business superintendents and special educationofficials. They were responding to the Ministries announcement to freeze all ISA grants at 9899levels until the M.E.T finishes a boardbyboard audit aimed at weeding out illegitimate claims.

Board officials are upset because the new funding formula operating in its first year requiresextensive paperwork, and there was not enough time to file ISA claims last year for everystudent. Many students who should have received ISA support last year were not counted.Windsorarea boards have identified more than double the number of ISA pupils for this fall butcannot increase staff and resources because of the funding freeze.. The result is that hundreds ofspecial needs children can expect less ononone attention and more time in regular classroom. TheM.E.T. claims that "the current $1.1 billion being spent on the Special Education Grant is morethan the province has ever spent on special education before." Prior to the changes they only paid40 percent of the total cost, now they pay for everything. The members of the emergencymeeting suggest that the Special Education Funding model has not averted a crisis but createdone. Without ISA funding attaching to the student the student is clearly denied equal access toeducation.

In the OCDSB there are 976 students with ISA 2 and 3 grants. How many more are identified buthave yet to have an application put forward? In March of 99 the Director of Education JamesGrieve wrote a letter to the Board which provided for the General Operating Expenses of SpecialEducation programs be restored to their levels in 1998/1999. Although I have yet to see a letterthat freezes ISA funding, there is one out there. The government has capped ISA funding in 99-2000 to the same funding as in 98-99. Evidently you can only apply for ISA funding 99-00 ifyou had previously been granted 98-99 funding. Plus new arrivals to the board are not allowedapply for ISA. The paper work to fill out ISA request is extensive. Many students who areidentified do not have ISA funding because the paper work was not completed. Some schoolsfiled for as many students as they could given the short time involved and the fact that it was thefirst year for the scheme to be in place. The schools did not file for every student last year, and in


16/21

the second year of this funding scheme the application list is capped. At least the board hasmaintained General Operating Expenses. Can the Ministry ban funding in this manner toexceptional pupil? And if the formulation of the funding scheme has spending consequences, i.e.unable to cap funding, would this prohibition extend to other operating budgets at the local level?

Accountability

Curriculum documents generated by MET outline the framework for standards andaccountability for all students. The first level in recognizing accountability is aclear outline of criteria for the entry to or requirement for special education

programs and services. The second stage of this accountability structure is an IEPwhich conforms to MET requirements and also clearly outlines the programexpectations, strategies and methods of evaluation for all exceptional students.Parents and students have the right to have access to clear documentation andinformation on the IEP. There will also be a mechanism devised for the monitoring

of the duration of time a student has spent in a special education program. ISAdocumentation will be subject to internal audit processes in order to ensure that thelength of stay in a specialized program is appropriate and in the best interest of thestudent.

What will it take to prevent the total abandonment of Special Education programsand services developed in the Ottawa Carleton area over the last 20 years? If

proper accountability mechanisms were in place the transition may be easier.

Cabinet has de facto power over setting the per pupil rate. Should the per pupil ratebe set by a politician, or should it be set by an expert in the field of education underopen and public criteria? If the Minister can wield this power, can he do so at theexpense of group equality rights enshrined in the Charter for exceptional pupils.The cost of maintaining programs in Ottawa-Carleton is not very large incomparison with the overall budgets. $60 Million more dollars a year will allowthe entire Ottawa-Carleton board to construct theses change in a positive way, forthe best interest of the students. The OCDSB put $55 M in a reserve fund forspecial education, this covers expenses for approximately one operating year,obviously supplemented by the $43 M allocated by Ministry. So the OCDSBSpecial Education Department has reserves that will last 5 years if current envelopspending is maintained. However, the facts remain that, in the first of these fiveyears OCDSB totally dismantled the essence of the special education programs andservices available to children of the board.

Boards are losing great amounts of money in a very short period of time. Losing


17/21

such "expropriated" funds in so short a time has accelerated the rate of changebeyond what the OCDSB is able to with, the rate of change has overwhelms thestaff of these institutions to maintain programs and services. Can the ministerdecide to cut any single school board budget by 20-30% and risk the results ofinfringing on special education equal access guarantees.

InRe-engineering Ontario Education: The Process and Substance of the HarrisReforms in Education in Ontario, J. Paquette writes,

"At least until late 2003, all of the most important educational-cost parameters willbe set in Queen's Park, not at the local teacher-board negotiating table or bybudgetary decisions of individual boards of education. Bill 160 assures that theprovincial government has complete control of all the major cost and spendinglevers in elementary/secondary education. In short, all the parameters that have

historically driven board mill-rate decisions, are now beyond the power of boardsof education to decide. Bill 160 undermines much of previous legitimate activity ofthe unions."

The government legislated the end to local accountability with the transfer ofpower from school board trustees into the hands of the cabinet. The HarrisConservatives took education delivery decisions away from the local community.The cabinet now sets the education portion of property taxes behind closed doors.Shouts of no taxation without representation have been disheartened by recent caselaw. Yet the effect of the legislation was to removed the local decision-making

powers of trustees (elected officials) in the attempt to thwart the democraticprocess. Further, the Ministry also does not recognize approximately $2 billionspent by local boards on programs.

Previous to the changes, the local school board was responsible for specialeducation funding and expenditures. Local conditions influenced the local tax baseto meet and determine those needs. For the first time boards are unable to respondto increases in local need. Now the province is wholly responsible for specialeducation funding and expenditures. This responsibility entails a duty to have a

funding formula in place that adequately covers the actual costs of providingappropriate placements. A funding formula based on the overall enrolment ofstudents does not adequately fund exceptional pupils in areas like OCDSB with ahigh incidence of special needs students. It is discriminatory in that the funding isnot related to the level of incidence in any given area, some students receivingmore per pupil than others. Previously, special education costs could be increased

by increasing the mill rate. Without this kind of flexibility there is no


18/21

accountability for ensuring equal educational opportunity. In the past, a communityof parents could approach and lobby a board to implement or fund particularservices, now they must go to the Province if they want to be heard, the boards nolonger have the power. I would argue that the scheme must respond to the actualreal need of the student, or allow the boards to do so, as it did in the past, otherwisethey will systemically deprive exceptional pupils of an equal education. If theformula does not adequately take into consideration the different needs of distinctand disadvantaged communities it should not withstand a constitutional challenge.Proper criteria for decision making must be applied to ensure that the Minister'sdiscretion is not exercised in an arbitrary manner. There is no local accountabilitymechanism to ensure adequate placements any longer in place the Province mustadequately fund special education or breach the equality provision of the Charter.

The government's decision to centralize decision-making power in the cabinet was

justified as an attempt to make the system more accountable. To remedy this lackof accountability , the government decided to take control of the finances of the

boards and set out standardized tests to decide funding rates and compare theachievement of students. They said that too many teacher in the system were notworking in the classroom. In reality many of those non-classroom teachers were

providing special education programs and services, where the ratio of teachers tostudents is more like 1:8 or 1:12. By reallocating the "extra" teachers into theregular classes, special needs students are not as likely to have much needed one-on-one support. The error is in counting exceptional pupils as regular studentswhen capping class sizes, because it fails to consider the extra attention needed,especially by non-teaching staff.

The new legislation also increases the numbers of non-professional teachers in theclassroom and allows for the hiring of people who do not have a teachingcertificate to deliver guidance and other programs. T.A.'s and E.A.'s do not bringwith them professional knowledge of program innovation and delivery. It isessential to have qualified teachers who have adequate preparation time to developspecialized programs and work with the kids. Teaching is not the delivery of alesson plan, it is the ability to create a lesson plan linked to the needs of each

particular students. The E.A.'s cannot replace a teacher if learning and theeducation of the student are the primary interest. Non-professional teachers are nottrained to perform the duties of a certified teacher. To allow more non-professionalstaff in lieu of teachers is a move to substantially lower the quality of education inOntario. The teaching of standardized texts cannot replace the need for a qualifieddecision maker operating in the best interest of the student.


19/21

It would seem to me that the province took control of the money without properlyestablishing accountability standards. Why move so fast? The process of changeshould take much longer and be accompanied by more particular accountabilitymechanisms.

The rate of change is beyond the ability of board to adequately respond. They lackthe ability to raise local funds to support the special education programs already in

place. The cutbacks have further reduced their number of staff, while adding morenon-teachers. It also shortened prep time, which limits the time for development ofspecialized programs for special education students. With so much change the

board can't cope, and so the work involved in making changes diminishes untilthere is little work being done on the changes at all. There is a total revamp of thesystem from the top-down while the people involved learn helplessness. Previousto 1995 many impact studies were done to address the impact of programs and

services on exceptional pupils, now no impact studies are being done with thechanges being implemented at the board or ministry level. The S.E.L.K. is not

being studied. The old placements in programs are now integrated in regularschool. As a result teachers can on longer adequately deliver all IEP's. The currentsituation is exactly like trying to teach 15 different lesson plans in one class. Theteachers cannot delivery the IEP's to each student integrated in the regularclassroom. Psychologist's used to teach learning and emotion to students in need atOCDSB, now their time is taken up with crisis intervention. The OCDSB cannotadequately respond to meet the rapid changes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles and Books

Royal Commission on Learning : For the Love of Learning v.4. Making it happen. Ch. 18,Funding.

Brian Bourns, School Board Structure in Ottawa-Carleton : Final Report of the Fact Finder forthe Minister of Education and Training of the Province of Ontario (Toronto: Ministry of

Education and Training, 1993). : A study mentioned in Ontario School Board Reduction TaskForce 1996, which concluded that amalgamation would result in an increase, not a reduction, inthe cost of education in the boards concerned. Assumed Boards would absorb savings intooperating costs.

MacKay, W., & Krinke, G. (1987). Education as a basic human right: A response to specialeducation and the Charter, Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 2, 73.


20/21

Dickinson, G.M., & MacKay, A.W. (Eds.). (1989) Rights freedoms and the education system inCanada. Toronto: Edmond Montgomery.

Jerry Paquette,Re-engineering Ontario Education: The Process and Substance of the HarrisReforms in Education in Ontario. Education and Law Journal Vol.9 No.1. December 1998.

Greg Dickinson,Looking Into the Foggy Mirror of Denominational School Rights in Ontario.Education and Law Journal Vol 9.1 December 1998.

Greg Dickinson, Court Refuses to Ground Ontario's Supersonic Education Reforms, CaseComments : Ontario Public School Boards' Assn. V Ontario (A.G.) (1997). Education and LawJournal Vol 9.1. May 1998.

Smith & Foster,Educational Opportunity for Students with Disabilities. (1996-98) 8 Education& Law Journal 183

Poirier, Goguen & Leslie,Education Rights of Exceptional Children in Canada (Carswell, 1988)A Section on Financial Implications for Special Education.

Deborah A. Verstegen,Landmark Court Decisions Challenge State Special Education Funding(Centre for Special Education Finance Brief No.9 Feb 1998.)

Levin, Benjamin, Young, Jon, Understanding Canadian Schools : An Introduction to EducationalAdministration, Harcourt Brace & Co, Canada, pp.150-155. Chapter Five : Provincial GrantSystem.

Ghosh Ratna, Douglas Ray. Social Change and Education in Canada 3rd Ed. Harcourt BraceCanada, 1995.

Wayne MacKay, The Rights Paradigm in the Age of the Charter. pp224-239. Ed.s Ghosh Ratna,Douglas Ray. Social Change and Education in Canada 3 rd Ed. Harcourt Brace Canada, 1995

Smith, Luckasson, Crealock. Introduction to Special Education in Canada. Allyn & BaconCanada, 1995.

Education Funding In Ontario 1995, A Description of the Education Funding Model. Access Ontario, 1995.

Report of the Royal Commission on Education in Ontario, 1950. (Hope Report), The Ontario Committee on Taxation Report,1967 (Smith Committee report), Committee on the Costs of Education Final Report (1978), Report of the Commission onDeclining School Enrolment in Ontario (1978), Report of the Commission on the Financing of Elementary and SecondaryEducation in Ontario (1985) (Macdonald Commission Report). Third Report of the Select Committee on Education (1990).Report of the French Language Education Governance Advisory Group. (1991), Toward Education Finance Reform (1992),Report of the Ontario Fair Tax Commission (1993), Royal Commission on Learning 1994, New Foundations For EducationFinance: Building on Progress (1995), Report of the Working Group on Education Finance Reform (1996), Education SubPanelof the Who Does What Panel (1996) (Crombie Report), Ontario School Board Reduction Task Force Final Report, 1996. TheRoad Ahead Report of the Education Improvement Commission (1997). Funding Reports reproduced from Nancy NaylorAffidavit.


21/21

Royal Commission on Learning, 1994Id.Royal Commission on Learning, 1994Sec. 257.9 Id.Sec. 236 (1), Id.Sec. 257.12 (1) b), Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990. Chapter E.2

"Statement to the Legislature by John Snobelen, Minister of Education and Training on the Education Quality Improvement Act,1997"(Toronto: Ministry of Education and Training, 1997)Lawrence Greenspon, EAPE, 1999. P.13The Road Ahead:A Report on Learning Time, Class Size and Staffing. Education Improvement Commission. August 1997.p.21.Lawrence Greenspon, EAPE, 1999. P.11Lawrence Greenspon, EAPE, 1999. P.11Sec. 257.12 (4), Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990. Chapter E.2Sec. 257.12 (3), Id.Sec. 257.8 (2) 2), Id.Sec 13, Regulation made under the Education Act, Student Focused Funding Legislative Grants for the School Board 19992000

Fiscal Year.OCDSB budget comparision 98-99 to 99/00. 1999-2000 Recommended Budget March 9, 1999.Overview of School Board Spending 1995-1996 (based on costing frameworks)O.C.D.S.B. Final Estimates, data form D Allocations to Net Expenditures, 1999.O.C.D.S.B. Final Estimates, data form D Allocations to Net Expenditures, 1999.

Student Focused Funding, 1999-2000 OCDSB, M.E.T. Summary documentO.C.D.S.B. Final Estimates, M.E.T. Schedule 3A -Special Education Estimated Expenditure -excluding ISA 4 programs, for the

period from September 1, 1998 to August 31, 1999.O.C.D.S.B. Final Estimates 1998/99, M.E.T. Section 15 - Enveloping. Item 15.44Jerry Paquette, Re-engineering Ontario Education: The Process and Substance of the Harris Reforms in Education in Ontario.

Education and Law Journal Vol.9 No.1. December 1998.

Documents

Changes to Educational Finance in Ontario 2000