2010-11visionofhopeescanofthetdsb)rbr02(environmentalscan\2010-2011\2010-11visionofhopeescanofthetdsb)rb.3457...

$: 2010-11VisionOfHopeEScanOfTheTDSB)rbR02(EnvironmentalScan\2010-2011\2010-11VisionOfHopeEScanOfTheTDSB)rb.3457 Acknowledgements The current Environmental Scan process originated through$

R02(EnvironmentalScan\2010-2011\2010-11VisionOfHopeEScanOfTheTDSB)rb.3457

The 2010-2011 Vision of Hope Environmental Scan of the Toronto District School Board Robert S. Brown Copyright © (November 2011) Toronto District School Board

Reproduction of this document for use in the schools of the Toronto District School Board is encouraged.

For any other purpose, permission must be requested and obtained in writing from: Research and Information Services Toronto District School Board 1 Civic Centre Court, Lower Level Etobicoke, ON M9C 2B3

Tel.: 416-394-4929 Fax: 416-394-4946 Every reasonable precaution has been taken to trace the owners of copyrighted material and to make due acknowledgement. Any omission will gladly be rectified in future printings.

R02(EnvironmentalScan\2010-2011\2010-11VisionOfHopeEScanOfTheTDSB)rb.3457

Acknowledgements The current Environmental Scan process originated through the work of Norbert Hartmann, Peter Gooch, and Karen Lawson, who collated the first two versions of the Environmental Scan between 2003-04 and 2007-08. We wish to acknowledge their pioneering role. The current Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Environmental Scan team consists of Robert S. Brown, Lisa Newton, Anna Catalano, and Irene Gedney from the Organizational Development/Research & Information Services Department, working under the direction of Donna Quan, Deputy Director, Academic and Roula Anastasakos, Superintendent of Education, Organizational Development / Research & Information Services. We would also like to thank the individuals who provided key information on TDSB students, staff, financial facts, programs, and facilities, and patiently responded to our many queries and requests for updates.

Timeliness of Scan Information The Scan is an attempt to provide a comprehensive picture of the TDSB over the 2010-11 school year. Based on availability, some information dates from 2009-10, other information is for the current 2011-12 school year.

TABLE OF CONTENTS MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR AND DIRECTOR OF THE TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ................Pg. 1 SECTION 1: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – TRUSTEES, 2010-11 ..................................................Pg. 2 SECTION 2: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE .............................Pg. 4 SECTION 3: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – TWO CENTURIES OF COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC EDUCATION ......................................................................................................................Pg. 6 SECTION 4: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – OUR VISION OF HOPE ..............................................Pg. 9 SECTION 5: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – AT A GLANCE, 2010-11 .............................................Pg.10 SECTION 6: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................Pg.12 Languages Spoken by TDSB Students, Spring 2010 ..................................................................................Pg.12 Countries of Birth for TDSB Students, Spring 2010.....................................................................................Pg.13 Regions of the World, 2010 .........................................................................................................................Pg. 14 Recent Arrivals, Spring 2010.......................................................................................................................Pg. 15 Parents’ Place of Birth .................................................................................................................................Pg. 15 Gender ........................................................................................................................................................Pg. 16 Race ..........................................................................................................................................................Pg. 16 Parental Education .....................................................................................................................................Pg. 17

i

Parental Presence at Home.........................................................................................................................Pg. 17 The Geography of Challenge.......................................................................................................................Pg. 18 The Toronto District School Board’s Income Levels ....................................................................................Pg. 19 The Toronto District School Board’s Learning Opportunities Index .............................................................Pg. 20 Absenteeism of Toronto District School Board Students .............................................................................Pg. 21 SECTION 7: THE CITY OF TORONTO DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIO-ECONOMIC, AND OTHER PATTERNS/TRENDS.......................................................................................................................Pg. 23 Income Level - Highlights ............................................................................................................................Pg. 23 Toronto Family Types..................................................................................................................................Pg. 26 Labour .........................................................................................................................................................Pg. 28 Educational Attainment in Toronto, Ontario, and Canada ...........................................................................Pg. 30 Toronto Labour Force and University Degree Attainment ...........................................................................Pg. 31 Aboriginal Identified Population: Toronto and Provincial, 2006 ...................................................................Pg. 32 SECTION 8: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – MOBILITY PATTERNS, 2010-11 ................................Pg. 33 Overall Trend...............................................................................................................................................Pg. 33 Where do TDSB students come from? ........................................................................................................Pg. 33 New Students ..............................................................................................................................................Pg. 35

ii

Characteristics of New TDSB Students, 2010 .............................................................................................Pg. 37 New TDSB Students and Their Languages, 2010.......................................................................................Pg. 38 Where did the TDSB students go? ..............................................................................................................Pg. 39 Trends...............................................................................................................................................Pg. 39 SECTION 9: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – ENROLMENT PATTERNS..........................................Pg. 42 Enrolment Trends ........................................................................................................................................Pg. 44 SECTION 10: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES ......................................................................................Pg. 45 Trends .........................................................................................................................................................Pg. 45 Key Facts ....................................................................................................................................................Pg. 45 Overview of Congregated and Regular Class Enrolment ............................................................................Pg. 46 Special Needs Education: At a Glance........................................................................................................Pg. 47 Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 47 Special Needs Education and Support Services .........................................................................................Pg. 48 Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 48 Section 23 Schools......................................................................................................................................Pg. 53

iii

SECTION 11: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – ACHIEVEMENT PATTERNS ....................................Pg. 56 1. Senior Kindergarten and the Early Development Index, Spring 2011......................................................Pg. 56

2. EQAO Assessments of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics (Grades 3, 6, and 9): Percentage of Students Achieving Levels 3 or 4, 2006-07 to 2010-11 ...............................................................................................Pg. 60

Key Highlights for EQAO Grade 3 ....................................................................................................Pg. 60 Key Highlights for EQAO Grade 6 ....................................................................................................Pg. 61 Key Highlights for EQAO Grade 9 Applied and Academic Mathematics...........................................Pg. 62 3. Grade 10 Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test Success Rates, 2010-11 .........................................Pg. 63 4. Grade 9 Credit Accumulation, 2009-10 ...................................................................................................Pg. 64 5. Grade 9 and 10 Pass Rates (English and Mathematics), 2010-11 ..........................................................Pg. 65 Key Highlights for the Grade 9 Pass Rates (English and Mathematics) ...........................................Pg. 65 Key Highlights for the Grade 10 Pass Rates (English and Mathematics) .........................................Pg. 66 6. Post-secondary Pathways, Spring 2010..................................................................................................Pg. 67 7. Graduation Rates for Four Cohorts, Fall 2002-Fall 2005.........................................................................Pg. 68 SECTION 12: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – ACHIEVEMENT GAPS, 2009-10 ..............................Pg. 69 1. Gender ....................................................................................................................................................Pg. 69 2. Racial Background ..................................................................................................................................Pg. 72

iv

3. Students’ Home Language ......................................................................................................................Pg. 73 4. Parental Presence at Home.....................................................................................................................Pg. 74 5. Parental Educational Background ...........................................................................................................Pg. 75 6. Family Socio-economic Status ................................................................................................................Pg. 77 7. Special Education Needs ........................................................................................................................Pg. 78 Trend ................................................................................................................................................Pg. 78 Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 78 Students with Special Needs ............................................................................................................Pg. 79 8. Aboriginal Students in the Toronto District School Board ........................................................................Pg. 80 Primary .............................................................................................................................................Pg. 80 Secondary.........................................................................................................................................Pg. 81 Post-secondary.................................................................................................................................Pg. 81 SECTION 13: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – SAFE SCHOOL PATTERNS, 2009-10 .....................Pg. 82 Suspensions and Expulsions.......................................................................................................................Pg. 82 Key Trends .......................................................................................................................................Pg. 82 Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 82 TDSB Suspension Data, 2000-01 to 2009-10 .............................................................................................Pg. 83

v

SECTION 14: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – CONTINUING EDUCATION......................................Pg. 84 Support of the Toronto District School Board’s Priorities.............................................................................Pg. 85 Student Achievement........................................................................................................................Pg. 85 Parent and Community Engagement ................................................................................................Pg. 85 Locations, 2010 ...........................................................................................................................................Pg. 85 Support for Secondary Day School Student Achievement .........................................................................Pg. 86 Grade 12 Graduates .........................................................................................................................Pg. 87 Literacy and Numeracy Programs, Grades 1-12 .........................................................................................Pg. 90 International Languages – African Heritage Elementary Programs.............................................................Pg. 90 Support for Adult Students ..........................................................................................................................Pg. 91 Gender in Adult Education (ESL and Credit Programs) ....................................................................Pg. 91 Credit Programs – Adult Day School ................................................................................................Pg. 91 TDSB Adult Continuing Education Students: Post-secondary Outcomes.........................................Pg. 92 Adult English as a Second Language ...............................................................................................Pg. 95 Community General Interest and Seniors’ Daytime Programs..........................................................Pg. 95 Parent Workshops ............................................................................................................................Pg. 95

vi

SECTION 15: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – FINANCIAL OVERVIEW ...........................................Pg. 96 Overall Revenue and Expenditures .............................................................................................................Pg. 96 Total Expenses............................................................................................................................................Pg. 97 Energy Expenditures Facts .........................................................................................................................Pg. 98 Other Revenue ............................................................................................................................................Pg. 99 Ministry Grants for Student Needs...............................................................................................................Pg. 100 SECTION 16: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – STAFFING OVERVIEW ............................................Pg. 101 SECTION 17.1: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – FACILITIES ............................................................Pg. 103 Overview, Facts, and Figures ......................................................................................................................Pg. 103 Portable Usage – Trends and Key Facts.....................................................................................................Pg. 104 EcoSchools and TDSB’s Environmental Impact ..........................................................................................Pg. 106 Key Highlights...................................................................................................................................Pg. 106 SECTION 17.2: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – STRATEGIC BUILDING AND RENEWAL.............. Pg. 109 The Age of Our Buildings ............................................................................................................................Pg. 109 Trend ................................................................................................................................................Pg. 109 Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 109 Facilities Condition Index: Report Card .......................................................................................................Pg. 110

vii

Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 110 Current Funding Challenge: The Backlog of Unattended Repairs and Replacements ................................Pg. 111 Trend ................................................................................................................................................Pg. 111 Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 111 Inadequate Funding Affects Planning for the Future ...................................................................................Pg. 112 Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 112 Renewal Needs Compared to Current Available Funding ...........................................................................Pg. 112 Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 112 Estimate of Total Cost to Renew All Our Existing Schools ..........................................................................Pg. 113 Trends...............................................................................................................................................Pg. 113 Key Facts..........................................................................................................................................Pg. 113 SECTION 18: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ...........Pg. 114 Our Mission .................................................................................................................................................Pg. 114 General Overview........................................................................................................................................Pg. 114 Our Technology Infrastructure, 2010-11......................................................................................................Pg. 114 Current Infrastructure Facts and Figures, 2010-11......................................................................................Pg. 115 Technology Renewal/Computer Refresh Budget, 2010-11 .........................................................................Pg. 116

viii

TDSB Application Software .........................................................................................................................Pg. 116 Key Initiatives Underway, 2011-12 ..............................................................................................................Pg. 118 1. e-Learning.....................................................................................................................................Pg. 118 2. TDSB ICT Standards – Digital Learning for Kindergarten to Grade 12.........................................Pg. 119 3. Mobile Computing Strategy, 2010-11............................................................................................Pg. 120 4. Wireless, 2010-11.........................................................................................................................Pg. 121 5. Internet Bandwidth Upgrade, 2010-11 ..........................................................................................Pg. 121 6. Wide Area Network .......................................................................................................................Pg. 121 7. Academic Workspace Phase 3.0, 2010-11 ...................................................................................Pg. 122 8. Enterprise Architecture Planning ..................................................................................................Pg. 122 SECTION 19: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES ...............................Pg. 123 Model Schools for Inner City........................................................................................................................Pg. 123 Services Offered ...............................................................................................................................Pg. 123 Feeding Our Future Program Evaluation.....................................................................................................Pg. 124 Preliminary Findings: Background and Key Characteristics..............................................................Pg. 124 Pathways to Education Program .................................................................................................................Pg. 125 HSBC Steps to University Program.............................................................................................................Pg. 126

ix

Priority Schools Initiative, 2010-11 ..............................................................................................................Pg. 127 Full Service Schools ....................................................................................................................................Pg. 129 SECTION 20: FUTURE TRENDS ..........................................................................................................................Pg. 130 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................Pg. 133 TABLES Table 5.1: Student Grade, October 2010.....................................................................................................Pg. 10 Table 5.2: School Organization, 2010-11 ....................................................................................................Pg. 10 Table 5.3: Number of Credits Taken by Level .............................................................................................Pg. 10 Table 7.1: Income Categories for Toronto CMA and Ontario as a Percentage Change from 2004-08........Pg. 24 Table 8.1: Mobility Patterns by Category and Grade 12 Students, 2010-11................................................Pg. 33 Table 8.2: Key School Entry Points, October 31, 2010-11 ..........................................................................Pg. 35 Table 8.3: New TDSB Students and Their Regions of Birth, 2010 ..............................................................Pg. 37 Table 8.4: New TDSB Students and Their Languages, 2010 ......................................................................Pg. 38 Table 8.5: Destinations of Students who Transferred Outside the TDSB, October 31, 2010 ......................Pg. 39 Table 9.1: Student Enrolment Changes from 2006-07 to 2011-12 ..............................................................Pg. 43 Table 10.1: Special Needs in the TDSB, 2010-11 .......................................................................................Pg. 46 Table 10.2: Exceptionality by Gender, 2010-11...........................................................................................Pg. 47

x

Table 10.3: Changes in Exceptionalities between 2005-06 and 2010-11 ....................................................Pg. 48 Table 12.1: Comparing EDI Results with Racial Designation, 2008 ............................................................Pg. 72 Table 12.2: Grade 3 and 6 EQAO Reading, Writing, and Mathematics Results by Race, 2008..................Pg. 72 Table 14.1: Continuing Education Program Registrations: Kindergarten to Grade 8, and Secondary.........Pg. 84 Table 14.2: Continuing Education Program Registration: Adults .................................................................Pg. 84 Table 14.3: Post-secondary Applicants by Adult School, 2009 ...................................................................Pg. 94 Table 15.1: Budget of the Toronto District School Board, Projected 2011-12 .............................................Pg. 96 Table 16.1: Teachers’ Years of Experience, 2010-11..................................................................................Pg. 101 Table 16.2: Staff Exits, 2009-10 ..................................................................................................................Pg. 101 Table 16.3: New Hires, 2009-10 and 2010-11.............................................................................................Pg. 101 Table 16.4: Staffing Levels ..........................................................................................................................Pg. 101 Table 16.5: TDSB Employees, 2010-11 ......................................................................................................Pg. 102 Table 17.1.1: Facilities Overview, 2010-11..................................................................................................Pg. 103 Table 17.1.2: Facility Costs, 2007-08 to 2009-10 ........................................................................................Pg. 105 Table 17.2.1: School Conditions Numbers ..................................................................................................Pg. 110 Table 18.1: TDSB Information Technology Users, Equipment and Budget .................................................Pg. 115

xi

Table 18.2: TDSB Information Technology Core Infrastructure...................................................................Pg. 115 Table 18.3: TDSB Information Technology Security....................................................................................Pg. 115 Table 18.4: TDSB Information Technology Peak Use .................................................................................Pg. 115 Table 18.5: Average Age of Computers ......................................................................................................Pg. 116 Table 18.6: Student/Computer Ratio ...........................................................................................................Pg. 116 Table 18.7: TDSB Technological Applications, 2010...................................................................................Pg. 117 Table 19.1: School List for Priority Schools Initiative, 2010-11....................................................................Pg. 127 FIGURES Figure 1.1: Board of Trustees, 2010-11.......................................................................................................Pg. 2 Figure 1.2: Trustee Wards, December 2010 ...............................................................................................Pg. 3 Figure 2.1: TDSB’s Organizational Structure, September 2011 ..................................................................Pg. 4 Figure 2.2: Families of School, September 2011.........................................................................................Pg. 5 Figure 3.1: Opening of Jarvis Collegiate, 1924............................................................................................Pg. 6 Figure 3.2: The Toronto Report, 1859 .........................................................................................................Pg. 7 Figure 3.3: Jarvis Collegiate Girls’ Hockey Club, 1908................................................................................Pg. 7 Figure 3.4: Niagara Street Public School, 1874...........................................................................................Pg. 8 Figure 3.5: R. H. King Collegiate Institute, 1952..........................................................................................Pg. 8

xii

Figure 3.6: Sunnylea School .......................................................................................................................Pg. 8 Figure 6.1: Home/Primary Languages, Spring 2010....................................................................................Pg. 12 Figure 6.2: Countries of Birth, Spring 2010 .................................................................................................Pg. 13 Figure 6.3: TDSB Students and Regions of Birth, 2010 ..............................................................................Pg. 14 Figure 6.4: Parents’ Place of Birth ...............................................................................................................Pg. 15 Figure 6.5: Student Racial Background (JK-Gr. 12) ....................................................................................Pg. 16 Figure 6.6: Highest Level of Parental Education..........................................................................................Pg. 17 Figure 6.7: Parental Presence at Home ......................................................................................................Pg. 17 Figure 6.8: City of Toronto: Percentage of Families Below the Low Income Cut-off, 2006..........................Pg. 18 Figure 6.9: Low Income Rates within Varying Geographies, 2006 ..............................................................Pg. 19 Figure 6.10: The Toronto District School Board’s 2008 Parent Census Income Results.............................Pg. 19 Figure 6.11: Parenting and Family Literacy Centre Locations (2010-11) and their Area Elementary School’s Learning Opportunities Index (2008-09) ....................................................................Pg. 20 Figure 6.12: Toronto District School Board System-Wide Average Absenteeism Rate (Elementary), 2005-06 to 2009-10..................................................................................................................Pg. 21 Figure 6.13: Toronto District School Board System-Wide Average Absenteeism Rate (Secondary), 2005-06 to 2009-10..................................................................................................................Pg. 22 Figure 7.1: Number of Individuals within Income Categories for Toronto, 2004-08 .....................................Pg. 23

xiii

Figure 7.2: Toronto CMA and Ontario: Comparing Percentage Change in the Number of Individuals for Each Income Category Over 5 Years, 2004-08 ..................................................................Pg. 25

Figure 7.3: Toronto and Canada: Median Income for All Family Types, 2004-08 .......................................Pg. 26 Figure 7.4: Toronto CMA: Couples with Children and Lone Parent Income Families within Income Ranges, 2006 Federal Census .................................................................................................Pg. 27 Figure 7.5: Toronto and Ontario Labour Force Categories and Proportions of Individuals, 2006 Federal Census ................................................................................................................Pg. 28 Figure 7.6: Toronto CMA Occupations, 2006 Federal Census ....................................................................Pg. 29 Figure 7.7: Educational Attainment Levels, 2010 ........................................................................................Pg. 30 Figure 7.8: Percent of Labour Force with a University Degree, 2009 ..........................................................Pg. 31 Figure 7.9: Aboriginal Population and Educational Attainment, 2006..........................................................Pg. 32 Figure 8.1: Entry Status of TDSB and Grade 12 Students, September 2010 ..............................................Pg. 34 Figure 8.2: Grade of New TDSB Students: October 31, 2009 and October 31, 2010..................................Pg. 36 Figure 8.3: New TDSB Students and Their Regions of Birth, 2010 .............................................................Pg. 37 Figure 8.4: New TDSB Students and Their Languages, 2010.....................................................................Pg. 38 Figure 8.5: Destinations of Students who Transferred Outside the TDSB, October 31, 2010 .....................Pg. 39 Figure 8.6: Grade of Students who Transferred to Other Ontario Boards ...................................................Pg. 40 Figure 8.7: Number of Students who Transferred to Other Boards within Ontario.......................................Pg. 41

xiv

Figure 9.1: Student Enrolment Changes at Eight School Boards (TDSB and Surrounding Area), 2006-07 to 2011-12....................................................................................................................Pg. 43 Figure 9.2: Junior Kindergarten Enrolment, 1972-2010...............................................................................Pg. 44 Figure 9.3: Elementary School Enrolment, 1967-2010 ................................................................................Pg. 44 Figure 9.4: Secondary School Enrolment, 1967-2010 .................................................................................Pg. 44 Figure 10.1: TDSB Special Needs, 2010-11................................................................................................Pg. 45 Figure 10.2: Schools with Learning Disability Programs, 2011-12...............................................................Pg. 49 Figure 10.3: Schools with Gifted and Primary Gifted Programs, 2011-12 ...................................................Pg. 50 Figure 10.4: Schools with Mild Intellectual Disability Programs, 2011-12....................................................Pg. 51 Figure 10.5: Schools with Autism Programs, 2011-12.................................................................................Pg. 52 Figure 10.6: Section 23 School Locations, 2011-12 ....................................................................................Pg. 54 Figure 10.7: Section 23 School Programs, 2011-12 ....................................................................................Pg. 55 Figure 11.1: Percentage of Senior Kindergarten Students with Very Low EDI Scores, Spring 2011...........Pg. 57 Figure 11.2: Very Low on Two or More EDI Domains Females and Males, Spring 2011 ............................Pg. 58 Figure 11.3: Percentage of Senior Kindergarten Students with Very Low EDI Scores by Families of Schools, Spring 2011............................................................................................Pg. 59 Figure 11.3a: Grade 3 EQAO Reading, 2006-07 to 2010-11.......................................................................Pg. 60 Figure 11.3b: Grade 3 EQAO Writing, 2006-07 to 2010-11.........................................................................Pg. 60

xv

Figure 11.3c: Grade 3 EQAO Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11................................................................Pg. 60 Figure 11.4a: Grade 6 EQAO Reading, 2006-07 to 2010-11.......................................................................Pg. 61 Figure 11.4b: Grade 6 EQAO Writing, 2006-07 to 2010-11.........................................................................Pg. 61 Figure 11.4c: Grade 6 EQAO Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11................................................................Pg. 61 Figure 11.5a: Grade 9 EQAO Applied Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11...................................................Pg. 62 Figure 11.5b: Grade 9 EQAO Academic Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11 ...............................................Pg. 62 Figure 11.6: OSSLT Success Rates Over Time for Fully Participating First-time Eligible Students Who Were Successful, 2006-07 to 2010-11....................................................................................Pg. 63 Figure 11.7: Credit Accumulation for the Grade 9 Cohort, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 ........Pg. 64 Figure 11.8: Pass Rate for Grade 9 English, 2006-07 to 2010-11...............................................................Pg. 65 Figure 11.9: Pass Rate for Grade 9 Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11 ......................................................Pg. 65 Figure 11.10: Pass Rate for Grade 10 English, 2006-07 to 2010-11...........................................................Pg. 66 Figure 11.11: Pass Rate for Grade 10 Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11 ..................................................Pg. 66 Figure 11.12: Ontario Post-secondary Applications for 17 Year Olds, Spring 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.......................................................................................Pg. 67 Figure 11.13: Ontario Post-secondary Applications for 18-21 Year Olds, Spring 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.......................................................................................Pg. 67 Figure 11.14: Graduation Rates for Four Cohort Groups ............................................................................Pg. 68

xvi

Figure 12.1: Achievement Gap with EDI Results by Gender, 2011 .............................................................Pg. 69 Figure 12.2: Very Low on Two or More EDI Domains Females and Males, Spring 2011 ............................Pg. 70 Figure 12.3: Achievement Results by Gender: Percentage of Students Meeting Expectations...................Pg. 71 Figure 12.4: Achievement Results by Parental Presence at Home: Percentage of Students Meeting Expectations ............................................................................................................................Pg. 74 Figure 12.5: EDI SK Results with Mother’s Level of Education: Very Low on 2 or More of the 5 Domains, 2008.........................................................................................................................Pg. 75 Figure 12.6: Grades 3 and 6 EQAO Results by Parental Education............................................................Pg. 76 Figure 12.7: Grade 9 Student Achievement by Socio-economic Status and EQAO Results .......................Pg. 77 Figure 12.8: First-time Eligible Students 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010: Proportion of Students Passing the OSSLT .................................................................................................................Pg. 78 Figure 12.9: Grade 9 Cohorts of Fall 2004: Post-secondary Confirmations (Fall 2009) by Special Needs Status in Grade 9.............................................................................................Pg. 79 Figure 12.10: Aboriginal Students: Grade 7 and 8 Report Card Results, 2006-07 ......................................Pg. 80 Figure 12.11: 17-18 Year Old TDSB Students and Aboriginal Students: Post-secondary Confirmed Offers of Admissions, 2007 ................................................................................Pg. 81 Figure 13.1: Percentage of Students Suspended by Enrolment from 2003-04 to 2009-10..........................Pg. 82 Figure 13.2: Total Number of Student Suspensions by Age for all Elementary and Secondary Schools, 2009-10...................................................................................................Pg. 82 Figure 13.3: Number of Students Who Received a Suspension, 2000-01 to 2009-10.................................Pg. 83

xvii

Figure 13.4: Number of Suspensions, 2000-01 to 2009-10 .........................................................................Pg. 83 Figure 14.1: Continuing Education Registrations, 2005-06 to 2010-11 .......................................................Pg. 84 Figure 14.2: TDSB Secondary School Students Enrolled in Regular Day Classes and Continuing Education, 2009-10..................................................................................................................Pg. 86 Figure 14.3: Grade of TDSB Regular Day Secondary School Students Enrolled in Continuation Education Credit Courses, 2009-10...................................................................Pg. 86 Figure 14.4: Percentage of TDSB Regular Day Secondary School Students who Had Taken a Continuing Education Course, 2009-10 and Earlier .................................................................Pg. 87 Figure 14.5: Number of TDSB Regular Day School Students Taking Different Types of Continuing Education Courses, 2009-10 ...................................................................................................Pg. 88 Figure 14.6: Total Number of Continuing Education Credits Granted, 2010-11 ..........................................Pg. 89 Figure 14.7: Post-secondary Outcomes: Did Not Apply and Applied to Post-secondary (Ontario)..............Pg. 92 Figure 14.8: Post-secondary Outcomes by Age ..........................................................................................Pg. 93 Figure 14.9: Adult Day School Post-secondary Outcomes for the 2008-09 School Year (Application Data by Fall 2009)....................................................................................................................Pg. 94 Figure 15.1: Net Expenditures, Estimated 2011-12 .....................................................................................Pg. 97 Figure 15.2: Energy Expenditures for Gas and Electricity, 2002-03 to 2009-10 ..........................................Pg. 98 Figure 15.3: Energy Expenditures for Gas and Electricity, 2002-03 to 2009-10 ..........................................Pg. 98 Figure 15.4: Other Board Revenue, Estimated 2011-12 .............................................................................Pg. 99

xviii

Figure 15.5: Provincial Grants for Student Needs .......................................................................................Pg. 100 Figure 16.1: Staff Distribution, 2006-07 to 2010-11 .....................................................................................Pg. 102 Figure 17.1.1: Portables by Use1998 to 2010 .............................................................................................Pg. 104 Figure 17.1.2: Portables by Use1999 to 2010 .............................................................................................Pg. 104 Figure 17.1.3: Number of Certified EcoSchools, 2004-05 to 2010-11 .........................................................Pg. 106 Figure 17.1.4: Certified EcoSchools and Locations, 2011-12......................................................................Pg. 107 Figure 17.1.5: Actual and Target Building-related GHG Emissions, 2000-01 to 2019-20............................Pg. 108 Figure 17.2.1: Area of Instructional Space and the Number of Elementary and Secondary Schools Constructed from 1887-2010 ................................................................................................Pg. 109 Figure 17.2.2: Current FCI by Ward According to ReCAPP, 2011 ..............................................................Pg. 110 Figure 17.2.3: Forecast of FCI by Ward According to ReCAPP, 2019 ........................................................Pg. 110 Figure 17.2.4: The Funding Backlog from 2001 to 2011..............................................................................Pg. 111 Figure 17.2.5: Cost of Emergency/Health and Safety Projects....................................................................Pg. 112 Figure 17.2.6: Available Funding for Major Renewal of TDSB Schools.......................................................Pg. 113 Figure 18.1: Number of Requests, 2010-11 ................................................................................................Pg. 118 Figure 18.2: Credit Achievement, 2009-10 and Student Enrolment, 2009-10 and 2010-11 ........................Pg. 119 Figure 18.3: Enterprise Architecture Committee..........................................................................................Pg. 122

xix

xx

Figure 19.1: Grades 7 and 8 Student Academic Achievement (2009-10 Term 3 Report Card) and Eating in the Morning During a School Week .........................................................................Pg. 124 Figure 19.1.1: Top Five Benefits of the Morning Meal Program (Student Survey Responses)....................Pg. 125 Figure 19.2: Income Deciles within Steps Program and TDSB Grade 11 and 12 Students ........................Pg. 126 Figure 19.3: Priority Schools Initiative Map, 2010-11 ..................................................................................Pg. 128 APPENDIX Appendix 1: Map of Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA), Statistics Canada, 2006......................................Pg. 132

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR AND DIRECTOR OF THE TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

On behalf of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), we are pleased to release the 2010-11 Vision of Hope Environmental Scan of the Toronto District School Board.

The TDSB and its predecessor boards have produced portraits of the Board and its place in Ontario since the mid-nineteenth century. As in the past, this Environmental Scan assists with planning through looking at existing and emerging trends relevant to the TDSB.

This Environmental Scan is intended to be a resource for information on TDSB schools, students, staff, and curriculum.

Included is a wide range of demographic, social, economic, cultural, and other data with implications for the TDSB and its schools’ mission and work. This will assist us in:

1. Determining how well we have done in achieving our current goals.

2. Setting goals and priorities for the future, assessing our organizations’ strengths and weaknesses, anticipating challenges, and altering our strategies accordingly.

In this document, you will find charts, tables, statistics, and accompanying text that paint a picture of the TDSB’s current environment. It begins by presenting the following: our Board of Trustees 2010-11, the TDSB’s organizational structure, and TDSB’s history. These introductory sections are followed by an overview of Director Dr. Chris Spence’s Vision of Hope. The Environmental Scan also provides concise information on TDSB demographics, an overview of the City of Toronto demographic and socio-economic indicators, TDSB mobility and enrolment patterns, and information on Special Education. Also compiled are statistics on the TDSB’s student achievement patterns and gaps and our safe schools’ key trends. An overview regarding the TDSB’s Continuing Education program and an overview of TDSB’s financial snapshot are also included. Information regarding staffing, facilities, and an exploration of information technology trends are also provided. The Environmental Scan concludes with an overview of the TDSB’s programs to combat external challenges and an exploration of possible future trends that may impact the TDSB in the near future.

This Environmental Scan draws from a multitude of information sources including the TDSB’s internal and publicly released research reports, the Ministry of Education, Statistics Canada, and other research publications and/or reports. In the future, we plan to incorporate additional data into the Environmental Scan as it becomes available. We would like to express our gratitude to all TDSB staff who worked hard to compile and present this information in a manner that is easy to follow.

Chris Bolton, Chair Toronto District School Board

Dr. Chris Spence, Director Toronto District School Board

1

SECTION 1: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – TRUSTEES, 2010-11

Figure 1.1: Board of Trustees, 2010-11

SECTION 1: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – TRUSTEES, 2010-11

Trustees and Wards of the Toronto District School Board Twenty- two (22) public school Trustees are elected during the municipal elections to represent public school supporters in the City of Toronto. The Trustees meet as a Board on a regular basis and have organized standing committees that also meet on a regular basis.

Our Trustees work to ensure that all of our students realize their potential and succeed. They are advocates for education and are the voice of the public, ensuring all concerns are addressed.

Two student trustees are elected annually to represent and advocate for over a quarter of a million students in the TDSB. They work with the Board of Trustees at the monthly board meetings representing the voices of students on all issues. Further information regarding the Trustees, their responsibilities, and public meeting dates can be retrieved through the following link:

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=88&menuid=300&pageid=230

2



Figure 1.2: Trustee Wards, December 2010

3

SECTION 2: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Figure 2.1: TDSB’s Organizational Structure, September 2011

4

Figure 2.2: Families of Schools, September 2011

5

SECTION 3: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – TWO CENTURIES OF COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC EDUCATION

Figure 3.1: Opening of Jarvis Collegiate, 1924 The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) amalgamated on January 1, 1998 inclusive of the East York, Etobicoke, North York, Toronto, Scarborough, York, and Metropolitan Toronto school boards. However, Toronto’s tradition of public education began over two centuries ago, in 1807, at the Grammar School for the Home District (now includes Toronto, York, and Peel). The government provided a grant to pay the principal’s wages, though all other school expenses were covered by student fees. These fees amounted to 416 dollars per year plus six ‘York shillings’ for firewood. On opening day, June 1, 1807, five students (all boys) were enrolled. By the end of the year, there were 37 students; including some girls. The school was in a town named York with a population of approximately 500; York was later renamed Toronto in 1838.

In 1903, East Toronto High School opened in the original Mary Street School building (now Kimberley Public School). Malvern Avenue High School was named on January 5, 1910 and was built to serve the growing communities of East Toronto and Scarborough. By 1922, Scarborough had its own high school – now named after its first principal (and later Director of the Scarborough Board) R. H. King. Source: http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/jarvisci/

Toronto’s first publicly funded kindergarten opened in 1883 with an enrolment of 70 children and seven unpaid teaching assistants. By 1890, there were 24 kindergartens with 1,554 registered pupils (Dixon, 1990). Another innovative program began in 1909 when Silas H. Armstrong, principal of Wellesley School (now closed), became the first City of Toronto Superintendent of Playgrounds and began Canada’s first public recreation program (he is remembered today through the S. H. Armstrong Community Centre). Apart from the kindergarten and recreation programs, other initiatives centered on student support services and targeted anti-absenteeism. Many child-related functions, for the City of Toronto’s Health Department, originated from the Toronto Board’s pilot programs. The history of Toronto is reflected in the TDSB’s record for developing innovative programs to serve an ever-changing city and student population. The TDSB has 591 schools which are

6

reflective of the numerous neighbourhoods and communities that comprise Toronto. The innovative nature of the board is grounded in past practice: this tradition continues and can be seen throughout this document.

The historical photographs in Figures 3.2 to 3.5 highlight some interesting moments in TDSB’s history. Figure 3.2 shows the Toronto Board report of 1859 which is the direct ancestor of this Environmental Scan. One of the schools profiled in the report, “The Park” is today’s Nelson Mandela Park School.

Figure 3.2: The Toronto Report, 1859

Figure 3.3: Jarvis Collegiate Girls’ Hockey Club, 1908

Source: http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/jarvisci/photos/photlist.htm

Source: Past History and Present Condition, Toronto District School Board, 1859

Figure 3.4 Retrieved from Toronto District School Board

7

http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/jarvisci/photos/photlist.htm

Scarborough High School became R. H. King Collegiate Institute in 1952 and R. H. King Academy in 1989.

In 1874 Niagara Street Public School was built. The first kindergarten class opened nine years after this photo was taken.

Figure 3.4: Niagara Street Public School, 1874 Figure 3.5: R. H. King Collegiate Institute, 1952

Source: R. H. King Academy, 2010

For more information on historical photographs or TDSB history contact: Sesquicentennial Museum & Archives, (416) 397-33680

Source: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/SchoolWeb/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10375&menuid =28215&pageid=24266

Figure 3.6: Sunnylea School

Sunnylea School in Etobicoke was built in 1908. Classes were held in the school until 1942, then it was used as a community centre and demolished in 1953. Sunnylea Junior School is now located at 35 Glenroy Avenue.

Source: School Days, Recollections of Toronto Schools, Oral History Project of the Toronto District School Board, (2003)

8

SECTION 4: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – OUR VISION OF HOPE Hope is what drives improvement. And improving our schools and ultimately our students’ outcomes is what we’re all hoping – and striving – for. Dr. Chris Spence, TDSB Director We know every decision we make at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) must support our number one priority of learning for all. With that as our focus, we have developed our Vision of Hope1 – our guide to take the TDSB and its students into the future.

Imagine: Schools sharing a core set of characteristics – academically-challenging, equity-oriented, community-

driven, and learning-focussed.

Schools of choice appealing to different learning styles.

Full Service schools which drive focusing on whole-child development.

Engaged students using their voices.

Employees developing their full potential with increased opportunities.

Partnership fuelling our community.

The TDSB’s mission is to enable all students to reach high levels of achievement and to acquire the knowledge, skills, and values they need to become responsible members of a democratic society. To support the TDSB’s Vision of Hope priorities - Student Achievement, Parent and Community Engagement, and Financial Stability - five strategic directions for 2011-2015 have been identified by the Board:

Make every school an effective school;

Build leadership within a culture of adaptability, openness, and resilience;

Form strong and effective relationships and partnerships;

Build environmentally sustainable schools that inspire teaching and learning; and

Identify disadvantage and intervene effectively.

Better Schools, Brighter Futures2 one of the key initiatives, already underway, will impact each of the previously mentioned priorities. This concept builds and supports an education system to meet the needs of our 21st Century students.

As a member of our community, you are part of this vision and we invite and encourage you to take an active role as we work towards a better future for our students and community. 1 Additional information on the TDSB’s Vision of Hope can be found at: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10496&menuid=27835&pageid=23941 2 Additional information on the TDSB’s Better Schools, Brighter Futures initiative can be found at: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10267&menuid=15172&pageid=13444

9

SECTION 5: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – AT A GLANCE, 2010-11 During the 2010-11 school year, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) served approximately 259,000 elementary and secondary school students in the regular day school system. This makes us the largest school board in Canada and one of the largest in North America.

Approximately two thirds of TDSB students (171,957 or 66%) were in the elementary school panel of Junior Kindergarten (JK) to Grade 8, while around a third (87,360 or 34%) was in the secondary school panel of Grades 9-12. There were 591 day schools1 in 2010-11. This did not include Nelson Mandela Park P.S. which was being renovated during the 2010-11 school year, nor facilities used entirely by Continuing Education such as Jones Avenue.

Table 5.2: School Organization, 2010-11

Grade Range # of Schools JK to Grade 5 100 JK to Grade 6 179 JK to Grade 8 122 Grade 6 to 8 32 Grade 7 to 8 32 Grade 7 to 9 7 Other elementary 6 Grade 9 to 12 109 Grade 10 to 12 4 Total Number 591

Table 5.1: Student Grade, October 2010

Grade Number % JK 17,435 6.7 SK 17,709 6.8 01 17,811 6.9 02 17,231 6.6 03 16,837 6.5 04 16,826 6.5 05 17,201 6.6 06 16,648 6.4 07 16,833 6.5 08 17,426 6.7 09 18,707 7.2 10 19,827 7.6 11 20,492 7.9 12 28,334 10.9 Total 259,317 100.0

Table 5.3: Number of Credits Taken by Level

Course* Type Number Open (9 through 12) 223,524 University (11 and 12) 144,933 Academic (9 and 10) 136,217 Mixed University/College (11 and 12)

77,134

Applied (9 and 10) 55,964 College (11 and 12) 33,226 Workplace (9 and 10) 8,833 Special Education (Non-credit) 8,520 Locally Developed (9 and 10) 7,455 Other 2,530 Total 698,336

*Courses taken in 2009-10 school year do not include Prior Learning Equivalent (PLE). Source for Tables 5.1 to 5.3: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

1 Other elementary schools (also see Table 5.2): Wilmington JK to 4, Broadlands SK to 6, Pearson SK to 8, Claude Watson 4 to 8, Charles Best 5 to 8, and Alpha Alternative II 7 to 12.

10

School Updates In 2009-10, the following schools opened: Da Vinci School, the Grove, Whole Child Alternative (renamed Equinox Holistic Alternative), and Africentric Alternative. West Toronto C.I. was closed in August 2010. In September 2011, McCowan Road Junior Public School consolidated with John MrCrae Public School. Sir Sanford Fleming Academy was renamed to John Polanyi Collegiate Institute. Also, Silverthorn Junior Public School closed and Kane Middle School changed its name to Silverthorn Community School (CS). In the 2010-11 school year, there were 19 elementary and 21 secondary alternative schools, with an enrolment of 1,928 and 2,471 students, respectively. Thirteen (13) of these alternative schools had students with Special Needs, with a total enrolment of 1,824. However, most Special Needs students are in regular elementary and secondary schools.

Note: The TDSB also has one of the largest continuing education systems in North America. See Section 14 on Continuing Education for more detail.

11

SECTION 6: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – DEMOGRAPHICS The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has been called one of the most diverse school boards in the world. This section identifies various demographic data and shows the diversity of the TDSB.

Figure 6.1: Home/Primary Languages, Spring 2010

Languages Spoken by TDSB Students, Spring 2010 English was the mother tongue or primary

home language of 44% (114,190) of TDSB students.

53% (135,833) of TDSB students had a language other than English as their mother tongue or as the primary language spoken in the home (no data was available for 7,216 students or 3% of the TDSB population).

Over 75 languages were reflected in the language background of TDSB students.

As seen in Figure 6.1, Chinese and Tamil were the most common languages other than English for TDSB students: 12% (29,482) of students had Chinese in their language background and 6% (14, 415) had Tamil.

Source: AIS Database, Toronto District School Board, 2010

12

Countries of Birth for TDSB Students, Spring 2010 74% (189,296) of TDSB students

were born in Canada. Figure 6.2: Countries of Birth, Spring 2010

26% (67,936) of TDSB students were born outside of Canada in more than 200 different countries.

Figure 6.2 shows of those TDSB students born outside of Canada, the greatest numbers were born in China (11,708 or 5%) and India (6,263 or 2%).

Students considered recent immigrants or not born in Canada comprised a minority within the TDSB population. Their numbers declined at a greater rate than students born in Canada. For those students born outside of Canada, their decline was a total of 18,402 from Fall 2003 to Spring 2010. In this time span, those students born in Canada also declined though at a lesser amount (8,552). Although both groups showed a combined total decline of 26,954, from 2003-2010, those born outside Canada represented 68% of this total decline.

Source: AIS Database, Toronto District School Board, 2010

13

Regions of the World, 2010

N

EW

S

18

9

1211

16

19

14

17

15

13

76

10

8

5

43

2

1

Students in the TDSB came from all regions of the world, as seen in Figure 6.3. However, immigration has declined in the past decade from most regions of the world.

Figure 6.3: TDSB Students and Regions of Birth, 2010

The following list provides the number of students that immigrated from the countries/regions seen in Figure 6.3.

1. Canada 193,425 7. Eastern Africa 2,017 13. Eastern Europe 5,1452. US 3,997 8. Northern Africa 550 14. Central Asia 6193. English-speaking Caribbean & Region 2,874 9. Southern Africa 182 15. Eastern Asia 14,3344. Non-English speaking Caribbean 462 10. Western Africa 796 16. Southeast Asia 3,2685. Central/South American & Mexico 3,030 11. UK & Republic of Ireland 768 17. South Asia 17,8506. Central Africa 191 12. South & Western Europe 1,966 18. Western Asia 7,593 19. Oceania 233

Source: Research & Information Services and the Data Warehouse, Toronto District School Board; ESRI, 2010

14

Recent Arrivals, Spring 2010 13% of TDSB students arrived from other countries in the past five years.

8% (20,516) of TDSB students arrived in Canada in the last three years. An additional 5% (13,592) arrived in the last

4-5 years.

The number and proportion of students arriving from other countries has been declining. In Fall 2003, there were 32,470 students who arrived in the past three years and 18,619 who had arrived 4-5 years before. In total, recent immigrants declined by 16,981 students.

Parents’ Place of Birth Figure 6.4: Parents’ Place of Birth

The TDSB’s 2006 Student and 2008 Parent

Censuses allowed us to collect detailed

demographic information. While most TDSB

students were born in Canada, the vast

majority (80%) had one or both parents

born outside Canada, as seen in Figure 6.4.

Source: 2006 Student and 2008 Parent Censuses, Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board 15

Gender As of October 2010, 52% (133,434) of TDSB students were male; 48% (123,805) were female.

The 52% male and 48% female ratio has been unchanged since Toronto statistics were first collected in 1859.

Race Figure 6.5: Student Racial Background (JK-Gr.12) According to the combined TDSB’s

2006 Student and 2008 Parent

Censuses, slightly under a third of the

students (31%) self-identified

themselves (or were self-identified by

their parents) as White; 23% were

self-identified as South Asian; 17% as

East Asian; 12% as Black; 7% as

Mixed; and 11% as other groups

(Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian,

Latin American, Aboriginal) as seen in

Figure 6.5.

Source: 2006 Student and 2008 Parent Censuses, Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board

16

Parental Presence at Home Slightly over three quarters of students lived with both parents, a fifth lived with one parent (17% mother only and 2% with father only), while 3% had other living arrangements (other relatives, group homes, etc.).

Parental Education .

Figure 6.6: Parents’ Education Level

Two-parents (including half-time with each)

78%

Others3%Father Only

2%

Mother Only17%

Two-parents (including half-time with each)Mother OnlyFather OnlyOthers

Source for Figures 6.6 and 6.7: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

According to the combined TDSB’s 2006 Student and 2008 Parent Censuses, a majority of Toronto District School Board parents had post-secondary education (48% had university while 19% had college education); 18% of parents had a high school education. In comparison with the City of Toronto, for 2009, university degree attainment was 40% and other post-secondary (diploma or certificate) was 26%. Graduation from high school and parents with an educational level below secondary were similar to citywide statistics.

(see Section 7: The City of Toronto).

FFigure 6.7: Parental Presence at Home

Figure 6.6: Highest Level of Parental Education

University

48%Others (including

elementary, unsure and

none)15%

Community

College19%

High School 18%

UniversityCommunity CollegeHigh School Others (including elementary, don’t know, and none)

17

The Geography of Challenge Figure 6.8 shows the distribution of families below the Low Income Cut-off according to the 2006 Federal Census, showing the overall picture of poverty in the TDSB. The darker areas, showing greater poverty, are distributed in a ‘U’ shape across the City of Toronto.

Figure 6.8: City of Toronto: Percentage of Families Below the Low Income Cut-off, 2006

Source: Research and Information Services, Toronto District School Board, November 2010 Base Map- Land Information Toronto Data: Statistics Canada

18

The Toronto District School Board’s Income Levels The proportion below the Low

Income Cut-off (see Figure 6.9) is

much higher in the City of Toronto

(25%) compared to Ontario (15%)

and the adjacent areas of York

(13%), Peel (15%), and Durham

(9%).

Figure 6.9: Low Income Rates within Varying Geographies, 2006

The parent income results (see

Figure 6.10) from the TDSB’s

2008 Parent Census reveal that

nearly one third of parents earned

over $75, 000 in income, 23%

earned between $30,000 and

$49,999 per year while slightly

over a quarter earned less than

$30,000 annually. Source: City of Toronto

Source: 2008 Parent Census Income Results, Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2008

22% 10% 18% 23% 27%

0% 50% 100%

JK-Grade 6

$100,000+ $75,000 - $99,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $30,000 - $49,999 Less than $30,000

Figure 6.10: The Toronto District School Board’s 2008 Parent Census Income Results

19

The Toronto District School Board’s Learning Opportunities Index The Learning Opportunities Index (LOI) consists of two indices (one elementary, one secondary) providing a score and ranking for schools according to external challenges. The LOI is calculated from median income, proportion of low-income families, proportion of families receiving social assistance, education of adults, and proportion of single-parent families. Figure 6.11 shows the location of the Toronto District School Board’s Parenting and Family Literacy Centres (in green) with the pattern of external challenges for elementary schools in the background. Schools with the greatest challenge according to the 2009 LOI are in red, the least challenged schools are in yellow. Note the similarity of the pattern to the map showing Low Income Cut-off (see Figure 6.8) in the City of Toronto.

Source: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, November 2010 and Land Information Toronto, 2010

Figure 6.11: Parenting and Family Literacy Centre Locations (2010-11) and their Area Elementary School’s Learning Opportunities Index (2008-09)

20

Absenteeism of Toronto District School Board Students Absenteeism1 of students is often used as an important predictor for at-risk status. Five years of absenteeism rates by grade and age are shown in Figures 6.12 and 6.13. In the TDSB, enrolment is shown by grade in the elementary school panel, and student’s age in the secondary school panel. The absenteeism rate is calculated by the number of days absent out of the total number of days registered in the school year (i.e., if a student is absent 18 days and registered for 180 days, his/her absenteeism rate is 10%).

In Figure 6.12, absenteeism in the elementary school panel is clearly shown as highest in Junior Kindergarten, with a gradual decline between Senior Kindergarten and Grade 3, and then starts to increase after Grade 6.

TDSB System-Wide Average Absenteeism Rate (Elementary), 2005-06 to 2009-10

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Student Grade

Ave

rage

Abs

ente

eism

Rat

e

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Figure 6.12: Toronto District School Board System-Wide Average Absenteeism Rate (Elementary), 2005-06 to 2009-10

Source: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

1 Absenteeism: The percentage for absenteeism is calculated by dividing the total number of potential days that a student could attend school by the actual number of days that the student attended.

21

The secondary school panel (see Figure 6.13) shows a very strong relationship between the student’s age and absenteeism rates: as students get older, they are more likely to miss school.

TDSB System-Wide Average Absenteeism Rate (Secondary), 2005-06 to 2009-10

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

14 15 16 17 18

Student Age

Ave

rage

Abs

ente

eism

Rat

e

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Figure 6.13: Toronto District School Board System-Wide Average Absenteeism Rate (Secondary), 2005-06 to 2009-10


22

SECTION 7: THE CITY OF TORONTO DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIO-ECONOMIC, AND OTHER PATTERNS/TRENDS Income1 Level - Highlights Figure 7.1 summarizes Toronto’s Census Metropolitan Area2 (CMA) income trends by income category within a five year time span from 2004 to 2008. The number of persons decreased within the two lowest income categories (under $5,000, and $5,000 to $9,999) and also the $25,000 to $34,999 range. The greatest increases were in all income categories above $75,000. There was little to no change for the number of persons within the income range of $15,000 to $24,999; nor the range of $35,000 to $49,999.

Figure 7.1: Number of Individuals within Income Categories for Toronto, 2004-08

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Under$5,000

$5,000 to9,999

$10,000 to14,999

$15,000 to19,999

$20,000 to24,999

$25,000 to34,999

$35,000 to49,999

$50,000 to74,999

$75,000 to99,999

$100,000to 149,999

$150,000to 199,999

$200,000to 249,999

$250,000and over

Income Categories

Num

ber

of P

erso

ns

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil105g-eng.htm?sdi=ontario

1 Income Data: These data cover all persons who completed a T1 tax return or who received Canada Child Tax Benefits (CCTB); their non-filing spouses (including wage and salary information from the T4 file), their non-filing children identified from three sources (the CCTB files, the births files, and an historical file) and filing children who reported the same address as their parent. This provides income and demographic information for sub-provincial geographic areas (postal areas and selected Census areas). The T1 files are received from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Development. The sample includes 100% of individuals who filed an individual tax return (T1) or were CCTB recipients. From these records are determined non-filing spouses, partners and children. When complete, the sample is approximately 95% of the population and is left unweighted, unadjusted. The individual T1 and T4 tax files and the CCTB file are received from the Canada Revenue Agency. The period of income is the calendar year. 2 Census Metropolitan Area (CMA): Area consisting of one or more neighboring municipalities situated around a major urban core. A census metropolitan area must have a total population of at least 100,000 of which 50,000 or more live in the urban core (see Appendix 1 for CMA map).

23

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil105g-eng.htm?sdi=ontario

When comparing the Toronto individual income levels, from Figure 7.1, to provincial trends, the same increases exist in the upper ranges (above $75,000) (see Figure 7.2). In Figure 7.2, the change in the number of individuals, within each of these income categories, from 2004 to 2008 is represented as a percentage change and compared with provincial numbers from Statistics Canada (see Table 7.1). Three key trends emerged when comparing Toronto and Ontario individual income levels (see Table 7.1 and Figure 7.2): As shown in Table 7.1 and its corresponding graphic Figure 7.2, the number of individuals in the two lowest income categories

declined in Ontario and also in Toronto; provincial declines in these two lowest groups, was more than double that of Toronto. In this five year time span (2004-08), Toronto had a 7% increase in the number of individuals within the $10,000 to $14,999

range (third lowest income group). In Ontario, this group declined by 6.5% within the same time period.

Table 7.1: Income Categories for Toronto CMA and

Ontario as a Percentage Change from 2004-08

Income Ranges Toronto OntarioUnder $5,000 -1.9% -7.4%$5,000 to 9,999 -4.6% -10.6%$10,000 to 14,999 7.3% -6.5%$15,000 to 19,999 5.1% 2.7%$20,000 to 24,999 3.0% 6.4%$25,000 to 34,999 -2.4% -1.6%$35,000 to 49,999 3.9% 6.5%$50,000 to 74,999 15.5% 15.3%$75,000 to 99,999 40.3% 42.0%$100,000 to 149,999 49.7% 56.2%$150,000 to 199,999 45.5% 55.3%$200,000 to 249,999 37.1% 41.5%$250,000 and over 29.2% 31.4%

Source: http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil105g-eng.htm?sdi=ontario 24


Figure 7.2 also depicts the percentage change for the number of individuals within the income ranges above $75,000; although both Ontario and Toronto showed positive increases (over 30% in each of these 5 income groups) they were higher in the province than Toronto.

Figure 7.2: Toronto CMA and Ontario: Comparing Percentage Change in the Number of Individuals for Each Income Category Over 5 Years, 2004-08

-20.0%

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Under$5,000

$5,000 to9,999

$10,000to 14,999

$15,000to 19,999

$20,000to 24,999

$25,000to 34,999

$35,000to 49,999

$50,000to 74,999

$75,000to 99,999

$100,000to

149,999

$150,000to

199,999

$200,000to

249,999

$250,000and over

Income Category

Perc

enta

ge C

hang

e (p

ositi

ve a

nd n

egat

ive)

Toronto Ontario

Source : http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil105g-eng.htm?sdi=ontario

25


Toronto Family Types3 Figure 7.3 shows that the median income for all family types had increased in the five year time span from 2004 to 2008 in the Toronto CMA and also nationwide. While the median income for families within the Toronto CMA region was higher than Canada over the first two years; and equal to nation wide levels from 2006-07, in the last year of data, 2008, the Toronto median family income levels were lower than the Canadian income median. This means that Toronto used to be collectively ‘richer’ than Canadian wide income levels (2004 and 2005)) but this trend no longer exists (2006 to 2008); this may have very important implications for the future.

Figure 7.3: Toronto and Canada: Median Income for All Family Types, 2004-08

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 97-563-XCB2006021 (Toronto, Code535).

Retrieved from : http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/tbt/Rp-eng.cfm?TABID=1&LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=89016&PRID=0&PTYPE=88971,97154&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2006&THEME=68&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Med

ian

Inco

me

($)

Canada Toronto (Ont.)

3 A Census Family refers to a married couple (with or without children of either or both spouses), a couple living common-law (with or without children of either or both partners) or a lone parent of any marital status, with at least one child living in the same dwelling. A couple may be of opposite or same sex. 'Children' in a census family include grandchildren living with their grandparent(s) but with no parents present. For additional information, please refer to the 2006 Census Dictionary, catalogue number 92-566-XWE or 92-566-XPE.

26

The Statistics Canada 2006 Census reported that there is a limited difference in the number of lone parent and couples with children families4 within the lower total income5 ranges (below $29,999). There is an increasingly pronounced difference between the numbers of each of these family types, within each increasing income range; with marked differences beginning at and above the range of $40,000 to $49,999. As income increases, the number of couples with children also increases; while the number of lone parent families, within each increasing income group, progressively declines (see Figure 7.4).

Figure 7.4: Toronto CMA: Couples with Children and Lone Parent Families within Income Ranges, 2006 Federal Census

4 Economic Family refers to a group of two or more persons who live in the same dwelling and are related to each other by blood, marriage, common-law, or adoption. By contrast, the Census Family concept requires that family members be either a male or female spouse, a male or female common-law partner, a male or female lone parent, or a child with a parent present. The concept of economic family may, therefore, refer to a larger group of persons than does the census family concept. 5 Total Income refers to the total money income received from the following sources during the calendar year 2005 by persons 15 years of age and over: wages and salaries, net farm income, net non-farm from unincorporated business and or professional practice, child benefits, Old Age Security pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement, Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, other government sources, dividends, interest on bonds, savings certificates, investment income, retirement pensions, annuities (RRSP’s and RRIF’s), and other money incomes.

Couples with Children Lone-Parent

0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

Under$10,000

$10,000 to19,999

$20,000 to29,999

$30,000 to39,999

$40,000 to49,999

$50,000 to59,999

$60,000 to69,999

$70,000 to79,999

$80,000 to89,999

$90,000 to99,999

$100,000to 124,99

$125,000and over

Income Ranges

Num

ebr o

f Fam

ilies

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 97-563-XCB2006015 (Toronto, Code535)

27

Labour

Figure 7.5 shows the labour force6 breakdown according to the 2006 Federal Census results. This figure shows that Toronto CMA had fewer individuals within the employed category and slightly more listed as ‘not in the labour force’ compared to Ontario. Toronto’s unemployment rate for December 2010 was 7.7%.

Figure 7.5: Toronto and Ontario Labour Force Categories and

Proportions of Individuals, 2006 Federal Census

65%60%

35%

67%63%

33%

5% 4%0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

In the labour force Employed Unemployed Not in the labourforce

Labour Force Categories

Prop

ortio

n of

Indi

vidu

als

Toronto

Ontario

Sources: Statistics Canada. 2007. Toronto, Ontario (Code3520005) (table). 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007.

Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3520005&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=Toronto&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=35&B1=All&Custom=

6 Labour Force refers to persons who were either employed or unemployed during the week (Sunday to Saturday) prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006).

28

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3520005&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=Toronto&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=35&B1=All&Custom=

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3520005&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=Toronto&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=35&B1=All&Custom=

Figure 7.6 displays the number of individuals within Toronto CMA various occupational categories; also collected from the 2006 Federal Census results. The greatest numbers of those employed fall within the occupational categories of sales and service, and business, finance, and administration (see all occupation categories in Figure 7.6.)

Figure 7.6: Toronto CMA Occupations, 2006 Federal Census

Trades, transport, and equipment operators

134,190

Natural and applied sciences 105,835

Processing, manufacturing, and

utilities93,185

Art, culture, recreation, and sport

70,275

Sales and service 299,150

Primary industry7,815

Health occupations64,655

Social science, education,

government service, and religion

125,300

Management 139,475

Business, finance, and administration

271,815

Sources: Statistics Canada. 2007. Toronto, Ontario (Code3520005) (table). 2006 Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007. Retrieved from: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=3520005&Geo2=PR&Code2=35&Data=Count&SearchText=Toronto&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=35&B1=All&Custom=

29

Educational Attainment in Toronto, Ontario, and Canada

There has been an increase in university degree attainment across all four regions as shown in Figure 7.7. There has also been a decrease in the number of people achieving ‘0-8 years of school’ or completing only ‘some secondary’ school. In the category, for individuals ‘graduating from high school’ there were slight decreases in 2008; across all four geographic areas. There have been increases since that time for this category. Although the City of Toronto and the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) showed slightly lower rates for high school graduation, when compared to the provincial and national statistics, the percentage of those with a university degree were higher.

Figure 7.7: Educational Attainment Levels, 2010

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009

CITY OF TORONTO TORONTO CMA ONTARIO CANADA

Location

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pop

ulat

ion

0-8 years of school Some secondary Graduate from high school Some post-secondary Post-secondary certificate or diploma University degree

Source: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey, 2010. Retrieved from : http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/labour_force_education.htm

Labour Force, by Education

(data in 1000's) 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009

0-8 years of school 42.8 38.3 39.2 81.5 71.0 81.4 163.9 148.1 156.5 492.7 463.9 452.0

Some secondary 108.7 95.6 88.7 246.3 251.5 210.3 715.5 715.6 657.5 1986.2 1999.0 1879.7Graduate from high school 272.7 244.0 252.7 606.2 593.3 612.4 1473.5 1463.4 1478.0 3653.8 3645.6 3702.3Some post-secondary 104.1 108.8 116.2 222.9 231.7 255.4 530.8 570.0 551.8 1492.4 1583.1 1527.2Post-secondary certificate or diploma 383.0 402.0 400.9 877.1 902.4 926.2 2339.2 2342.8 2386.2 6208.9 6287.8 6401.8

University degree 536.3 579.3 590.2 1040.8 1088.5 1106.1 1820.5 1914.6 1945.1 4111.9 4265.9 4405.8

Total 1447.5 1468.0 1488.0 3074.8 3138.3 3191.9 7043.5 7154.5 7175.1 17945.9 18245.1 18368.7

Toronto Toronto CMA Ontario Canada

30

http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/labour_force_education.htm

Toronto Labour Force and University Degree Attainment As seen in Figure 7.8, in 2009 the Toronto CMA and City of Toronto had university degree attainment at 35% and 40%, respectively. This level of post-secondary completion was above the provincial and national levels by nearly 10 to 20%.

Figure 7.8: Percent of Labour Force with a University Degree, 2009

Percent of Labour Force with a University Degree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

Per

cent

age

of L

abou

r For

ce

City of Toronto Toronto CMA Ontario Canada

Source: http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/labour_force_education.htm

31


The Aboriginal population, within the age range of 35-64 years, had increased rates of high school completion, and college, CEGEP, or other non-university certificate or diploma attainments when compared with the preceding age group (see Figure 7.9). In 2007, 34% of Ontario’s overall population had attained a post-secondary diploma or certificate; the Aboriginal population had an educational attainment for this level at 18%. University degree completion for the overall Ontario population was 26%; the Aboriginal population was 7% (see Figure 7.7 for Ontario’s overall population educational attainment).

Of the total Aboriginal population residing in Toronto, there was a 14% increase in those aged 0-14 years and also an increase of 46% for those aged 15-24 years old. Compared to the provincial Aboriginal population changes, the former (0-14 years old) age group increased at a similar rate in Toronto, whereas the latter group (15-24 years old) was almost 15% higher than the provincial increase rate of 33%.

Toronto’s population change, from 2001-06, showed an increase of 9%. The Aboriginal population increased in Toronto by 31%; slightly more than triple of the non-Aboriginal population change.

Toronto’s population in 2006 was reported by Statistics Canada as 5,072,070. Of this number, 26,575 were self-identified as Aboriginal people. Of the total Canadian Aboriginal population in 2006, 0.5% resided in Toronto.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

AboriginalPopulation 15 and

over

15-24 25-34 35-64

Ontario Aboriginal Population and Age Groupings

Perc

enta

ge o

f Abo

rigin

al P

opul

atio

n No certificate, diploma ordegree

High school certificate orequivalent

Apprenticeship or tradescertificate or diploma

College, CEGEP or othernon-university certificateor diplomaUniversity certificate ordiploma below thebachelor levelUniversity certificate ordegree

Figure 7.9: Aboriginal Population and Educational Attainment, 2006

Source: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/fs-fi/index.cfm?LANG=ENG&VIEW=D&PRCODE=35&TOPIC_ID=4&format=flash

Aboriginal Identified Population: Toronto and Provincial, 2006

32

SECTION 8: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – MOBILITY PATTERNS, 2010-11 Overall Trend The number of new students in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has remained relatively constant.

At the same time, the TDSB’s total enrolment has declined by 14,983 over the past five years.

Since the number of new students has remained fairly consistent, it is evident that the decrease in overall enrolment is a result of students leaving the TDSB.

Table 8.1*: Mobility Patterns by Category and Grade 12 Students, 2010-11

Where do TDSB students come from? FREQUENCIES

Entry Status TDSB Grade 12 Beginner 180,698 10,720 Other Country 42,664 8,232 Other Board 18,327 3,977 TDSB Multiple Years 7,566 3,628 Private School 4,747 683 Other Province 2,981 491 OTHER 1,167 338 Re-Entrant 460 210 Care-Treatment-Corrections 394 50 Other Canada 436 55 Homeschooling 246 21 Native Educational Authority 29 3 Total 259,279 28,353

In the 2010-11 school year, the vast majority of TDSB students started in the

TDSB: 70% started in JK or SK, while 3% were in the TDSB for an extensive

period of time.1 Approximately 16% came from other countries, 7% from

other Ontario boards, 1% from boards outside the TDSB, 2% arrived from

private schools, while 1% (not shown in Figure 8.1) arrived for other reasons

such as re-entrant, home schooling, or treatment and corrections facilities.

Of the Grade 12 students enrolled in the TDSB on September 2010, 63%

were in the TDSB in May 2002, mostly in Grades 3-5; while 37% entered the

TDSB in Fall 2002 or later2. Assuming a conservative estimate of 4%

mobility per year, or 16% between JK and Grade 2, this would mean that

46% of Grade 12 students would have started their education in the TDSB

as JK stud

ents.


* The frequencies in Table 8.1 are displayed in Figure 8.1.

1 Due to the amalgamation of older legacy systems from previous Toronto boards into the TDSB, we cannot tell when long-term students started their education in the TDSB. 2 Age-appropriate Grade 12 students were in JK in the Fall of 1997; prior to the amalgamation of legacy boards into the TDSB. We will only be able to look at the JK to Grade 12 match with Trillium ID’s during the school year 2014-15.

33

Figure 8.1 shows that, within Grade 12, student proportions for those entering from another country or transferring from a different

board are almost double when compared to the overall TDSB entry status figures. Also of interest, in Figure 8.1, is the nearly 70%

of students who are ‘beginners’3 in the overall TDSB entry statistics compared with approximately a third of all Grade 12 students

classified as beginners.

Figure 8.1 also shows that entry status, for the overall TDSB, is mostly comprised from two main categories: beginner status (70%)

and other country (16.5%). However, for Grade 12 entries, the proportions are distributed over four categories: beginner, other

country, other board, and TDSB multiple-year entries.

Entry Status of TDSB and Grade 12 Students September 2010

Source: Research and Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2011

2.9 1.8 1.1

37.8

2.4 1.716.5

69.7

7.1

29.0

14.0 12.80.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Beginner Other Country Other Board TDSB MultipleYears

Private School Other Province

Entry Status

Stud

ent P

erce

ntag

e

Figure 8.1: Entry Status of TDSB and Grade 12 Students, September 2010

TDSB Grade 12

3 Codes are entered by TDSB administrative staff using drop down menus; however, there appears to be some confusion on definitions. “Beginner” is, in theory, anyone who starts JK/SK in Ontario while “Other Board” should indicate entry from another school board in Ontario. However, it has been observed that “Beginner” generally refers to ‘Beginning in the TDSB’, although sometimes when a student enters from another Ontario Board, the transition is recorded as either “Other Board” or “Beginner”. In looking at new TDSB students in Grades 1-12, “Beginner” and “Other Boards” totaled 44%. Presumably, the largest number of new students was those entering the TDSB from other Ontario boards, though it is difficult to get exact information on this.

34

New Students If we look at students who entered the Toronto District School Board between November 1,

2009 and October 31, 2010 – including the students who entered after the 2009-10 school

year began – the number of new students increased by 7,396 for a total of 38,310.

Table 8.2: Key School Entry Points, October 31, 2010-11

GRADE FREQUENCY 1 2,030 2 1,297 3 1,209 4 1,204 5 1,180 6 1,074 7 1,184 8 1,041 9 2,380

10 1,755 11 1,790 12 2,334

Total 18,478

The largest number of new students was JK students – new to both the TDSB and to school

in general; another large group was new SK students. When these kindergarten students

were excluded, there remained 18,478 students who would be considered new to the TDSB

(i.e., entered the TDSB November 1, 2010 or later). Of these, the largest number of new

students were those coming from other countries (46%), followed by students from other

boards (45%; which may also include returning students into the TDSB), 4% from other

boards outside Ontario, and 4% from private schools.

New students, excluding JK and SK, were most likely to have arrived in the TDSB as Grade

12 or Grade 9 students; each representing approximately 13% followed by Grade 1 (11%).

Students were least likely to arrive as Grade 8 students. It would appear that entry into the

TDSB is at least partly affected by key school entry points (the beginning of primary, and the

start and finish of secondary).


35

There were three key entry points, by grade, for new TDSB students: Grades 1, 9, and 12. TDSB entrants showed the same three

peaks (by grade) when compared across two years of entrance data4 (see Figure 8.2).

Figure 8.2: Grade of New TDSB Students: October 31, 2009 and October 31, 2010

10.4

6.4 6.4 6.7 6.2 5.8 6.45.6

13.4

9.5 9.8

13

11

7 6.5 6.5 6.4 5.8 6.45.6

12.9

9.5 9.7

12.6

02468

10121416

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Grade

Perc

enta

ge o

f New

St

uden

ts b

y G

rade

(N=

1847

8)

Oct-09 Sep-10


4 In this case we compared new students for October 31, 2009 and October 31, 2010

36

Characteristics of New TDSB Students, 2010 New students to the TDSB (excluding JK and SK) were born in Canada (45.3%) and born outside Canada (54.7%); most

noticeably from South Asia (12.5%), Eastern Asia (11.5%), Western Asia (6.9%), and Eastern Europe (5.1%) (see Figure 8.3).

Over a quarter or 4,708 arrived to Canada in 2010.

Table 8.3: New TDSB Students and Their Regions of Birth, 2010

Figure 8.3: New TDSB Students and Their Regions of Birth, 2010 (Regions with <2.0% representation not shown on graph)

Source for Figure 8.3 and Table 8.3: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2011

45.3

12.5 11.5

6.95.1

2.54.1 3.2 2.70

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Canada South Asia EasternAsia

WesternAsia

EasternEurope

SoutheastAsia

English-speaking

Caribbeanand region

Central &South

American &Mexico

US

Region

Perc

enta

ge

REGIONS FREQUENCY Canada 8,360 South Asia 2,310 Eastern Asia 2,124 Western Asia 1,283 Eastern Europe 934 Southeast Asia 755 English-speaking Caribbean and region 596 Central & South American & Mexico 494 US 467

37

New TDSB Students and Their Languages, 2010 Figure 8.4 shows that approximately two thirds of new students (66%) spoke a language other than English; most noticeably

Chinese (12%), Urdu (5%), and Bengali (4%).

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

English

Stu

dent

Per

cen

tage

s .6

12.3

5.2 2.22.32.52.82.933.13.33.43.7

Chin

ese

Urdu

Ben

gali

Spanish

Tagalo

g (Pilip

ino)

Arabic

Pers

ian (Fars

i)Somali Korea

n Tam

il H

ungari

an Rus

sian

Languages

Source for Figure 8.4 and Table 8.4: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2011

LANGUAGES FREQUENCY PERCENTEnglish 5,712 33.6 Chinese 2085 12.3 Urdu 886 5.2 Bengali 625 3.7 Spanish 571 3.4 Tagalog (Pilipino) 568 3.3 Arabic 520 3.1 Persian (Farsi) 518 3.0 Somali 488 2.9 Korean 479 2.8 Tamil 432 2.5 Hungarian 396 2.3 Russian 377 2.2

Table 8.4: New TDSB Students and Their Languages, 2010 Figure 8.4: New TDSB Students and Their Languages, 2010

38

Where did the TDSB students go? Trends

There were 38,969 students who were present in the Toronto District School Board on October 31, 2009 and who left by October 31, 2010.

Of these students, 16,495 or 42% graduated (i.e., Grade 12 students having a record of an OSSD, or having completed 30 credits or more by August 2010).

14,622 or 37% transferred to another educational institution, according to exit records.

7,852 or 20% left the TDSB without graduating or transferring (this includes many missing or incorrect records and shows the need for greater record completion; as well, many records will be filled in when we receive a more complete list of exit codes).

Students who left the TDSB and enrolled in other boards (62% of those who transferred outside the TDSB) usually went to boards in the Greater Toronto Area. The most frequent of these were the York Region District School Board, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and the Peel District School Board. Students also left the TDSB for other countries (17%) or private schools (9.5%); refer to Figure 8.5.

Table 8.5: Destinations of Students who

Transferred Outside the TDSB, October 31, 2010 Figure 8.5: Destinations of Students Who Transferred

Outside the TDSB, October 31, 2010

17.3%3.1% 1.4% 1.3%

5.0%9.5%

62.4%

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

Other Board OtherCountry

PrivateSchool

OtherProvince

Other Ed-Ont

University/College

HomeSchooling/Deceased/

OtherDestination

Stud

ent P

erce

ntag

e

Source for Figures 8.5 to 8.7 and Table 8.5: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2011

DESTINATION FREQUENCY PERCENT

Other Board 9,126 62.4

Other Country 2,534 17.3

Private School 1,386 9.5

Other Province 724 5.0

Other Ed-Ont 452 3.1

Home Schooling 151 1.0

College 100 0.7

University 98 0.7

Deceased 29 0.2

Other 22 0.1

Total 14,622 100

39

Figure 8.6 displays the grade of the students who left the TDSB and transferred to other Ontario Boards. They were most likely to exit the TDSB at the end of Grade 8 (11%) and at the end of SK (10%); followed by Grades 1-2 (9%) (Brown, 2011). Transfer numbers were lowest throughout the secondary school years.

Figure 8.6: Grade of Students Who Transferred to Other Ontario Boards (N=9,126)

8.5

9.99.2

8.58.1

7.47

7.5

5.5

10.6

5.5 5.3

4.1

2.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Stu

dent

Per

cen

tage

Grade

Nov 2010-11

40

2170

1550 1539

1244

882

141 126 116192209

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

York Region Toronto CDSB Peel DSB Missing Durham DSB Halton DSB TO PrivateInspected

Dufferin PeelCDSB

York CDSB Simcoe CountyDSB

School District

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

Transferred by Oct 31, 2010

Students who transferred to other Ontario Boards were 51% male and 49% female; representative of the TDSB in general. The number of student transfers to other boards5 within Ontario is displayed in Figure 8.7.

Figure 8.7: Number of Students Who Transferred to Other Boards Within Ontario

5 Other Ontario Boards that received less than 100 student transfers from the TDSB: Hamilton-Wentworth (92), Waterloo Region DSB (86), Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB (73), District School Board of Niagara (70), Ottawa-Carleton (59), Durham CDSB (50) Upper Grand DSB (49), and Thames Valley DSB (45).

41

SECTION 9: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – ENROLMENT PATTERNS Over the past decade, enrolment at both elementary and secondary schools at the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has been declining. Total enrolment in 2000-01 was approximately 296,900 (head count*) compared to approximately 259,300 students (head count1) in 2010-11. This represents a decline of approximately 37,600 students.

As of 2011-12, our declining trend in elementary school enrolment is projected to stabilize resulting in a period of recovery after many years of decline. This emerging trend can be attributed to rising birth rates combined with the five year implementation of full-day kindergarten. According to the Ministry of Finance’s Ontario Population Projection Update 2010-2036, Ontario’s 2002 fertility rates reached their lowest level on record of 1.48 children per woman. This is less than half the rate seen during the baby boom which peaked in 1960 at 3.8 children per woman. By 2008, birth rates increased to 1.58. This rate is projected to increase slightly to approximately 1.66 children per woman by 2025 but will still be well below the replacement rate of 2.1% needed to sustain population.

In contrast, secondary school enrolment is projected to continue to decline for the next several years (until 2019) as smaller elementary cohorts from previous years begin entering high school.

The enrolment patterns at the TDSB have been similar to those at most other school boards across the province. Most other boards, with the exception of three school boards in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) including Peel District School Board (DSB), York Region DSB, and York Catholic DSB, have experienced declining enrolment. According to the Ministry of Education, total enrolment across the province peaked in 2002-2003 and has been declining since that time.

Figure 9.1 displays five of the eight GTA school boards that experienced declines from 2006-07 to 2011-12. These include the TDSB, Durham Catholic DSB, Dufferin-Peel Catholic DSB, Durham DSB, and Toronto Catholic DSB. Their decreases totaled approximately 16,000 (average daily enrolment or ADE 2). In comparison, the GTA Boards experiencing enrolment increases include York Region Catholic DSB, Peel DSB, and York DSB and their increases total approximately 13,300 (ADE).

1 Head count is defined as a count of the students attending a school where every individual student is counted as “1.0” without regard for the amount of time they

are registered for instruction. 2 Average daily enrolment (ADE) is one measure of enrolment used by the Ministry of Education to calculate funding to school boards. The calculation of ADE is

based on two count dates within the school year – October 31 and March 31. The full-time equivalent (FTE) of students enrolled in a board’s schools is weighted at 0.5 for each of the count dates. Junior Kindergarten (JK) and Senior Kindergarten (SK) pupils enrolled in half day programs are counted as half-time students “0.5” in the determination of ADE for 2010–11. Average daily enrolment excludes International students and students over 21. Full-time equivalent is defined as a count of the students attending a school reflecting the amount of time that they are registered for instruction. For example, a student registered for half a day of instruction is counted as “0.5”.

42

The percentages of each Board’s decline or growth in enrolment change from 2006-07 to 2011-12 are shown in Table 9.1.

School Board Durham Catholic TDSB Dufferin-Peel

Catholic TCDSB Durham Peel York

Region Catholic

York

Enrolment Change (%) -10.5% -4.13% -2.8% -.8% -1.5% 3.5% 3.2% 5.85%

Figure 9.1: Student Enrolment Changes at Eight School Boards (TDSB and Surrounding Area), 2006-07 to 2011-12

Source: TDSB anning Division, Strategy and Planning Department, 2011 Pl

1,696

5,075 6,490

(2,241) (2,231) (979) (689)

(9,813)

(10,000)

(8,000)

(6,000)

(4,000)

(2,000)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

TDSB Durham CatholicDSB

Dufferin-PeelCatholic DSB

Durham DSB Toronto CatholicDSB

York Catholic DSB Peel DSB York Region DSB

TDSB

Table 9.1: Student Enrolment Changes from 2006-07 to 2011-12

Sources for Figure 9.1 and Table 9.1: Ministry of Education- Projected School Board Funding for the 2010-11 School Year and Planning Division, Strategy and Planning Department, Toronto District School Board, 2011.

Durham Catholic DSB Dufferin-Peel Catholic DSB Durham DSBToronto Catholic DSB York Catholic DSB Peel DSB York Region DSB

43

Enrolment Trends Trends in Junior Kindergarten (JK), Elementary, and Secondary enrolment are shown in Figures 9.2 to 9.4.

Key points reveal that JK enrolment appears to be slightly increasing from a dip in 2007; while elementary and secondary enrolment has remained relatively stable in the past few years.

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

240,000

280,000

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

2009

Year

Hea

d C

ount

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

Year

Hea

d C

ount

Figure 9.3: Elementary School Enrolment, 1967-2010

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Year

Hea

d C

ount

Figure 9.4: Secondary School Enrolment, 1967-2010

Source for Figures 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4: Planning Division, Month-end Planning Reports, Toronto District School Board, 2010

Figure 9.2: Junior Kindergarten Enrolment, 1972-2010

44

SECTION 10: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES Trends Referrals to Professional Support Services have increased significantly over the years.

While overall enrolment has been declining, the number of students using Special Education services and programs is increasing.

Services required for students with more complex needs have increased.

Although gender is equitably represented within the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), there is a disproportionate representation of boys within Special Education programs.

About half of students using Individual Education Plans (IEP) have not been formally identified through an Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) process.

Giftedness is the fastest growing exceptionality category in the TDSB.

Key Facts Referrals for Professional Support Services’ Intervention in Attendance, Child and Youth Services, Psychology,

Occupational/Physiotherapy, Social Work, and Speech-Language Pathology increased from 23,570 in 2001-02 to 25,921 in 2010-11. This represents an increase of 9%, despite declining enrolment.

The waitlist for Speech-Language and Psychology assessments has declined by 30%, from 4,082 in 2001-02 to 2,846 in 2010-11. Approximately 750 referrals were submitted to the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Team throughout 2010-11, with a steady

increase over the past five years. There has been an increase in the prevalence of students with ASD, many of whom have a range of highly complex needs.

Figure 10.1: TDSB Special Needs, 2010-11

Source: Brown, R. & Parekh, G. (2010) TDSB Special Needs 2009-10, Special Education: Structural Overview and Student Demographics, Toronto District School Board

IPRC Non-gifted - Spec Ed Classes

98443.8%

IPRC Non-gifted-

Regular Classes

68782.7%

Special Needs4227616%

Regular Students217004

84% Non-identified Special Needs

156116%

IPRC Gifted- Regular Classes

19790.8%

IPRC Gifted-Spec Ed Classes

36951.4%

IEP only42691.6%

Source: Research and Information Services, Toronto District School Board and Brown & Parekh (2010)

45

Overview of Congregated and Regular Class Enrolment In the 2010-11 school year, 42,276 students out of 259,280 (16.3% of the TDSB student population) were students with Special Needs:

3,695 students (1.4%) were in IPRC Gifted - Special Education Classes; that is, they had been formally identified as Gifted and were taking 50% or more of their classes in Special Education (i.e., congregated).

1,979 students (0.8%) were in IPRC Gifted - Regular Classes; that is, they had been formally identified as Gifted and were taking the majority of their classes in the TDSB regular day classrooms.

9,844 students (3.8%) were in IPRC non-Gifted - Special Education Classes; that is, they had been formally identified as having one of the 12 non-Gifted exceptionalities and were taking 50% or more of their classes in Special Education (i.e., congregated).

6,878 students (2.7%) were in IPRC non-Gifted - Regular Classes; that is, they had been formally identified as having one of the 12 non-Gifted exceptionalities and were taking the majority of their classes in the TDSB regular day classrooms.

4,269 students (1.6%) had IEPs and were receiving direct assistance in the classroom rather than programming in Special Education.

15,611 (6.0%) were IEP- Non-identified students; that is, students who had an IEP but had not been formally identified and received Special Education programming.

Frequency Percent IPRC Gifted: Special Education classes 3,695 1.4

IPRC Gifted: Regular classes 1,979 0.8

IPRC non-Gifted: Special Education classes 9,844 3.8

IPRC non-Gifted: Regular classes 6,878 2.7 IEP: Non-identified Special Needs (Special Education programming) 15,611 6.0

IEP Only: IEP but no Special Ed programming 4,269 1.6

Students Without Special Needs 217,004 83.7

Total 259,280 100

Source: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board and Brown & Parekh (2010)

Table 10.1: Special Needs in the TDSB, 2010-11

46


Special Needs Education: At a Glance

Key Facts

The number of students with Special Needs increased by 4,429 between 2005-06 and 2010-11, even though overall enrolment declined by 14,772.

Of all students identified as having Special Needs, 64% were male. Of students who were formally identified as having an exceptionality, 67% were male as were 60% of students placed on an IEP. For students identified as having Autism, 84% were male as were 87% of students identified as having a behavioural exceptionality.

In 2010-11, almost 20,000 students were on an IEP without a formal identification through an IPRC.

Between the 2005-06 and 2010-11 school years, 1,985 new students were identified as Gifted; the largest increase of any of the exceptionality categories.

EXCEPTIONALITY # MALE % MALE

Learning Disability 6,104 67.4 Giftedness 3,428 60.4 Mild Intellectual Disability 1,700 61.4 Behavioural 1,025 87.0 Autism 1,323 84.4 Developmental Disability 653 62.4 Physical Disability 268 59.0 Language Impairment 206 76.3 Deaf and Hard of Hearing 137 49.8 OTHER 61 57.0

(a) E

xcep

tiona

litie

s

(a) Total Exceptionalities 14,905 66.6 (b) IEP Students (Non-identified and IEP only) 12,031 60.0

All Students with Special Needs: (a) and (b) 26,936 63.7

Table 10.2: Exceptionality by Gender, 2010-11

47


Special Needs Education and Support Services

Key Facts

Crisis response remains an important part of the workload for the TDSB’s Social Work and Psychological Services. During the 2009-10 school year, the number of person-days spent in crisis response was 566. This translates into the equivalent of full-time work for three support services staff members

The need for Intensive Support Programs remains high and has increased for students identified as Gifted, students with ASD, as well as students with Developmental Disabilities (DD).

Programs for students with DD increased at the rate of three to five classes a year.

As more students with complex needs are being integrated into regular classes, there is a higher demand for support from special education assistants, and classroom teachers require additional professional learning opportunities to better support their students.

Almost 400 students with blind/low vision required services, and more deaf and hard of hearing students continue to access local schools due partly to the availability of alternate technologies and teaching methodologies.

CHANGES IN EXCEPTIONALITIES BETWEEN 2005-06 AND 2010-11

N (2005-06)

N (2010-11)

% of All Exceptionalities

(2005-06)

% of All Exceptionalities

(2010-11) %

Change Change

in Numbers

Learning Disability 8,436 9,058 42.1 40.4 -1.7 622

Giftedness 3,689 5,674 18.4 25.3 6.9 1985 Mild Intellectual Disability 3,674 2,767 18.3 12.4 -5.9 -907

Autism 930 1,568 4.6 7.0 2.4 638

Behavioural 1,020 1,178 5.1 5.3 0.2 158 Developmental Disability 1,075 1,046 5.4 4.7 -0.7 -29

Physical Disability 375 454 1.9 2.0 0.1 79 Language Impairment 368 270 1.8 1.2 -0.6 -98

Deaf and Hard of Hearing 349 275 1.7 1.2 -0.5 -74

OTHER 124 106 0.6 0.5 -0.1 -18 Total Exceptionalities 20,040 22,396 100 100 2,356

Table 10.3: Changes in Exceptionalities between 2005-06 and 2010-11

48

Figure 10.2: Schools with Learning Disability Programs, 2011-12

Source for Figures 10.2 to 10.5: Toronto District School Board, 2011. Retrieved from

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10428&menuid=23239&pageid=20145 49

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10428&menuid=23239&pageid=20145�

Figure 10.3: Schools with Gifted and Primary Gifted Programs, 2011-12

50

Figure 10.4: Schools with Mild Intellectual Disability Programs, 2011-12

51

For more information regarding Special Education programs and their locations please visit the following site: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10428&menuid=23239&pageid=20145

Figure 10.5: Schools with Autism Programs, 2011-12

52

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10428&menuid=23239&pageid=20145�

Section 23 Schools Section Programs are supported by the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) to educate students who cannot attend classes in the regular system. Transition to a regular school program or apprenticeship/ workplace is the goal in meeting individual student needs. Memorandums of Agreement are signed between the TDSB and the Care and Treatment Agency Partners which spell out the individual responsibilities of the Board, the Agency and their joint responsibilities. The Agency admits students to their programs, and the TDSB teachers then provide the educational component. TDSB teachers and Education Assistants (EAs) are supervised by the Principals of the Section 23 Schools. The Agency support workers are supervised by their respective Agency directors. Section Programs can be as short as a few days or as long as a few years; most are seen as an interim placement.

Elementary classes have a pupil teacher ratio (PTR) of 6:1 with the exception of the Epilepsy class and the CATCH program where the pupil teacher ratio is 8:1

Secondary school classes have a PTR of 8:1 except the four Young Parents’ Resource Centres which is 10:1 There are some 800 students in these programs at any given time. Approximately 1,700 students went through Section 23

Programs in 2010-11. In the secondary school programs 821 credits were granted in 2010-11

For more information on TDSB Section 23 schools or to access their brochure, visit the following sites: http://tdsbweb/webdocuments/FocusedIntervention/docs/TDSB_Section_Brochure_Sept_10.pdf or http://tdsbweb/special_education

53

http://tdsbweb/webdocuments/FocusedIntervention/docs/TDSB_Section_Brochure_Sept_10.pdf�

http://tdsbweb/special_education�

Figure 10.6: Section 23 School Locations, 2011-12

54

Figure 10.7: Section 23 School Programs, 2011-12

55

SECTION 11: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – ACHIEVEMENT PATTERNS As an indicator of student performance and board effectiveness, student achievement scores help schools, and the overall system, to monitor progress, identify areas requiring improvement, and provide programs and resources needed for student success.

This section outlines overall Toronto District School Board (TDSB) student achievement in the following areas:

1. Senior Kindergarten and the Early Development Index, Spring 2011

2. EQAO1 Assessments of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics (Grades 3, 6, and 9): Percentage of Students Achieving Levels 3 or 4, 2006-07 to 2010-11

3. Grade 10 Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test Success Rates, 2010-11

4. Grade 9 Credit Accumulation, 2009-10

5. Grades 9 and 10 Pass Rates (English and Mathematics), 2010-11

6. Post-secondary Pathways, Spring 2010

7. Graduation Rates for Four Cohorts, Fall 2002 - Fall 2005

1. Senior Kindergarten and the Early Development Index2, Spring 2011 In Spring 2000, the TDSB piloted the Early Development Indicators (EDI) with Kindergarten students in schools within the former Toronto and North York regions. The EDI results and relationships presented in this Environmental Scan are from the most recent round of EDI administration in Spring 2011.

The EDI assesses children’s readiness to learn at school across five categories:

Physical Health and Well-being,

Social Competence,

Emotional Maturity,

Language and Cognitive Development, and

Communication Skills and General Knowledge.

1 For further information regarding EQAO results, please visit http://www.eqao.com/AboutEQAO/AboutEQAO.aspx?Lang=E 2 For further information regarding EDI studies, please visit this site http://www.offordcentre.com/readiness/files/2008_05_26_SK_EDI_and_EQAO_MYau.pdf

56

http://www.eqao.com/AboutEQAO/AboutEQAO.aspx?Lang=E

http://www.offordcentre.com/readiness/files/2008_05_26_SK_EDI_and_EQAO_MYau.pdf

Essentially, children that begin school with age appropriate development, and adequate social, emotional, and communication skills are more likely to take advantage of learning opportunities within and outside of school.

Figure 11.1 presents Spring 2011 EDI results for SK students attending the TDSB, based on the Ontario baseline. Compared to the Ontario SK population, the TDSB children had higher percentages of students with very low EDI scores on two or more domains (18% versus 14%). There were 15% of the TDSB SK students with very low scores on one domain; while the Ontario baseline was slightly lower at 13%. However, it should be noted that compared to the last round of EDI administration (2008), the 2011 results have shown steady improvements especially for the first 200 most needy schools according to the TDSB LOI3.

Figure 11.1: Percentage of Senior Kindergarten Students with Very Low EDI Scores, Spring 2011

16%

11%

11%

12%

17%

5%

16%

15%

15%

16%

0% 25% 50%

Physical Health/Well-being

Social Competence

Emotional Maturity

Language/Cognitive Development

Communication Skills/ General Knowledge

Very Low (10th Percentile) Low (25th Percentile)

Source: Yau (October 2011). Young Children’s School Readiness in Toronto Public Schools. EDI Sharing Workshops, 2011 Results and Findings. Toronto District School Board.

3 The Learning Opportunities Index (LOI 2011) ranks each TDSB school from most needy to least needy, based on a number of challenge indicators such as income. The 1st quintile represents the first 100 most needy schools in the TDSB.

57

According to the 2011 EDI results, male students were twice as likely to score very low on two or more domains than their female counterparts (see Figure 11.2).

Figure 11.2: Very Low on Two or More EDI Domains Females and Males, Spring 2011

11%

23%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Female MaleGender

Per

cent

age

of S

enio

r K

inde

rgar

ten

Stu

dent

s Source: Yau (October 2011). Young Children’s School Readiness in Toronto Public Schools. EDI

Sharing Workshops, 2011 Results and Findings. Toronto District School Board.

58

Figure 11.3 displays 2011 EDI results by Family of Schools (FOS) (for further reference, see Section 2, Figure 2.1- Families of

Schools map). As the map shows, young children’s readiness for formal schooling varies geographically. Some regions or

neighbourhoods have a much higher percentage of children being assessed very low on multiple developmental domains.

Figure 11.3: Percentage of Senior Kindergarten Students with Very Low EDI Scores by Families of Schools, Spring 2011

Source: Yau (October 2011). Young Children’s School Readiness in Toronto Public Schools. EDI Sharing Workshops, 2011 Results and Findings. Toronto District School Board.

59

2. EQAO Assessments4 of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics (Grades 3, 6, and 9): Percentage of Students Achieving Levels 3 or 4, 2010-11, 2006-07 to 2010-11

Key Highlights for EQAO Grade 3 (see Figures 11.3a, 11.3b, and 11.3c) In Grade 3 Reading the TDSB has consistently performed below the province; however, Level 3/4 performance has increased

over the last 3 years. Level 3/4 performance in Grade 3 Writing has increased over the last 3 years. In 2009-10, TDSB showed the same Level 3/4

performance as the province and in 2010-11 the TDSB was higher than the province. In 2009-10, Level 3/4 performance in Grade 3 Mathematics showed the same performance as the province. 4 Method 1: All Students includes all students in the school, Board or province. In addition to the percentage of students at each of the four levels, percentages are reported for exempt, no data and not enough evidence for Level 1. Students with no data are students who did not complete any part of the assessment due to absence or for medical or other reasons. Not enough evidence for Level 1 includes students who provided enough information to score but produced work that was below Level 1.

F Fi igure11.3a: Grade 3 Reading gure 11.3b: Grade 3 Writing

Figure 11.3c: Grade 3 Mathematics

Source for Figures 11.3a, 11.3b, and 11.3c: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010-11

Grade 3 Reading

57% 57% 58% 64%60%

65%61%62% 61% 62%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Assessment Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

TDSB Province

Grade 3 Writing

64% 64% 66% 74%70%

73%66%64% 68% 70%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Assessment Year

Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts Grade 3 Mathematics

66% 67% 69% 70%71%

69%68%69% 70% 71%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Assessment Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

11.3c: Grade 3 EQAO Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11

11.3b: Grade 3 EQAO Writing, 2006-07 to 2010-11

11.3a: Grade 3 EQAO Reading, 2006-07 to 2010-11

TDSB Province TDSB Province

60

Key Highlights for EQAO Grade 6 (see Figures 11.4a, 11.4b, and 11.4c)

In Grade 6 Reading, the TDSB has consistently performed below the province; however, Level 3/4 performance has shown a 12% increase over the last 5 years. The gap between the TDSB and the province has decreased each year and currently there is only a 1% difference between EQAO results.

Level 3/4 performance in Grade 6 Writing has increased over the last 5 years by 13%.

Level 3/4 performance in Grade 6 Mathematics shows that the TDSB performed at or above the province over 3 consecutive years from 2008-09 to 2010-11.

Figure11.4a: Grade 6 Reading F igure 11.4b: Grade 6 Writing Figure 11.4c: Grade 6 Mathematics

Source for Figures 11.3a, 11.3b, and 11.3c: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010-11

Grade 6 Reading

61% 63% 67% 73%69%

%66%64% 69% 72%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Assessment Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

74

TDSB Province

Grade 6 Writing

61%66% 67%

74%71%

73%67%61% 67% 70%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Assessment Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

Grade 6 Mathematics

59% 60% 63% 61%63%

58%61%59% 63% 61%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Assessment Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

11.4c: Grade 6 EQAO Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11

11.4b: Grade 6 EQAO Writing, 2006-07 to 2010-11

11.4a: Grade 6 EQAO Reading, 2006-07 to 2010-11


61

Key Highlights for EQAO Grade 9 Applied and Academic Mathematics (see Figures 11.5a and 11.5b) In Grade 9 Applied Mathematics, Level 3/4 performance has increased over the past few years; however, performance is well

below the province In Grade 9 Academic Mathematics Level 3/4 performance has consistently increased over time though remained unchanged in the

2010-11 school year over the previous year’s results; however, performance has been slightly lower than the province.

Source for Figures 11.5a, and 11.5b: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010-11

Figure11.5a: Grade 9 EQAO Applied Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11

Figure11.5b: Grade 9 EQAO Academic Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11

Grade 9 Applied Mathematics

17% 19% 23% 30%26%

42%34%35% 38% 40%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Assessment Year

Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts Grade 9 Academic Mathematics

66% 72% 75% 81%81%83%75%71% 77% 82%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Assessment Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s


62

3. Grade 10 Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test Success Rates, 2010-11 The success rates of OSSLT5 first-time eligible students have remained fairly consistent over time; however, performance has been slightly lower than the province.

Figure 11.6: OSSLT Success Rates Over Time for Fully Participating First-time Eligible Students Who Were Successful,

2006-07 to 2010-11

5 Method 2: Participating Students includes students who actually took part in the assessment and produced at least some work that could be scored. Students are excluded from these calculations if they were exempted or had no data.

Source for Figures 11.6: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010-11

OS

81% 80% 82% 81%81%

84%84% 85% 84%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11Assessment Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

SLT First Time Eligible Students

83%

TDSB Province

63

4. Grade 9 Cohort Credit Accumulation6, 2009-10 The Grade 9 cohort7 results show slight increases for students completing more than 7 credits; the percentage of students completing fewer than 6 credits declined in a four year time span from 2006-07 to 2010-11.

Figure 11.7: Credit Accumulation for the Grade 9 Cohort,

2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10

87% 88% 89%

11%14%

86%

13% 12%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Completed 7+ credits Completed 6 or few er credits

2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10

Source: Student Success Indicators, Toronto District School Board, 2009-10

6 Grade 9 credit accumulation examines the proportion of Grade 9 students who, by the end of Summer School 2010, had completed 6 or fewer credits, putting them at-risk of not graduating on time and possibly dropping out. 7 The Grade 9 cohort consists of 13-15 year old students who attended the TDSB over the full 2009-10 school year (September 2009 through June 2010) and who, according to student records, were new to secondary school studies.

64

5. Grade 9 and 10 Pass Rates (English and Mathematics), 2010-11 Key Highlights for the Grade 9 Pass Rates (English and Mathematics)

Increases are reported in pass rates for Grade 9 Academic and Applied English and also in Grade 9 Academic and Applied Mathematics.

Figure 11.9: Pass Rate for Grade 9 Mathematics, 2006-07 to 2010-11

Figure 11.8: Pass Rate for Grade 9 English, 2006-07 to 2010-11

88% 88% 90% 90% 91%

69% 70% 72% 72% 75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-2010 2010-11St

uden

t Per

cent

age

Math Academic Math Applied

93% 94% 94% 95% 96%

76% 77% 77% 77% 79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-2010 2010-11

Stud

ent P

erce

ntag

e

English Academic English Applied

Source for Figures 11.8 and 11.9: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010-11

65

Key Highlights for the Grade 10 Pass Rates (English and Mathematics)

There have been slight increases in the pass rates for Grade 10 English and Mathematics; the largest increase is in Grade 10 Academic Mathematics (see Figures 11.10 and 11.11).

Figure 11.10: Pass Rate for Grade 10 English,

2006-07 to 2010-11 Figure 11.11: Pass Rate for Grade 10 Mathematics,

2006-07 to 2010-11

92% 92% 92% 93% 94%

74% 74% 74% 75% 75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006-07 2007-07 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Stud

ent P

erce

ntag

e

English Academic English Applied

82% 81% 84% 86% 87%

70% 68% 67% 70% 70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11S

tude

nt P

erce

ntag

e

Math Academic Math Applied

Source for Figures 11.10 and 11.11: Research and Information Services, Toronto District School Board.

66

6. Post-secondary Pathways, Spring 2010 Figures 11.12 and 11.13 show that post-secondary applications have increased for 17 year olds in the two year span of Spring 2007 to Spring 2009; while applications remained constant for 18-21 year olds.

Figure 11.12: Ontario Post-secondary Applications for

17 Year Olds, Spring 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 Figure 11.13: Ontario Post-secondary Applications for

18-21 Year Olds, Spring 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010

42%

7%

47%43%

6%

47%44%

7%

45%45%

7% 4%

44%

4% 4% 3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

University College Both Universityand College

Did Not Apply

20%15%

6%

60%

21%

13%

61%

20%15%

60%

19%15%

61%

5% 5% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

University College Both Universityand College

Did Not Apply

Stud

ent P

erce

ntag

e

2007 2008 2009 2010

uden

t Per

cent

age

St

2007 2008 2009 2010

Source for Figures 11.12 and 11.13: Student Success Indicators, Toronto District School Board, 2008-11

67

78%

76%

74%73%

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005

Stud

ent P

erce

ntag

e

Graduates

Figure 11.14: Graduation Rates for Four Cohort Groups

The graduation rates increased for the four cohort groups including Fall 2002 to Fall 2005.

7. Graduation Rates for Four Cohorts, Fall 2002 – Fall 2005

Source: Brown (2010) and Brown (2011)

68

SECTION 12: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – ACHIEVEMENT GAPS, 2009-10 This section examines the following eight student sub-groups, within the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), and the achievement gaps present within each:

1. Gender

2. Racial Background

3. Students’ Home Language

4. Parental Presence at Home

5. Parental Educational Background

6. Family Socio-economic Status

7. Special Education Needs

8. Aboriginal Students

1. Gender Senior Kindergarten: EDI1 results from teachers’ assessments show that gender gaps exist, across all five domains. The largest gaps were in Social Competence, and Emotional Maturity (see Figure 12.1).

12%

6% 5%

9%

13%

19%16% 17%

15%

22%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Physical Health/Well-being

Social Competence Emotional Maturity Language/CognitiveDevelopment

CommunicationSkills/GeneralKnowledge

Five DomainsFemale Male

Figure 12.1: Achievement Gap with EDI Results by Gender, 2011

Source: Yau(October, 2011). Young Children’s School Readiness in Toronto Public Schools. EDI Sharing Workshops, 2011 Results and Findings. Toronto District School Board.

1 Early Development Instrument (EDI): A screening tool for Kindergarten teachers to assess the school readiness level of their students. It is a group measure consisting of over 150 items on young children’s 5 developmental areas- Physical health and Well-being, Social Knowledge and Competence, Emotional Health and Maturity, Language and Cognitive Development, and Communication Skills and General Knowledge.

69

Twenty three percent (23%) of male SK students scored very low on two or more of the five EDI domains; results for females were 11% (see Figure 12.2). Figure 12.2: Very Low on Two or More EDI Domains

Females and Males, Spring 2011

11%

23%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Female MaleGender

Perc

enta

ge o

f Sen

ior

Kin

derg

arte

n S

tude

nts

Source: Yau (October, 2011). Young Children’s School Readiness in Toronto Public Schools. EDI Sharing Workshops, 2011 Results and Findings. Toronto District School Board.

70

Achievement gaps in gender also exist in grades beyond the kindergarten level. Figure 12.3 shows the gender gap from the primary

grades (3-8), through secondary school, and into post-secondary application rates.

Figure 12.3: Achievement Results by Gender: Percentage of Students Meeting Expectations

68%

79%

70%

78%81%

63%

78% 77%71% 72%

90%

51%

58%

66%

84% 84%

55%

69%

59%

69% 69% 69% 68%

60% 62%59%

66%60%

46%51%

55%

45%

78%87%

79%

52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gr. 3

EQAO R

eadin

Sources for Figure 12.2: Zhang, Samuel (2011) Director’s Progress Report, Toronto District School Board, and Research and information Services (Report Card Results and Data Interpretation Handbook 2009-10), Toronto District School Board. Grade 10 OSSLT Results: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=9976&menuid=5813&pageid=5060

Category Details: Grade 3 EQAO, Grade 6 EQAO, and Grade 7-8 Report Card Results (Achieving Level 3 or 4), Grade 9 Credit Accumulation (Achieving 7 or more credits, 2009-10), Grade 10 Credit Accumulation (Achieving 15 or more credits, 2009-10), Grade 9 Courses (Achieving 70% or higher), Grade 10 OSSLT (Method 2-fully participating, first-time eligible students, 2010-11), Post-secondary Applications (17-21 year olds, Spring 2010).

g

Gr. 3

EQAO W

riting

Gr. 3 E

QAO Math

ematcs

Gr. 6

EQAO R

eadin

g

Gr. 6

EQAO W

riting

Gr. 6 E

QAO Math

ematcs

Gr. 7

-8 Read

ingGr. 7

-8 Writi

ng

Gr. 7-8

Mathem

atcs

Gr. 7

-8 Scie

nce

Gr. 9 C

redit A

ccum

ulatio

nGr. 9

Eng

lish

Gr. 9

Math

emati

cs G

r. 9 S

cience

Gr. 9

Geo

graphy

Gr. 10 C

redit A

ccum

ulatio

n

Gr. 10 O

SSLT su

cces

sful

Pos

t Seco

ndary

Applica

tions

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s

Female Male

71


2. Racial Background2

Racial Designation

EDI: Two or more Domains were scored ‘Very Low’

Black 22%

Middle Eastern 20%

Latin America 19%

Southeast Asian 16%

South Asian 14%

Mixed 13%

White 11%

East Asian 11%

Grade 3 (achieved Level 3 or 4)

Grade 6 (achieved Level 3 or 4)

Reading Writing Math Reading Writing Math East Asian 68% 74% 85% 78% 83% 86% White 60% 60% 78% 76% 75% 72% South Asian 60% 71% 74% 68% 74% 68%

Southeast Asian 55% 65% 73% 69% 77% 72%

Mixed 58% 63% 72% 70% 74% 66% Middle Eastern 40% 55% 61% 55% 57% 54% Latin American 37% 47% 52% 51% 55% 42% Black 43% 51% 50% 47% 55% 37% TDSB 57% 64% 67% 63% 66% 60%

Source: Yau & O’Reilly, 2009, p 24

Table 12.2: Grade 3 and 6 EQAO Reading, Writing, and Mathematics Results by Race, 2008

Source: Sinay, 2010, p 2

Table 12.1: Comparing EDI Results with Racial Designation, 2008

Table 12.1 shows that the highest proportion of students who scored very low on two or more EDI domains were Black (22%), followed by Middle Eastern (20%), Latin America (19%), Southeast Asian (16%), South Asian (14%), Mixed (13%), East Asian (11%), and White (11%). According to Table 12.2, there are clear achievement gaps by students’ racial background in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics results for both Grade 3 and 6. The three groups experiencing the most challenges are Black, Latin American, and Middle Eastern students. Some of the differences between groups can be as large as 40 percentage points, especially in the area of Reading and Mathematics. While these discrepancies need to be studied further, some of the family factors including parental presence at home, parental educational background, and household income, may also account for some of these differences” (Yau & O’Reilly, 2009 p 24). 2 For more information on individual portraits for each racialized group represented in the TDSB’s student population, please visit: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=310&menuid=36377&pageid=30763

72


Grades 7 and 8: The highest proportion of students achieving at or above the provincial level (Level 3) in report card Reading and Writing results were East Asian, followed by White, Southeast Asian, South Asian, Mixed, Middle Eastern, Latin, and Black students (Sinay, 2010). Grades 9 to 12: Grade 9 at-risk students who identified themselves as East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian, and White had at-risk rates slightly above the TDSB total. Students who identified themselves as Black or Latin were more likely to be at-risk. A similar distribution was seen in the cohort3 achievement in the four mandatory subjects of English, Mathematics, Science, and Geography. With the OSSLT, the pattern was less noticeable for ESL and recent immigrants; still self-identified Black students had the lowest OSSLT pass rate (Sinay, 2010). 3. Students’ Home Language Senior Kindergarten 2011 EDI: Students’ whose home language was English, 15% scored very low on 2 or more domains. Students’ whose home language was not English, 23% scored very low on 2 or more domains.

Grades 3 and 6 EQAO: Students who were bilingual were more likely to achieve at or above the provincial level in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics.

Grades 7 and 8: Student language groups of Romanian, Korean, Hindi, Chinese, Bengali, and Serbian had the highest proportion of students achieving at or above the provincial level in report card Reading and Writing.

Grades 9-12: English speaking students (approximately half the students) had achievement levels below average.

Grades 9-12: Somali, Spanish, and Dari speaking students had higher at-risk rates and lower achievement. 3 Students in the Grade 9 cohort who were 13 to 15 years old and attended the TDSB over the full 2006-07 school year; these students were, according to available records, new to secondary achievement. The results for theses Grade 9 students are available in the 2006 Student Census: Linking Demographic Data with Student Achievement by Robert S. Brown and Erhan Sinay (2008).

73

4. Parental Presence at Home Students with both parents at home show higher achievement levels than students with only one parent. This achievement gap for parental presence began at the kindergarten level: EDI (2008) results showed that 20% of SK students from lone parent homes scored very low on 2 or more domains, and 12% of SK students who lived with both parents scored very low on 2 or more domains. The Grade 6 EQAO results report the largest gap, in the areas of Reading and Mathematics; 15 and 20 percentage points, respectively.

Figure 12.4: Achievement Results by Parental Presence at Home: Percentage of Students Meeting Expectations

5058

6357

63

52 54 53 51 47

80

4248

3845

75

6066

76 72 75 72 69 69 68 65

92

5763

5359

86

0

20

40

60

80

100

Grade 3

EQAO Read

ing

Grade 3

EQAO Writi

ng

Grade 3

EQAO Math

Grade 6

EQAO Read

ing

Grade 6

EQAO Writi

ng

Grade 6

EQAO Math

Grade 7/

8 Rea

ding

Grade 7/

8 Writi

ngGrade

7/8 M

athGrade

7/8 S

cienc

e

Grade 9

Credit A

ccum

ulatio

n Grade

9 Scie

nce

Grade 9

Geograp

hy

Grade 9

Mathem

atics

Grade

9 Engli

shGrade

10 O

SSLT Pe

rcen

tage

of S

tude

nts

Lone Parent Both Parents

Category Details: Grade 3 EQAO, Grade 6 EQAO, and Grade 7-8 Report Card Results (Achieving Level 3 or 4) , Grade 9 Credit Accumulation (Achieving 7 or more credits), Grade 10 Credit Accumulation (Achieving 15 or more credits), Grade 9 Courses (Achieving 70% or higher), Grade 10 OSSLT Successful Students (Method 2-fully participating, first-time eligible students).

Source: Grade 3 and 6 EQAO – 2008 Parent Census Kindergarten to Grade 6: System Overview and Detailed Findings. Yau, Maria & O’Reilly, Jan. February 2009.Toronto District School Board http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/about_us/external_research_application/docs/2008ParentCensusK-6SystemOverviewAndDetailedFindings.pdf Grade 7/8 and Grade 9 - 2006 Student Census: Linking Demographic Data with Student Achievement Robert S. Brown and Erhan Sinay. April 2008. Toronto District School Board http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/about_us/external_research_application/docs/2006StudentCensusLinkingAchievementDemoFinal-Email.pdf

74

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/about_us/external_research_application/docs/2008ParentCensusK-6SystemOverviewAndDetailedFindings.pdf

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/wwwdocuments/about_us/external_research_application/docs/2006StudentCensusLinkingAchievementDemoFinal-Email.pdf

5. Parental Educational Background EDI SK results show lower scores on readiness to learn measures in association with their mother’s educational attainment (see Figure 12.5).

24%

15%

9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Mothers with HighSchool

Mother's With College Mother's with Higherthan University

Mother's Level of Education

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stu

dent

s (v

ery

low

on

2+ E

DI

dom

ains

)

EDI Sr. Kindergarten (very low on 2+ domains)

Figure 12.5: EDI SK Results with Mother’s Level of Education: Very Low on 2 or More of the 5 Domains, 2008

Source: Sinay, 2010 p 4

75

Grade 3 and 6 EQAO results also show lower achievement levels in the category of Parental Education (see Figure 12.6).

Figure 12.6: Grades 3 and 6 EQAO Results by Parental Education

0

20

40

60

80

100

Parents Graduated University Parents College Graduates Parents with Secondary

Stud

ent P

erce

ntag

e (L

evel

3 o

r 4)

Grade 3 EQAO Reading Grade 3 EQAO Writing Grade 3 EQAO Math

Grade 6 EQAO Reading Grade 6 EQAO Writing Grade 6 EQAO Math

Source: Yau & O’Reilly, 2009

76

6. Family Socio-economic Status Young children’s school readiness differed by socio-economic status (SES). For example, the 2011 EDI results show that nearly

25% of SK students from the most needy LOI4 schools scored very low on 2 or more domains, compared to less than 10% of SK children from the most affluent neighbourhoods. A considerable difference (up to 30 percentage points) was also present between the lower and higher family income groups in the Grade 3 and 6 EQAO results for Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. Figure 12.7 displays Grade 9 student achievement results, in core subjects, associated with their family socio-economic status.

Grade 9 Student Achievement by Socioeconomic Status (SES)

0102030405060708090

100

Professional Semi-professional Skilled clerical Unskilled clerical Non-renumerative

Profession

Stud

ent P

erce

ntag

e (A

chie

ving

Le

vel 3

or 4

)Figure 12.7: Grade 9 Student Achievement by Socio-economic Status and EQAO Results

Grade 9 Science Grade 9 Geography Grade 9 Mathematics

4 The Learning Opportunities Index (LOI 2011) ranks each TDSB school from most needy to least needy, based on a number of challenge indicators such as income. The 1st quintile represents the first 100 neediest schools in the TDSB.

Grade 9 English OSSLT (Successful)

Source: Brown & Sinay, 2008

77

7. Special Education Needs Trend

Secondary school students identified as having non-Gifted Special Needs are at high risk of not graduating and face limited access to post-secondary institutions.

Key Facts

Students with Special Needs have an identified exceptionality or an Individual Educational Plan (IEP).

Of the Grade 10 students identified with Special Needs, who took the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test in 2010, 15% of first-time eligible students in Special Education classes and 45% of students in regular classes were successful (i.e., passed both the Reading and Writing components of the test).

Figure 12.8: First-time Eligible Students 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2011: Proportion of Students Passing the OSSLT

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Program TypeNote: Total Includes Exempt Students

% o

f Suc

cess

ful

Stu

dent

s

2006 72% 97% 93% 14% 47% 53% 53% 77%

2008 72% 97% 96% 17% 50% 45% 50% 77%

2009 73% 99% 98% 14% 49% 50% 53% 79%

2010

2006 2008 2009 2010

74% 98% 98% 15% 45% 47% 50% 80%

All TDSB Students

IPRC Gifted- Special Ed

Classes

IPRC Gifted - Regular Classes

IPRC Non-Gifted - Special Ed

Classes

IPRC Non-Gifted - Regular Classes

Non-Identified Students

IEP onlyStudents W ithout

Special Needs

2011

2011

Source for 2006, 2008, and 2009 data: Brown & Parekh, 2010 p 29

Source for 2011: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board

78

Students with Special Needs Students identified as having non-Gifted Special Needs, post-secondary access was limited. As seen in Figure 12.9, only 3% of

students with Special Needs taught in congregated classes and 13% of Special Needs students taught in regular classes confirmed acceptance to university.

Grade 9 Cohorts of Fall 2004:

Post-secondary Co Status in Grade 9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Special Needs Classification (as of Fall 2004)

Pro

port

ion

of S

tude

nts

nfirmations by Special Needs

Figure 12.9: Grade 9 Cohorts of Fall 2004: Post-secondary Confirmations (Fall 2009) by Special Needs Status in Grade 9

Did not Apply Applied to Post-secondary Conf irmed College Conf irmed University

Conf irmed University 46% 72% 64% 3% 13% 12% 16% 51%

Confirmed College 15% 5% 4% 16% 24% 23% 17% 14%

Applied to Post-secondary 10% 12% 22% 6% 9% 8% 8% 10%

Did not Apply 30% 11% 11% 76% 54% 57% 59% 25%

All TDSB Students

IPRC Gif ted -Spec Ed Classes

IPRC Gif ted -Regular Classes

IPRC Non-Gif ted - Spec Ed

IPRC Non-Gif ted - Regular

Non-identif ied Special

selected

TDSB Students Without

Local IEPbut not IEP only

Source: Brown & Parekh, 2010 p 30

79

8. Aboriginal Students in the Toronto District School Board

Primary

There were a total of 257 Aboriginal students present in Grades 7 and 8 during the Fall 2006 school year. Report card results, in these grades, were found to be strong predictors of secondary school achievement, as seen in Figure 12.10. There was an average achievement gap of 18% across the four main subjects.

The largest achievement gap was in the subject of Mathematics (21%).

Grades 7 & 8 Report Card Results (2006-07)

41%43%47%54%

61%64%65%66%

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

75%

Reading Writing Mathematics ScienceSubject

Perc

enta

ge A

bove

Le

vel 3

(pro

vinc

ial

stan

dard

)

Figure 12.10: Aboriginal Students: Grade 7 and 8 Report Card Results, 2006-07

Aboriginal Students Level 3 & 4 TDSB Population

Source: Sinay, 2010 p 7

80

32% of Aboriginal students were highly at risk in credit accumulation (i.e., achieving less than 7 credits) while the full cohort was almost two and half times lower in the highly at-risk category.

17% of Aboriginal Grade 9 students achieved a Mathematics mark of 70% or higher. In comparison, non-Aboriginal students were more than three and a half times likely to achieve a mark of 70% (provincial level or Level 3) or higher (64% of the full cohort).

In 2007, post-secondary pathways for Aboriginal students, aged 17-18, showed application rates lower than the full TDSB population.

Source: Brown, 2010

Comparatively, Grade 9 Aboriginal students in the cohort of 2006-07, also showed noticeably lower achievement when compared with the full cohort for that grade.

17-18 Year Old TDSB Students and Aboriginal Students: Post Secondary Confirmed Offers of Admission 2007

Figure 12.11: 17-18 Year Old TDSB Students and Aboriginal Students: Post-secondary Confirmed Offers of Admissions, 2007

20%

60%

71%

11% 9%15%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

University College Did Not ApplyPost Secondary Options

Per

cent

age

of A

bori

gina

lan

d TD

SB

Stu

dent

s

TDSBAboriginal

Post-secondary

Secondary

81

Percentage of Students Suspended By Enrollment

5.4%

4.3%

3.7%

3.3%

3.1%

2.6%

5.6%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0%

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Scho

ol Y

ears

Percent of Students Suspended

Total Number of Student Suspensions by Age For All Elementary and Secondary Schools (2009-10)

156178

292375

612911

10851289

15391335

1091

0 500 1000 1500 2000

789

1011121314151617

Age

Number of Suspensions

SECTION 13: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – SAFE SCHOOL PATTERNS, 2009-10 The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) identifies Caring and Safe Schools as a priority and works very hard to raise awareness in schools about the factors that make a school community caring and safe. It begins with an understanding that each of the staff, students, parents, and community partners, has a role to play. In order to ensure that schools are safe and caring places for learning, the TDSB is focusing on proactive rather than reactive measures to support students through the Caring and Safe Schools initiatives.

This section outlines overall system longitudinal information on the percentage of suspensions, number of students suspended, as well as, suspension by age group.

Suspensions and Expulsions Key Trends

The percentage of students suspended, by system enrolment, has declined over the years as is similar for the number of expulsions.

Key Facts The number of student suspensions rose from age 7 until it peaked at age 15. The biggest jump was between ages 11 and 12.

In 2009-10, students aged 12 to 17 accounted for 75% of the suspensions.

Figure 13.1: Percentage of Students Suspended by Enrolment from 2003-04 to 2009-10

Figure 13.2: Total Number of Student Suspensions by Age For All Elementary and Secondary Schools, 2009-10

Source: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010 Source: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

82

Number of Students Who Received a Suspension

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

Total 11798 15347 16577 15254 15563 11818 9923 8890 7979 6655

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Figure 13.4

TDSB Suspension Data, 2000-01 to 2009-10 The number of students suspended increased from about 11,700 in 2000-01 to over 15,000 in 2004-05 (see Figure 13.3). A

substantial decrease occurred between 2004-05 and 2005-06; with continual decline to the 2009-10 school year.

In 2009-10, 73% of all students suspended did not incur another suspension in the same school year. In other words, approximately 26% of suspensions occurred more than once for the same student.

Number of Suspensions

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

24000

28000

Num

ber o

f Sus

pens

ions

Total 17376 24202 26411 24582 25437 17915 14756 13010 11572 9635

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Figure 13.3

Figure 13.3: Number of Students Who Received a Suspension, 2000-01 to 2009-10

Figure 13.4: Number of Suspensions, 2000-01 to 2009-10.

Source for Figures 13.3 and 13.4: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

83

SECTION 14: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – CONTINUING EDUCATION The Continuing Education department supports student achievement and lifelong learning with delivery to approximately 184,000

registrants, from kindergarten to seniors in more than 500 locations.

Continuing Education programs serve many Toronto District School Board elementary and secondary day school students.

ADULT 85,637English as a Second Language Non-Credit Programs 29,407Adult English as a Second Language 29,155Specialized Language Training Projects

193TESL Training (Teaching English as a Second Language) 45TEFL Training (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) 14Community Interest Programs 29,032General Interest (including summer programs) 26,315Seniors' Daytime 2,717Adult Day School Credit Programs 12,346Parent Workshops 14,852

Table 14.1: Continuing Education Program Registrations:

Kindergarten to Grade 8, and Secondary

Table 14.2: Continuing Education Program Registrations:

Adults

Figure 14.1: Continuing Education Registrations, 2005-06 to 2010-11

K to 8 59,646Literacy & Numeracy Programs for Success Gr 7/8 19,437After School Grades 7/8 5,782Summer Grades 7/8 3,052Summer Grade 8 'Moving on Up' 10,603Literacy and Numeracy-Ontario Focused Intervention Partnership 8,260School Year Tutoring Grades 1 to 6 5,641Summer Grades 1 to 6 - OFIP & Model Schools for Inner Cities Partnership 2,619International Languages & African Heritage Elementary 30,854Communit

y Programs 863After 4 528Summer Music Camps 335International Initiatives 232 Note: Cells in Tables 14.1 and 14.2 highlighted

green are subtotals of numbers below their respective sections. Source for Figure 14.1, and Tables 14.1 and 14.2: Department of Continuing Education, Toronto District School Board, 2011

SECONDARY 38,479Credit 26,626Summer School Credit Program 15,753Night School Credit Program 10,873

Literacy and Numeracy 11,853Literacy and Numeracy After School 11,033

Literacy and Numeracy Summer 820

159,425169,994 167,144

185,938196,907

183,762

50,000

100,000

150,000

200, 0

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

Year

Reg

istr

atio

ns

0

00

84

Support of the Toronto District School Board’s Priorities The Continuing Education Department supports Dr. Chris Spence’s Vision of Hope 3.0 by working to ensure equity of access for

students, providing enriching opportunities in and beyond the classroom, and promoting International Studies. The department delivers many programs that support the achievement of Toronto District School Board’s (TDSB) day school students. In addition, our programs reinforce a positive connection with parents and the community. Continuing Education makes a priority of re-engaging adolescent and adult learners into programs where they can discover and pursue new pathways to success. By providing meaningful pathways for students to achieve their educational goals, the department aligns itself with overall system goals.

Student Achievement

Reinforcement of regular day school initiatives through expanded learning opportunities beyond day school hours.

Re-engagement of students through alternate programming options such as night and summer school credit.

Programming that reflects the diversity of TDSB students (e.g., International Languages and Adult English as a Second Language Programs).

Support for parents/guardians’ participation in their child(ren)’s learning and in their own educational attainment.

Delivery of Adult Credit programs in five high schools in the TDSB.

Parent and Community Engagement

Use of TDSB school space for program delivery.

Programs for newcomers.

Parent Workshops.

Internal and external partnerships, e.g., Focus on Youth, Full Service Schools, community agencies and centers, and unique programming in response to learner needs.

Building of relationships between the TDSB and the community through both credit and non-credit learning opportunities.

Locations, 2010

532 (TDSB and non-TDSB) locations offered one or more Continuing Education program.

TDSB school support: Continuing Education programs were delivered in 91% of TDSB’s Model Schools for Inner Cities, 94% of Priority Schools, and 93% of Urban Priority High Schools.

15 Full Service Schools offered one or more Continuing Education program.

85

Support for Secondary Day School Student Achievement Figure 14.2: TDSB Secondary School Students Enrolled in Regular Day Classes and Continuing Education, 2009-10

Programs provide expanded opportunities for credit accumulation in courses leading to the Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD). Students, at-risk of not completing diploma requirements, benefit from the alternate delivery options offered.

18260, 20%74400, 80%Types of courses include full credit, remedial credit, transfer courses, and co-op credit. Programs are funded by the Ministry of Education through the Continuing Education grant.

Regular Secondary Day School Student Participation 2009-10:

20% (18,260 out of 92,660) of students in regular secondary day school programs enrolled in one or more continuing education credit courses (see Figure 14.2).

Students taking regular day classes and Continuing Education(credit courses)

Students taking regular day classes only

Source for Figures 14.2 and 14.3: Department of Continuing Education and Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

The grade distribution of the students (18,260) who enrolled in a Continuing Education credit course during the 2009-10 school year is shown in Figure 14.3. There was a steady increase between Grades 9 to 12. Figure 14.3: Grade of TDSB Regular Day Secondary School Students Enrolled in

Continuation Education Credit Courses, 2009-10

17%21%

29%34%

10%

20%

30%

40%

nt P

erce

ntag

e (N

=182

60)

0%Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Grade

Stu

de

86

There were 33,380 students out of 92,660 (or 36%) regular day school students in the TDSB, over the 2009-10 school year, that had taken a Continuing Education course at some point in their secondary school career. The proportions increased by grade as shown in Figure 14.4. Figure 14.4: Percentage of TDSB Regular Day Secondary School Students who Had Taken a

Continuing Education Course, 2009-10 and earlier

28%

42%51%

16%0%

20%

40%

60%

Gr. 9 Gr. 10 Gr. 11 Gr. 12

Grade

Per

cent

age

of S

tude

nts

(N=3

3,38

0)

Gr. 9Gr. 10Gr. 11Gr. 12

Source for Figure 14.4: Department of Continuing Education and Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

Grade 12 Graduates

There were a total of 20,239 TDSB students who, regardless of age, had a record of a secondary school diploma (or 30+ credits), by the end of the 2009-10 school year. Out of these graduates, students in regular day school, 4,646 (or 23%) took a Continuing Education course during the school year. This number increases to 10,817 out of the 20,239 (or 53%) of graduates who took a Continuing Education course over the course of their secondary studies. It is apparent that the majority of TDSB graduates over the 2009-10 school year had taken a Continuing Education course at some point before graduating.

87

Figure 14.5 shows the breakdown of TDSB regular day school students taking the different types of Continuing Education courses1 in 2009-10. Summer course enrolments were highest at 69% (12,658 students), a third (5,983 students) attended night courses, 3% (643 students) for summer e-learning, and 1% (268 students) were in summer co-op. In 2009-10, there were 22,156 course enrolments and 20,301 credits granted2.

Figure 14.5: Number of TDSB Regular Day School Students Taking Different Types of Continuing Education Courses, 2009-10

Source for Figures 14.5: Department of Continuing Education and Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

Figure 14.6: Total Number of Continuing

Education Credits Granted, 2010-11.

643 268

5983

02000

400060008000

10000

1200014000

SummerCourses

NightCourses

Summer e-Learning

Summer Co-op

Continuing Education Course Type

Num

ber

of S

tude

nts

12658

1 The number of TDSB regular day school students who took Continuing Education courses in 2009-10 totalled 18,260 (see Figure 14.2). Some of the students represented in Figure 14.5 may have taken more than one type of Continuing Education course in 2009-10. For example, one student may take a night course during the regular school year and a summer course during the summer. Therefore, the number of students will be slightly higher in Figure 14.5 than the number of unique individuals. 2 These course enrolments are from Trillium course records and the granted courses are a ‘Pass’.

88

Figure 14.6: Total Number of Continuing Education Credits Granted, 2010-11

Summer, 12,024, 20%

Night, 8,423, 14%

Adult day, 38,882, 66%

Summer Night Adult day

Note: Summer e-Learning programs enrolled 1023 students and granted 667 credits. These programs, also funded by the Continuing Education grant, are delivered through the Information Communication Technologies (ICT), e-Learning, Computer Studies and Instructional Media Services department

Source: Department of Continuing Education, Toronto District School Board, 2011

Several credit partnerships have been implemented including experiential programming (Humber College and University of Toronto) and broader Continuing Education programs that offer both subject and leadership credits in partnership with Focus on Youth and other community sponsors.

A new pilot program focusing on an instructional model to address remedial Grade 9 Applied subjects including Mathematics was launched in the summer of 2011. Students earned 958 credits.

89

Literacy and Numeracy Programs – Grades 1-12 The Literacy and Numeracy programs provide opportunities for skill development and practice outside regular day school hours to students who are working below curriculum standards. Funding for Grades 7-12 is provided by the Ministry of Education (EDU) through the Learning Opportunities Grant (LOG) for before/after school, weekend, and summer programs. Funding levels support small class sizes. Students in Grades 1-6 are funded through the Ontario Focused Intervention Partnership (OFIP) Tutoring component of the LOG grants; this funding acknowledges the need to support students in the earlier grades in order to ensure success through to adulthood.

In the 2010-11 school year, 24,000 registrants participated in after school programs and 6,500 accessed summer programs. Grades 1-6 summer programs were offered in partnership with Model Schools for Inner Cities.

Moving On Up: A Head Start to High School supported 10,603 students in 59 schools with their transition from Grade 8 to 9.

International Languages – African Heritage Elementary Programs International Languages Elementary programs are mandated by the EDU and funded though the Continuing Education grant. Programs provide instruction in language and culture. The African Heritage Program delivery is supported by the TDSB.

30,000 TDSB students participated and 49 languages were offered in 2010-11.

Programming reflects the TDSB’s diversity in support of 53% of TDSB students who speak a language other than English at home.

Addressing the Home Language Achievement Gap: The 2008 Grade 3/6 EQAO results indicated that bilingual students who speak English and an additional language are more likely than unilingual learners to achieve at Levels 3 and 4 in all three areas of Reading, Writing and Mathematics by 5 to 10 percentage points (see Section 12, Part 3: Achievement Gaps - Student Home Language).

Increasing numbers of students are registering in an International Language class out of interest rather than a heritage background.

90

Support for Adult Students Continuing Education programs provide adults with pathways that support their achievement of academic, employment, and personal goals. It is clear that by supporting the educational goals of our parents/guardians, our children are better prepared for learning in school. Successful parents/guardians can contribute directly to the improved performance of underachieving students. Adult credit and non-credit programs build and strengthen links between the TDSB, parents, and the wider community.

Gender in Adult Education (ESL and Credit Programs)

The overall trend for the last 5 years has been in the range of 60% to 65% female. In certain areas of the city, higher percentages of women are attempting to upgrade previously acquired credits or to improve their educational attainment. Other factors (e.g., marital status, age of children, number of dependents, familial support, immigration status, previous education, and higher education applications, among others) require future exploration to decipher the impact of these various factors on this trend regarding gender within Continuing Education.

Credit Programs – Adult Day School Programs are funded by the EDU through the Continuing Education grant.

In the 2010-11 school year, 12,346 students took one or more credit courses at one of the five TDSB Adult Day School centres.

Specialty programs such as Co-op offer opportunities to gain Canadian work experience.

Certificate programs are delivered in the areas of computers, healthcare, cosmetology, and business.

Courses are offered in 9 week quadmesters during the school year allowing learners to accumulate credits towards an OSSD, certificate program, or meet post-secondary pre-requisite requirements within a shorter time frame.

Achievement:

38,882 credits were earned by students and 1,346 Ontario Secondary School Diplomas were awarded; an additional 137 students were recognized as Ontario Scholars.

91

TDSB Adult Continuing Education Students: Post-secondary Outcomes

The following information is based on 12,861 adult continuing education students. Nearly one quarter (3,091) of all continuing education day school students (12,861) applied to Ontario colleges and universities over the 2009 or 2010 application cycle. Students who confirmed offers of admission from the post-secondary institutions were 67.7% (2,093 of the 3,091); while 1/3 of students who applied, did not receive an offer of admission, or confirm an offer (998 of the 3,091 applicants). Most students who confirmed an offer of an admission did so at local Toronto colleges including George Brown, Seneca, Centennial, and Humber.

Figure 14.7: Post-secondary Outcomes: Did Not Apply and Applied to Post-secondary (Ontario)

Did Not Apply 9770, 76%

Applied to Post-

secondary 3091, 24%

Confirmed Offer 2093

67.7%Applied but Did Not

Confirm Offer 998,

32.2%

Source for Figures 14.7 to 14.9: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

92

Students aged 30 years and under were more likely to confirm a post-secondary offer than students aged 31 years and over (69.3% under 30 years and confirmed versus 63.2% over 31 years and confirmed).

Figure 14.8: Post-secondary Outcomes by Age

2282

1582

700809

511

298

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Applied Confirmed Applied But Did Not ConfirmOutcome

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

30 and under 31 and over

There was a negligible difference between males and females that confirmed a post-secondary offer (67.5% females confirmed an offer versus 67.9% males confirmed an offer). Also, adult students make transcript requests and/ or apply outside of the direct TDSB to university route; thus the statistics almost certainly under represent the number of students that applied to university after completing their course(s) through Continuing Education.

93

Figure 14.9: Adult Day School Post-secondary Outcomes for the 2008-09 School Year (Application Data by Fall 2009)

22997

266114

344198

514

284 305

740

0

300

600

900

Confirmed Post-secondary Offer Applied but Did Not Confirm Offer

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

SCAS Burnhamthorpe Emery Yorkdale CALC

Table 14.3: Post-secondary Applicants by Adult School, 2009

School

Confirmed Post-

secondary Offer

Applied but Did Not

Confirm Offer

Total Post-secondary Applicants

SCAS 229 97 326Burnhamthorpe 266 114 380Emery 344 198 542Yorkdale 514 284 798CALC 740 305 1045

Source for Table 14.3: Research & Information Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010

94

Adult English as a Second Language Newcomers improve English language skills in order to gain employment or improve work situations, to prepare for secondary or post-secondary programs, and to be able to participate in the community and in the education of their children. Programs are funded by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI). Prior to 2005, Ministry of Education (EDU) funded these programs. MCI funded programs are also open to refugee claimants and Canadian Citizens - learner groups that are not eligible for federally funded programs.

In the 2010-11 school year, 29,000 adult students attended ESL programs offered during the school day, evenings, and weekends.

23% to 25% of adult students that exit programs during the school year, identified ‘employment’ as their reason for leaving.

Programs were offered in 113 locations in 2010-11 including 43 elementary and secondary schools; programs in day schools encourage newcomer connections to TDSB and the education of their children; 80% of TDSB students had one or both parents born outside of Canada (O’Reilly & Yau, 2009).

Community General Interest and Seniors’ Daytime Programs General interest programs and seniors programs provide opportunities for adults to develop skills and interests while exploring paths to health and wellness in a variety of areas such as computers, languages, art, dance, and fitness. These programs promote opportunities for the wider community to access TDSB schools and to become engaged with the school board. Where there is demand, programs may be offered in Full Service Schools. In some cases, programs are offered in a community setting in conjunction with the City of Toronto. These programs are ‘fee for service’ and the EDU funding does not apply.

In the 2010-11 school year, 29,032 students participated in 1,728 classes across the city; programs ran fall, winter, spring, and summer.

Parent Workshops Parent Workshops are open to parents/guardians of children in Grades K-12 and are funded through the Learning Opportunities Grant (LOG) formula that funds Literacy and Numeracy classes for students in Grades 7-12. Parent workshops support parents in becoming effective partners in their child (ren)’s education through presentations that focus on promoting student success. Parents attend workshops within the schools their children attend. This opportunity engages parents in the local school community and strengthens their ties with the school board. In some instances, parent workshops can be offered in an international language to involve more parents in the presentations.

In the 2010-11 school year, 14,852 parents/guardians participated in 154 TDSB schools that hosted parent workshops.

Program demand continues to increase; since the 2006-07 school year, enrolment has grown by more than 75%.

Connections with TDSB support initiatives such as Community Resource Workers and Model Schools for Inner Cities staff have been implemented to increase programming in this area.

95

SECTION 15: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – FINANCIAL OVERVIEW This section provides detailed information on net expenditures, other revenue, and the Ministry Grants for Student Needs (GSN).

Overall Revenue and Expenditures The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) is the largest school board in Canada and therefore it is not surprising that the budget is complex. The Provincial funding formula establishes the total revenues available to school boards to provide programs and services to their students. The calculation and grants that fund school boards are based on a very broad range of factors – the most important being enrolment (see Section 9 for detailed enrolment patterns and definitions). Table 15.11 details the TDSB’s overall budgetary information.

Table 15.1: Budget of the Toronto District School Board, Projected 2011-12 BUDGET Billion

Operating Budget $2.88 Capital Budget $0.169 Total Grants for Student Needs $2.66 Total Budget $3.05 Total Funding for Specific Ministry Initiatives* $0.064

STAFF AND STUDENTS Total Enrolment (ADE) 238, 930 Total Teachers including Teaching VP (FTE) 16,286 Total School Based Educational Assistants (Regular Program FTE) 505.2 Total School Based Special Education Educational Assistants (FTE) 1,899 Total Principals and Vice-principals (FTE) 936 Total Caretakers 2,195 Total School Office Clerical 1,313

Source: Financial Reporting and Planning, Toronto District School Board, 2011

*Actual figure for Grants announced as of August 15, 2011

1 Projected figures, 2011-12

96

Total Expenses The total estimated expenses for 2011-12 are $3.0 billion.

School Board spending is largely (76%) comprised of instructional expenses, which typically represents classroom and non-classroom expenses. The instructional costs can be further categorized into teacher costs, principals, vice principals, professional/paraprofessionals, librarians, school office, department heads, textbooks, computers, and supplies expenses.

Figure 15.1: Net Expenditures, Estimated 2011-12

75.9%

2.6%

1.7%

14.8%

5.0%

Instruction Administration Transportation Pupil Accommodation Subtotal - Other


97

Energy Expenditures Facts Natural gas consumption decreased by 6.4% (weather adjusted) and electricity by 14.3% in 2009-10 compared to the 2002-03

figures.

Although natural gas unit costs decreased by approximately 4% in 2009-10, the electricity unit costs increased in this 7 year time span (2002-09) by 28.13%; totalling a $2.9 million increased expenditure for electricity. There was a reduction of $5.4 million due to energy conservation and a savings of $8.6 million when the Board opted out of the Ontario Regulated Price Protection Plan (RPP).

Compared with the 1999 actual expenditure report, costs for energy have increased by 69.9%.

Future increases in electricity are expected to exceed a minimum marker of 5%.

-17.80%

8.05%

-26.74%-32.17%

-40.00%

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

Natural Gas Consumption Natural Gas Cost Electricity Consumption Electricity Cost

Energy Type

Perc

enta

ge C

hang

e(2

002-

2010

)

Figure 15.2: Energy Expenditures for Gas and Electricity, 2002-03 to 2009-10 Figure 15.3: Energy Expenditures for Gas and Electricity, 2002-03 to 2009-10

8.05%

-17.80%-26.74% -32.17%-40.00%

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

Nat

ural

Gas

Con

sum

ptio

n

Nat

ural

Gas

Cos

t

Ele

ctric

ityC

onsu

mpt

ion

Ele

ctric

ityC

ost

Energy Type

Perc

enta

ge C

hang

e (2

002-

2010

)

Source for Figures 15.2 and 15.3: Facility Services, Operations, Toronto District School Board, 2011

98

The Ministry of Colleges, Universities, and Training.

Administrative Fees2%

Seconded salary7%

Cafeteria income4%

Capital Revenue58%

Rentals/Permits17%

Fees - Tuition10%

Other2%

Fees - Tuition Rentals/Permits Cafeteria income Administrative FeesSeconded salary Capital Revenue Other

Agency revenues include contract services for:

Citizenship and Immigration, and

Figure 15.4 Other Board Revenue2, Estimated 2011-12

Other Revenue The TDSB’s additional revenue is generated by the following:

Tuition fees from International Students,

Rental and permit income from facilities,

Cafeteria income, and

Interest income.

Service Canada,

2 Transportation Recoveries not included in Figure 15.4 representing 0.3%


99

Ministry Grants for Student Needs The Toronto District School Board also receives Grants for Students Needs (GSN) generated by student enrolment. Figure 15.5 shows the provincial GSN model which includes the following:

Pupil Foundation Grant: Funding for core educational programs and services (textbooks, learning materials, educational assistants and professionals)

School Foundation Grant: Funding for school office administration

Special Purpose Grant: Supplementary funding for special programs and students with Special Needs (Special Education grants, English as a Second Language, French and Native Language Grants)

School Operations Grant: Caretaking, utilities, and general maintenance

Ministry Specific Grants: Ministry targeted initiatives (commonly one-time only grants)

Figure 15.5: Provincial Grants for

Student Needs

Ministry Specific Grants

School Operations

Grant

Special Purpose Grants

School Foundation

Grant

Pupil Foundation

Grant

Provincial GSN

Model

100

SECTION 16: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – STAFFING OVERVIEW

As the largest school board in Canada and one of the most diverse in the world, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) requires a wide range of professionals to ensure its successful and effective operations. During the 2010-11 school year, the TDSB had over 16,000 elementary and secondary school teachers and approximately 1,000 principals and vice-principals working in the schools. In total there were approximately 31,000 permanent employees including critically important staff such as: education assistants, special needs assistants, child and youth workers, lunchroom supervisors, caretaking staff, school based safety monitors, school office clerical, child and youth counsellors, skilled trades’ staff, and many other school and non-school based support staff.

Table 16.1: Teachers’ Years of Experience, 2010-11

TEACHERS’ YEARS OF EXPERIENECE 2010-11 # of Years Elementary Secondary

0 – 4 Years 13% 15% 5 – 9 Years 29% 23% 10+ Years 58% 62%

Table 16.3: New Hires, 2009-10 and 2010-11

NEW HIRES TEACHING STAFF Year Elementary Secondary

2009-10 271 235 2010-11 379 294

Table 16.2: Staff Exits, 2009-10

STAFF EXITS – 2009-10 Elementary Secondary

Retirements 230 178 Resignations 99 59

Table 16.4: Staffing Levels

STAFFING LEVELS

School Year Elementary Secondary 2010-11 457 (P), 257 (VP) 97 (P), 177 (VP)

Note: Totals do not include Central Co-ordinating Principals or Supervising Principals.

Source for Tables 16.1 to 16.4: Executive Office - Employee Services, Toronto District School Board, 2011

101

Staff Distribution, 2006-07 to 2009-10

0.0

2000.0

4000.0

6000.0

8000.0

10000.0

12000.0

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

School Years

Num

ber

of S

taff

Elem Teachers FTE Sec Teachers FTE Elem VP HC Sec VP HC/FTE EA Regualr FTE School Office FTE

Table 16.5: TDSB Employees, 2010-11

2010-11 SCHOOL-BASED EMPLOYEES Elementary Teachers 10,299.5 Secondary Teachers 5,920.5 School Office 1,232.5 Aquatic Instructors/Lifeguards 96 Education Assistants – Reg. Program 504.5 Special Education 2,254.5 Early Childhood Educators and Assistants 199.0 Child & Youth Workers and Child & Youth Counsellors - Regular

29.0

Child & Youth Workers and Child & Youth Counsellors – Special Education

239.5

Lunchroom Supervisors – Regular and FD 1,615.0 Food Services 44.0 Caretaking Staff 2,198.0 School Based Safety Monitors 181.5

Source for Table 16.5 and Figure 16.1: Executive Office - Employee Services, and Staffing Information Systems, Toronto District School Board, 2011. Figure 16.1: Staff Distribution, 2006-07 to 2010-11

102

SECTION 17.1: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD - FACILITIES Overview, Facts, and Figures Not many organizations of any type deal with such a sizable number of sites and buildings. Ensuring the best use of our schools is a complex, essential, and expensive job. Long ago, school-houses were one-room buildings, sparsely furnished. Today, TDSB schools are quite different. During the 2010-11 school year, the TDSB had 591 schools operating in 558 facilities along with another 79 facilities.

Table 17.1.1: Facilities Overview, 2010-11

FACILITIES NUMBER

Elementary 460 Secondary 98 Other 79

BUILDING AGE NUMBER < 20 Years 34 20 – 50 Years 280 50+ Years 323

POOLS NUMBER City Use Agreement 33 Leased 2 TLC Operated 31 Special Education 3 Closed 12

Source: Planning Divisions and Facility Services Department - Operations, 2010

103

Portable Usage - Trends and Key Facts Portable use decreased steadily from 1998 to 2006 followed by a slight increase in 2007 (see Figure 17.1.1).

Currently, portable use has remained fairly stable.

In 2010, there were 578 portables; 517 were used for instruction (see Figure 17.1.2).

Figure 17.1.2: Portables by Use 1999 to 2010

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Year

Num

ber o

f Por

tabl

es

Inst ruct ion Tenant Vacan t Storage Ancillary

Figure 17.1.1: Portables by Use 1998 to 2010835

760 756688 661

537 521 520 515613 613 609 578

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Num

ber

of P

orta

bles

Source for Figures 17.1.1 and 17.1.2: Strategy and Planning Area, Toronto District School Board, 2010

Source: TDSB Planning Division

104

Table 17.1.2: Facility Costs, 2007-08 to 2009-10

ource: Budget Department1

Note: Pool Revenue in 2009-10: $5.4M

Total Facility Costs 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10Square FootageBoard Use Building 889,110 889,110 889,110Total square footage 44,732,246 44,732,246 47,305,201Caretakers FTE 2,153 2,153 2,203Department Salary & Benefit CostsExecutive Office 694,606 574,731 519,147SB&R - Renewal 27,210,186 19,432,327 26,695,824Operations 149,226,826 158,402,855 167,839,427Real Estate 3,378,376 3,582,182 4,128,131Total Salary & Benefit Costs 180,600,389 181,992,095 199,182,529Supplies & ServicesUtilities 66,971,411 63,573,722 59,384,431Insurance 1,447,955 1,391,724 1,721,684Department Supplies and Services CostsExecutive Office 694,606 117,903 135,712SB&R - Renewal 27,210,186 20,810,770 17,053,901Operations 31,004,104 45,344,465 34,582,888Real Estate 8,910,368 1,547,259 1,921,563Planning 90,395 0 0Total Supplies & Services Costs 136,329,025 132,785,843 114,800,179Total Costs 316,929,414 314,777,938 313,982,708

Total Revenue -32,515,452 -38,221,207 -34,001,211

Net Expenditures 284,413,962 276,556,731 279,981,497


Note: Pool Revenue in 2009-10 was $5.4M

1 Accounting standard changes over the last couple of years affect how the information looks; capital assets are now recorded on TDSB’s financial statements.

105

EcoSchools and TDSB’s Environmental Impact Key Highlights

EcoSchools is the TDSB's response to climate change. The program has a dual focus, aligning how our schools are run with students’ environmental education in the classroom. As a result, the school building and grounds themselves become a laboratory for teaching and learning about how to create a healthy future. At the school, leadership comes from the EcoTeam, which often includes administrators, teachers, caretakers, students, and parents. Broad team representation ensures greater impact and longevity. In 2010-11, the TDSB certified 401 of its schools as bronze, silver, gold, or platinum EcoSchools. The number of EcoSchools has

increased steadily since 2004-05 (see Figure 17.1.3). For a map showing the locations of these TDSB Certified EcoSchools see Figure 17.1.4.

Figure 17.1.3: Number of Certified EcoSchools, 2004-05 to 2010-11

13

173

97

401

264312

53

050

100150200250300350

450

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Year

Num

ber

of E

coS

choo

ls 400

Number of Certified EcoSchools Source: EcoSchools Department, Sustainability Office- Strategic Building and Renewal, Toronto District School Board, 2011

106

To view map with school names please visit: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=207&menuid=23878&pageid=20686

Figure 17.1.4: Certified EcoSchools and Locations, 2011-12

107


Since 2001, the Board's building-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions have been reduced by 18%. Because more of the Board's GHGs come from building-related sources than any other areas, this is where the greatest impact can occur through concerted reduction efforts. The time is right to build upon the Board's considerable accomplishments to date. Developing a comprehensive energy plan to further reduce energy consumption in buildings by 20% by 2020 (relative to a 2006 baseline) would set the Board on a course for reducing its emissions by 80% by 2050.

Actual and Target Building-Related GHG Emissions, 2000-01 to 2019-2

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

0

Actual Target

Figure 17.1.5: Actual and Target Building-related GHG Emissions, 2000-01 to 2019-20

Year

Met

ric T

onne

s

Source: EcoSchools Department, Sustainability Office-Strategic Building and Renewal, 2010

108

SECTION 17.2: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – STRATEGIC BUILDING AND RENEWAL Our aging school buildings are like aging bodies: both need interventions to maintain a healthy system. The Board itself is like the health care system. It is charged with finding strategies and funds to care for the entire ‘building population.’ As people age, health care costs increase; as buildings age, the ‘building care’ costs increase. Small problems unattended become bigger problems that cost more to fix. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” as the saying goes. Our schools have gone without adequate care for a long time. Some will soon need critical care to be restored to health. Massive funding is needed to maintain and renew the infrastructure of the largest and oldest school board in the province.

The Age of Our Buildings

Trend The building systems within the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) continue to deteriorate and underperform because they have

not been renewed. Key Facts

Our Board has the largest aging infrastructure in the province. More than 450 schools are over 40 years old.

30 schools are less than 20 years old.

Figure 17.2.1: Area of Instructional Space and the Number of Elementary and Secondary Schools Constructed from 1887-2010

Source for Figures and Tables in Section 17.2: Strategic Building and Renewal, Toronto District School Board, 2011. 109

Facilities Condition Index: Report Card Key Facts The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is the ratio of building components needing renewal to the replacement value of the building.

The FCI ratio is the main tool for tracking the state of our buildings and prioritizing where resources are directed.

Based on industry standards for categorizing the condition of our buildings, in 2010 we had 24 buildings in good condition and 29 buildings in fair condition, with the balance of 496 schools divided between poor and critical.

As the buildings age further without adequate funding for repair, the number of schools in good and fair condition will diminish by half by 2014, and almost by half again by 2019, leaving only 6 schools in good condition.

Figure 17.2.2: Current FCI by Ward According to ReCAPP, 2011

Table 17.2.1: School Condition Numbers

2010 2014 2019 Good 24 Good 12 Good 6 Fair 29 Fair 14 Fair 9 Poor 249 Poor 165 Poor 101 Critical 247 Critical 358 Critical 432

Figure 17.2.3: Forecast of FCI by Ward According to ReCAPP, 2019

110

Putting off a swiftly increasing number of projects to renew our aging schools has created a growing backlog of work, increasing from $960 million in 2005 to $3 billion in 2011.

Building systems in over 450 schools, each over 40 years old, have surpassed the end of their 35 year designed life cycle.

Inadequate funding to replace these building systems (structural, mechanical, electrical, and civil) has resulted in a current replacement and repair backlog of $3 billion.

The backlog figure does not include funds needed for program changes and code-compliance.

Current Funding Challenge: The Backlog of Unattended Repairs and Replacements

Figure 17.2.4: The Funding Backlog from 2001 to 2011

At the current rate, this backlog may grow to $6 billion by 2015 (see Figure 17.2.4).

Trend

Key Facts

111

Inadequate Funding Affects Planning for the Future Key Facts In the last 10 years (2000-2010), emergency repairs and health and safety projects have increased from $2 million to $30 million,

leaving relatively fewer dollars from the current Ministry base funding of $43 million for planned upgrades.

These unplanned projects greatly impair the Board’s ability to plan proactively to rebuild learning environments that meet the needs of the 21st Century learner.

Figure 17.2.5: Cost of Emergency/Health and Safety Projects

Cost of emergency/health and safety projects

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

2,00

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Year

Cos

t ER ProjectsHS Projects

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Renewal Needs Compared to Current Available Funding

Key Facts Ministry of Education funding for building renewal to replace Good Places to Learn has not been announced. Ministry guidelines for renewal funding are based solely on the number of students, not the condition of the building. At the current level of funding ($43 million annually), the condition of the buildings will continue to decline rapidly.

112

Figure 17.2.6: Available funding for major renewal of TDSB schools

Estimate of Total Cost to Renew All Our Existing Schools

Trends The cost of major repairs and replacement of building systems are less than the cost of constructing a new school. The

environmental impact of major repair is less than new construction. Key Facts Figure 17.2.6 shows the available funding for major renewal over the next 14 years. It does not come close the projected costs.

The total projected cost of renewing all our schools is $8.2 billion in today’s dollars.* This amount includes: addressing the backlog, re-designing some learning spaces to meet new program needs, and complying with building codes (access, safety).

The total projected cost of $8.2 billion in today’s dollars does not include: o The cost of emergency repairs and health and safety projects over the next 15 years to keep schools open o Natural price escalations (inflation) o Risk of rising energy prices o Potential increased costs arising from shortage of human and natural resources due to competing infrastructure projects o Unanticipated costs resulting from changes in the building code o Post-occupancy evaluations to ensure best practices are learned, deepened, and applied

If the number of schools were to be reduced from our current total:

o the costs of repairs and building renewal will go down proportionally o costs associated with emergency and health and safety projects will decrease o the exponential growth of the backlog will rise more slowly

* Note: If the scope of work is reduced to 486 schools, and the costs are indexed to 5% inflation over 15 years, the cumulative capital investment required is approximately $10.8 billion.

193

150

110

153

70

43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43

0255075

100125150175200

2010

-11

2011-1

2

2012-1

3

2013

-14

2014-1

5

2015-1

6

2016-17

2017

-18

2018-1

9

2019-2

0

2020

-21

2021

-22

2022-2

3

2023-2

4

2024

-25

Year

Am

oun

t in

Mill

ion

s

Figure 17.2.6: Available Funding for Major Renewal of TDSB Schools

113

SECTION 18: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

Our Mission

To provide outstanding information technology capabilities to enable excellence in learning for all in the Toronto District School Board - Information Technology Services, Toronto District School Board.

General Overview

Under the direction of the Chief Information Officer, the department of Information Technology Services (ITS) provides strategic alignment, planning, organization, monitoring and improvements for the sustainment of the Board’s Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) infrastructure and services for its students, teachers, and administrative staff. ITS is comprised of three units: 1. The Teaching and Learning with Technology unit provides and supports program and instructional leadership for the curricular

use of technology in grades Kindergarten to 12 (K-12), secondary Computer Studies, on-line learning, and Secondary e-Learning credit courses.

2. The Technical Services unit provides helpdesk support and an enabling ICT infrastructure covering all hardware/software. They

also ensure that information and telecommunications is highly reliable, secure, scalable, supportable, and sustainable. Integration and standardization of processes/services across the Board drive service improvements and efficiency.

3. The Project Management and Systems Services unit develops, implements, and supports the Board’s administrative information

systems to enable effective and efficient Board operations and to support the goals of the Board including Student Success.

Our Technology Infrastructure, 2010-11

During the 2010-11 school year, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) currently had 65,000 desktop computers, 7,500 Notebook/Netbook computers, 1,600 BlackBerries, 12,000 telephones and extensions, and 1,300 cell phones. This hardware was used to provide services for nearly 300,000 learners and 39,000 TDSB staff in approximately 600 locations. The TDSB spends $6 million a year on hardware, and another $42 million for Information Technology (IT) support.

114

Current Infrastructure Facts and Figures, 2010-2011

Users

Total 444,750

VPN High Speed Access 4,000

home based access through Internet

362,000

Support Calls 2009-2010 180,000

Equipment

Networked devices: Computers Printers

65,000 10,000

Laptops 7,500

Tablet PCs 100

BlackBerries 1,600

Telephones and Extensions 12,000

Cell Phones 1,300

Number of T1/Megalink 25

Number of Voicemail boxes 13,000

IT Budget

Hardware $6.0 Million

Support $42.0 Million Source for Tables 18.1 to 18.4: Information Technology Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010-11

Security

Hacker attempts blocked 75,000 weekly

Spam e-mail blocked Over 600,000 daily

Viruses blocked Over 3,200 daily

Peak Use

Daily Incoming Internet e-mail

700,000

Number of computers active on TDSB network

69,000

Table 18.4: TDSB Information Technology Peak Use

Table 18.3: TDSB Information Technology Security

Table 18.2: TDSB Information Technology Core Infrastructure

Core Infrastructure

Wired connections (such as network drops) 225,000

Ports available for connectivity 126,620

Sites served by fibre optic cable, 100 Mbps* (Megabits per second/very high speed)

530

Sites served by fibre optic cable, 1000 Mbps* (Megabits per second/very high speed)

35

Sites with ADSL circuits, 5 Mbps(Megabits per second) 24

Internet and Research and Education Network Access Bandwidth 3000 Mbps

Table 18.1: TDSB Information Technology Users, Equipment and Budget

115

Technology Renewal/Computer Refresh Budget, 2010-11

Investment to support technology renewal has been declining. In 2010-11, the ratio of computers to students was 5.5:1. Due to the declining investment, the average age of all TDSB’s computers has increased from 3 to 6 years. The refresh cycle of a TDSB computer is currently 7 years.

Table 18.6: Student/Computer RatioTable 18.5: Average Age of Computers

TDSB Application Software

ITS provides support for over 100 administrative applications and over 800 Instructional Software titles. Our key administrative applications include Trillium, SAP, and KEY to Learn.

Trillium is an end-to-end Student Information System, providing for virtually all day-to-day school operational needs; with respect to student information. Trillium provides for student attendance, achievement at all levels (except JK/SK), class management, and scheduling (the latter at the secondary school level only). All contact and basic demographic information related to students and their parents/guardians is maintained in Trillium. Trillium also provides for all Ministry-mandated reporting, including thrice-annual OnSIS reporting; upon which key Board funding is based.

SAP R/3 is the Board’s integrated ERP solution that is used by staff to manage administrative functions of Finance, Human Resources, Procurement and Facility Maintenance & Operations.

SAP CRM is the Board’s Case Management solution that is used by staff to manage Special Education processes of student Individual Education Plan and Identification, Placement and Review Committee.

Average Age of Computers

Current Average Age 6 years

Target Average Age (industry norm)

3 years

Student/computer Ratio

Current Ratio 5.5 : 1

Target Ratio for future 3 : 1

(The ratio represents the average number of TDSB students that are required to share each computer.)

Source for Tables 18.5 and 18.6: Information Technology Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010-11

116

KEY to Learn is the Board’s centralized, single point of access for all TDSB professional learning and training opportunities. It is accessed by staff, professional learning and training providers, students, and the community. This resource allows for a strategic, system-wide approach to register, administer, track, evaluate, and monitor instructor led and online learning and training initiatives. It provides a clear picture on the state of professional learning/training across the organization as well as identifies gaps. It also ensures professional learning and training is aligned to Board priorities, Ministry of Education directives, legislative requirements, and/or employee needs.

Table 18.7: TDSB Technological Applications, 2010

Application Name

Number of Functions Available

Number of Teachers

Supported

Number Of Support

Staff Supported

Number Of Students

Supported

Number of

Clients Trained

Trillium 14 Core modules 13,702 3,659 school

based

Day School: 259,317 Con Ed: 20,120

1,529

SAP R/3 6 core modules N/A 3,422 N/A 500

SAP CRM 2 core modules 8,800 2,750 23,300 1,700

Key to Learn 4 core modules 16,000 22,000 90,000

(Grades 7-12) 274

Source for Table 18.7: Information Technology Services, Toronto District School Board, 2010-11

117

1. e-Learning

Recognizing the needs of 21st Century learners, the TDSB initiated an e-Learning strategy to offer on-line e-Learning credit courses to secondary school students. In the first semester (September 2009), of the system-wide implementation, 465 students from 63 secondary schools participated in the program. Increased demand and enrolment in the program, has led to significant growth in e-Learning. In 2010-11, 2,493 students had requested one of 40 online courses.

e-Learning has quickly become an important part of all educational and career paths. The online courses are taught by TDSB secondary school teachers. Enthused by its success, online teachers are working to provide innovative, relevant, and engaging learning opportunities for their students. In turn, students are participating both independently and collaboratively in online classrooms. The e-Learning courses are provided by the Ministry of Education through e-Learning Ontario. The credits earned through online courses appear on the student’s transcript upon completion. All online courses are fully compliant with TDSB and Ministry expectations and policies.

The following are among the various benefits of the e-Learning program:

Increased opportunity for students to resolve timetable conflicts.

Providing students with current, accurate information through technology.

Figures 18.1 and 18.2 reflect the growing popularity of e-Learning in TDSB schools .

Figure 18.1: Number of Requests, 2010-11

2493

4474

010002000300040005000

Unique Requests Course Requestse-Learning Course Requests

Num

ber o

f Req

uest

s

Unique Requests Course Requests

Student access to courses that may not be available at his/her home school.

A more flexible, engaging environment for students.

Key Initiatives Underway, 2011- 12

118

As seen in Figure 18.2, enrolment has increased steadily from Semester 1 of 2009-10 until the end of the 2010-11school year. There was an increase in the number of students that enrolled each year between Semester 1 and Semester 2.

Figure 18.2: Credit Achievement, 2009-10 and Student Enrolment, 2009-10 and 2010-11

267389450

806

1256

615

1174

1789

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Semester 1 Semester 2 Total Enrolled

Semesters 1 and 2, and Total Enrollment

Cre

dits

Ear

ned

and

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s 2009-10 CreditsEarned

2009-10StudentsEnrolled

2010-11StudentsEnrolled

2. TDSB ICT Standards - Digital Learning for Kindergarten to Grade 12

Advancing Technology is a pillar of the Vision of Hope. The Director, Dr. Chris Spence, has indicated a need for moving from pockets of innovation towards a single vision of using technology to enhance teaching and learning as a goal of the district-wide ICT strategy.

Goals of the TDSB ICT Standards Document

The TDSB ICT Standards document is a framework for students, teachers, and administrators to indicate ICT skills development for K to 12 students throughout the TDSB. With the overall goal of improving student achievement, the ICT Standards document is a guide to help teachers integrate ICT into the Ontario Curriculum, into teaching practice, and into the students’ repertoire of skills in order to support and enhance continued learning.

119

In recognition of the varying experience levels with ICT integration among teachers, this ICT Standards document seeks to bridge the gap between what Marc Prensky calls “Digital Natives” – today’s learners, and “Digital Immigrants” – many of today’s teachers (Prensky, page 1, 2001). This document offers multiple entry points to accommodate teachers who span the digital literacy continuum and it also suggests various ICT experiences to prepare our students for the future. This document prescribes skills and the corresponding tools that could be utilized to provide students with learning opportunities to master skills at certain grade levels.

The TDSB ICT Standards document:

Supports the diverse learning styles of students in the 21st Century. Our "Digital Natives" (Prensky, 2001) (today’s learners) continually demonstrate a desire to learn, work, and express themselves digitally. They excel when engaged in authentic tasks, project-based, and inquiry learning activities that enable them to be efficient and effective users of technology.

Guides the purposeful integration of technology into the Ontario Curriculum as well as the teaching and learning of content,

process, product, and environment. This would provide our students with opportunities for improved achievement to set the foundation for obtaining essential skills for work and continued learning.

Provides a framework for teachers, schools, and families of schools as they work towards utilizing a variety of technologies as

tools for supporting student learning, achievement, communication, and creativity.

3. Mobile Computing Strategy, 2010-11

The Mobile Computing Strategy (MCS) is aimed at investing in mobile computer technology with the goal of improving student engagement, and ultimately student achievement. In addition, this strategy is aimed at eliminating the digital divide that presently exists in our system. Therefore, 3,500 laptop computers have been purchased for classroom use by teachers and students. Currently efforts are being targeted towards Grade 6 teachers, and their classroom students, with a particular focus on Mathematics.

Technology tools can significantly help 21st Century learners with the following: critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration across vast distances, adaptability and agility, effective communication, and accessing and analyzing information. It also certainly helps to fuel and ignite curiosity, imagination, and engagement. It is more important than ever to learn how technology and digital resources can help the TDSB to succeed, boost achievement, and support continuous improvement.

120

Overall Objective: To increase student engagement and achievement through the increased use of technology with an emphasis on the Mathematics curriculum. To achieve this objective teachers are encouraged to:

Make frequent use of the laptops in Mathematics and other subject areas.

Utilize TDSB’s ICT Standards: Digital Learning for Kindergarten to Grade 12 as a planning source.

Attend professional learning opportunities and participate in the e-Community online support forum.

Share a minimum of one activity, lesson plan or student work sample with other teachers in the initiative.

Promote working collaboratively with other teachers/staff

Explore and develop innovative and creative ways of using technology for teaching and learning

4. Wireless, 2010-11 In support of the Vision of Hope objective that “all TDSB sites will be wireless-enabled”, ITS put together plans and the technical design to meet this goal. This included architecting the appropriate capacity and capability to provide wireless network access for laptops, netbooks, and other wireless-aware personal devices to all schools and administration buildings. As of the summer of 2011, a total of 1,073 wireless access points were in use in 413 schools and Education Offices across the system. ITS is working with vendors on a robust technical design to ensure that the final product has the appropriate capability and capacity to provide the level of access needed for anytime/anywhere on-line learning in schools in the future. ITS is also working with two schools on a pilot deployment.

5. Internet Bandwidth Upgrade, 2010-11 The growing access of content available on the Internet for classroom learning has triggered rapid increases in demand for Internet bandwidth. In turn, this is triggering the need to upgrade the network infrastructure including firewall for network security; network hardware to handle the increases in bandwidth; and, finally, Service Provider bandwidth. In 2005, Internet access capacity was at 40 Megabits per second. In 2010, the available combined capacity for access to the Internet and Research and Education network such as ORION was 1 Gigabit per second, or a 25 fold increase. In the summer of 2011, the combined Internet and Research and Education network access bandwidth was expanded, again, to 3 Gigabits per second. Plans have been put in place to expand this further in the summer of 2012 to 4 Gigabits per second in anticipation of further growth in demand.

6. Wide Area Network Implementation for this next generation and wide area network (WAN) will be crucial for many reasons. A robust wide area network, connecting all TDSB schools and administration, will be the backbone of the infrastructure needed to support on-line learning in classrooms. Additionally, the wide area network provides the connectivity that is essential for administration and support functions inside and outside of schools. The new WAN is architected to support the future integration of telephone

121

services with email and cellular/mobile communications; therefore moving the TDSB into the forefront of technology deployment which could be expanded as the demand grows.

7. Academic Workspace Phase 3.0, 2010-11 Academic Workspace (AW 3.0) provides an online environment to facilitate communication and collaboration at the class, school and district level. The key features in AW 3.0 include announcements, calendars and discussion forums.

8. Enterprise Architecture Planning ITS has established an Enterprise Architecture Committee (EAC) to define and govern the technology standards and also helps to ensure technology directions/strategies are properly aligned with TDSB strategies, priorities, and goals. The committee provides oversight and guidance to the Board’s Technology Infrastructure, Application, Information and Business Architectures. Enterprise Architecture Planning is an ongoing and iterative process that addresses TDSB business and school operations needs by implementing ongoing changes to help improve capabilities and simplify/streamline the environment.

Benefits of Enterprise Architecture

Reduced diversity to simplify the technical environment. Reduced costs due to simplification, standardization, and rationalization of the environment. Planned rather than Ad Hoc approach to architecture. Improved operational stability. Greater focus on a less complex, higher-quality environment for both development and operations. Greater agility and adaptability of IT systems to respond to evolving business needs. Figure 18.3: Enterprise

Architecture Committee Improved focus on organizational goals and priorities. Improving relationships across the IT and business sides of the organization.

Infrastructure

Application

Information

Business

122

SECTION 19: TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD – PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES1 The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has a large number of programs that address socio-economic and other challenges faced by Toronto students. Here are a few representative examples that have demonstrated positive influences within the TDSB.

Model Schools for Inner City These schools have five components essential to the success of their inner city students:

Innovation in teaching and learning practices in school structure.

Support services to meet the social, emotional, and physical well-being of students.

School as the heart of the community.

Research, review, and evaluation of students and programs.

Commitment to share successful practice.

Services Offered

Dental, Hearing, and Vision screening.

Nutrition and Dietary initiatives and education.

Girls and Boys clubs.

Afterschool programs.

Ecological, sports, and arts based programs.

Social and emotional support.

1 For other TDSB Initiatives please visit: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10391&menuid=22244&pageid=19358

123


The Feeding Our Future program is a free, universal morning-meal pilot program. It was initiated in 2008 in four middle schools (Grades 6 to 8) and three secondary schools located in the Jane and Finch area. The Jane and Finch area faces considerable socio-economic challenges, such as elevated rates of poverty, immigration, and violent incidents. The program aims to provide a healthy morning meal for about 6,000 students in the seven schools.2 The Grade 7 and 8 students who ate morning meals on most days during a school week achieved better grades and were less likely to be at-risk (achieving Level 1 and below on their report cards) compared to those who ate morning meals on only a few days or who never ate in the morning (see Figure 19.1).

61%50%

62%53%

45% 39%

30%

31%24%

31%

27%

17%

10%19% 14% 16%

28%44%

0%

50%

100%

Eat MostDays

Eat FewDays/Never

Eat MostDays

Eat FewDays /Never

Eat MostDays

Eat FewDays /Never

Figure 19.1: Grades 7 and 8 Student Academic Achievement (2009-10 Term 3 Report Card) and Eating in the Morning During a School Week

Science

Source for Figures 19.1 and 19.2: Muthuswamy, 2011

Feeding Our Future Program Evaluation Preliminary Findings: Background and Key Characteristics

2 For more information about the Feeding Our Future program see http://www.studentsuccess.ca/feeding_our_future.html

Level 3 & 4 Level 2 Level 1 & below

Overall MathematicsReading

124

http://www.studentsuccess.ca/feeding_our_future.html

http://www.studentsuccess.ca/feeding_our_future.html

During interviews, conducted as part of the research, most of the school administrators, teachers, and school and program staff indicated numerous benefits resulting from eating morning meals. Students, who completed the survey from the participating middle and secondary schools (4,050), were asked about the benefits of this program. Most students agreed that it fulfilled their basic needs, kept students from feeling hungry, and improved their well-being (see Figure 19.1.1).

Figure19.1.1: Top Five Benefits of the Morning Meal Program (Student Survey Responses)

71%

72%

74%

82%

86%Provides for those students who do not eat breakfast before coming to school

Helps keep students from feeling hungry

Improves students' health

Helps students develop the habit of eating in the morning

Increases students' intake of milk and dairy products

Pathways to Education Program The aim of the Pathways to Education program is to help reduce the risk factors and minimize the stresses that can hinder learning and motivation in secondary school. The program provides a blend of supports for students and parents including: Academic, Social, Advocacy, and Financial.

The program takes a holistic approach, ensuring that the four supports are delivered in a cross-communicative style and not in isolation. For additional information please visit the Pathways to Education website at: http://pathwaystoeducation.ca/regent/home-students.html

125

http://pathwaystoeducation.ca/regent/home-students.html

HSBC Steps to University Program The HSBC Steps to University Program has four goals for participants:

To encourage students to complete their OSSD;

To graduate at a level that will enable their participation in post-secondary studies;

To promote post-secondary studies to students, and

Encourage students to select university programs for their post-secondary studies.

The income deciles graph (see Figure 19.2) shows that there are fewer students in the HSCB Steps to University Program above the 7th decile. There are a greater number of Steps students in the income groups below the 5th decile. Nearly two thirds of HSBC Steps to University families are concentrated below the 50th percentile of income distribution. This program is aimed at making university studies more accessible to students who have the potential to excel but have been marginalized due to socio-economic status, race or ethnicity, family history, or various other factors. To access the HSBC Steps to University Program list of schools visit the following site: http://www.utoronto.ca/typ/hsbcsteps.html

Figure 19.2: Income Deciles within Steps Program and TDSB Grade 11 and 12 Students

13.3%

11.6%

15.4%

14.9%

11.2%

6.6%

11.2%

7.9%

3.4%

1.3%

9.2%

9.7%

9.5%

10.2%

10.6%

10.7%

10.8%

10.2%

10.5%

8.7%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Inco

me

Dec

iles

(1=L

owes

t and

10=

Hig

hest

)

Student PercentagesSTEPS TDSB Grade 11 & 12's Students

In 2010-11, 78.5% of the students initially enrolled in the program successfully completed the university course selected. Steps retained 81% of the initial enrolled students to the end of the program, which constitutes 97% completion by the retained students.

A teacher at one of our participating schools, Monarch Park C.I, began her university career by being a Steps’ student at that school. Another former Steps student is now in the PhD program at OISE. Also, the HSBC Bank Canada has recently renewed its support of the program for another three years. It has increased its support by 25%.


126

http://www.utoronto.ca/typ/hsbcsteps.html

Priority Schools Initiative, 2010-11 “The Priority Schools Initiative (PSI) is a new component of Community Use of Schools. This initiative provides funding for Not-For-Profit groups to have free after-hours access to school facilities in communities that need it most. The funding is $34,000 per school, specifically provided to eliminate permit fees (not program costs or staffing) in 77 identified schools only; the TDSB received a total of $2,618,000” (Segal, 2009). With this funding, the 77 schools increased their permit hours from 54,000 to 116,000 to better serve students and communities. For a map showing the location of the Priority Schools, see Figure 19.3.

Table 19.1: School List for Priority Schools Initiative, 2010-11

1. Alexander Muir Gladstone Junior & Senior Public School

2. Alexander Stirling Public School 3. Amesbury Middle School 4. Bendale Business Technical Institute 5. Beverley Heights Middle School 6. Blacksmith Public School 7. Brookview Middle School 8. Carleton Village Junior & Senior Public

School 9. Cedarbrae Collegiate Institute 10. Cedar Drive Junior Public School 11. Central Technical School 12. Chalkfarm Public School 13. Charles Gordon Senior Public School 14. Chester Le Junior Public School 15. Church Street Junior Public School 16. Cornell Junior Public School 17. Corvette Junior Public School 18. C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute 19. DA Morris Secondary School 20. Dorset Park Public School 21. Dixon Grove Junior Middle school 22. Eastview Junior Public School 23. Elmbank Junior Middle School 24. Fairglen Junior Public School 25. Flemington Public School 26. Gateway Public School 27. George Harvey Collegiate Institute 28. George Syme Community School 29. Glamorgan Junior Public School 30. Gracedale Public School

31. Greenholme Junior Middle school 32. Grenoble Public School 33. Highland Heights Junior Public School 34. Joseph Brant Senior Public School 35. Kingsview Village Junior School 36. Lambton Park Collegiate School 37. Lawrence Heights Middle School 38. Leslieville Junior Public School 39. Lester B Pearson/Dr Marion Hilliard Collegiate

Institute 40. Lord Dufferin Junior & Senior Public School 41. Maple Leaf Public School 42. Mason Road Junior Public School 43. Monarch Park Collegiate 44. Military Trail Public School 45. North Kipling Junior Middle school 46. Northview Heights Secondary School 47. Oakdale Park Middle School 48. Oakridge Junior Public School 49. O'Connor Public School 50. Parkfield Junior School 51. Pauline Johnson Junior Public School 52. Pauline Public School 53. Pineway Public School 54. Portage Trail Central Junior School 55. Pringdale Gardens Junior Public School 56. Queen Alexandra Senior Public School 57. Queen Victoria Public School 58. Regent Park/Duke of York Junior Public School 59. Rockcliffe Middle School 60. Rose Avenue Public School

61. Ryerson Community School 62. Sir Sandford Fleming

Academy 63. Sprucecourt Public School 64. Stanley Public School 65. Thorncliffe Park Elementary

School 66. Topcliff Public School 67. Valley Park Middle School 68. Victoria Park Secondary

school 69. Victoria Village Public

School 70. Warden Avenue Public

School 71. West Hill Collegiate

Institute 72. Westview Centennial

Secondary School 73. Wilkinson Public School 74. Willow Park Junior Public

School 75. Winchester Junior & Senior

Public School 76. Woburn Junior Public

School 77. York Humber High School

127

Figure 19.3: Priority Schools Initiative Map, 2010-11 128

Full Service Schools Full Service Schools is an initiative to achieve the priorities in the Vision of Hope. A Full Service School is the coordinated delivery of education, health, prevention, and social services designed to improve the quality of life for students, families, and communities. The programs and services might include recreation, arts, culture, physical health, mental health, childcare, adult education, and settlement. They may be located inside an operational school or in the community, based on the availability of the service, and are mutually beneficial to students and communities. The Board recognizes the diversity of its schools and communities; each school may look different in its approach to providing programs and services. Full Service Schools support the social determinants of health by providing resources that will improve student educational success and well-being. Students benefit from comprehensive services that address their needs and interests both during the day and outside of regular school hours. Families benefit from the increased opportunity for programs and services right at their local school which can improve their ability to help their children succeed and also support their own lifelong learning. Schools benefit when their facilities and expertise are the key community resource for organizations and services to work together to achieve the best outcomes for students. Communities are strengthened by their access to the school as an asset and resource. The Board is proud of the programs and partnerships that demonstrate a strong foundation to deliver Full Service Schools. Many schools already offer a range of services and have significant community partnerships; this positive response and improved service to schools will support student success and community engagement. In April 2010, 16 pilot sites were identified for coordinated models of programs and services that will develop schools into vibrant hubs of the community.

129

SECTION 20: FUTURE TRENDS No one can predict the future, but it is clear that Toronto is an urban centre where change is a constant. Provided in this section are five key directions that may well change the Toronto District School Board (TDSB).

The Increasing Social Divide: Toronto is well known for its social diversity. In the 2006 Federal Census, the proportion of people living in poverty was seen to be almost twice as high as other Greater Toronto Area (GTA) municipalities. However, the average income for Toronto is also higher than most other Ontario municipalities, as Toronto has some of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in Canada. In addition, there is concern regarding the increasingly endangered proportions within Toronto’s middle-income group. Professor David Hulchanski (2010), a professor at the University of Toronto, has shown that the gap between the richer and poorer areas of Toronto has increased, and his research makes a strong case that this gap will continue to increase over the next few decades. The potential stress on social cohesion increases the responsibility and challenge of a public board trying to serve all of its students

Secondary as the New Middle School: In the 1940's, less than 5% of Ontario students reached post-secondary. Now, two thirds of Toronto students will enter post-secondary directly from high school and up to three quarters will attend with adult transitions included. In other words, for the 2011-12 school year, more students will attend post-secondary institutions then the number of students that had entered secondary school from Grade 8 graduation in 1945. This reflects an increasingly complex world where higher education is becoming the norm. As seen elsewhere in this report, the educational levels of Toronto adults have greatly increased in the past few years, and Toronto as a city has a much higher level of adult education than other parts of Ontario. As impressive and positive as this is, it also has implications for those who do not enter post-secondary. Previously the focus was on graduation, and this remains the Ministry of Education’s direction.

However, research completed within the TDSB, has found several groups of students who are now more likely to graduate from high school but not go to post-secondary. Students taking Applied and Locally-developed (Essentials) courses in Grades 9 and 10 are unlikely to make the transition to post-secondary. Most students entering the community college system, and nearly all students entering university, took Academic courses in Grades 9 and 10. As well, most students with non-Gifted Special Needs will graduate from high school but not go further: there is little to differentiate Learning Disabled students from those with an Individual Education Plan (IEP) in this regard. Finally, there is a pronounced post-secondary gender gap showing that more females enter university than males; college destinations show no real gender difference. Given that university education is also one of the strongest predictors of long-term earnings, these developments have daunting implications down the road.

Gentrification and Housing Changes: Although difficult to document on a year-to-year basis, there is increasing evidence that many areas of the city are changing dramatically. Toronto shows some areas as becoming 'gentrified' as older housing stock is renovated and updated; while also having one of the most vibrant condominium markets in North America. Currently, these housing trends point to decreased enrolment for the TDSB, as they are associated with families with fewer or no children. Will this direction

130

continue? Some have tried to change the condominium market to make this housing more family-friendly; as is the case of most European cities.

Another implication is in the cost of housing. Toronto has a high proportion of families living in rental accommodation, many of them recent immigrants with intentions of purchasing a home; however, as housing prices within the GTA increase, these families will increasingly look to other areas of the city that are more affordable (thus increasing the social divide described previously).

Changing Immigration Trends: Toronto has traditionally been the city of choice for the largest number of Canadian immigrants. This results in the TDSB’s enrolment being extremely sensitive to immigration shifts. As well, different groups will arrive in different areas of the city. A few years ago there was no record of Tibetan-speaking students; it is now one of the key languages spoken in the Parkdale area. What will the future hold? Will future immigrants arrive in Toronto, remain in Toronto, or move elsewhere?

Virtual Schools and Schooling: In 2010-11, in the TDSB, 1,507 virtual courses were taken by regular day school students. While some years ago there was great talk about virtual schools, there is now an increasing realization that current growth in virtual schooling is due to students, in regular 'bricks and mortar' schools, registering in virtual courses to supplement their on-campus curriculum. Virtual schooling is growing faster than any other format of education, and now permeates the so-called regular curriculum. For example, undergraduate students at many Canadian universities see their professors online, and have direct communication with tutorial leaders. These are not considered 'virtual' courses, yet the primary point of instructional contact is virtual. At the same time, the directions and effectiveness of many of these newer educational formats and developments is unknown. For example, credit recovery courses (allowing students who have failed courses to gain their credits through retaking parts of the course they had earlier failed) have increased across the United States at an exponential rate, yet their overall effectiveness remains unknown; in part because most are partly or entirely virtual courses. Many issues with virtual schooling need to be explored, for example, monitoring attendance. The long-term effects of these developments on the TDSB remain an open question.

Challenges of Predicting the Future: At the end of the 19th century, many of the top thinkers of the time were asked to predict key, new developments that would take place in the 20th century. They accurately forecasted many, like nuclear power. Though no one was able to predict what proved to be perhaps the most telling development: the rise of the mass-produced automobile and its effects on urban development, the environment, and society in general (Tenner, 1996). No forecasts were made predicting how this transportation technology, essentially an extension of bicycle development, could lead to numerous societal changes (it is commonly forgotten that the Wright brothers grounded their development on the plane from their work on bike mechanics).

Likewise, over a century later, we have a number of important and intersecting trends: the seemingly inevitable increase in the cost of oil; the increased scarcity of fresh water; effects of global warming; and changes in technology and political developments. It is therefore difficult to predict what challenges the TDSB will be facing in 20 or 30 years. However, it is clear that the Toronto of that future time period will be a very different city from that of today, and that the TDSB, with its mandate to serve all students, will be working with new, unanticipated challenges, along with many of the same challenges outlined in this report.

131

APPENDIX 1: MAP OF CENSUS METROPOLITAN AREA (CMA), STATISTICS CANADA, 2006.

Retrieved from: www.library.yorku.ca/.../mapsandatlases.htm

132

REFERENCES

Brown, R. S. (2010). TDSB mobility: A portrait of movement from 2009 through 2010 (Preliminary Draft). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

Toronto District School Board.

Brown, R. S. (2010). Achievement gaps among self-identified Aboriginal students. [Internal document].Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

Toronto District School Board

Brown, R. S. (2010). The grade 9 cohort of fall 2004 (Research Report 09/10-15). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School

Board.

Brown, R. S. (2011). Grade 9 cohort of fall 2005 - Brief overview. [Internal Draft]. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School

Board.

Brown, R. S. & Parekh, G. (2010). Special education: Structural overview and student demographics (Research Report 10/11-03).

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board.

Brown, R. S. & Sinay, E. (2008). 2006 student census: Linking demographic data with student achievement (Research Report

07/08-06). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board.

City of Toronto. (2010). Education attainment [Data File]. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-

toronto/labour_force_education.htm

City of Toronto. (2010). Percent of labour force with a university degree. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-

toronto/labour_force_education.htm#2

133



http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/labour_force_education.htm#2

http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/labour_force_education.htm#2

Hulchanski, D. J. (2010). The three cities within Toronto: Income polarization among Toronto’s neighbourhoods, 1970-2005. Toronto,

Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto. Retrieved from

http://www.citiescentre.utoronto.ca/Assets/Cities+Centre+Digital+Assets/pdfs/publications/Three+Cities+Within+Toronto

+Hulchanski+2010.pdf

Muthuswamy, E. (2011). Feeding our future program: Interim findings. Research Today, 6(1). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto

District School Board.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Sinay, E. (2010). Achievement gaps among student sub-groups in the Toronto District School Board (Internal Document). Toronto,

Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board.

Statistics Canada. (2010). Economic family structure. Catalogue no. 97-563-XCB2006015. Retrieved from

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/

Statistics Canada. (2010). 2006 community profiles: Toronto. Catalogue No. 92-591-XWE.Retrieved from

http://www.12.statcon.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E

Statistics Canada. (2010). Individuals by total income level, by province and territory. CANSIM Table 111-0008. Retrieved from

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil105g-eng.htm?sdi=Ontario

Statistics Canada. (2010). Highest level of education attainment for the population aged 25-64, 2006 counts for both sexes. Retrieved

from http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-

560/pages/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&Code=01&Table=1&Data=Count&Sex=1&StartRec=1&Sort=2&Display=Page

134

http://www.citiescentre.utoronto.ca/Assets/Cities+Centre+Digital+Assets/pdfs/publications/Three+Cities+Within+Toronto+Hulchanski+2010.pdf

http://www.citiescentre.utoronto.ca/Assets/Cities+Centre+Digital+Assets/pdfs/publications/Three+Cities+Within+Toronto+Hulchanski+2010.pdf

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/

http://www.12.statcon.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil105g-eng.htm?sdi=Ontario

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-560/pages/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&Code=01&Table=1&Data=Count&Sex=1&StartRec=1&Sort=2&Display=Page

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-560/pages/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&Code=01&Table=1&Data=Count&Sex=1&StartRec=1&Sort=2&Display=Page

Tenner, E. (1997). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

Random House of Canada Limited.

University of Toronto. (2010). Toronto CMA census subdivisions. Retrieved from http://prod.library.utoronto.ca:8090/cgi-

bin/maplib/cma.pl

Yau, M. (2010). Understanding TDSB students and their needs (Highlights). TDSB health sciences post-secondary student

placement orientation. PowerPoint Public Lecture Presented at the North York Memorial Community Hall, North York,

Ontario, Canada.

Yau, M. (2010). Part 1: Young children’s school readiness in Toronto public schools (Internal Document). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

Toronto District School Board.

Yau, M., & O’Reilly, J. (2009). 2008 parent census, kindergarten-grade 6: System overview & detailed findings (Research Report

08/09-16). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board.

135

http://prod.library.utoronto.ca:8090/cgi-bin/maplib/cma.pl

http://prod.library.utoronto.ca:8090/cgi-bin/maplib/cma.pl

2010-11visionofhopeescanofthetdsb)rbr02(environmentalscan\2010-2011\2010-11visionofhopeescanofthetdsb)rb.3457...

Documents