VANCOUVER BOARD OF EDUCATIONBOARD MEETING

REVISED AGENDA

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

II. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESA) Meeting of November 9, 2015B) Matters Arising from the MinutesC) Meeting of November 10, 2015D) Matters Arising from the Minutes

III. SUPERINTENDENT’S UPDATE

IV. COMMITTEE I: MANAGEMENT CO-ORDINATINGA) Reports: NoneB) New Business/Enquiries

V. COMMITTEE II: PLANNING & FACILITIESA) Reports: NoneB) New Business/Enquiries

VI. COMMITTEE III: EDUCATION & STUDENT SERVICESA) Reports

1. Meeting of November 18, 20152. Matters Arising from the Report

B) New Business/Enquiries

VII. COMMITTEE IV: PERSONNEL & STAFF SERVICESA) Reports: NoneC) New Business/Enquiries

VIII. COMMITTEE V: FINANCE & LEGALA) Reports

1. Meeting of November 18, 20152. Matters Arising from the Report

B) New Business/Enquiries

(Submit completed Question Period forms to the Recording Secretary)

IX. REPORT OF PRIVATE/RESTRICTED SESSION ITEMS

X. REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS / ADVISORY COMMITTEES

XI. NEW BUSINESS/ENQUIRIES

A. Notice of Motion: Role of Board Chair

B. Notice of Motion: Role of Board Chair

C. Notice of Motion: Role of Board Vice Chair

. . . cont.

VANCOUVER BOARD OF EDUCATION

BOARD MEETING

Monday, November 23, 2015at 6:00 pm in the Boardroom

XII. Special Advisor’s Report

1. Motion to Dissolve the Board Meeting into Committee of the Whole

2. Discussion regarding the Proposed VBE Response to the Special Advisor’s Recommendations

3. Motion to Rise and Report from the Committee of the Whole

(Brief recess, if required)

4. Motion to Reconvene the Board Meeting

5. Motion to Approve the VBE Response to the Special Advisor’s Recommendations

XIII. QUESTION PERIOD

XIV. ADJOURNMENT

BOARD MEETING

Monday, November 9, 2015 at 7:00 pm

The Board of Trustees of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) met in the Boardroom, VSB Education Centre, 1580 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC on Monday, November 9, 2015 at 7:00 pm.

Trustees Present: F. Ballantyne in the Chair, J. Alexander, P. Bacchus, J. Fraser, M. Lombardi, P. Noble, C. Richardson, S. Robertson, A. Wong

Also Present: S. Robinson, Superintendent of Schools / Interim Secretary Treasurer M. Ciarniello, Associate Superintendent-Learning Services J. Pearce, Associate Superintendent-Field Services J. Meschino, Director of Facilities L. Landry, Director of Finance R. Schindel, Director of Instruction-Field Services E. Mina, Registered Parliamentarian C. Caparas, Administrative Coordinator (Recorder)

The Chairperson called the meeting to order and acknowledged that the meeting is being held in the traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Coast Salish peoples.

Note: Due to the recent retirement of the Secretary Treasurer, in order to ensure that the Board has the support and guidance with respect to formal Board meetings and processes under the Roberts Rules of Order, E. Mina, Registered Parliamentarian, will be assisting the Board at its meetings.

I. PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

A. Sleep Awareness Initiative

Students from Vancouver Technical Secondary presented on raising sleep awareness in district schools.

II. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

A. Meeting of October 26, 2015

Moved by J. Alexander, seconded by C. Richardson, that the minutes of the October 26, 2015 meeting be adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

• B. Matters Arising from the October 26, 2015 minutes

1. Capital Plan Submission

The Director of Facilities presented and reviewed a document entitled 2015/2016 Capital Plan Changes (attached). The document highlighted housekeeping changes made by staff to the 2015/2016 Capital Plan that was provided at the October 26, 2015 Board meeting.

Board Meeting Minutes — for approval Page 2 November 9, 2015

III. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPDATE

The Superintendent of Schools reported on the following items:

o a reminder of the Committee of the Whole meeting on November 10, 2015 to receive delegations on the VBE's Draft Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations;

o that at the Board's Private Session of November 9, 2015, the Board approved a motion to convene a Special Board Meeting on November 25, 2015 to consider the VBE's Draft Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations; and

o an update on the anticipated arrival of Syrian refugees in Vancouver.

IV. STUDENT TRUSTEE REPORT: None

V. COMMITTEE I: MANAGEMENT CO-ORDINATING

A. Reports

1. Meeting of November 4, 2015

The Chairperson of the Committee, C. Richardson, presented the report of the November 4, 2015 meeting, a copy of which is filed with these minutes. The Board considered the following items from the report:

a. Aboriginal Focus School at Macdonald

Main Motion

Moved by P. Bacchus, seconded by M. Lombardi, that the Board commit to working with parents and the community to support the success and growth of the Aboriginal Focus School.

Amendment

Moved by C. Richardson, seconded by S. Robertson, that the main motion be replaced with the following:

That the Board re-commit in the spirit of reconciliation to working with parents and the community to support the success and growth of the Aboriginal Focus School.

Discussion ensued on the rationale for and against the amendment.

A vote was taken on the amendment and it was declared CARRIED

For: F. Ballantyne, J. Fraser, P. Noble, C. Richardson, S. Robertson Against: J. Alexander, P. Bacchus, M. Lombardi, A. Wong

A vote was taken on the amended main motion with the final wording as follows:

That the Board re-commit in the spirit of reconciliation to working with parents and the community to support the success and growth of the Aboriginal Focus School.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Board Meeting Minutes — for approval Page 3 November 9, 2015

V. COMMITTEE I: MANAGEMENT CO-ORDINATING

A. Reports

1. Meeting of November 4, 2015 (continued)

b. Provincial Poverty Reduction Plan

Moved by P. Bacchus, seconded by A. Wong that the VSB renew and reiterate its request that the BC government develop and implement a provincial poverty reduction plan.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Board considered the following information items from the report:

o Delegation: Macdonald Elementary Parent Advisory Council o Adult Education-South Hill Youth Program o Video Streaming of Board Meetings

Moved by C. Richardson, seconded by P. Noble, that the report of the November 4, 2015 meeting be received.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

VI. COMMITTEE II: PLANNING & FACILITIES: None

VII. COMMITTEE III: EDUCATION & STUDENT SERVICES: None

VIII. COMMITTEE IV: PERSONNEL & STAFF SERVICES

A. Reports

1. Meeting of November 4, 2015

The Chairperson of the Committee, F. Ballantyne, presented the report of the November 4, 2015 meeting, a copy of which is filed with these minutes. The Board considered the following item from the report:

a. Employee Services Policy Review

Moved by S. Robertson, seconded by J. Alexander, that the Employee Services Policy Manual Section GC: Professional Staff be renamed to Section GC: Teaching Staff and that all references to exempt staff be removed from the new Section GC.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Moved by S. Robertson, seconded by M. Lombardi, that the twelve VBE policies relating to Professional Staff, as provided in the report entitled Employee Services Policy Review, be rescinded from Section GC: Professional Staff and replaced with the new policy GC: Teaching Staff with the inclusion of references to the specific sections of the relevant legislation that relate to the new policy.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Board Meeting Minutes — for approval Page 4 November 9, 2015

VIII. COMMITTEE IV: PERSONNEL & STAFF SERVICES

A. Reports

1. Meeting of November 4, 2015 (continued)

The Board considered the following information items from the report:

o PeopleSoft Update o Vancouver Coastal Health — School Inspections

Moved by J. Alexander, seconded by P. Noble, that the report of the November 4, 2015 meeting be received.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

IX. COMMITTEE V: FINANCE & LEGAL: None

The Chairperson called for Question Period forms to be submitted to the meeting recorder.

X. REPORTING OF PRIVATE / RESTRICTED SESSION ITEMS

The Chairperson reported that at the Board Private Session of October 26, 2015, the Board:

o approved a motion regarding the District Principal-Student Support Services (Special Education) position;

o approved a motion regarding a recommendation for a pool of candidates for elementary vice-principals; and

o approved a motion regarding a pool of candidates for secondary vice-principals.

XI. REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS / ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Trustee Bacchus reported on a meeting held with the Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement Implementation and Monitoring Advisory Committee meeting on November 2, 2015.

Trustee Wong reported on a meeting held with the Vancouver Public Library Board on October 28, 2015.

Trustee Alexander reported on the following items:

o a meeting held with the City of Vancouver's Women's Advisory Committee; and o a meeting at the Aboriginal Friendship Centre on November 2, 2015 regarding

Restorative Practices.

Trustee Ballantyne reported on a Vancouver Public Library event on November 2, 2015.

06N0V2015

Capital Plan 2015/2016 Changes

I District Ranking

Revised Order 2015/2016 !Growth Area 111012 Strunk Risk

2015 Fa F2004 Aneul

II.ateadn ICI: Cul I ind Int II IM

Prolect Code

Year I - 2015 2016 1 Hudson South False Creek 308,21 0.48' SPS

2 Livingstone Mount Pleasant 276.96 0.26 SPS

3 Nightingale Mount Pleasant 212.60 0.46 SPS

4 False Creek South False Creek 182.09 0.40 SPS

5 Carr Cambie Corridor 64.39 0.53 SPS

6 King George Secondary (+ addition) Downtown Core 364,99 0.67 SPS

7 Gladstone 515.32 0.59 SPS

8 Windermere 492.30 0.60 SPS

9 Queen Elizabeth H3 0.42_, SPS

10 Macdonald 79.00 0.60 SPS 11 SEFC Olympic Village (NEW) NEW NEW

12 Hudson 0.48 MECHUP

13 LivingStone 0.26 MECHUP

14 Nightingale 0.46 MECHUP.

15 False Creek 0.40 MECHUP

16 Carr 0.53 MECHUP

17 Queen Elizabeth 0.42 MECHUP

18 Cavell 0.37 MECHUP

19 Wolfe 0.47 MECHUP

20 Churchill 261.04 0.57 SPS

21 MacCorkindale 188,00 0.58 SPS

22 Beaconsfield 180.49 0,20 SPS

23 Queen Alexandra 179.81 0.44 SPS

24 Franklin 171.91 0.33 SPS

25 Churchill 0.57 BEP

26 Oppenheimer 0.54 MECHUP

27 Quilchena 134.47 0.34 SPS

28 Osier 131.04 0.57 SPS

29 Britannia Secondary 122,95 0.39 SPS

30 Grandview Elem 103,67 0.41 SPS

31 Bruce 116,80 0.40 SPS

32 Seymour 95.64 0.60 SPS

33 Tilllicum Annex 81.82 0.62 SPS

34 Brock 58.87 0.57 SPS

35 Cunningham 49.61 0.40 SPS

36 Southlands 41,01 0.39 SPS

YEAR 2 - 2016/2017 37 Coal Ha rbour (NEW)

1

NEW NEW

YEAR 3 - 2017/2018 313 tUBC 5Outh Campus Elem (NEW) 11.19C / Endowment L NEW

YEAR 4 - 2018/2019 39 'Laurier Annex (Addition) _Kambie Growth

ADD

0.52

ADD

YEAR 5 - 2019/2020 40 East Fraserlands Elem (NEW) NEW NEW

41 Carnarvon H3 0.47

42 Henderson H3 0.56

43 Nootka H3 0.62

44 Byng Secondary H3 0.43

45 Thunderbird H3 0.27

46 Champlain Heights H3 0.33

47 Maquinna ... H3 0.81

48 Mount Pleasant H3 0.40

49 Lord H3 0.70

50 Selkirk H3 0,34

51 Queen Victoria Annex H3 0.73

52 Queen Elizabeth Annex H3 0.83

53 Selkirk Annex H3 0.49

54 McBride Annex H3 0.60 55 Waverley Annex 113 0.43

NEW

PACOMMITTEE lAlleponA2015 ReportA2015-10 Ocl 21 \ ReelsoriCompate Capital Plan ilst Confidential Ore(1112 REV 220“101.5F1nal Approved by Board Nov 9

SPECIAL BOARD/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING

Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 5:30 pm

The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) met in the Boardroom, VSB Education Centre, 1580 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC on Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 5:30 pm.

TRUSTEES PRESENT: F. Ballantyne, in the Chair, J. Alexander, P. Bacchus, J. Fraser, M. Lombardi,

P. Noble, C. Richardson, S. Robertson, A. Wong

ALSO S. Robinson, Superintendent of Schools PRESENT: G. Bonnefoy, Interim Secretary Treasurer

M. Ciarniello, Associate Superintendent-Learning Services J. Pearce, Associate Superintendent-Field Services J. Meschino, Director of Facilities L. Landry, Director of Finance I. Khunguray, Supervisor-Budgeting and Forecasting C. Caparas, Administrative Coordinator (Recorder)

The Chairperson called the meeting to order and acknowledged that the meeting is being held in the traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Coast Salish peoples.

I. Motion to Dissolve the Board Meeting into Committee of the Whole

Moved by P. Bacchus, seconded by J. Alexander, that the Board dissolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

II. Delegations re VBE's Draft Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations

The Chairperson reviewed the Procedures for Delegations to the Board.

The following delegates presented their views regarding the VBE's Draft Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations dated November 3, 2015. Written briefs are attached to these minutes.

1. District Parent Advisory Council (DPAC) 2. Vancouver Secondary Teachers Association (VSTA) 3. International Union of Operating Engineers (IU0E) Local 963 4. Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) 15 5. Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education 6. Heritage Vancouver Society 7. Joint Union Stakeholders 8. A. Yan 9. Vancouver Elementary School Teachers' Association (VESTA) (verbal)

The Chairperson thanked the delegates for their presentations.

III. Motion to Rise From Committee of the Whole

Moved by M. Lombardi, seconded by C. Richardson, that the Committee of the Whole rise and report.

CARRIED UNAMIMOUSLY

Special Board/Committee of the Whole Minutes — for approval Page 2 November 10, 2015

IV. Motion to Reconvene the Board Meeting

Moved by J. Alexander, seconded by A. Wong, that the Board meeting be reconvened.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

V. Motion to Adjourn the Board Meeting

Moved by J. Alexander, seconded by C. Richardson, that the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.

Fraser Ballantyne, Chairperson

Guy Bonnefoy, Interim Secretary Treasurer

Item 11.1

Good evening trustees, management, staff, stakeholders and guests.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address the staff response to the EY report .

When the EY report was first received, it was a challenging task to digest the 236 page document.

We wish to thank Scott Robinson, the management team and staff of the VSB who worked on the response. They should be commended for the thoroughness responding to the EY report, the comparative analysis the response provides, the concise nature (66 pages) and manageable methodology they have employed.

What is obvious and meaningful is that this response clearly wishes to build a strong working relationship between the VBE and the Education Ministry. As an example, the response first points out that over 60% of the recommendation have been met and or concurred. This shows that the VBE and the ministry agree on a majority of aspects moving forward.

A further 3Q% of the recommendations of the response requests an open door dialogue between the parties to bring better understanding and offers a road to consensus.

Only five recommendations were not concurred with in the entire report. Perhaps this will give the ministry pause to reflect that possibly the auditor did overreach on a few of the recommendations.

Starting there, DPAC members examined the five recommendations that were NOT concurred with. DPAC either supports or has no opinion on these five.

We discussed, in length, the balance of the report and the response to the report and although I have only five minutes to speak, here are the main themes that we wish to bring forward:

• Opposed to closing any schools. • Opposed to selling any properties, especially to private schools. • Opposed to the 95% capacity utilization target set by the ministry (section 6.18). We believe this

is the key point we are being asked for feedback. • Would like to see the use of language be more appropriate to a discussion about education than

about materials-based industry. • Would like the response to address any of the social hardships that could be introduced if

capacity rationalization was introduced. • Agree with the VSB's resolve to stand firm against "cookie-cutter" solutions to problems. • Support the VSB's statement about maintenance being ridiculously underfunded.

The DPAC Chair asked me to finish with the statement that DPAC and families support a fully funded education system. The VSB education system is underfunded, we ALL know this...

Just ask any nine-year-old who isn't getting the music lessons her ten-year-old friends did last year!

Your DPAC executive:

Morgane Oger, Michele Buchman, Alex Dow, 'raj Khabazian, Shaun Kelley, Farah Shroff, Mabel Sun

Item 11.2

Vancouver Secondary Teachers' Association VSTA 2915 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, BC V5N 4C8 tel: 604-873-5570 fax: 604-873-3916 www.vsta.ca

Response to VBE Proposed Response to the

Special Advisor's Recommendations (November 3, 2015)

Presented to VBE Committee-of-the-Whole

re Special Advisor's Recommendations November 10, 2015

VSTA Response to VBE Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations

Introduction The Vancouver Secondary Teachers' Association thanks the VBE for the opportunity to respond to the June 8, 2015 Special Advisor's Report as commissioned to Ernst and Young, LLP, by the Minister of Education. The VSTA recognizes that the overall educational value of the Special Advisor's report to students in Vancouver is diminished by the report's fixation on the disposal of public assets and by seeking efficiencies in a drastically underfunded system. Nonetheless, there are several recommendations that the VSTA will make comment on.

Response by Report Sections

Section 3 - Budget Development and Forecasting • The VSTA supports the VBE's commitment to best practice in financial forecasting

(Recommendations 3.3 and 3.5) but does not support withholding the IPP and retaining the three-year financial forecast as a confidential document (3.1) if the intent is that these documents not be shared with stakeholders at Committee V. We note that VBE proposes agreement with Recommendation 3.3 which stipulates that the three-year financial forecast be included in the Strategic Plan. We maintain that the Strategic Plan should be released in its entirety. We also believe that the withholding of these documents would not withstand a FOIPPA request and assert that withholding information to teachers and the public is not congruent with good governance, stifles effective advocacy and discourages transparency.

• Current budget documents provided to stakeholders should be viewed as the bare minimum and particularly, the Fiscal Framework document, provided each year, should be increased in its detail. Feedback on budgetary recommendations needs to be based on as thorough an understanding of the VBE's financial situation as possible. To suggest, as the Special Advisor's report does, that a decrease in information to stakeholders would somehow be advantageous, is laughable.

Section 4 - Accumulated Surpluses and Deficits

• The VSTA fully supports the VBE's proposed responses to Recommendations 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, and strongly agrees with the assertion that an imposed target threshold is not keeping with principles of good financial governance and local School Board autonomy.

Section 5 - Administrative Support and Overhead Efficiencies

• The VSTA notes that Section 5 -- 'Administrative Support and Overhead Efficiencies', is the only section of the report with recommendations that bear directly upon specific educational programs. We are dismayed that recommendations (5.2, 5.3, and 5.4), under the guise of support and efficiencies, are restricted to opportunities to seek profit from Summer School and International Education programs. While recognizing the imperative to achieve revenue which matches costs, the VSTA recommends that the VBE make an effort to take full stock of the

11Page

VSTA Response to VBE Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations

consequences of our increased reliance on enrolment in fee-based programs. For example, It is

important that trustees be aware that our increased International Education program enrolment

has resulted in secondary students not only being unable to enroll in particular courses in their

school but in some cases, not being permitted to attend their neighbourhood school.

• The VSTA supports the VBE's proposed responses to Recommendations 5.5 to 5.8 understanding

that the VBE's consideration would include discussion at Standing Committees and take into

account the full financial and non-financial outcomes of any initiative stemming from these

recommendations. It is important to note here that the VSTA does not support the introduction

of ATMs into the school environment due to the effects this introduction would have on

financially vulnerable members of the school community.

• 5.9 — While seeking efficiencies, the VBE must examine (including presentation at Standing

Committee Structures) a full cost / benefit analysis of all proposed and existing opportunities. As

an example, the VSTA's continued experience with the Attendance Management Program is that

the negative effects on teachers' morale far outstrip the financial benefit to the Board, and

ultimately to the quality of education offered to students in the Vancouver system. Despite

repeated requests, the VSTA has still not received an itemized summary of savings generated as

a result of this particular "efficiency."

Section 6 - Capital Asset Management

• The VSTA supports the VBE's proposed responses to the Recommendations directed to the VBE

in the 'Planning' sub-section.

• The VSTA recognizes that many of the recommendations included in the sub-section entitled

'Excess Surplus Capacity' are particularly challenging. Insofar as these recommendations bear

upon the potential closure of schools and sale of land, the VSTA strongly supports the cautious

approach signalled by the VBE in its proposed responses.

o In particular, the VSTA recommends that variables introduced into the future capacity

requirements of the LRSFP (Recommendation 6.15) take into account the potential for

spikes in enrolment that might result from an influx of refugees or immigration to the

region that exceeds projections for other reasons.

o The VSTA recommends that along with the CoV and Province, the 'other partners'

referenced in Recommendation 6.16 include agencies with whom we have ongoing

relationships, such as neighbourhood houses, other large daycares, after school care

providers and social service agencies such as the Immigration Services Society.

• The VSTA recommends careful analysis and caution before any attempt is made to move

district-wide classroom seat utilization to 95% under the Ministry calculation

(Recommendation 6.18). The perception that at any given point in the school day, there

is a surfeit of empty classrooms, art rooms, studios, shops and labs does not match our

members' experience. In fact, it is not uncommon to hear of sections not being offered

because there is no appropriate room available or science classes being scheduled into

regular classrooms with the expectation that students share access to a lab with

students from another class. In addition, the pedagogical basis of the new curriculum

2IPage

VSTA Response to VBE Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations

currently being developed under the direction of the Ministry emphasizes project-based learning, small group seminars and other activities that will be impossible without labs, art rooms, shops, studios and access to classrooms or other meeting space.

o The VSTA maintains that the VBE has a responsibility to the students, parents, and other inhabitants of Vancouver's neighbourhoods to make every reasonable effort to support neighbourhood public schools. This responsibility is all the more germane with the viability of neighbourhood schools threatened by well-intentioned but misguided, market-oriented, 'freedom of choice' legislation. We note that should a neighbourhood secondary school be closed, it would be the most vulnerable of our students in that neighbourhood that would be most likely to experience hardship. The VSTA recommends that any consultation process outlined in the LRSFP (6.19, 6.20, and 6.21) include active involvement with the community with the objective of retaining a neighbourhood school.

o The VSTA is opposed to the sale of school property and supports the VBE's recent motion placing a moratorium on such sales (6.22. and 6.23) In principle, the VBE should not be depleting public assets through the one-time disposal of property to address chronic underfunding issues. It is clear that in Vancouver's real estate market and geographic position in the Lower Mainland, the VBE will not be in a position to purchase land to replace portions of its endowment once sold.

• The VSTA supports the VBE's proposed responses to the Recommendations directed to the VBE in the 'Excess Surplus Capacity' sub-section.

• The VSTA supports the VBE's proposed responses to the Recommendations directed to the VBE in the 'Seismic Mitigation Program' sub-section.

• The VSTA supports the VBE's proposed responses to the Recommendations in the 'Deferred Maintenance' sub-section.

• The VSTA supports the VBE's proposed responses to the Recommendations in the 'Non K-12 Real Estate' sub-section although must reiterate our absolute commitment in opposition to the sale of public lands.

Section 7 - Board Governance

• The VSTA finds the existing Standing Committee Structure effective at a minimum insofar as it at least provides us opportunities to represent our members concerns to the Board. The VSTA believes strongly that the consultative structure of Board Standing Committees improves educational outcomes for students by giving agency to teachers and thus improving their professional efficacy.

• The VSTA maintains that teachers are in a position to offer important information regarding how the VBE's spending aligns with its objectives. We further maintain that more detailed financial reporting would allow us to provide more meaningful feedback regarding whether or not expenditures are achieving intended results in the provision of educational programs. We assume that with more detailed financial reports, our colleagues from other employee groups

3 IP a ge

VSTA Response to VBE Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations

would similarly be able to provide more pertinent feedback regarding the achievement of

objectives in other aspects of the VBE's operations. While we welcome the contributions of any

who might bring outside experience and expertise to the oversight of the VBE's finances, we

strongly oppose any move towards closed governance in this area, such as the formation of an

Audit Committee with membership restricted to Trustees and external financial professionals

(and, presumably, members of the VBE's Finance Department). (Recommendations 7.1A and

7.3A)

Conclusion The VSTA regards the EY — Special Advisor's report as a political exercise, largely driven by a narrow view

of public education, one that sees the Vancouver School Board as incompetent and its assets as a piggy

bank that should be raided to make amends for 13 years of provincial cuts and underfunding. Instead,

we applaud the vision of past School Boards to establish and maintain the assets and resources

necessary to provide quality public education to all neighborhoods of Vancouver. Ultimately, the

motivations of the report speak to its credibility and to its value as a viable source of financial advice for

a democratically elected Public School Board. The VSTA commends and encourages the VBE in its

continued efforts to grow and maintain a vibrant, financially healthy and equitable school system—one

that provides fulsome and transparent information to its stakeholders and listens to and values the

voices of all members of its communities.

Item 11.3

international Union of Operating Engineers

Local 963 (Vancouver, BC)

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 963

Response to VBE Ernst & Young Special Advisor Report

November 10, 2015

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Special Advisor's Report.

Quoting from the Special Advisor's June 8, 2015 letter to then-Minister of Education Peter Fassbender,

the Ersnt & Young report (the "report") identified "numerous opportunities to further improve fiscal

responsibility and capital allocation and to enhance VBE's governance practices."

It is clear this report is largely not about education- it is about business. And even within this framework

the report qualifies its accuracy by stating that "EY has not audited, reviewed or otherwise attempted to

verify the accuracy or completeness" of the information published.

We say, with respect, that your job as school trustees is to ensure high quality, well-resourced student

education. It is the Province that has created the funding crisis and it is the Province that is now,

through another Special Advisor's report, suggesting even further cuts, closures and entering into more

business relationships to cure this crisis, albeit focussing on SD #39 for now.

VBE response to the report by report dated November 3, 2015

The VBE has noted that it views thirty-one of the report recommendations as being "in concurrence",

fifteen recommendations as warranting "further consideration" and five recommendations that the

Board "does not concur" with.

The five rejected concepts are:

• limiting budget information to "that which is useful to stakeholders" (3.2)

• creating an arbitrary threshold target for the Net Accumulated Surplus (4.3)

• adoption of template school design (6.6)

• change procurement approach (6.10)

• close schools simultaneously (6.20)

The IUOE urges the Board to add to the above list:

■ Comparative Staffing Levels Report (5.8)

This concept must be rejected as it has no applicability in the context of blue collar maintenance

work. The report states that the "analysis was originally prepared for the Vancouver School

District by an independent consultant in March 2015." The union formally requests this

document.

The report correctly notes that staffing levels are set through collective bargaining and further,

that the number of VSB maintenance staff is directly correlated with the square footage of

school space. Then, in the next sentence, the topic jumps from the calibration of maintenance

work to the number of bargaining units. The latter comment is completely off-base since

support staff in BC have been negotiating Provincial Framework Agreements for almost every

support staff local /district in BC. This has clearly reduced the costs of collective bargaining and

should have been noted in the report (and pointed out by staff).

Further, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the cost of administering these

collective agreements is out of line- anecdotes from staff do not present as reliable evidence. At

last count, Employee Services (including Payroll, Benefits, Wellness, Health & Safety, Labour

Relations, Recruitment & Retention & Staffing) has some fifty-seven employees working at the

VBE. The VBE would be have a far more effective result if it concentrated internally on

inefficient management practices and unnecessary labour arbitrations of which there have been

too many.

On the calibration of maintenance work based on factors other than the physical space (i.e.

square footage), the following may help illustrate the folly of this concept:

Imagine you have asked a landscaping company to provide an estimate for new turf for

your large backyard. The estimator arrives at your home, you both walk about the

property and you offer drawings you happen to have handy that will help the estimator

quickly calculate the work. "No, thanks" says the estimator. "What I need to know for

the estimate is how many people will be walking on your new turf. "

Sound absurd? Well it is. And that's exactly what recommendation 5.8 reflects- the notion that

maintenance work depends on how many patrons use a building. Lastly, the employer should

anticipate lengthy litigation should there be breaches of our collective agreement.

■ Capacity Rationalization (i.e. school closures)/analysis of sale, lease and retention options

(6.21)

In the mid-1990's the VBE agreed to have Bentall Corporation build a new Education Centre in

exchange for a 99 year lease on properties and buildings in the block bordered by Granville

Street, Broadway, 10th Ave and Fir Street in Vancouver.

In exchange for a $17 million shiny new building the Board ostensibly facilitated the leveraging

of this property by Bentall, arguably some of the most valuable in Vancouver, to the extent that

Bentall was able, after adding value to the property, to sell its interest in the lease to the

Canadian Real Estate Investment Trust in 2004 for $42.2 million.

It is our view that had the Board held onto that property the benefits could have been managed

so that Vancouver students would benefit. And while the Board may not have been able to add

value to the property by constructing condominiums, the benefit of increases in property value

was realized by the developer and not Vancouver students.

Please consider this as you deliberate about "capacity rationalization" (i.e. school closures) and

keep the students, not developers, at the top of the leveraging pyramid. These are, after all,

public buildings owned by taxpayers that should be maintained by the VBE.

A final comment that has the potential to turn the E & Y report completely on its head- should the

Supreme Court of Canada render a decision in the BCTF/Government Bill 22 and 28 appeals court case

that sides with the trial judge, meaning among other things, that teacher working conditions as of July

2002 would be restored, many of the concepts in the report become moot. Please keep this in mind

when deliberating on matters that are longer term, such as the leasing of schools.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

Item 11.4

November 6, 2015

By Email - frasenballantyne@vsb.bc.ca

Vancouver School Board Trustees

Vancouver School Board

1580 West Broadway

Vancouver BC

V61 5K8

Attention: Fraser Ballantvne, Chair

Re: Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations

I am writing today to provide our feedback on your proposed response to the special advisor's recommendations. We have had the opportunity to review your document, dated November 3,

2015, and would like to comment on a number of the specific proposed responses contained

within.

Special Advisor Recommendation 5.5: CUPE 15 does not support the Provincial Government's

Shared Services Mandate. We have noted that this mandated move to contract out our

bargaining unit work and has already caused members financial hardship. We also note that

shared services plans have failed in a number of countries and cities where they have

transferred public funds to private corporations which do not have the best interests of Public

Education in their mandates.

Special Advisor Recommendation 5.6: CUPE 15 stands with parents, teachers and communities

against corporate sponsorship, exclusive marketing arrangements, and commercialisation of

curriculum within our schools. Research shows the profoundly negative impact of corporate

involvement in the school system and CUPE 15 cares about public education. This is not the

answer to budget shortfalls. We hope that the Board continues to work with the Provincial

Government to be proactive in addressing the issue of properly funding school districts.

Special Advisor Recommendation 5.8: CUPE 15 would like to thank you for your critique of the

reports over simplification of the use of staffing ratio rationales. Having said that, we would like

to point out that our members are working within a system that has already suffered many

cuts. We are concerned that the contemplation of any further reduction in staffing would result

in unreasonable and unfeasible workloads for our members and a reduction in the quality and

safety of our public education system.

/2

Vancouver Municipal, Education and Community Workers 645 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V5Z 110 Tel 604.879.4671 Fax 604.879.7682

www.cupe15.org emaliglicupe15.org

Re: Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations November 6, 2015 Page 2 of 2

Special Advisor Recommendation 6.19: CUPE 15 stands with our communities in opposition to school closures. School closures are traumatic for children, parents and communities. We need to defend options for families by continuing to preserve optimal learning environments for all students with a variety of social and academic needs rather than allowing the hypothetical financial benefits of school closures to drive our public education system.

In closing I would like to thank you for producing this largely thoughtful response and I look forward to working with you to meet the needs of our students, communities, and workers.

Thank you again for your continued cooperation.

Yours truly,

Warren Williams Presidvit

mum,. bas L467-UW

Item 11.5

Presentation to the

Vancouver Board of Education

by the Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education

Regarding the Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Report

November 10, 2015

I am speaking tonight on behalf of the Parent Advocacy Network for Public

Education. We are a grassroots advocacy organization with connections in 37

schools across the district.' We would like to address the trustees today with

concerns arising from the proposed response to the Special Advisor's

Recommendations...and specifically recommendations 6.17-6.28.

MoSt serious is the 95% capacity rationalization target recommended in the EY

report (recommendation 6.18). The VBE response uses the language of

'consideration', but the MOU signed with the ministry in August 2014 suggests that

this 95% target has ALREADY been agreed upon as does the fact that staff are

currently working on a LRSFP (Long Range Strategic Facilities Plan) for achieving

this goal through the SMP (Seismic Mitigation Plan). 11

If complied with, a target of 95% WOULD require massive restructuring and

upheaval across the district; the closure of instructional spaces not currently used

for enrolling purposes, widespread school closures and the consequent

amalgamation and redistribution of student populations into a smaller number of

new 'right-sized' facilities. (Rec. 6.27)

The disruption and trauma of school closures on families and neighbourhood

communities is very real and although acknowledged in the VBE response - does not

highlight the disproportional impact of this on schools on the East side of

Vancouver, particularly in areas of lower socioeconomic status - areas in which

neighbourhood schools are crucial in providing stability to communities and

supports to families that extend far beyond simple delivery of 'educational

services' Y.'.

To be clear

Capacity Rationalization is a euphemism for the containment of the largest number

of children into the smallest possible cubicles of space for the least possible

expenditure. It is based on corporate models of efficiency and NOT on educationally

informed principles about the environmental and spatial conditions necessary to

meet the basic learning needs of children.

So - What does 95% capacity rationalization look like for children?

SCHOOLS IN WHICH EVERY ROOM IS A CLASSROOM MAXIMIZED WITH

CHILDREN.1"

This allows very little flexibility for responding to population fluctuations and the

mobility patterns of 'choice schooling' resulting in highly volatile and stressful

enrollment processes - lotteries and the inevitable forced mobility of children

outside of their neighbourhood schools."

It also makes NO allowances for alternative programming or the smaller class sizes

that are necessary for learning disabilities or children at risk"'

The 'rightsizing ' of one or more schools through replacement facilities is presented

in the VBE response as the best option for meeting a 95% capacity utilization target

(Rec. 6.23 and 6.28) ."ii Although new schools may have the perceived benefits of

deferred maintenance (cost savings), and the opportunity to design space for 21st

century learning, rightsizing must conform to the ministry's area standard

restrictions."rn This means that new schools and classrooms are only 65% of their

original size.ix NO matter how innovative the design, if learning spaces are too small

and overcrowded, how will the VSB support 21 century learning? For example- at

Norma Rose Point, the poster-child for 21 century learning design, 120 intermediate

children are now occupying pod spaces whose functional design was intended for

only 90 children.

It is unconscionable for the ministry to extoll higher class sizes or for the VBE to

speculate on the benefits of larger schools (meaning student populations not the

size of the building) (Rec. 6.17). Research overwhelmingly shows that larger schools

and overcrowding contribute to anxiety, feelings of alienation, isolation and

increased incidences of negative behaviours such as bullying. The VBE has already

acknowledged in their 2014 District Plan for Student Learning, that the social

emotional well being of students is vital to their academic success. And the research

shows that conditions for this are found in smaller schools with ample space that

foster the building of strong relationships and a sense of belonging .x

One further and unacknowledged casualty of capacity rationalization is the ARTS.

In existing schools, this means closing of purpose built music and art rooms or

converting them into enrolling space. In new elementary school builds, NO space at

all is allocated for music, drama or visual arts2d Despite the specific spatial

requirements of these subjects, it is assumed that they can be adequately conducted

in new right sized classrooms. However, the new 'right-sized classrooms' are only

75 square metres (including cloakroom, teacher area and storage) for a nominal

student class size of 25 - which in reality, with capacity targets of 95%, will be closer

to 30. These conditions are not compatible with any kind of quality instruction in

the arts or with the innovative, exploratory, and creative vision of the new

curriculum.2di

A 95% capacity utilization will be a de facto elimination of the arts for the children

of this district.

To summarize - A 95 % capacity utilization target is not only untenable and

educationally unsupportable, it is detrimental to the social and emotional wellbeing

of children.

We all recognize that student enrollment has changed and there are issues with

surplus space.

But WHY IS THE BOARD COMMITTING TO A CAPACITY TARGET OF 95%? Has the

board examined the implications of such a target?"1 Have they questioned the

ministry on the criteria upon which such a target is based? giv Surely there is a more

reasonable capacity target that would be fiscally prudent while still providing the

ability for alternate programming, flexibility for population fluctuations, the

preservation and creation of arts based spaces and the ability to meet the needs of a

diverse range of learners.

In closing

I urge the board to consider carefully the implications of a 95% capacity target for

children and as stated in Rec. 6.17, make the "creation and preservation of optimal

learning environments the driving factor in decision-making." Once made, your

decisionS will be irreversible, because they will be literally 'set in stone' and will

determine (and delimit) the kind of learning environments that the children of this

city will experience for decades to come.

Bayview Elementary, Charles Dickens Annex, Charles Dickens Elementary, Collingwood Elementary David Livingstone Elementary, Douglas Annex and Elementary, Edith Cavell Elementary, Eric Hamber Secondary, Lord Selkirk Annex and Elementary, General Brock Elementary, Gladstone Secondary, Hastings Elementary, Henry Hudson Elementary, Killarney Secondary, Kitsilano Elementary, Laura Secord Elementary, Lord Nelson Elementary, Lord Roberts Elementary, Lord Strathcona Elementary, Lord Tennyson, Maple Grove Elementary, McBride Annex and Elementary, Nootka Elementary, Point Grey Secondary, Prince of Wales Secondary, Queen Alexandra Elementary, Simon Fraser Elementary, Shaughnessy Elementary, Sir Charles Tupper Secondary, Sir James Douglas Elementary, Southlands Elementary, Tecumseh Elementary, Trafalgar Elementary, Tyee Elementary

a "As part of the MOU for the VPO, in addition to the current requirement to submit five-year capital plans, VBE is required to prepare and submit to the Ministry a LRSFP to ultimately achieve 95% capacity utilization in a manner that is as fiscally sound as possible. The MOU provides a deadline for completion of the LRSFP of June 30, 2015. VBE advised it is on track to meet this deadline." EY, BspatorLtbk Special Advisor's Review of the Vancouver Board of Education, June 8, 2015 (123). http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/govieducation/administration/resource-management/reports/moe_vsb_review_report june_2015_exec_summary.pdf

iii The majority of schools identified as under capacity are on the east side of Vancouver and many of these are named in a report by the VSB in 2013 investigating better ways to support the growing number of high-risk children in inner city schools. Val Odegard, Re-yjsioning Inner City and CommunityLINK Resources: Summary Report, VSB, January 2014 http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sitesidefault/files/publications/SummaryReportJanuary2014FINAL .pdf The language of 'delivery of educational services' undermines the very premise of education, which is to educate the whole child and develop their potential to become productive and fullfilled members of society. Education is achieved through an investment in relationships between teachers, students and peers that attend to the social and emotional health of children in addition to their aquisition of knowledge. The Vancouver Sun adopt-a-school program is a good illustration of the extent to which many schools in Vancouver are instrumental in meeting the needs of children and their families far beyond 'instruction'. http://www.vansunkidsfund.ca/category/schools-ln-need/

iv The ministry's definition of capacity is to determine the maximum number of children that can be legally fit into a space. This is 22 for Kindergarten, 24 for grades 1-3 and 30 for each subsequent grade. "[Capacity] is calculated by taking the total number of classrooms available for occupancy in the District and multiplying it by the maximum number of students permitted in each classroom (calculated with reference to limits on the number of students per class and physical space requirements. These limits are both set by legislation in BC)." EY, 129.

v A third of the student population in Vancouver is 'mobile' or attending schools other than their catchment school. Districts like Surrey that are meeting or exceeding ministry capacity rationalization targets are dealing with problems of overcrowding, student displacement and rotating timetables to manage enrollment because of the inherent lack of flexibility in a 95% capacity utilization target. For distribution of mobile student populations in Vancouver see Erick Villagomez, "Schooling Vancouver", S_p_pi Vancouve , June 29, 2015. littplispacing.caivancouver/20 5/06//9/schooling-vancouverj

vi The summary findings of the VSB inner city report recommended that schools take a place based approach to providing services to at risk children. "There is a growing appreciation by governments at all levels - both domestically and internationally -of the importance of locating the capacity to plan and integrate services as close as possible to the individuals and communities that the services are intended to benefit" This means that these schools would have spatial requirements that fall outside the capacity definitions of the ministry. Odegard, 2014.

John R. Slate and Craig H. Jones show that one criteria or policy applied to all schools for a perceived economy of scale was ill conceived and that size impacts different schools in different ways and one optimal school size does not exist. The most important factor is the socio economic status of the community and the impacts of larger students populations (not even smaller spaces!) are very negative for students in areas of lower socio economic ability. Effects of School Size: A Review of the Literature with recommendations. http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol132005/slate.pdf Vancouver Board of Education 1014/15

vii "Classrooms and schools will be downsized or rightsized to match projected enrolment and ultimately maximize utilization" Recommendation 6.28, VBE Assessment.

VIII BC Ministry of Education, Area Standards. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=DEDC8587EAC34EEB96A41583B7COBB2D

ix Noel Herron, "Is Your School about to be demolished? Lessons to be Learned from Charles Dickens Elementary in Vancouver", BCTF, April 2009 https://bctf.ca/publications/NewsmagArticle.aspx?id=18250

x The Vancouver School Board in their District Plan for Student Learning, 2014, prioritizes the social and emotional health of children as foundational to learning conditions for children "The Vancouver School District considers a focus on social responsibility and social and emotional learning (SEL) to be foundational to each student's success, and expects that all schools intentionally attend to these areas, ensuring that learning takes place within a

context of positive relationships and within a safe, caring, and inclusive environment." District Plan for Student Learning, VSB, 2014.

C. Kenneth Tanner from University of Georgia find that "the consequence of high-density conditions that involve either too many children or too little space are: excess levels of stimulation; stress and arousal; a drain on resource available; considerable interference; reductions in desired privacy levels; and loss of control". According to Tanner's formula for minimum class size standards, 20 students and 1 teacher require 95.70 square meters. Compare this to the 75 square meters for 30 students and 1 teacher. Tanner, "Minimum Class Size and Number of Students per Class", 2009. http://sdpl.coe.uga.edu/research/territoriality.html.

Researchers at the University of Georgia found a direct relationship between schools operating at or near maximum capacity and behavioral disruptions. http://sdpl.coe.uga.edu/researchabstracts/behavior.html

The Oregan Department of Education Office of Curriculum Instruction and Field Services, This document summarizes the findings of 15 years of research which shows that reducing school size (student population) create a greater sense of belonging and decrease apathy and feelings of alienation and anonymity in students, teachers, parents and the larger community creating communities rather than bureaucracies. They recommend that Secondary schools have a student population no higher than 600 and Elementary schools should not exceed 400. "Keeping Kids Connected: How schools and teachers can help all students %el good about school....and why that matters," May 2.41013. http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/specialty/alt/keepkids.pdf

See also Mark Schneider, "Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?" National CIearinghouss_ for Educational Facilities, November 2002. "There is a definite consensus about the positive effects of small school size, and the effects seem to be the strongest with students from lower socio- economic groups." http://www.ncef.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf

There are numerous other studies that show that smaller schools help mitigate the impact of poverty on student outcomes, whilst larger schools exacerbate the challenges of socio economic disadvantages. See "Are Smaller Schools Better Schools?" Education World: Connecting educators to what works, 2000; Wasley, P.A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N.E., King, S.P., Mosak, E., and Powell, L.C., "Small Schools: Great strides a study of new small schools in Chicago", (New York, NY: The Bank Street College of Education, 2000) and Howley, Craig B,; Bickel, Robert, "When It Comes to Schooling...Small Works: School Size, Poverty, and Student Achievement", (Rural School and Community Trust, Randolph, VT, 2000).

xi For comparison, the Ontario Area Standards provide space allocation in elementary schools for art classrooms and science classrooms as well as a stage area adjacent to gymnasium space over and above the regular enrolling instructional space for new elementary school builds. Huilding our Schools Building our Future, June 2010. http://faab.edu.gov.on.ca/Capital%20Programs%20Branch/Report%20of%20Expert%2OP anel%20-%20Building%20Our%20Schools_Building%20Our%20Future%20-%20ENG.pdf

a Music classrooms require need sufficient unimpeded space to play instruments, sound-proofing and proper storage for instruments. For music classrooms do not provide adequate space for playing instruments, instrument storage or sound-proofing. Many music rental services will not supply instruments to schools unless they have adequate storage. At Dickens, one school fortunate enough to have a music specialist teacher last year music was conducted in the circulation hallway space beside the service elevator, as the music room was converted into an enrolling classroom. Spaces for art instruction should be flexible, open and freely accessible, larger than the 75 square metres currently allocated for new elementary classrooms, with access to natural light, large tables and industrial sinks. Lack of circulation space between small desk tables, lack of appropriately sized sinks or at all, makes any instruction in clay, wire, 3D sculpture, printmaking or painting virtually impossible. In fact, these classrooms allow little more than drawing on 8.5 x 11 paper. xli

Ail This article is a cost benefit analysis of the capacity rationalization scheme undertaken in Chicago in 2013. The report demonstrated almost no net financial benefit for the government - now dealing with over-crowding problems - but huge costs in terms of reduced access to resource services and supports, disruption and destabilization of families, social conflict between amalgamated school communities, loss of important social and arts based programmes and negative impacts on the mental and emotional health of children impacted. Carol Caref, Sarah Hainds, Pavlyn Jankov, 12 Months Later: The Impact of School Closings in Chicago (Chicago Teachers Union, 2014) hittp:/Jwww.ctunet.com/quest-mter/TweIveMouthsLatp&gportindf

xiv Why are preschools, daycares, strong start programs, international students, adult education students, resource centres and other educational uses of spaces not included in this formula for example?

George Challies

November 9, 2015

Vancouver Board of Education 1580 West Broadway Vancouver BC

Dear Trustees

As a Board member of the Heritage Vancouver Society, I would like to address some of the issues raised in the Nov. 3, 2015 Staff Response to the Ernst and Young Report.

The issues under the heading "Excess Surplus Capacity" have the most impact on the future of heritage schools, which continues to be a major preoccupation of our group.

Sexsmith Elementary and Sir James Douglas Elementary are two heritage schools which have been replaced with new schools and which are both threatened with demolition, unless new uses can be found as soon as possible. Sections 6.12 through 6.15 of the EY Report point to solutions to save these fine buildings and provide revenue for the Board.

Section 6.15 proposes that the board work with the City of Vancouver to explore ways to achieve this. In a recent public meeting, Brian Jackson, the recently retired Director of Planning, stated that the City would support new residential buildings combined with housing units in a renovated heritage school building, on sites such as both of these. For example, the central heritage block at Sexsmith could be repurposed as spacious housing units, while the flanking wings built in the 1950's and 1960's, might be demolished to make room for new low-rise residential buildings. The east end of the Sexsmith site, beside Langara Golf Course, is a particularly desirable site for residential development.

This raises another issue, about the possibility of selling this portion of the site, which is surplus to the land needed for the new school building and playground. We encourage the Board to maintain the option of selling a portion of school property in such cases.

Under the heading "Deferred Maintenance", Section 6.33 addresses this serious problem. However, if deferred maintenance costs are given too much weight, there is a danger that many existing schools will be threatened with demolition to avoid these costs. We do support the EY Report proposal that deferred

6

maintenance should be addressed at the same time as seismic upgrades. This would generate economies and limit disruption to the school population.

Finally, we would like to remind the Board of Heritage Vancouver's and the public's concern with the fate of the many fine heritage schools, which still need to be upgraded. Under the Seismic Mitigation Program, we are aware that it will be more cost effective to replace some schools. What is missing, however, is an evaluation of the heritage values of these buildings and an agreed listing of the best heritage schools, which should be retained and upgraded if possible. This could start with the schools in the 2015/2016 Capital Plan. Statements of Significance (SOS) should be prepared for each school where an SOS does not exist and used in the evaluation process. Heritage Vancouver will be pleased to work with the Board in developing this process.

Thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues.

Yours truly,

George Challies Board Member / Heritage Vancouver Society

Joint Union Response to

VBE Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations

(November 3, 2015)

Presented to VBE Committee-of-the-Whole

Re Special Advisor's Recommendations November 10, 2015

Submitted by:

Vancouver Elementary School Teachers' Association Vancouver Secondary Teachers' Association

CUPE Local 15 CUPE Local 407 1U0E Local 963

Joint Union Response to VBE Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations

In keeping with our culture of solidarity, unionized stakeholder groups working in the Vancouver Board of Education come together today to make statements on issues of great shared concern and interest about the proposed VBE response to the recommendations contained in the Special Advisor's report of June 8, 2015. We caution the School Board to regard the Special Advisor's report both as a political exercise and having very little to do with education of students.

Even a cursory glance at the Special Advisor's report makes it clear that this is a highly politicized document aimed more at achieving the goals of the current provincial government than providing sound guidance on the stewardship of a successful public education system. The Special Advisor's report is a business document that has little to do with the education of children and adults in Vancouver. The report has not been audited, reviewed or verified for the accuracy or completeness of the information published. Multiple recommendations in the report regarding governance call for closed sessions, less transparency, and patriarchal decision making, all of which effectively reduce the opportunity for meaningful feedback from parents, students, employee groups and other members of the broader community who are all directly impacted. If all recommendations in the Special Advisor's report were followed, the result would initiate a fundamental dismantling of the institution of public education in Vancouver and the democratic principles of open government upon which it is founded.

It is evident that the values driving this report are two-fold. One, that public assets, endowed to a public school board, stewarded by a body of elected trustees, should be liquidated to compensate for chronic underfunding of public education. Two, that the public school system should be financed through the generation of revenue paid for by the very children and families it is meant to serve. There are numerous recommendations about the selling of public land, profiting from International Students and creating more fee-based programmes. These are all examples of privatization of public resources — a philosophy that unionized workers in Vancouver schools unequivocally do not share. The Special Advisor's report recommends a business model lens that views Vancouver public school board assets as treasure to be plundered — a view which runs counter to the provision of service for the public good.

The Special Advisor's report makes bold assumptions, parroting provincial government voices, that the "impact of class size on student performance was generally inconclusive." This assertion, along with recommendations to uproot school communities by closing and consolidating schools and properties and by suggesting the reduction of ratios for support staff establishes a clear motivation to undermine education workers, thus destabilising the public school system. In the short-sighted vision promoted by many recommendations of the Special Advisor's report, no forethought is evidenced on protecting the endowment of public facilities or the possibility of long-range needs increasing over time. We look to events as recent as yesterday's announcement of many refugees coming to our communities that the enrolment realities of Vancouver schools can change quickly, even in the short term. We also look to the unresolved matter of the class size and composition case before the Supreme Court as evidence that the

Vancouver Board of Education must clearly focus on a long term view of enrolment. Adopting

recommendations that are based on assumptions that are later declared null and void by the Supreme

Court will certainly exacerbate a nd compound the required remedy. Much forethought and caution is

required.

Ultimately, unionized stakeholders in Vancouver assert that the Special Advisor's report contains no

reference to the core mission of the VBE. That is, to provide educational services to a diverse set of

students within our communities thus enabling them to reach their full potential. We see instead a

cynical and narrow view of education management that loses the thread of its purpose. We see a report,

not founded on principals of open and transparent governance and we see an abject waste of three

hundred and seventy thousand dollars of education funding. We ask Trustees of the Vancouver Board of

Education to carefully consider these points in their deliberations on their response to the Special

Advisor's report.

Respectfully submitted,

Dan Graves, President

Vancouver Elementary School Teachers' Association

Rory Brown, President

Vancouver Secondary Teachers' Association

Warren Williams, President

CUPE Local 15

Brent Boyd, President

CUPE Local 407

Tim Chester, President

WOE Local 963

,OZ°,7 atc27-Zin—

Statement from Andy Yan, NICIP, RPP, GISP

To Committee of the Whole re Special Advisor's Recommendations

November 10, 2015

CAVEAT: Should the City of Vancouver not be able to resolve its current lack of affordable

housing for families with children for both owners and renters as well as its high cost of living

and limited economic opportunities, these projections for school children will likely continue

to decline as experienced by the City of San Francisco. See

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Families-exodus-leaves-S-F-whiter-less-diverse-

3393637.php and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/families-flee-san-

francisco n 1335639.html

My name is Andy Yan and I am an urban planner with Bing Thom Architects and also a

member of the City of Vancouver's City Planning Commission. I am here today not

representing any of these organizations and am only speaking as a concerned citizen on the

future of the City's public schools.

I am a beneficiary of the public school system in Vancouver from primary school at Hastings

Elementary to secondary school at Vancouver Technical. This education system has given

me, in part, the tools to explore and work throughout Canada and the United States through

which I will be forever grateful.

I think you are more than trustees; you are the guardians of a legacy that started 87 years

ago with the Harland Bartholomew plans. Within these documents, there is resolve to create

family friendly neighborhoods in the City of Vancouver anchored by a constellation of

walkable elementary schools and enriching secondary schools.

With what is happening in Vancouver is troubling and I recognize the difficult tasks that is

before you.

You have been a responsible sibling who is seeming forced to sell the family heirlooms to

cover the bad bets of a brother at the housing, real estate, and planning racetrack. At the

core of what you are facing is the crisis in affordable housing and growing costs of living

specifically for families with children...renters and owners.

1

I urge you to follow a strategy of hibernating schools by either seeking temporary users or

partnerships to ensure that they are a resource ready for future generations. Redeveloping

schools for market development will, I fear, begin to hardwire neighborhoods against

families with children. Vancouver public schools must not be seen as some kind of land

reserve for private market development. If we just sell schools wholesale, we will never get

their social utility back. I do recognize the need to modernize and update as well as, in

certain cases, consolidate school facilities, but this needs to be done through a considered

strategy that follows a long term perspective on the future of the City.

Future generations are coming. In general, population of the City of Vancouver is expected to

grow by 166,000 residents by 2041. By 2025, according to population projections by BC .

Statistics specifically for the Vancouver School District, there will be 8,415 more school aged

(age 5-19) children living in Vancouver than today. By 2035, there will be 21,760 children

than today. By 2041, there will be more than over 25,000 children then than today in this

City — of course, this is with the caveats as stated above.

I must note that these projections are critically dependent upon the City of Vancouver and

senior levels of government successfully resolving issues such as the affordability and

availability of the family housing, economic prosperity and development, public amenities,

and global competitiveness for young families to settle in the City. Only a successful

engagement of some if not all of these policy issues can offset existing trends.

Auditors may be good for a spreadsheet, but not necessarily great, by themselves, for city

building. We need to look at timeframes beyond just fiscal quarters, but into the decades of

change and growth awaiting us. It takes time to build great communities and nurturing

neighborhoods which, in my opinion and experience, can only occur with a strong public

school system.

Data Source:

BC Stats Sub-Provincial Population Projections (Sept 2015) — P.E.O.P.L.E. 2015 Website

http://www.lacstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubiect/Demography/PopulationProiections.asiox

Document Sources:

Vancouver Town Planning Commission. 1930. A Plan for the City of Vancouver including Point Grey and South Vancouver.

https://archive.oriz/details/planforcityofvan0Ovanc

Vancouver Town Planning Commission. 1946. A preliminary report upon parks and recreation and schools.

https://archive.orddetails/preliminaryreporflOvanc

2

46' VANCOUVER BOARD OF EDUCATION

COMMITTEE MEETING COMMITTEE III — EDUCATION AND STUDENT SERVICES

WEDNESDAY, November 18, 2015

Committee Report to the Board, November 23, 2015

The Committee met to discuss the following items:

1. Board Authority Approved Courses (BAA)

N. Brennan, Associate Superintendent referred to the memorandum dated November 13, 2015 entitled Board/Authority Approved Courses (BAA). She outlined the process used to have courses submitted and approved by the Board. A committee of administrators, teachers and district staff met to review submissions for approval as Board/Authority Approved (BAA) courses. The following four courses have met Ministry criteria:

• Yoga for Mindfulness 10 • Speechreading 10 • Introductory French 11 • Introduction to Debate/Public Speaking 10

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Board approves the four courses, Yoga for Mindfulness 10, Speechreading 10, Introductory French 11, and Introduction to Debate/Public Speaking 10, as submitted.

2. BC Ed Plan Implementation

N. Brennan spoke briefly about the BC Education Plan and provided information to date regarding the Implementation Timeline and provided information on the proposed process for supporting collaborative planning within the district.

The Education Change Committee met on November 6, 2015 and to discuss three main 'entry points' to the implementation process including:

• Ministry Kick-off Day (sessions repeated on January 13, 19, 20, and 21, 2016) with presenters from the Ministry of Education

• Implementation Planning Day format, in the months of January/February • Curriculum In-service Days (March 4 and April 15, 2016) which will involve school

closure for students

Committee III 2 November 18, 2015

The next steps in the process are to: • provide consistent message to administrators to share with staff, families, students and

community about the closures in March and April; and • the district will look to Community Schools Team and community partners to provide

possible daycare/day camp offerings

This item was received for information.

3. New Accountability Framework Plans and Timeline

N. Brennan briefly spoke to the changes around the BC Framework for Enhancing Student Learning. This is under development by the Ministry of Education in consultation with provincial education partners, and will replace current district and school reporting formats such as Achievement Contracts, Superintendent's Report on Student Achievement and School Plans.

The proposed new Framework for Enhancing Student Learning will include fewer district level reports, with a focus on providing information to and for the local community. There will be three prescribed goal areas for all school and district plans:

• Intellectual Development • Social and Emotional Development • Career Development

The district will engage in a planning process with partners and stakeholder groups to develop formats for school and district plans, as well as timelines. This information is to be developed and made public by March 2016.

This item was received for information.

4. Meals Prozram Update

Referring to the revised memorandum dated November 15, 2015 entitled Update on Elementary Meal Programs — REVISED M. Ciarniello, Associate Superintendent provided an update regarding changes to the elementary meal program as a result of an overall restructuring of Enhanced Services and supports to vulnerable students. The report contains information on determination of student vulnerability, school vulnerability, historic meal program model, current meal program model, numbers of students served and estimated need, Site Production Kitchens (SPKs) models and future considerations.

It was noted that September 2015 is the first time that the VBE has offered breakfast programs to students in schools receiving Enhanced Services. This need is being met through a combination of long-standing donor contributions to specific schools, supplemented through VBE funding.

Over the course of this year staff will: • Continue monitoring fee recovery for fully-funded user pay programs and universal

programs

Committee III 3 November 18. 2015

■ Develop a process for improved fee collection and tracking at user-pay programs ▪ Communicate this information to schools for sharing with PAC and staff ■ Identify any programs for discontinuation in June 2016

• Refine the SPK model • Regularly update student participation numbers and projected unmet student needs, and • Make information available to donors for targeted support for meals for students not

currently served.

M. Ciarniello thanked IOUE staff and district staff in Food Services, Material Services, and Employee Services for their collaboration and work on putting the SPKs into operation.

This item was received for information.

5. Summer School 2015 Report

R. Schindel, Director of Instruction thanked the Committee for the opportunity to present the summer school report. He referred to the memorandum dated November 5, 2015 entitled Summer School 2015 Report. The report provided information on program options, enrollment levels, and revenue from Ministry funding and fee-paying courses.

In planning for summer school 2016, district staff will: • review timelines for program development, registration, and communication to staff and

parents; • continue to explore new program offerings; • review summer school locations with consideration to facility maintenance and

increasing registrations for programs; and • develop a marketing strategy that promotes the VBE Summer School Program

This item was received for information.

6. New Business

a) Syrian Refugee Update

N. Brennan, W. Wong, District Principal, ELL and G. Wu, SWIS Manager attended a meeting in Burnaby regarding the anticipated arrival of Syrian refugees. In attendance were representatives from all sectors, including representatives from health, education, community, emergency prep and municipal government. Chris Friesen, Director of Settlement Services for IS S BC provided a rough estimate of how many refugees arrive in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. This is based on historical data and trends.

Historically, 10-12% of the total refugees will arrive in British Columbia - 2,700-3,000 85% will settle in the Lower Mainland

■ Surrey — 900 ▪ Coquitlam — 600

Committee III

4 November 18, 2015

■ Burnaby — 600 • Vancouver — 300

Of the 300 people coming to Vancouver, it is anticipated there will be: ■ 215 adults ■ less than 100 children

• 15: ages 0 to 5 years • 30: ages 6 to 12 years • 30: ages 13 to 18 years

The Education sector will provide programming and support and this will take place in phase three. After the refugees have gone through their initial reception at military facilities, they will be moved to various locations across Canada. Further details will be provided to the Board as available.

7. Date and Time of Next Meeting

The next meeting of this Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 5:00 pm.

Penny Noble, Chairperson

Committee III Members Present: Penny Noble, Janet Fraser, Patti Bacchus, Joy Alexander Mike Lombardi, Christopher Richardson Stacey Robertson, Allan Wong

Others Present: Timme Zhao (Student Trustee)

District Management Present: Nancy Brennan, Maureen Ciarniello, Scott Robertson, Rob Schindel, Ian Wind

Association Representatives Present: Jim Rutley, VASSA John Cortens, VEPVPA Sylvia Metzner, VSTA Heather Allison, VESTA Mabel Sun, DPAC Lois Holmlund, CUPE 15 Brent Boyd, CUPE 407 William Wong, PASA Tim DeVivo, IUOE Haidee Pangilinan, VDSC Harjit Khangura, IUOE

✓Sg VANCOUVER BOARD OF EDUCATION

COMMITTEE MEETING COMMITTEE V — FINANCE & LEGAL

WEDNESDAY, November 18, 2015

Committee Report to the Board, November 23, 2015

The Committee met to discuss the following items:

1. 2014/2015 Unrestricted Surplus

L. Landry, Director of Finance presented a report dated November 13, 2015 entitled 2014/2015 Unrestricted Surplus. She reviewed the financial results of the fiscal year 2014/2015 and noted $0.73 million in unrestricted surplus as of June 30, 2015. The majority of the $0.73 million surplus resulted from the following:

o Utilities Savings (+$1.40 million) o Operating Grant Surplus (+$0.83 million) o Other Ministry of Education Grants (+$0.59 million) o International tuition (+$1.30 million) o Benefits Deficit (-$3.56 million)

In light of the budget shortfall forecast next year, it is recommended that the Board apply the 2014/2015 unrestricted operating surplus towards the forecasted operating shortfall for 2016/2017. Also, it should be noted that there are no funds available in the Local Capital Reserve. The projected funding shortfall for 2016/2017 will be updated in February 2016.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the Board appropriate the unrestricted operating surplus for 2014/2015 (in the amount of $0.73 million) to assist in offsetting the projected 2016/2017 operating budget shortfall.

2. 2015/2016 First Quarter Financial Report

L. Landry presented a report dated November 13, 2015 entitled First Quarter Financial Report. She reviewed the following items in the report:

o an estimated surplus of $4.04 million is currently projected for 2015/2016; o the major changes which resulted in the project operating funds deficit for 2014/2015 are:

➢ September 2015 Enrolment impact - $2.44 million ➢ International Education - $0.89 million ➢ Summer School - $0.33 million ➢ Utilities Savings from New Contract & Rates - $0.38 million

L. Landry summarized the 2015/2016 funding impact of actual enrolment and reviewed the student enrolment count as at October 16, 2015.

This item was provided for information.

Budgeted

Savings

Actual Savings

Teachers Support Staff Total

2012/2013 250,000 1,607,975 (not on SFE) 1,607,975 2013/2014 800,000 1,410,746 (base year) 1,410,746

2014/2015 1,500,000 881,769 221,318 1,103,087

Total $ 2,550,000 $ 3,900,490 221,318 4,121,808

Committee V

2

November 18, 2015

3. Employee Wellness & Attendance Support Program

L. Landry presented a report in response to an inquiry for information regarding Employee Wellness & Attendance Support program savings. The report provides an accounting of how the savings were reported for this program. She reviewed the savings in the three years of the program as follows:

Clarification was provided by staff regarding the Attendance Support Program.

This item was provided for information.

4. 2016/2017 Shortfall Update

It was requested that the shortfall update for the 2016/2017 budget be presented at the January 2016 Committee meeting.

5. Date and Time of Next Meeting

The next meeting of this Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 7:00 pm.

The meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.

Committee V Members Present:

Other Trustees Present:

District Management Present:

Association Representatives Present:

Janet Fraser, Chairperson

Janet Fraser, Allan Wong, Mike Lombardi, Christopher Richardson

Joy Alexander, Patti Bacchus

Guy Bonnefoy, Lisa Landry, Scott Robinson, Janet Stewart

Terry Stanway and Rory Brown, VSTA Heather Allison and Allan Haley, VESTA Annette Vey-Chilton, VASSA Susan Nichols, VEPVPA Harjit Khangura, IUOE Iraj Khabazian, DPAC Lois Holmlund, CUPE 15 Brent Boyd, CUPE 407 Elaine Au-Yang, VDSC

ITEM XII-A

Notice of Motion for November 23, 2015 VSB meeting

Submitted by Janet Fraser

Motion:

That the board develop and approve a policy on the role and responsibilities of the Board Chair.

ITEM XII-B

Notice of Motion for November 23, 2015 VSB meeting

Submitted by Patti Bacchus

Motion:

That the VSB develop, adopt and implement a policy regarding the role and responsibilities of the Board Chair.

The policy shall state:

• The role of the chair is to:

Preside over meetings of the board, as per VSB policy BCA/BCB.

Ensure meetings and debates are held in a respectful manner by maintaining a positive climate for discussion and in accordance with Roberts Rule of Order.

- Ensure all trustees have the opportunity to participate in discussion and debate and all members, staff and members of the public are treated respectfully.

Be the spokesperson for the board and speak on its behalf by representing and defending Board positions and decisions, as made by formal votes.

When representing the Board at events, meetings with other levels of government, hearings or other organizations, the Chair is limited to speaking for positions the board has determined through the passage of motions. The Chair may and should bring issues back to the board for consideration if it has not yet adopted positions on the matter.

- Share with all trustees any and all information from meetings with other levels of government or external organizations at which the Chair attended as the Board's representative.

Refrain from using the role to promote his/her/their personal position on a matter.

Rationale : While historically there has been a consensus and practice that the Board Chair acts and speaks on behalf of the board as outlined above, more recent practice has been for the Board Chair to critique board decisions and express hope that those decisions are rescinded. It is thus important to codify the role in a formal policy to ensure the Chair accurately and appropriately represents the Board.

ITEM XII-C

Notice of Motion for November 23, 2015 VSB meeting

Submitted by Stacy Robertson

Motion:

That the board develop and approve a policy on the role and responsibilities of the Board Vice Chair.

Memorandum 16g vancouver school board

I n t 0 ooae e

November 20, 2015 ITEM XIII

To:

From:

Subject:

Trustees

Senior Management Team

Proposed Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Attached is the proposed response to the recommendations contained within the Special Advisor's Report released on June 8, 2015.

BACKGROUND

On March 12, 2015, the Minister of Education appointed Ernst & Young (EY), a major accounting firm, as Special Advisor under Section 171 (5) of the School Act to undertake a review to assist the Vancouver Board of Education (VBE) in:

o meeting its obligation to balance its budget; o finding administrative efficiencies; o reducing overhead; o optimizing the use of capital assets; and o improving educational services.

EY requested considerable information from the VBE and conducted numerous interviews with VBE staff and stakeholders over a three-month period and provided a final report to the Minister of Education on June 8, 2015. The final report included 63 recommendations; 12 of which were directed to the Ministry of Education and 51 of which were directed to the VBE.

The VBE provided a very preliminary progress report with respect to the recommendations to the Minister at the end of June, 2015 as part of the submission of the 2015/2016 budget.

In the fall of 2015, VBE staff prepared a proposed response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations (attached). The proposed response was presented at the Committee of the Whole on November 10, 2015 to obtain input from stakeholders and the public. It is intended that the Board deliberate and adopt the final response at its meeting of November 23, 2015. The approved response will then be provided to the Minister of Education.

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Board approve the Summary of VBE Response to the Special Advisor's Recommendations, as attached.

VBE Response

Updated based on changes to detail Special Advisor's Recommendations

Directed To

Ref

MOE VBE Do

Not

Con

cur

3.3

3.4

3.5

That the VBE continue with the past review processes followed in the

preparation of the annual Amended Budget. If the recommendation

to include estimated appropriated surpluses as part of the Amended

Budget is approved (see Recommendation 4.2), then these would also

be reviewed as part of this process.

That the VBE exclude from the Amended Budget expenditures known

to be deferred and report the resulting unspent funds as restricted

surplus in the Amended Budget .

It is not recommended that the VBE impose an arbitrary threshold

✓ target for the Net Accumulated Surplus. However, the district will

continue to carefully monitor the level and composition of any Net

Accumulated Surplus.

V

Summary of VBE Proposed Response to Special Advisor's Recommendations

Section 3: Budget Development and Forecasting

VBE not publicly release the IPP. Disclose only Preliminary Budgets

and Amended Budgets to minimize confusion about forecasts

3.1

VBE critically review the seven documents created in preparing

the budget, limiting the information published to that which is

3.2 useful to stakeholders

VBE include a three-year financial forecast in the Strategic Plan in

order to better develop operating priorities. VBE to obtain the

proper tools to do efficient long-term planning, such as an

integrated forecast model

The Ministry undertake a review of the holdback process to:

-mitigate the size of the holdback;

- accelerate the release of the holdback funds

This recommendation will benefit school districts province-wide

The Board prepare a three-year financial forecast to allow for long•

term decision making and the assessment of various options to

maintain a balanced budget in keeping with VBE's strategic

priorities

Section 4: Accumulated Surpluses and Deficits

That VBE continue to prepare a three-year financial forecast to assist

the Board in making annual budget decisions. However, this forecast

will remain confidential and the forecast for the immediate upcoming

year will only be made public in February/March of each year as part

of the Fiscal Framework document, when more current information is

available. The Board will be provided confidential updates on the

three-year forecast as appropriate.

That the VBE continue to produce the current budget documents as

the budget Information provided appears appropriate for the level of

✓ detail required for budget decisions and supports transparency and

consultation with stakeholders.

That VBE staff develop a more detailed and integrated long term

financial planning model and that this model be used to support

future strategic planning and budget processes.

See recommendation 3.3.

4.1

The Board critically review the Amended Budget prior to approval

to ensure accuracy of the forecasting, and particularly to account

for the deferment of expenses to the next school year prior to the

finalization of the Amended Budget

The Board estimate the in-year Internally Appropriated Expenses

not expected to be spent prior to approving the Amended Budget

4.2 to reduce the difference between the budget and actual

operations, consistent with treatment by the Surrey School

District

The Board establish a guidance threshold target for Net

Accumulated Surpluses. EY is of the view that a threshold target 4.3

for Net Accumulated Surpluses of 2% to 3% of VBE operating

expenses would be reasonable

The Ministry establish guidance threshold targets for Net

Accumulated Surpluses for all school districts including

4.4 consideration of the LCR

This recommendation will benefit school districts province-wide

Section 5: Administrative, Support and Overhead Efficiencies

Ministry work with school districts to improve the consistency of

reporting revenues and expenses by program and function and

should consider regularly benchmarking internal performance

across school districts to support school districts with

identification of opportunities to increase revenues

VBE explore increasing Summer School Enrolment by:

- Offering specialized interest courses

- Marketing to students in districts without Summer School

programs

'hat the VBE continue to investigate strategies to expand its summer

chool program.

5.1

5.2

co

Do

Not

Con

cur

r,

uo

Summary of VBE Proposed Response to Special Advisor's Recommendations

Special Advisor's Recommendations

Directed To

Ref

MoE VBE

VBE continue to explore options to market underutilized schools

5.3 in the East-side to international students

VBE assess the results of the Ministry-led pilot project that aims to

explore the provision Distributed Learning to international

students. If the Ministry were to change the policy to allow

provision of Distributed Learning to international students as a

5.4 result of the pilot project, VBE to consider marketing Distributed

Learning courses to incoming international students as

preparation or a head start for attending schools in the Vancouver

School District

VBE explore taking advantage of recent implementation of

PeopleSoft by providing shared services and/or host systems for

5.5 HR and Payroll for other districts

VBE explore increasing the Miscellaneous Revenues through:

- Reconsideration of a business development team

- Sale of necessities and providing ATMs on school property

5.6 - Providing more fee-based programs and licensing of intellectual

property

VBE Response

Updated based on changes to detail

VBE will continue to investigate and implement opportunities for

International students to be encouraged to choose Eastside

Vancouver Schools.

That VBE proceed with the district Planning 10 pilot and conduct a

review to assess efficacy of the pilot; and that the VBE consider

expanding distributed learning opportunities to international

students should the results of the district pilot prove it to be positive.

Once the new PeopleSoft system is fully operational, the VBE could

consider working with the Ministry of Education, the Public Service

Agency and Telus Sourcing Solutions to explore options to expand the

PeopleSoft HR/Payroll System to other districts, and evaluate the

benefits to the VBE.

That the VBE consider the benefits and costs of establishing a

Business Development or Revenue Generation team to pursue

increases in miscellaneous revenue.

✓

VBE explore increasing rental and lease revenues through:

- Creating lease space for commercial use or rental to compatible

tenants

- Implementing tiered facility rental rates

5.7 - Rental of rooftops for solar energy, agriculture and/or

telecommunications purposes

Other school districts could consider this opportunity to increase

rental and lease revenues

In the next round of collective bargaining, VBE to give

consideration to reason for the variation identified in student /

5.8 support staff ratios between VBE and a subset of peer districts, as

set out in the Comparative Staffing Levels Report

That the VBE investigate the benefits and costs of introducing a more

aggressive marketing approach with respect to obtaining rental and

lease revenue from its facilities.

That the VBE continue to use staffing ratio analysis to help identify

possible opportunities for future operating efficiencies.

VBE continue progressing on the cost efficiencies as

5.9 recommended in historical reports and management proposals,

while continuing to explore opportunities to participate in future

provincial shared service offerings

V V

That the VBE Board continue to explore opportunities identified in

previous reports to assist in balancing VBE's budgets in the future.

Section 6: Capital Asset Management

Planning

VBE develop tactical tools to support the planning process,

including those that support more efficient access to centrally 6.1

held data which inform key planning decisions

The Ministry consider providing stronger guidance to the District

through clear policy guidelines and templates and tools to assist 6.2

VBE to identify capital asset priorities. These could be applied

province-wide

V V

That the District acquire a database system designed to capture,

store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and present all types of spatial or

geographical data to support facilities planning.

V

V

V

V

✓ ✓

V

V

V

V

6.6

6.7

6.8

Summary of VBE Proposed Response to Special Advisor's Recommendations

VBE must complete the district-wide LRSFP and new Five Year

Capital Plan as soon as possible.

VBE to consider extending the LRSFP beyond its current 10 year

scope in order to better Inform long term decision making.

Provinces such as Alberta and Ontario use a 10 year period as a

basis for long range facilities planning, other districts in the

6.3 - moving to the open market tendering approach followed by the

Province (i.e. Surrey School Board) set plans based on enrolment

projections that exceed 10 years. Given the size of VBE's capital

asset portfolio, which Is comparable to Surrey, adoption of a 20

year planning horizon that Incorporates a rolling 10 year plan

within would better inform long-term decision making

The Project Definition Report Strategy and Work Plan need to be

closely monitored. VBE (and VPO, where applicable) should track

and report actual results against the target timeline In the PDR

Strategy and Work Plan. This will enable VBE to assess if a further

6.4 overhaul of Its project planning and development strategy is

required. VBE to use the PDR Strategy and Work Plan approach on

all of its capital projects including non-seismic upgrades and

renovations.

VBE assess the benefits of alternative capital project delivery

6.5 models and commit to the model that maximizes use of funds and

gets best values for money

VBE adopt a template school design standard (where appropriate)

that is scaleable to capacity needs; thereby, limiting out-of-scope

work and change orders. In addition, template construction allows

for greatest cost certainty and more timely construction

VBE establish proactive and clear communication with the City of

Vancouver to clearly understand planning requirements

The Ministry consider imposing standard province-wide monthly

6.9 reporting requirements on construction progress to ensure it is

kept appraised of performance against Project Agreements

In conjunction with Recommendation 6.5, VBE should change its

procurement approach to align with common BC practice and

industry best practice, by either:

6.10 - moving to the open market tendering approach followed by the

Surrey School Board and most other school districts in the

Province, or

- building Into their pre-qualified bidders agreements more

quality and value for money drivers

VBE Response Updated based on changes to detail

That the VBE continue to refine the LRSFP including a public

consultation process and that the District complete its 2015/2016

capital plan submission to the Ministry of Education in November,

2015, as required.

That the District complete the Project Definition report strategy and

Work Plan in consultation with the Ministry of Education; and that

the District track project development and report to the Board and

Project Office Steering Committee actual results against target

timeframes on a regular basis.

That the District continue to assess the benefits of alternative capital

project delivery models and commit to the model that maximizes use

of funds and gets best values for money.

That the District continue to develop its standard construction

manual in an effort to limit out-of-scope work and change orders, and

✓ to support greater cost certainty, economies of scale, and more

timely construction.

That the VBE continue to meet regularly with the City of Vancouver to

clearly understand their planning requirements.

In addition, the VBE should consider completing the design

development and application for the Development Permit phase prior

to finalizing the Project Agreement and budget for each project. The

project budgets would then be based on more detailed information

and therefore reduce budget risk.

That the VBE continue its existing prequallfication process for

architects and contractors for capital projects.

Special Advisor's Recommendations

Directed To Ref

MoE VBE 0

Do

Not

Con

cur

The Ministry review current approach and look for improvement

opportunities in validating the quantity surveying budget and

explore the opportunity to coordinate a province-wide quantity

surveying shared service

Special Advisor's Recommendations

Directed To Ref

MoE VBE

VBE, where appropriate, procure services and delivery partners

for multiple projects at a single time in order to gain economies of

scale, consistency in quality and efficiencies in procurement and

delivery costs and efforts

6.11

✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ V

V

✓ V

Summary of VBE Proposed Response to Special Advisor's Recommendations

Do

Not

Con

cur

VBE Response

Updated based on changes to detail

That the VBE continue to search for opportunities to achieve

economies of scale in the purchase of goods and services for capital

projects.

• In addition, the District should discuss with the Ministry of Education

the option of envelope funding so that the District can better procure

building materials for multiple projects to maximize purchasing •

power.

Excess surplus CaPac1 4 The Ministry consider inclusion of international students in its

6.12 methodology for calculating utilization ✓

VBE to conduct a thorough review of the current annual net cost

savings related to a reduction In excess surplus capacity to

6.13 support decisions on capacity rationalization. The review should

include a study of the relationship of the physical space to the

incremental cost of education and include scenario modeling

✓ V

That VBE staff update savings estimates associated with school

closure Identified in the 2010 school closure report and take these

into account as part of the decision-making process related to

capacity rationalization.

VBE immediately engage a real estate professional to conduct a

market study and prepare a valuation of its priority K-12 lands,

and K12 capacity rationalized lands (where anticipated), to assist 6.14

in a scenarioplanning process, within a six month timeline

Given the recent motion approved by the Board regarding the sale of

school property, the Board may wish to consider, when appropriate,

obtaining real estate market information with respect to portions of

school sites and portions of or entire non-school sites as part of the

development and Implementation of the Long Range Facilities Plan.

When assessing capacity rationalization, in addition to cost

savings and the non-financial impact, VBE should include

assessment criteria to evaluate the opportunities for the

generation of proceeds from the retired or repurposed capital

assets.

6.15 As a component of this capacity rationalization assessment, VBE

must address future capacity requirements of the District based

on long term enrolment expectations, and such must be a defined

element and variable of the LRSFP. VBE should use scenario

planning to assist it In its capital planning and to optimize its

portfolio (i.e. sale and relocation)

VBE continue to explore opportunities with the CoV to generate

6.16 additional revenue on its capital assets

VBE continue to assess the education Impacts and benefits as part

6.17 of any capacity rationalization, school consolidation or school

closure business case

VBE commit to considering capacity rationalization In its Strategic

Plan, Capital Plan and Long Range Strategic Facilities Plan. VBE

update Its Guiding Principles to reflect its district-wide utilization

target of 95%

Board provide guidance to District Management Team on criteria

for inclusion of school on the Preliminary List. This criteria should

include school performance, student engagement measures,

current and projected utilization, incremental operating costs per

student, facility condition and seismic risk

VBE should undertake school closure process simultaneously for

6.20 multiple schools identified in the Preliminary List

VBE consider changes to its school closure protocol to increase

timeliness of decision making and realization of the financial and

non-financial benefits available through capacity rationalization

That, as part of the implementation of the LRSFP, the VBE should

Identify opportunities for the generation of revenue from existing

surplus properties. This could include leases of space for community

use (such as childcare), the sale or lease of portions of school

properties and the sale or lease of portions or entire non-school

properties.

That the VBE continue to work with the City, the Province and other

partners to repurpose excess school space to generate where

possible, additional revenue.

That the District continue to review and assess the educational

benefits of capacity rationalization and take this into account as part

of the implementation of the LRSFP.

That the VBE consider the impact of moving towards a 95% capacity

utilization target as part of Its review and approval of the LRSFP.

That the VBE consider, as part of the LRSFP the criteria and process to

be followed in identifying schools that may be closed / repurposed, if

the Board was to approve a capital rationalization plan.

That the timing for consultation on possible school closure be based

I on the timing outlined in the LRSFP.

That the District consider reviewing its current policy for school

closure to determine If any changes are required to support the

LRSFP.

6.18

6.19

6.21

Special Advisor's Recommendations

Directed To Ref

MoE VBE

That the District and Ministry reach an agreement that would allow

the District to utilize funds generated from capacity rationalization for

• the purpose of augmenting the Seismic program, and not just

replacing funding that would otherwise be provided by the Province.

That the VBE Include an analysis of the potential for additional

✓ ✓ capacity on existing sites as part of the Implementation of the LRSFP.

That the VBE model and assess the impact of various facility

scenarios as part of the LRSFP.

Also, that the VBE track the possible trend of student movement from

non-upgraded schools to new seismically upgraded schools to

determine whether a correlation exists between enrolment and

✓ ✓ facility upgrades.

That the VBE take into account in the LRSFP opportunities to avoid

• completing seismic upgrades to schools that may be closed or

repurposed.

That the VBE continue to analyze replacement versus seismic

upgrades as part of the LRSFP Implementation.

✓ ✓ Also, replacement and seismic upgrade options should reflect future

life cycle facility operations and maintenance costs as well as capital

costs.

That the VBE continue to develop maintenance plan priorities based

V on building operations and maintenance life cycle costs and capital

maintenance costs.

That the VBE continue to track annual maintenance costs on a school

by school basis to support the development of maintenance and

capacity rationalization plans.

That the VBE update cost savings estimates as a result of closing /

repurposing schools as part of the LRSFP.

That the District continue to investigate mobile technology with

building operations and maintenance staff.

Summary of VBE Proposed Response to Special Advisor's Recommendations

VBE Response

Updated based on changes to detail

That the District should consider the ability to sell, lease or repurpose

excess school space as one of the factors in developing the seismic

program and capacity rationalization plan as part of the LRSFP.

0 Do

Not

Con

cur

VBE include analysis of sale, lease and retention options in its

6.22 assessment of capacity rationalization

VBE and the Ministry to agree on the availability of proceeds and

impact on future funding in advance of a decision to undertake

6.23 capacity rationalization

VBE undertake an assessment of capacity in school lands to

6.24 capacity (e.g. new buildings at existing school, additional levels to

understand options for generating additional future on-site

existing buildings)

Seismic Mitigation Program VBE prepare scenario analysis models to assess the variance

impacts on available capacity during the SMP. Holistic analysis

needs to be undertaken based on the results including both costs

savings and proceeds that can be generated from school closure

that becomes available with the provision of temporary

accommodation.

6.25

VBE should track the trend of student movement from non-

upgraded schools to new seismically upgraded schools to

determine whether a correlation exists between enrolment and

facility upgrades. This will help support future decisions around

closures and replacement over upgrade.

6.26

Where VBE is able to show a benefit, the Ministry should consider

providing funding support for temporary accommodation during

SMP upgrades to enable immediate closure of excess capacity

VBE assess opportunities to avoid SMP projects In Its capacity

6.27 rationalization criteria

VBE track the impact of right-sizing under the SMP to assist it In

identifying further opportunities and also to support future

decisions weighing replacement against seismic upgrade. VBE

6.28 should also undertake a cost benefit analysis when assessing the

appropriateness of replacement over seismic upgrade

palmed Mairibinance In conjunction with Recommendation 6.1 and 6.3, VBE develop a

robust, maintenance plan based on least cost over life cycle, to

assist it in identifying and addressing facility priorities

VBE track annual maintenance on a school-by-school basis to

6.30 support business case to support business cases for capacity

rationalization

VBE undertake a study on the relationship of physical space to the

6.31 incremental cost of education to support business decisions to

reduce surplus capacity

Facilities management is a non-core service and we agree with

PwC's recommendation that VBE should evaluate the benefits of

implementing a mobile maintenance workforce and extend this to

assessing the benefits and opportunities for alternative service

delivery models In the medium to long term

6.29

6.32

Do

Not

Con

cur

a 0 U

✓ ✓

Summary of VBE Proposed Response to Special Advisor's Recommendations

6.33

Other school districts, including Central Okanagan and Surrey,

have used school closure to address the growing gap between

maintenance funding and maintenance needs. VBE should factor

the deferred maintenance obligations of its schools when

identifying and deciding schools for closure and/or upgrade.

VBE should develop a cost-benefit metric to assess the value of

retaining or upgrading its schools. For example, it could use a

deferred maintenance cost per student (as shown above) as part

of the criteria for deciding whether the costs of providing

education In a facility outweigh the benefits of that location. This

analysis needs to be district-wide and not focused on a school-by-

school basis. A district-wide approach may provide opportunities

to reduce two or three adjacent schools with one new, Right-sized

replacement (which will have no deferred maintenance).

VBE take a holistic approach In determining whether It is more

cost effective to upgrade, replace or close a school.

Addressing deferred maintenance at the same time as supported

seismic upgrades should be carefully considered given the likely

cost savings that are achievable when delivering both capital

projects concurrently. Further, there are likely to be financial and

student benefits to limiting the disruption of the student

population during these concurrent projects

VBE Response

Updated based on changes to detail

That the District should consider the avoidance of deferred

maintenance costs as one factor to take into account in the

development of capacity rationalization and seismic upgrade plans as

part of the LRSFP.

Special Advisor's RecOmmendations

Directed To

Ref

MoE VBE

Non K-12 Real Estate

VBE relocate the Vinery and close Downtown East Adult Education

Centre as planned

VBE immediately engage a real estate professional to conduct a

market study and prepare a valuation of Its priority non-core

6.35

lands to better inform decisions on its revenue options, within a

six month timeline

Both these projects have already been approved by the VBE Board.

That the VBE consider alternative uses of non-core lands and surplus

salad lands as part of the development and implementation of the

✓ ✓ LRSFP, taking into account the recent Board motion that would

prevent the sale of entire existing school property.

6.34

6.36 VBE incorporate non-core/non-K12 real estate in its LRSFP

✓ ✓ That the District should incorporate non-core / non K-12 real estate as

part of the LRSFP.

V

Section 7: Board Governance

VBE continue to action and implement processes and controls to

address previous review and audit findings, Including making an

action plan to prioritize response initiatives

The Ministry revisit previous review and audit findings to

determine if recommendations continue to be relevant, and

respond appropriately

VBE make improvements in the formalization of mechanics of

committee meetings

VBE establish an Audit Committee with external members to

improve financial oversight

The Ministry establish the legislative requirement for all districts

7.3.B to establish an Audit Committee to support a consistent approach ✓

to financial oversight

VBE develop and implement a new strategic plan, and use it to

catalyze the development of operational plans, a performance

7.4.A and a risk management program or ERM framework

measurement framework, a Board self-assessment framework,

That staff continue to review and Implement the VBE Board-approved

recommendations contained in the PwC and Special Advisor's reports

and provide regular progress reports to the Board.

That the VBE Board consider a review of the VBE Standing Committee

structures and processes.

That the Board consider whether it wishes to establish a mechanism

for additional financial oversight/advice and If so, Investigate what

options would be available in that regard.

That the VBE Board develop and implement a new strategic plan

within the next year focussing on the period 2017-2022. This plan and

process would deal with operational plans, performance

measurement, the concept of trustees' self-assessment and the

possibility of establishing an Enterprise Risk Management Program.

7.1.A

7.1.B

7.2

7.3.A

VBE Response

Updated based on changes to detail Do

Not

Con

cur

Summary of VBE Proposed Response to Special Advisor's Recommendations

Special Advisor's Recommendations

Directed To

Ref

MOE VBE

The Ministry establish a mandatory requirement for the minimum

training and orientation required by newly elected Trustees to 7A.B

support a consistent level of knowledge and skills to discharge

their duties

VBE implement a formal risk management process or ERM 75A

framework to improve risk management and oversight

The Ministry establish risk management guidance and

75.0 tools/templates to assist all districts in understanding and

employing sound risk management practices

That the Board consider investigating the benefits and costs of

establishing a district risk management program.