1 / 53

PRESENTATION TO ACCOMMODATION REVIEW COMMITTEE FEB 8 2011

PRESENTATION TO ACCOMMODATION REVIEW COMMITTEE FEB 8 2011. Funding Overview. Budget Goals. From our 2010/11 Budget: “High levels of student achievement” “Reduced gaps in student achievement” This means our goal is to maximize resources that support student achievement.

meadow
Télécharger la présentation

PRESENTATION TO ACCOMMODATION REVIEW COMMITTEE FEB 8 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PRESENTATION TO ACCOMMODATION REVIEW COMMITTEEFEB 8 2011 Funding Overview

  2. Budget Goals From our 2010/11 Budget: “High levels of student achievement” “Reduced gaps in student achievement” This means our goal is to maximize resources that support student achievement

  3. Ministry of Education Funding = =$ • Majority of grants are based on student enrolment • The Ministry bases their funding on pre-determined amounts • The board’s costs do not align with these amounts, creating a gap

  4. Where $ comes from

  5. Criteria for use of Grant $ Balanced Budgets are required Primary class size targets must be met Special Education Grant is limited to special education expenditures School Board Administration and Governance (trustees, central board offices, central board based staff) spending shall not exceed the grant allocation

  6. Variable/Non variable Analysis 89% of grant revenue varies with students but only 56% of our costs Means that as students numbers decline, reduce non variable costs- plant maintenance, services that support students

  7. Funding Challenges Economic Climate- Major changes to funding components- such as special education- direct impact on students Funding benchmarks included in the Ministry funding model, do not cover the cost of those services which requires use of other grants to supplement

  8. Excess Space • Secondary pupil places= 9021 • Secondary enrolment= 6332 • 2689 empty spaces or equivalent of 3 secondary schools • Elementary pupil places=14674 • Elementary enrolment= 10560.5 • 4113 empty places or equivalent of 11 elementary schools

  9. Accommodation Review Triggers School loading capacity reaches less than 80% of the Ministry of Education loading Grant support is less than school operations expenditure School loading within a group of schools, that are reasonably accessible to each other, reaches less than 80% of the Ministry of Education loading 45 of 53 schools trigger under ARC policy

  10. Revenue for Plant Operations • Ministry grants for school operations are decreasing for unused space • Can expect 5% or $150,000 in 2011/12 • Ministry grants increased 2% in 10/11 over 09/10 for non staff costs for plant operations • Utilities costs increased on average 10%

  11. School Renewal Grant School renewal Grants are allocated annually through the Ministry funding based on number of students Must be used for major repairs/renovations/program needs in schools The current allocation for 10/11 is about $2.7M or $1 per sq. ft. Grant cannot be spent elsewhere

  12. School renewal continued • Allocated to site improvements and building renovations based on legislative requirements, health and safety, program needs • Accessibility for Ontarians disability Act ( AODA) • Sample Costs- per building: • cost of Heating, ventilation air-conditioning unit $20 sq ft.-need to save for 20 years • Roofing costs $16.00 sq ft- need to save for 16 years

  13. Capital Priority Funding • Board capital priorities for the next five years were required to be submitted to the Ministry of Education in January 2011 based on following criteria: • School consolidations • Additional program needs • Full day kindergarten • Facility condition Require business case, operations savings, building sized for current student enrolment, reduce renewal backlog.

  14. Capital priority $ continued • The Ministry has not announced any capital funding programs as of today • Capital priority grants will be allocated for new capital projects including new schools, additions • Major school retrofits for existing schools, can apply under this grant if the cost is greater than 50% of the existing school

  15. Capital approval process • Complete facility space template • Shows how new schools can be accommodated within Ministry space benchmarks • Based on number of pupils in the proposed school •  Review design, review costing analysis to ensure project is within approval budget • Ministry approval prior to tendering a capital project- must remain within approval $

  16. ARC Presentation Options February 8, 2010 John Diefenbaker Secondary School

  17. Plant Department The role of the Plant Department is to provide a safe and healthy environment to support student achievement. The Plant Department operates facilities in a manner that are clean, comfortable, efficient and well maintained to support student learning.

  18. This ARC • 1933 students (2520 students in 2000) • 5 schools • Building area of 311,155 square feet • Operating Deficit $24K • Average Operating Cost $6.50 sqft • Renewal Backlog $23,138,852

  19. Operations Goals • Minimize unsupported area • Keep schools operating at benchmark levels • Reduce renewal backlog • Provide the best facilities with the resources available • Maintain same program capabilities • Allow for the implementation of FD Kindergarten • Reduce overcrowding (portable classrooms)

  20. Plant Operations by School

  21. Option A

  22. Goals -Operation cost now positive -Reduced Renewal backlog by $19.7M -Accommodates FDK -Maintains or exceeds program goals -1672 students in schools less than 10 years old -Minimizes student transitions

  23. Option B

  24. Goals -Operation cost now positive -Reduced Renewal backlog by $19.7M -Accommodates FDK -Maintains or exceeds program goals -1672 students in schools less than 10 years old -Minimizes student transitions

  25. Option C Rotary Club Presentation

  26. Site improvements to be determined for added traffic flow and student safety Goals -Deals with 537 of 1933 students in ARC -Operation cost negative -Reduced Renewal backlog by $1.9 M -Accommodates FDK in Chesley -Status quo program opportunities in Chesley -537 students in building greater than 10 years old -Minimizes student transitions

  27. Option C Balance of Students

  28. Goals -Deals with 1396 of 1933 students in ARC -Operation cost positive -Reduced renewal backlog by $17.8 M -Accommodates FDK in Hanover -Tech spaces reduced to 1 purpose built shop -Gymnasium reduced in size to a single regulation basketball and volleyball court -537 students in building greater than 10 years old -Minimizes student transitions

  29. Accommodation Review CommitteePublic Meeting #3John Diefenbaker Secondary SchoolFebruary 8, 2011 Program Presentation

  30. Program Presentation Current School Configurations in BWDSB: JK-Grade 3 (2) JK-Grade 5 (1) JK-Grade 6 (3) JK-Grade 8 (32) JK-Grade 12 (2 ) (3 - in Apr. 2012) Grades 4 to 8 (2) Grades 9-12 (9) Single Track (English only) (35) Dual Track (English and French Immersion) (elem.–10; sec.– 3) Dual track (English and NSL) (3) Current elementary schools range in size from approximately 35 to 580 students Current secondary schools range in size from approximately 120 to 1100 students

  31. Program Presentation Program decisions at a school depend on: Students: • Ages, numbers, and distribution of students (primary-JK-3, junior-G4-6, intermediate-G7-10, senior-G11-12) • Learning needs of students (universal and specialized) • Interests and pathway destinations of students (work, apprenticeship, college, university) Teachers and Teaching: • Qualifications and areas of expertise and interest School: • Facility – size, type and number of rooms

  32. What does the research say? John Hattie is Professor of Education at Auckland University and Director of the Visible Learning Lab. His areas of interest are measurement models and their applications to educational problems. In his book Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (2009) he and his research team identified 138 influences that impact on student achievement. Each influence was ranked based on its “effect size” on student learning. Program Presentation

  33. Program Presentation John Hattie, Visible Learning (2009) – Meta-Analyses

  34. Program Presentation # influences = 138 (median 0.38) d=effect size CLE % - common language effect Teacher 0.49 35% Curricula 0.45 32% Teaching 0.42 30% Student 0.40 29% Home 0.31 22% School 0.23 16%

  35. Program Presentation Example #1: Student Related Influences (overall average - d = 0.40 - effect sizes range from 1.44 to 0.12 on 19 influences) Self-Concept – d=0.43 (student belief that s/he is capable and can exercise control over events that impact on her/his learning); sense of learner confidence; reciprocal relationship - self concept impacts achievement and achievement impacts self-concept) • The CLE is 30% - this means that 30 times out of 100, introducing conditions for high self-concept will make a positive difference, or 30 % of students will gain in achievement compared to those without those conditions. Or, if you take two classes, the one having the conditions for high self-concept will be more effective 30 out of 100 times. Note: 0.40 is considered medium effect size – Zone of Desired Effects Source: Visible Learning, 2009, p. 46

  36. Program Presentation Example #2: Teacher Related Influences (overall average - d = 0.49 - effect sizes range from 0.88 to 0.09 on 10 influences) Expectations – d=0.43 (teacher expectations for all students’ achievement, i.e. ability for all students to learn or achieve at high levels) • The CLE is 31% - this means that 31 times out of 100, introducing expectations for high levels of student achievement for all students will make a positive difference, or 31 % of students will gain in achievement compared to those not having a teacher with high expectations for all. Or, if you take two classes, the one having the expectations will be more effective 31 out of 100 times. Note: 0.40 is considered medium effect size – Zone of Desired Effects Source: Visible Learning, 2009, p. 121

  37. Program Presentation Example #3: Curricula (Program) Related Influences (overall average - d = 0.45 - effect sizes range from 0.67 to 0.06 on 25 influences) Creativity Programming – d=0.65 (programming that facilitates creative thinking – strategic, reflective and productive thinking, reasoning, problem-solving • The CLE is 47% - this means that 47 times out of 100, introducing programming that facilitates creativity will make a positive difference, or 47 % of students will gain in achievement compared to those not receiving creativity programming. Or, if you take two classes, the one having creativity programming will be more effective 47 out of 100 times. Note: 0.40 is considered medium effect size – Zone of Desired Effects (high effect size is greater than 0.70) Source: Visible Learning, 2009, p. 155

  38. Program Presentation Example #4: School Related Influences (overall average - d = 0.23 - effect sizes range from 0.88 to -0.34 on 28 influences) School Size– d=0.43 (optimal size secondary schools – 600-900 students – some key messages from 21 studies - typically offer strong core curriculum to all students and less likely to use electives to stream students; achievement gains in math and reading were highest in optimal size schools; costs per student decreases as school size increases; curriculum advantages diminish over 800 students; students at smaller schools are more likely to have positive perceptions of their school environment; more teacher collaboration and team teaching; more leadership experiences for students; too small or too large schools may reduce effectiveness. (Visible Learning, p. 80) • The CLE is 30% - this means that 30 times out of 100, optimal school size (600-900 students) will make a positive difference, or 30 % of students will gain in achievement compared to those in either smaller or larger schools. Or, if you take two classes, the one having the optimal school size will be more effective 30 out of 100 times. Note: 0.40 is considered medium effect size – Zone of Desired Effects Source: Visible Learning, 2009, p. 80

  39. Program Presentation • Ministry of Education Funding – optimal size schools: • Elementary – 375 • 35 elementary schools <375 • 7 elementary schools >375 • Secondary – 900 • 9 secondary schools < 900 • 2 secondary schools > 900 Enrolment – 2010-2011 • Elementary – 10560 • Secondary – 6332 (7863 in 2003; 5141 in 2016)

  40. Program Presentation Options A and B: Programming Elementary – 200-300 students Secondary – 800-900 students

More Related