interchange42 said:
Slow response from me (catching up in some parts of the Forum) but that's rather shocking @Northern Light. Surely that's all bizarre politics and not helpful in actually fulfilling the role of providing spaces for children to learn.

42
Click to expand...

It is both political, (these rules go back to Harris and TDSB amalgamation, but the Libs did little to change them)..........; and financial. If the formula were amended to exclude all leased or adult-purposed spaces; and reasonably broken down to even a North/South/East/West district, the MOE would suddenly have a large new funding burden; they would either have to fork out, or substantially cut back what they allocated to other boards.

In such a model, there would be a shortage of space in both south and north districts. While east and west would likely still show surplus.

That would allow reasonably allow proper funding to deal w/pressures in downtown, midtown, East York, North York Ctr etc.; and not penalize those areas because there are 1/2 empty schools in portions of Etobicoke and Scarborough.

Let me clarify that this is the capital, not the operating formula. However, the operating formula also has some serious Toronto-related issues.

PS, @interchange42 you still have a conversation pending from October 22!
 
Northern Light said:
I'll tell you. It's because The MOE (min. of Education) calculates available capacity based on all TDSB school properties, including the ones that are used as adult facilities, that are leased out, or dormant.

They do that because it's long been the view in the provincial ministry that the TDSB was being laggardly in getting rid of surplus property.

Using the stats the way I stated, and taking them on a City wide basis (not broken down by sub-district), the TDSB still shows surplus capacity.

So the MOE tends only to fund replacement schools, rather than new, only when that school is full to the brim, and there's no other school in the area that can take the students.

This also solves a convenient problem for the MOE of having to fund Toronto's capital needs, which it doesn't want to.

It also means that the TDSB is not alllowed to collect development charges for new schools in Toronto, but the Catholic Board is.

https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto...-help-expand-overcrowded-toronto-schools.html

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/village-post/20160301/281775628233004
Click to expand...
This is not accurate. Look at the Peel District School board, it continues to have surplus capacity (of about 20,000 spots per their 2018/2019 Annual Planning Document) but opens 2+ new schools every year. Moreover, it's not only new schools in the new subdivisions. A new school is being built in downtown Mississauga (despite that being where most of the excess capacity is). It's a TDSB problem, not an MoE rule. The TDSB planning information is a joke, take a look at their Planning Documents, and information . They aren't quick enough to change school boundaries to suit population trends, and end up losing many students to other boards because of it.

You also have no "barrier to entry" for the English Public boards. They *must* accept all students essentially (which is how all the boards should be). Catholic board has the religious barrier to entry they can use to deny certain students, French Public has the language aspect, and French Catholic has 2 barriers to entry (They advertise their students have the highest success achievements.. you don't say? You got to choose the cream of the crop). It really creates a 2 tier system and needs to change.
 
toaster29 said:
This is not accurate. Look at the Peel District School board, it continues to have surplus capacity (of about 20,000 spots per their 2018/2019 Annual Planning Document) but opens 2+ new schools every year. Moreover, it's not only new schools in the new subdivisions. A new school is being built in downtown Mississauga (despite that being where most of the excess capacity is). It's a TDSB problem, not an MoE rule. The TDSB planning information is a joke, take a look at their Planning Documents, and information . They aren't quick enough to change school boundaries to suit population trends, and end up losing many students to other boards because of it.

You also have no "barrier to entry" for the English Public boards. They *must* accept all students essentially (which is how all the boards should be). Catholic board has the religious barrier to entry they can use to deny certain students, French Public has the language aspect, and French Catholic has 2 barriers to entry (They advertise their students have the highest success achievements.. you don't say? You got to choose the cream of the crop). It really creates a 2 tier system and needs to change.
Click to expand...

Ahem.

I never post anything inaccurate here.

That is entirely accurate, in Toronto.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...evelopment-charge-regulation/article38140724/
 
Toronto can still (and does) apply to the MoE for capital costs to build schools. One of the reasons the MoE isn't approving those costs is because of the terrible planning at the TDSB. Your statement was that "the MOE tends only to fund replacement schools, rather than new, only when that school is full to the brim, and there's no other school in the area that can take the students." is not accurate. Almost every board in the province has declining enrolment, but the MoE continues to select to build all new schools in those boards. Almost all of the new schools approved are in boards with excess capacity somewhere in the board. So to say that it "tends to only fund replacement schools" is inaccurate in most places in the province. The TDSB is unique in that their planning has been poor. Could also partly be because Toronto is unique in that it is only one city, and geography isn't as limiting when it comes to utilizing all the currently available spots before adding capacity.
 
toaster29 said:
Toronto can still (and does) apply to the MoE for capital costs to build schools. One of the reasons the MoE isn't approving those costs is because of the terrible planning at the TDSB. Your statement was that "the MOE tends only to fund replacement schools, rather than new, only when that school is full to the brim, and there's no other school in the area that can take the students." is not accurate. Almost every board in the province has declining enrolment, but the MoE continues to select to build all new schools in those boards. Almost all of the new schools approved are in boards with excess capacity somewhere in the board. So to say that it "tends to only fund replacement schools" is inaccurate in most places in the province. The TDSB is unique in that their planning has been poor. Could also partly be because Toronto is unique in that it is only one city, and geography isn't as limiting when it comes to utilizing all the currently available spots before adding capacity.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get your information.

You can keep critiquing my facts with your opinions and I'm going to start getting testy.

If you have actual facts, please feel free to post.

First, the actual capital and operating allocations for every board in Ontario up to 2016 is here:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/1617/2016_funding_en.pdf

Perhaps you would care to note that Peel District School Board, along w/many others gets to charge Development Charges to finance capital investment beyond what the Ministry grants.

The TDSB is NOT permitted to do so.

This report outlines a great deal about development charges for school boards in Ontario.

http://www.peelschools.org/trustees... and Policies Review Report.March 27 2014.pdf

Please note that capital allocations in the above budgets include SOGR and other related programs.

That the TDSB has a much higher average age of building than does Peel.

**********

As for your assertion that the TDSB doesn't shift boundaries, that's patently absurd.

This is done by a process called Accommodation Review Committees or ARCs for short, of which Toronto has had an abundance.

***********

Also, please note the capacity utilization rates, which are included in the first link, they are lower for Toronto, substantially so, than either the Toronto Catholic or Peel Public boards.

*********

There are many things for which the TDSB may be rightly excoriated.

But the development charge issue is not one of them. Nor is your mysterious 'bad planning' that has somehow affected capital grants.

*******

Finally, your correction as follows:

tends to only fund replacement schools" is inaccurate in most places in the province............is correcting something I didn't say. I just repeated above, IN Toronto.
 
A24A2D25-A00B-43A4-8D41-FDEAE6BA079C.jpeg
 
So they left just a chimney stack in its wake?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top