Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

EAST YORK ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

ONTARIO SCHOOL BOARD REFORM NETWORK

ASSOCIATION OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS, ONTARIO

TAM GOOSSEN
JOHN DOHERTY

CONTENTS

Wednesday 8 May 1996

Education Amendment Act, 1996, Bill 34, Mr Snobelen / Loi de 1996 modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation, projet de loi 34, M. Snobelen

East York Adult Learning Centre

Karin Lynett, guidance counsellor

Kerry Baksh, student

Ontario School Board Reform Network

David Hogg, chairman

Association of Early Childhood Educators, Ontario

Robyn Gallimore, executive director

Velma Doran, past president

Tam Goossen; John Doherty

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Président: Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Gerretsen, John

(Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)

*Agostino, Dominic (Hamilton East / -Est L)

Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC)

Gerretsen, John (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)

*Gravelle, Michael (Port Arthur L)

Johns, Helen (Huron PC)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Laughren, Floyd (Nickel Belt ND)

*Munro, Julia (Durham-York PC)

*Newman, Dan (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)

*Patten, Richard (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)

*Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC)

*Preston, Peter L. (Brant-Haldimand PC)

*Smith, Bruce (Middlesex PC)

*Wildman, Bud (Algoma ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr Gerretsen

O'Toole, John (Durham East / -Est PC) for Mrs Johns

Skarica, Toni (Wentworth North / -Nord PC) for Mr Jordan

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt ND)

Clerk / Greffière: Lynn Mellor

The committee met at 1003 in room 151.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Consideration of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation.

EAST YORK ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

The Acting Chair (Mr Michael Gravelle): Welcome to the standing committee on social development and the continuation of our public hearings on Bill 34. My name is Michael Gravelle and I'm the Acting Chair for today.

We'd like to call forward our first presenters, the East York Adult Learning Centre. Good morning and thank you for joining us. You will have 30 minutes for your presentation, which you can use in whatever manner you wish. Whatever time is left over after your presentation will be divided equally between the three parties in terms of questions. We'll be beginning our questioning at that point with the official opposition. So if you could introduce yourselves and begin your time, that would be great.

Mrs Karin Lynett: Good morning. My name is Karin Lynett. I'm a guidance teacher at the East York Adult Learning Centre. I've been involved in adult education in one capacity or another for about 12 years. With me today is Kerry Baksh, who is a student at our school. She is going to open our presentation with her remarks.

Ms Kerry Baksh: Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. My name is Kerry Baksh and I'm currently enrolled as a student at the East York Adult Learning Centre. I'm here today to address the proposed cuts to adult education in Bill 34 and I speak on behalf of all students who would like to return to school and finish their education.

A year ago I returned, and the transition after having been out of school for 11 years was one of the hardest things I've ever had to face. Many times I was on the brink of quitting, and if it hadn't been for Karin, who is my counsellor, I don't believe I would have made it. You have to realize that as adults returning to school, we have more than just boys and clothes on our minds. Most of us have families, part-time jobs and bills. The pressures we face at home and at school can sometimes be overwhelming. We need our counsellors to guide us and to support us. If you fund us as continuing education, our guidance counsellors will be one of the first things to go, and I think you'd be surprised at the dropout rate that would soon follow.

Also to go if we're funded differently would be our co-op program, which gets people out to work faster than any program I know. Co-op is helping me because it's giving me the experience I require to enrol in university. Many of our students find jobs or go on to college and university after this program. We don't want to be on the social system any more than you want us there, but after reading Bill 34, I realize that if this bill had been in effect a year ago, I might not have been provided with the opportunity to return to school.

Coming back was for me one of the best decisions I ever made. It's boosted my self-esteem, given me confidence in my abilities and taught me more about myself than I ever thought possible. In the year that I've been back, I've learned many of the skills that are critical for re-entering the workplace and I've definitely come a long way. Just being able to speak today to you I think says a lot. In June I will be graduating with honours. The cuts you make will not affect me, but I have friends who have not reached the level that I'm at, and because adult education has been so instrumental in helping me to turn my life around, I would not like to see it taken from them.

I know that you have a budget to keep, but if you cut adult programs, then people will be on the system longer and you'll be taking the foundation that is necessary to the rebuilding of our society. If Bill 34 is passed, then we lose, you lose, and society as a whole loses.

Mrs Lynett: Thank you, Kerry. I think it's important to hear at first hand from people who have had the benefit of a comprehensive full-service day program. They're our best advocates.

What I'd like to do today is focus on three main areas. First of all, you've met Kerry. I'd like to also give you a profile so you can hook in, in kind of a personal way, to who some of our students are currently enrolled in our full-time daytime programs. Then I'd like to, by referring to the employability skills profile and a few points on the sheet that you've been provided, talk about the skills that we know are now needed for full participation in the workforce.

I'm really pleased that this committee deals with issues related to health, education and community and social services, because you can't separate these. The physical and mental health of people is intricately connected to their sense of self and their ability to be self-sufficient and to be responsible for their own lives in a financial way as well as many other ways. So the realities of today's work environment are very important to understand. Then, to bring these two together, I will take a look at the kind of educational system we currently have, and that we are going to lose with the passage of Bill 34, to effectively prepare people to be participants in this new workplace.

I'm not going to use real names, but these are very much real people. A person I'll call Louise is typical of the students I've seen in my history in adult learning. Louise was a single mother, one son. When she came to us, her son had just started school, so she had time to go to school. She had finally managed to break free of an abusive relationship with a domineering drug addict who didn't allow her out of the house and tried to force her into prostitution, which she fought against. She had very little self-esteem and she was terrified.

She had left school at the age of 16, had run away from home. The reasons for that aren't even important. The fact is, she had. She knew that she wanted more; she knew that she needed to build a future for herself and her son. She once said to me he was the only good thing that ever came out of that relationship, and she thanked God for that child.

While she was first a student at our school, her former mate stalked her. He used to watch from across the street. She didn't like to be caught talking to anyone. She was one of my clients, but she was also in a life skills class. Again, the comprehensive nature of this program can't be stressed enough. Through the support in a group environment and belonging to a community, she was starting to recognize her potential. Like Kerry, she was one of the very brightest students I had ever met.

1010

She didn't complete school the first time she tried because of things like the fact that this fellow broke into her apartment and burned all her books, stood in the kitchen, lifted his T-shirt, held a knife to his chest, and in front of the child and Louise threatened to kill himself if she didn't come back. This was the terror that Louise lived with.

She kept coming back. It took her, I think, three tries, but through many methods and a lot of support and the fact that she knew some of us were there who believed in her, she eventually graduated from grade 12. I still have her picture on the wall in my office. She dropped in to see me -- oh, by the way, he eventually died. He was found dead in a public washroom of a drug overdose. I think it's the only time in my life I've been glad to hear that someone died.

So she's graduated now. I used to say to her, "If you had been raised in my family, you'd be where I am today." She's currently working as a health care aide part-time, because she felt it was really important to work. As you can imagine, her son has gone through some rough times, but he's also a really bright kid and is doing well. But she needed that ongoing support or she wouldn't have made it. Picking up credits here and there wouldn't have met her needs. She has the foundation of skills, of knowing how to learn. She knows one day she will go on and continue further post-secondary education.

I'll be briefer with the others. Louise was very special to me.

Barbara is also typical. She's currently in our school. She's married, but her husband is unemployed. She's the mother of three children. The first time she came back to our school two years ago, she had finished at about grade 8. She wanted to upgrade, make a life for herself and be a role model for her children. They were now in school and she wanted to be able to help them with their math. She had to interrupt her schooling because her sister was killed in a car accident and she became mother to that young child, but she's now back -- he's in school -- and the change in her, you can see it on her face as she's building a new life for her whole family. She talks about how her children have benefited from the fact that she's in school.

Vince is another typical student: single, male, 22 years old. He had some grade 9 credits and was doing well, but then he fell in with the wrong crowd. He didn't have much family support. His own parents weren't here; he was being raised by an uncle. He got into drugs, a history of substance abuse, as I've said. He'd tried jobs here and there and tried going back to high school a few times, picked up credits here and there, but hadn't followed through. He's now on his way to a high school diploma and is seeing himself very differently.

Sue is another woman who graduated last year. She was in her late 40s. She had worked for the same company for 18 years. When she got out of school you could get a job age 16 with a few skills, but now she was finding she could not. No one was interested in her. She didn't have current skills and she didn't have a grade 12 diploma. So she came back and in fact was sitting side by side with Vince in a class.

The realities of the new workplace I don't have to explain to you. You know what they're like. You know what unemployment is like. It's no longer like when many of you and when I graduated from school. We knew if we trained in a certain field, we would get a job, we would have permanent employment, and that was it for life. I think sometimes it's hard for us to really understand what it's like for someone who's trying to hook back in.

Technology is revolutionizing things and changing things.

Change is constant. People need core skills. They need a foundation, knowing how to get information, how to improve their skills, how to learn. Employers tell us that their workers have to know how to learn. We communicate with employers a lot in adult education and they say: "Give them a general knowledge. Make sure they know how to learn. Make sure they know how to work in teams. Make sure they have the basic skills, and we'll teach them the specifics."

Skilled training programs which someone goes into for six months and learns one particular thing and then gets hooked into an assigned job for a while are Band-Aids. That person eventually finishes that job placement and is left without the skills to get the next job or to go into a slightly different kind of job, and we get them back at our adult learning centre.

People really need to understand who they are and where they fit and how they can contribute. So some of the things we look at in our adult programs, as well as the academics and computer skills, are things that some people refer to as the soft skills: a solid sense of self, a solid sense of how to find out, how to plan for the next step, how to network, how to connect, how to work in teams.

A lot of people from the backgrounds I've described have very little connection with the community, of fitting in, of belonging, of being valued, and that's what they get in a full-time comprehensive program. Kerry has already talked about the value of cooperative education work placements where you get a chance to actually try something out and see how you fit.

Things that are lost are things, I realize, that could sound a bit self-serving because I'm a guidance teacher. I personally wouldn't be affected by these cuts, but the programs and the kinds of things I'm able to do would be.

One of the complaints that we hear, one of the problems we're aware of in education and training is sending people off and how do we know if it's the right training for the right person. There's been a lot of talk about vouchers and people running off, and I know this government and others before it have been very concerned with appropriate training and getting people back to work.

One of the things we have the luxury of doing in our system is carefully assessing and counselling every prospective student who comes into our school so that if we're not the right program for them, we can refer them to the one that is. This isn't available through a continuing education model with people who are simply there to teach their class and things happen in isolation. It's not the same kind of environment. It's not the same kind of community setting.

Students in our school, like Kerry, have an opportunity to develop leadership potential and to become involved in things like this. That opportunity isn't there.

Were I a continuing education teacher, I wouldn't be here today, because the focus of my job would simply be to go in and do my class and leave. I wouldn't have the opportunity for the professional development.

I was at a conference on Monday where Aryeh Gitterman spoke to a group of counsellors, co-op teachers and so on about secondary school reform and all the things that are happening there. Many of these directions and connections to the workplace are already happening in our adult day programs because our students demand that connection and that reality. We can't do that if we're a continuing education program. We're basically saying, "Because you're 21 or over, you're not entitled to the same kind of education that this very Ministry of Education is saying students need to prepare themselves for the future."

I guess it comes down to question of discrimination based on age, and we're very concerned that students like Kerry in the future won't have the opportunity that they presently have.

I'm going to stop now because you'll need some time to ask questions.

The Acting Chair: We have about four and a half minutes per party left for questions. We'll begin with the official opposition.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Thank you very much, Kerry and Karin, for your presentation. I have a lot of questions, so I'll be very quick with them. First of all, how will your school be affected with the proposed cuts?

Mrs Lynett: How will our school be affected? Basically, what's being said in this is that adults are not entitled to a regular day program, that boards can only offer things as continuing education. So for one thing, you wouldn't have a consistent staff. We would only be able to hire teachers for specific classes. We would lose things like librarians, counsellors, the nature of the courses, and I think the transient nature of the staff would be a major factor on students, because people may only be there for one semester to teach one course.

Mr Patten: You'd have to switch from your present model to a continuing ed model. Is that what you're saying?

Mrs Lynett: Yes, unless our boards of education chose to do something differently.

Mr Patten: I notice in one of your handouts, the Conference Board of Canada's little brochure on the employability skills profile, which quite obviously -- if you look at the academic and teamwork skills, personal management skills, you need to have time in a regular experience, over time, to cultivate a relationship, to do some planning. I would think it would be pretty hard to incorporate the co-op experience into the continuing education model.

Mrs Lynett: That's right.

1020

Mr Patten: It would just disappear, wouldn't it?

Mrs Lynett: Yes, it would. The very fact that we use this employability skills profile as a bible for curriculum modification and for development of courses -- that doesn't happen in con ed. Teachers aren't involved in developing curriculum. They simply deliver a package, whether it's English, math or whatever, and count up the credits and off they go. They just haven't the time to look at the broader issues and to work as a team to develop more appropriate curriculum, as they do in other secondary schools.

Mr Patten: What do you think this will mean? You mentioned, in talking about this committee, all the areas we serve and the interrelationship of health and community and social services. If this opportunity isn't there, what are the alternatives, or are there alternatives?

Mrs Lynett: I'm afraid we're going to lose a lot of people and they're going to be on the system a lot longer, quite simply. We have statistics -- I didn't bring those because I know a lot of you have heard those from other presenters -- about how people who have gone through our programs become self-sufficient and get on with their lives, and whole families then are independent. Our fear is that with these programs going, the avenues aren't there. The kinds of support, the kinds of group experiences, the kinds of team building, as you say, the things that are here on the employability skills profile -- those things aren't dealt with in a course-by-course approach.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Kerry, first of all, thank you very much for your part of the presentation.

Karin, I'd like to go back to something you said and just repeat it and thank you for those words. You indicated -- you were talking about Louise at the time -- "If you had been in my family, you'd be where I am today." I think that's a very, very important point that government must look at in terms of trying to fit everybody into one mould, because as you've indicated -- and through your presentation, Kerry -- this isn't the case. I just wanted to reiterate that and thank you for that comment.

The Acting Chair: We'll move to the third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Thank you very much, and I apologize for being late. Your presentation is so important and it raises a lot of questions in my mind. What really strikes me is that you are dealing with the whole person, a holistic approach. I'll ask a couple of other questions in that regard. Have you seen any effects on your students of the cuts to welfare and what effect that's having on the ability of single mothers, for instance, to be able to upgrade their skills and to finish high school?

Mrs Lynett: Yes, one of the major cuts there is that things like transportation, having bus fare, are becoming a real issue, and this also speaks to the importance of having the current kinds of schools in communities where people can get there easily, without having to take public transportation. We have a student support group that has looked into issues around food and various issues, but yes, this has been a big concern. As a matter of fact, Kerry will probably remember the day in our life skills parenting class when the cuts were announced and the despair that was felt.

We lost some students. I was surprised at the ones who found ways to stay because they know that certainly they don't want to lose sight of their goal. But again, if the supports hadn't been there, I think a lot would have given up if they'd just been on their own, if they hadn't found a group and a place to belong.

Mr Wildman: In an adult continuing education type of context, a lot more might not have been able to continue.

Mrs Lynett: Oh yes, I have no doubt in my mind of that, because they wouldn't have had the other kinds of supports.

Mr Wildman: Even with that, you lost some. So for the government's approach of trying to get people to upgrade themselves and be self-sufficient, the cuts they made themselves are self-defeating.

Mrs Lynett: I would say so.

Mr Wildman: One other argument that has been made, that we don't need the kind of day program that you've described to us, is that adults are different from adolescents; they're adults and they don't need the kind of supports and guidance programs and so on that you've described. How would you react to that?

Mrs Lynett: I would say they didn't get them when they were kids and their needs are even greater, because very often they don't have the family support. They aren't connected into other kinds of communities. They need to understand the realities of the new workplace with a comprehensive career education program, for example, which this government is advocating in the document that of course we haven't seen because it hasn't been made public yet, with an emphasis on career education. These adults need that every bit as much as kids, if not more, because they missed a lot of that when they were kids.

Mr Wildman: And then there's the question of low self-esteem.

Mrs Lynett: They're much more battered. As Kerry said, it took her 11 years to come back.

Mr Wildman: The other question I have is in regard to the whole question of guidance. One of the things that is proposed is that we could move to a system of boards having flexibility in terms of qualifications and who gets hired to do things like guidance or library, that sort of thing. Do you see any particular problems in someone being able to carry out the kind of role you've been able to carry out if they do not have a teaching certificate but have skills in terms of counselling?

Mrs Lynett: I think the word that was used earlier was "holistic" and, just as I said, one of the benefits of this committee is that it's a holistic look at things that people need to lead quality lives, meaningful lives. The same can be applied to roles such as guidance counsellors in schools, where you have to understand the whole system and work with teachers. You don't work in isolation.

It isn't a question of a Band-Aid. It's very difficult to separate the parts. We are guidance teachers and we work with students in classes and in groups. We have to understand in just simply the registration process what goes on in classes to know where the appropriate starting points are, for example, for an adult student. I have a lot of concerns, but that's kind of a whole other issue. Invite me back when you get to that one.

Mr Wildman: The same sort of argument, I guess, would apply to teacher-librarians.

Mrs Lynett: Absolutely. They work very closely with teachers on curriculum development.

The Acting Chair: We now move to the government party.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Thank you, ladies. Kerry, I think you're to be commended for your self-improvement achievements. I think it's admirable what you've done.

I'm going to try to lump things in here together quickly, some quick questions. I'd like you to tell us, if you could, of any community partnerships that the learning centre has established and, at the same time, if you could tell us approximately what the enrolment is in any average year and, relative to that, if you could tell us what the dropout rate might be also.

Mrs Lynett: Okay. I'll refer to your first thing, community partnerships. I'm interested to see that the Ministry of Education and Training is encouraging all schools to develop community partnerships. Adult education has had to do that from day one. We have partnerships with people who refer students to our program with community agencies such as the YWCA's Focus on Change for people coming in.

We also have a lot of community partnerships through co-op with employers. We have employers that we invite in to actually advise us and work with us on developing curriculum so that it's appropriate to the workplace.

Community partnerships include certainly referrals to various agencies. We are guidance teachers. We don't try to be social workers and solve all things. I make referrals for students to things such as support groups for women who have survived violent relationships, that kind of thing.

We have partnerships with at the moment -- is it still called OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board? We have current pre-apprenticeship programs with that. We have programs that we're working on and have developed with Human Resources Development Canada, where we are again working in an integrated, holistic and therefore very effective way, and I think a very cost-effective way, to meet the needs of our clients.

Mr Pettit: And the enrolment and the dropout rate that there might be?

Mrs Lynett: Our enrolment is around 700 at the East York Adult Learning Centre. It varies from school to school.

It's interesting you talk about the dropout rate, because a dropout in a high school for a 17-year old is one thing; a dropout for an adult student is something else. That's one of the things that we have been criticized for. Some of our students, like Louise, had to drop out because of her violent relationship, but she came back. She knew that she could come back.

Sometimes students' children have extended illnesses. In spite of what some people think about there being ladies on the street and mothers and aunts willing to come in and help, our students don't have those kinds of supports -- they laugh actually when they read those things in the paper -- so they're forced to stay home and look after them.

The important thing is they've had a sense of community and a sense of belonging and they know what they're capable of. If there's anything I want them to know when they leave -- so they do come back.

Mr Pettit: Is there a percentage you could put on it?

1030

Mrs Lynett: I don't have those numbers available. As a guidance counsellor, I know there are some, but actually sometimes those figures, I've heard, when they're compared to high school students, aren't that much higher. Certainly it's an issue. Some pupils drop out because they got the skills they needed, they got the opportunities they needed and they got a job; and we consider that a success story, not a liability.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Congratulations. Very quickly, how do we get to the young people, Kerry?

Ms Baksh: How do you get the ones in the high schools?

Mr O'Toole: So that they understand just how critical learning is, or formal education. Is there anything we can do?

Ms Baksh: It depends on the life they're leading at that time when they're in high school and what kind of support they have and the role models they have. Right now, I'm a role model for my children, and I'm glad of that opportunity, because I don't want my children to grow up and drop out of high school because they see their mom sitting at home doing absolutely nothing.

Mr O'Toole: The point that was made by Karin is really -- you said it doesn't matter before they're 16, that sort of thing. I know there are a lot of various explanations and I don't want to dismiss what you said, but I think that's what's most important. You cannot begin to teach until they get a handle on themselves and this confidence. I keep hearing repeatedly the importance of establishing confidence and self-esteem, and those various aspects are very important, but it's all about getting to the background, it's all about getting to having them understand themselves. How much of that is actually a teaching -- someone with a degree in history, for example, does that qualify them to do those kinds of humanistic things?

Mrs Lynett: I guess what you're saying is what Mr Wildman was referring to, the importance of having career education teachers.

Mr O'Toole: Someone with a history or a math degree or --

Mrs Lynett: People also have teaching qualifications and teaching training, and I think here's where the partnerships between guidance counsellors who are trained in these kinds of things, working with them --

Mr O'Toole: They have what kind of training? Is it a graduate degree in psychology? What is it?

Mrs Lynett: For a guidance counsellor?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Mrs Lynett: It varies. Some indeed did --

Mr O'Toole: It varies. Thank you.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's much appreciated.

ONTARIO SCHOOL BOARD REFORM NETWORK

The Acting Chair: I call forward our next presenter, the Ontario School Board Reform Network, Mr David Hogg. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Mr David Hogg: I appreciate this opportunity of coming before you and making this presentation. The particular aspect of the act that we wish to address is equity in funding for education in the schools of Ontario on a per-pupil basis. This brief is being presented on behalf of the Ontario School Board Reform Network, OSBRN, an association which is unique in that it represents both public and separate school trustees across Ontario.

In the matter of the act, it is extremely difficult to address funding equity, for it seems so obvious and fair. If we really believe in public funding of education, in fairness, in equal opportunity for our young people, why is it even necessary to come before the legislators of this province to try and persuade them -- that is, you -- that this is something that should be done? How do you state the obvious? If we believe in our youth, if we believe in education as a prime public good, if we believe that parents in society have a critical obligation of conscience to provide for the children of this province, why do we even need to discuss this matter?

If we lay claim to be a developed, civilized and cultured nation, one of the attached attributes would be a population which values education and views it as both a right and obligation. Given that it is both a right and obligation, then there follows as a matter of justice that every child be treated equally with regard to opportunity, access and funding. This province can take great pride, in the main, over the manner in which it has delivered its responsibilities with regard to access and opportunity.

With regard to funding of public education, there is much less cause for pride. Differences are large. To illustrate, the following figures are taken from a table published by the Ministry of Education and Training, "Survey of School Board 1994 Financial Statements and Comparative Per-Pupil Costs by Expenditure Function." To provide focus to the disparities, the costs for instruction per pupil, which is a particular category, have been isolated and used, as opposed to cost of operation per pupil, which would include overhead, transportation etc. As well, to maintain some objectivity in the comparisons, the costs for very small boards were not included because of possible distortion; spreading the cost of a teacher over a very small number of students will naturally produce inflated costs. The per-pupil costs for elementary and secondary have been kept separate.

For elementary pupil costs for instruction, the provincial average is $4,792 per pupil per year. In the case of public school pupils, the costs quoted for the school boards range, in round terms, from a low of $4,100 to a high of $5,900 per pupil per year, or -15% to +23%, a range of 38%. To give you some idea of what we're talking about here, a difference of $1,800 from lowest to highest at $30 per textbook translates into 60 textbooks per pupil per year.

In the case of the separate school pupils, the costs quoted for boards range, again in round terms, from a low of $3,900 to a high of $5,000; that is, from -20% to +5% of the provincial average. While the range is smaller, it is still very significant.

For secondary, the provincial average is $5,615 per pupil per year. For public boards, the range is $4,900 to $6,300, or -13% to +13%. For separate boards, the range is $4,600 to $5,900, or -18% to +5%. Again, very large differences from low spenders to high.

These disparate differences should persuade you that something should be done, the right thing in the right way, hodie nunc -- today, now. The more difficult question is, what can be done to provide equal funding in an equitable manner?

One suggestion has been provincial pooling of the commercial-industrial assessment with a common educational mill rate. That suggestion has merit. Wealth generated in one jurisdiction frequently pays the property taxes in another. Commercial-industrial activity benefit is not limited or isolated to the jurisdiction in which it is earned. The wealth may be earned in one or many places and the beneficiary head office may be in another. A fair share arrangement has much more philosophical merit than the current arrangement.

Having said that, it is not reasonable to expect rich assessment boards to turn around their operations overnight. There needs to be a reasonable phase-out/phase-in period of, say, three years. Endowing school boards with instant wealth is no guarantee that their past frugal, some might say destitute, ways will continue into the future. There needs to be a period of adjustment and planning so that the new flow of cash into their coffers will be used wisely and well.

A reasonable expectation is that reasonable changes will be executed reasonably quickly to rectify a situation which is manifestly unjust. The arguments in favour are compelling. Education is an interlocked service in which, somewhat like taxes, location and benefit are not necessarily tightly linked. Nobody can guarantee that a student educated with Windsor tax dollars will not end up paying educational real estate taxes in Ottawa or vice versa. It is sincerely hoped that, in this case, what is proper will prevail over politics. I am now open for questions.

Mr Wildman: Do the figures you use include Metro Toronto board figures?

Mr Hogg: Yes. It's a complete rundown of all of the boards of education.

1040

Mr Wildman: You know that in this particular piece of legislation that we're considering there is a provision to "allow" -- that's the term used -- the Metropolitan Toronto board and the Ottawa board to enter into discussions with the province about giving part of their property tax revenue to the provincial treasury. Do you see that as a step towards pooling?

Mr Hogg: It's a very small and minor step towards pooling, and I think that already they have made some statements in the negative to that proposition.

Mr Wildman: They've indicated that they think it's unconstitutional for the provincial government -- and that's why I think it's worded the way it is in the bill -- to require them to collect property taxes for the provincial treasury.

Mr Hogg: In that case, there is an opportunity for you to change the legislation so that the property taxes flow in a much more rational way. I was very concerned when I read in the Toronto Star about 10 days ago that the idea of pooling real estate taxes was a Tory tax grab. I went to my telephone book and picked it up. I was going to look up Noranda to see where Noranda's head office is, knowing that its mines are someplace in the north. I just opened the thing up and the first name that I came to was Imperial Oil, which is located on St Clair. I think every one of us knows that there are Esso stations in every tiny town in the province that are generating the wealth that goes to pay for the cost of the head office. The fact that by chance the head office is located on St Clair Avenue West is something that benefits a particular school board, but the people who are paying for that head office are right over the province, so why wouldn't we enact legislation that would allow the province to collect these taxes and then distribute them fairly and equitably?

Mr Wildman: As someone who comes from somewhere up north, I understand the argument that, for instance, in terms of pulp and paper or lumber, 70% of the jobs in the lumber industry are in southern Ontario even though the timber comes from the north. I understand the argument, but my question was specific to this legislation. You're quite right. If the majority members on the committee wish to move an amendment to change the legislation and to support an amendment, we can change it.

But why this is referred to as a tax grab is that there is no guarantee that it goes to education; it just goes to the provincial treasury. The Metropolitan Toronto Board of Education and the Ottawa Board of Education are being asked to negotiate an agreement to transfer money to the provincial treasury. It then could be used for anything -- health care, roads, whatever.

Mr Hogg: My understanding was that the suggestion was that there would be an arm's-length body that would collect these taxes and ensure that they go to education, and that again can be enacted in the legislation.

Mr Wildman: No, that's not in the legislation.

Mr Hogg: But these are the sort of watchdog activities that I hope the opposition will engage in to make sure the moneys are collected fairly and properly distributed. This is why we have this mode of operation, our democratic mode of operation, that there are people who will ensure that what is right is done in the correct way and in the right manner. I'm not in favour, nor is my association, of taking money that should go to education and distributing it into other activities.

Mr Wildman: We don't know that it would happen, but there's no guarantee in the legislation that it would not.

Mr Hogg: Then it is up to you to ask for that to happen, and certainly we would be very supportive of that. I'm sure the public would be very supportive of that.

Mr Wildman: My only other question is in regard to the issue of the public schools that are secular as opposed to the public schools that are Roman Catholic in our province. Are you of the mind that there should be an equalization, not just among the public boards of education, but across the whole system, public and separate?

Mr Hogg: Across the whole system. Because one child happens to profess one religion or no religion or whatever, or the parents take that decision, I don't think that is reason for them to be financially penalized. On the matter of fairness and justice, it doesn't make any sense to me that a public school child, because their parents happen to live in some remote area that doesn't have a large tax base, will be treated differently to somebody who happens to have parents living in an environment that generates huge amounts of money. It's the principle of fairness and equity, and I hope it won't become sectarian and it won't become political. These I think will be retrograde steps. There's enough concern already about this.

Mr Wildman: I think it's inevitable that it'll be political. It's obvious from what you've said that you would favour province-wide pooling rather than regional pooling, as has been suggested. For instance, the Toronto separate school board would benefit substantially if there were pooling within Metropolitan Toronto, but that wouldn't then meet the criteria you've set out that someone in the north should benefit as well.

Mr Hogg: No, well, even though one of my other hats is that I'm a trustee with the Metropolitan Separate School Board, again, I think the overriding principle has to be equity funding. While it may well mean that we would get less money if it was distributed across the province, this is what should be done and I'm sure all of my colleagues would say exactly the same thing in the same words.

Mr Wildman: So then public boards in rural areas would benefit as well as separate boards.

Mr Hogg: Absolutely.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have two questions, but just as background, you refer to 1994 financial statements and I have some of the 1995 ones before me, and I note the funding inequity seemed to have probably got worse as opposed to better. On the first page, for example, there's one Roman Catholic secondary school board that has instructional cost of $4,700 per student and then another board in Cochrane/Iroquois Falls where it's almost $7,000 per student; very similar and I think even worse than what you refer to. I have two questions.

Mr Hogg: Can I just comment on that? The reason I didn't use the 1995 figures is that those are estimates, whereas these are based on the actual financial statements, and the date on it was November 1995. They are really the most --

Mr Skarica: Okay, but it doesn't appear that it's gotten any better. My question to you is, can equity in funding be achieved with the current formula, pre-Bill 34, and if it can't how would you propose to amend the legislation to achieve equity in funding?

Mr Hogg: I just got Bill 34 in my hands a few moments ago, so I haven't had an opportunity of studying it in detail, if you'd allow me to pass that by.

Mr Skarica: It's not a test.

Mr Hogg: Thank you. I think there are many ways of doing it. Another way would be to pool all of the assessment, the residential as well as commercial-industrial. I haven't gone into that in sufficient detail to be able to express a sufficiently thought-through position, and so I think I'd like to leave that one. But the commercial-industrial seems to me to be something that is so rational and reasonable that it shouldn't be difficult to sell it to the public. In fact, the public are probably already sold, particularly the public in the more remote areas. Sure, the mines and the pulp and paper mills have to be located in certain communities, but they happen to be there because of particular reasons. You can't locate a mine arbitrarily, it's got to be in a particular place; that's where the wealth is generated. But that doesn't apply to the head offices and these other entities. If it has to be staged, then that would seem to be the first and most reasonable step to take that the people would buy into and go along with.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate your time. Just dealing with the equity issue, I am supportive of that view. When you do the comparisons you're using the actual instructional cost per pupil, right?

Mr Hogg: Right.

Mr O'Toole: Okay. And that's where I can agree the equity -- if you can isolate, that's the difficulty in the Sweeney report: trying to say what's operational inside and outside the class. Agreed with that, if we could come up with a formula that said this is the cost, then I completely endorse that point of view.

One question -- equity: Have you looked at denominational schools? Those are schools that we call sort of private schools. I suppose most religious groups might have them. The Supreme Court is dealing with the constitutionality of that issue. Did you look at that area? They spend around $3,700 per student. By the way, they will all be working in the future, so I don't think gender or culture or religion has anything to do with it.

1050

Mr Hogg: That wasn't within the mandate and I would prefer not to bring it into this particular item, because I think that's another issue as to whether all schools should be funded. Obviously, there is a cost to the province.

Mr O'Toole: Not the schools, I'm talking the student. I'm trying to move you towards the direction of the funding goes with the student. Do you have any --

Mr Hogg: A voucher system that we pay people --

Mr O'Toole: Well, there are many names for the same thing.

Mr Hogg: As I say, I think those are issues that are separate to this particular one. Equality of funding: If we agree on the principle of equality for funding, then that should apply to every student.

Mr O'Toole: Good.

Mr Hogg: Whether you deliver it as vouchers or not, that is something I really would like to deal with on another occasion.

Mr O'Toole: Are there other members of the committee who have questions on this side?

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I certainly appreciate your comments this morning as well. Perhaps, for my own benefit, could you sort of tell me -- you indicated at the outset that your network is representative of public and separate school trustees. What efforts do you make as a network to communicate outside of your own organizational boundaries in terms of talking to students and parents? I recognize that some of them will be representative of your group, but how do you dialogue with those groups and what vehicle of communication are you using to express your views to various boards across the province?

Mr Hogg: We are part of an umbrella group called the Coalition for Education Reform and that is an umbrella organization that takes in organizations such as the Organization for Quality Education, which is made up of teachers and parents who are concerned about the quality of education that is being delivered. As part of that group, we hold very extensive conferences. There was a very successful one about 18 months ago where 300 people attended across the province, outside the province, and we get people outside the province coming in and delivering information. We have this network, and there are newsletters that go out that express these opinions and convey the information, so it's very, very widely distributed. On our executive, we have members from Windsor, Sarnia, Ottawa and the Lakehead.

Mr Smith: So you are in fact consulting with other stakeholder groups outside of your network as a part of that review process.

Mr Hogg: Absolutely.

Mr Smith: On the second page of your presentation, you refer to "a period of adjustment and planning." In your mind, given some of the comments you've made with respect to pooling, which would lead to some fairly substantive changes in school governance and funding and what not, what is the appropriate time frame to achieve all of these objectives?

Mr Hogg: The suggestion that was made there is three years, and I think Sweeney said five years. I come from a business background. I had 10 years in education and 30 years in business. I think it can be achieved in a much shorter time frame than that, but again the concern would be that it is done properly. If that means it is done at a slow rate -- I believe it could be achieved in much less than three years, but in order to give the boards time to adjust, I think they have to be given that opportunity so there are no excuses that, "You rushed us and we can't do the job properly."

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Just a quick comment. Mr Hogg, thank you for your presentation today; it was an excellent presentation. I just wanted to thank you on behalf of the government side on the committee and also to thank you for allowing the length of time you have for questions. It's very important that we get all the questions in that we can. Thank you for that.

Mr Hogg: Thank you very much indeed for this opportunity.

Mr Newman: We still have the Liberals.

Mr Miclash: Mr Hogg, thanks for your presentation as well. A number of years ago I sat on a committee that looked at educational finance reform and we talked a lot about moving the financing of education away from the property tax system into the income tax realm. I'm just wondering whether you have any comments on such a move.

Mr Hogg: I'd like to give this in the frame of personal comments. As I told you, I'm a trustee and I campaigned, as Mr Newman knows, on the basis of in-depth contact with my constituents, or my potential constituents. There is a great deal of concern expressed by the older homeowners who don't understand why they should pay these taxes. It is of course a very regressive tax.

Then you get into the problem that if you collect the real estate taxes provincially and bring them into the provincial coffers, how do you make sure those dollars go where they were intended to go? If the legislation could be used appropriately in this matter, then I think it would make more sense to a huge body of people. They would then understand the benefits they're getting. The major part of real estate taxes goes to the school boards. They don't have any children, they may never have had any children in the system, and it's difficult to point out that when you educate somebody and that person goes into a high-paying job and then pays high taxes, they get a benefit that way. It's a bit of a stretch for them, so one of the things you need to do, obviously, is to do this in a way that people can understand it.

That, to me, would be an activity that would require so much effort, it would delay the process. I think the suggestion is an eminently reasonable way as a first step.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Mr Hogg, thank you for your presentation. The Ontario School Board Reform Network, is that an offshoot of the Reform Party?

Mr Hogg: No.

Mr Patten: I'm just joking.

Mr Hogg: I think we had our name before they did. The question has come up, of course, "Are you connected?"

Mr Patten: We need a bit of humour every once in a while in these hearings.

Mr Hogg, could you tell me a bit more about your network and the various things you do? I think I'm encouraged to see this kind of cooperation. How extensive is the network?

Mr Hogg: As I indicated earlier, it is very extensive. It's only been in operation a relatively short time. A very learned and scholarly work was produced to initiate the organization on the basis of governance, because it is one thing to equalize the funding, but as you know very well, you have to have this overseeing responsibility to make sure the expenditures are made in a reasonable and sensible manner. So it was that particular document -- I think probably it has been made available; certainly, it's in the ministry -- to change the governance, to give more responsibility to the trustees. In fact, they assume a much more hands-on, direct involvement in the governance of the school board administration and in the expenditure of money.

I can speak first hand to this issue, because we've just gone through the budget process now and there are some things we have seen that are a matter of huge concern. Elsewhere, there is another standing committee that will be looking at value-for-money audits by the Provincial Auditor. This is a first step. There are other things that need to happen. Once this is done, the Provincial Auditor must have the opportunity of going into the school boards to assess whether their money is in fact being spent appropriately.

Mr Patten: When you talk about equitable funding, does that mean to you that each school board would get exactly the same amount of money on a per-pupil basis?

Mr Hogg: That each pupil would attract the same amount of money. That is the equity in funding. Then it will be up to the school boards to disperse that revenue in an appropriate manner, concentrating on the classroom.

Mr Patten: Let me offer this hypothesis: I think you would create another form of inequity if you did that. What would happen is that the boards, especially the inner-city boards that have all the responsibilities of ESL and special needs etc, would carry the burden for some extraordinary responsibilities to enable some youngsters just to arrive at the point where they're able to take on the challenges of the curriculum.

1100

Mr Hogg: But those particular activities are already funded directly and separately, so we're not talking about altering that funding.

The funding for ESL students -- we used to think that Scarborough was the most multicultural of all cities, but when the grade 9 reading and writing tests came out, North York had a higher percentage of students who didn't speak English as a first language at their home, so there may be discussion about where that lies. But that is funded separately and there is not a suggestion that that type of funding that goes where the dollars are required and for those children, the special-needs children, that that activity is dispensed with in coming up with this. So if you were trying to get that clarification out, I thank you for that, to make sure that is clear in everybody's mind, that this is base funding that would come through the normal GLG route.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Hogg, for your presentation, much appreciated.

ASSOCIATION OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS, ONTARIO

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is the Association of Early Childhood Educators. Good morning and thank you for appearing before the committee.

Ms Velma Doran: I'm Velma Doran. I'm the past president of the Association of Early Childhood Educators, Ontario, and this is Robyn Gallimore, our executive director. We have a brief presentation and are available for questions.

Ms Robyn Gallimore: Lots of time for questions. I'm basically going to read our presentation, to give you some time to absorb what we have to say, and then I'll open it up to questions.

I guess I should also make a quick comment about some of the positive news that we heard in the budget yesterday. We're really encouraged particularly by the $200 million for child care and some of the other initiatives, the early intervention initiatives and the breakfast program with the Canadian Living Foundation for Families. In that light, I'll read our presentation.

Children all over this province are feeling the impact of the recent cuts to child care, social services and welfare. Eliminating junior kindergarten as a mandatory part of the formal school system is an example of cost-cutting measures that will have long-term negative repercussions for children in Ontario.

The Association of Early Childhood Educators, Ontario, is the largest child care organization in Canada, representing over 3,000 early childhood educators. As a professional association, it is part of our mandate to work towards quality child care and education on behalf of the children in Ontario.

It is our belief that all children in this province have the right to start their formal education on a level playing field of opportunity and experience. Providing fully funded access to developmentally appropriate junior kindergarten programs is the best way to ensure that all children in this province receive the support and preparation they need to succeed in school as they enter first grade.

I'll begin this presentation by outlining the long-term advantages of junior kindergarten programs. The royal commission's report For the Love of Learning, released in early 1995, provides a great deal of important background information in support of organized education for young children. I will also present some additional research findings about quality early education that must not be overlooked as the debate over junior kindergarten continues.

Secondly, I will address some of the serious problems that could arise for our children if JK is eliminated as a mandatory program in Ontario. It is crucial that we consider the cost of not providing junior kindergarten. If we do not act now to save JK, we will pay later in corrections dollars when our children fail to meet the challenges of the formal education system.

Finally, I will present recommendations of the AECEO to facilitate the maintenance of mandatory JK programs in Ontario. The AECEO recognizes the need for spending cuts. However, we do urge the government to consider all of the evidence in support of JK very carefully before making a decision that could have serious implications for the development of Ontario's children.

Education is a cumulative process that begins in infancy, continues through the early years, the school years and into adulthood. In this process of learning, junior kindergarten plays a very important role. From an educational perspective, JK offers a critical equalizing opportunity for children from various situations and backgrounds. When they enter JK, children bring with them a diverse range of experiences and skills which can affect their ability to learn in both positive and negative ways. Ending universal access to JK will target children from troubled families who cannot provide early intellectual stimulation. In the words of one JK teacher from St Catharines: "Junior kindergarten is a program that allows disadvantaged kids to have an edge. If they don't get it at this age, they never catch up."

At a time when many children come from single-parent homes or homes where both parents are working, it is essential to continue programs like JK that offer children -- advantaged and disadvantaged alike -- a more equal opportunity for success in school and in later life. For decades now, we have understood the long-term benefits of providing children with positive, developmentally appropriate programs such as junior kindergarten.

Research into quality early education supports measurable evidence of heightened cognitive performance and scholastic achievement through a child's educational career, higher aspirations in employment, motivation and school commitment, increased post-secondary enrolment and high school graduation rates, a better grasp of social and moral rules, decreased delinquency and lower arrest rates, and less reliance on welfare, lower incidence of teenage pregnancy and lower rates of unemployment.

In addition to these psychological, social and academic benefits, recent studies have proven that quality early education can actually improve the physical development of a child's brain. Fundamental neural connections are being made in children, but only for very limited periods of time. These periods of neuron activation are short in duration and when they are over, the window of opportunity is shut. Any excess neurons that are not activated during these development periods are lost to the child. The research has proven that this window of opportunity for learning begins to shut after age four.

According to Dr Fraser Mustard, former president of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, it is the quality of the stimulation in early childhood that is the driving force. While children's brains have the capacity to rewire the circuits to some extent later on, a lack of stimulation at the optimum learning age can leave children at a distinct disadvantage. Providing junior kindergarten programs that include a wide range of stimuli and experiences is the best way to ensure that children will reach their learning potential in the future.

Many other countries have taken all of this research seriously and have developed programs to meet the educational needs of their youngest children. In France and Belgium, for example, 95% of children from age three are enrolled in publicly funded preschool programs. In Germany, Greece and Spain, the figure is also high at 70%. As a province trying to maintain high educational standards, Ontario cannot afford to allow young children to slip through the cracks at a time when they are most open to learning.

Canadian research also supports the importance of early education for children. An exhaustive study produced by the Royal Commission on Learning recommended the development of publicly funded educational programs for three-year-old children in Ontario. Pre-kindergarten programs, the report argued, would help to prevent later problems for children and would give them a sense of continuity in their learning experience. An earlier start for children would also help them to develop a more positive view of formal learning.

Instead of moving in the direction indicated by the research, done at the expense of the taxpayer, the government is proposing measures that are diametrically opposed to the royal commission's report. As we enter a time of uncertainty in the province, it is more important than ever to provide children with the head start they need to succeed in school. Support of junior kindergarten is the best investment our government can make in the future of Ontario.

1110

While the research clearly supports the benefits of JK programs, it also illustrates the profound cost of not providing quality education for young children.

Eliminating JK as a mandatory component of the formal school system sets up immediate barriers for children from disadvantaged families. In Calgary, where user fees were introduced for kindergarten programs last year, 862 five-year-old children did not show up for school in September, presumably because their parents could not afford the fee. This scenario sets up a dangerous, two-tiered education system: Those who have money will send their children to high-quality, early education programs while those who don't will be forced to use the cheapest child care they can find, regardless of quality. Even if user fees are not yet a reality in Ontario, children from disadvantaged families will still suffer if JK is eliminated as a mandatory program.

According to Dr Paul Steinhauer, senior psychiatrist at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, "You can pay now...for a child's wellbeing; or you can pay later when the personal and social costs of an ill-adjusted adolescent will be much higher." Investing in junior kindergarten programs would be an exercise in the prevention of future problems for children rather than a mad dash to intervene once the behavioural and academic difficulties become an issue.

In reviewing, once again, all of the research in favour of early education for children, the AECEO cannot support the elimination of mandatory JK programming as outlined in Bill 34. As a professional organization trying to survive in these difficult economic times, the AECEO respects our government's need to reduce spending. However, we urge our leaders not to cut costs at the expense of our children. In response to Bill 34, the AECEO has prepared some recommendations that address junior kindergarten programming in Ontario.

Our first recommendation is to maintain junior kindergarten as a mandatory, publicly funded component of the education system and allow early childhood educators to play a more significant role in the delivery of JK programs. Graduates with early childhood education diplomas and degrees possess at least two years of intensive academic and practical training which equips them well to provide developmentally appropriate programming for young children.

Our second recommendation is to offer junior kindergarten programs in child care centres in addition to traditional school settings. Many child care centres are on the verge of closing or have already closed their doors and would provide excellent locations for the delivery of JK programs.

Our third recommendation is to integrate junior kindergarten into the school system as one component of a seamless educational experience for children. Organize the JK program to promote consistency and continuity for children as they make the transition from kindergarten to the formal education system.

It is our hope that our leaders and decision-makers will not turn their backs on the evidence before them. The long-term benefits of junior kindergarten are indisputable and they must not be overlooked in the face of short-term, cost-cutting strategies. In the words of Donna Lero, head of the Canadian National Child Care Study in 1988: "Children are an expensive investment for parents and taxpayers. But they are one of the most important investments we can make."

The Acting Chair: We'll begin the questioning with the government party. There's five minutes per party remaining.

Mr O'Toole: Very quickly so I'll share some of this time with my colleagues. Thank you for your presentation. I just want to focus on a couple of small things. I completely agree with the early intervention. The Mustard reports and other reports suggest that. It's the style and methodology, I guess, that I'm trying to get to.

I just want to point out the importance or get your feedback on the role of the family and the responsibilities of the family. We can't somehow offload that on to the state, if you will. What's your response to that? Is there a family role involved in the decisions?

Ms Gallimore: Certainly. There's no doubt that the family is a very important partner in this collaboration.

Mr O'Toole: I like the term in the second paragraph on the first page, "developmentally appropriate" -- that is, to recognize that each individual is different and their developmentally appropriate time line may not be three years old. It may be three months old for some -- well, maybe six months.

Ms Gallimore: Maybe not three months.

Mr O'Toole: Yes, I'm getting a little early. What kinds of choices, and I underline the word "choices," do you believe that the family -- the parents or whatever that amounts to -- should have and should include besides the formalization of state-controlled or province-controlled junior kindergarten? What other choices would you like to see for the appropriate care and education of children?

Ms Gallimore: I think the choice relates to access for a parent to a quality early education program. If we eliminate junior kindergarten as an option, we're eliminating parental choice for anyone who is unable to afford the alternatives in quality early childhood education.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate that. You commented on the budget that there was the most in history -- that's the famous quote -- allocated to day care. I would close with the remark that the distribution and allocation are now the next phase of that. We're looking to Minister Tsubouchi's and MPP Janet Ecker's report. I'm sure you've met with her. I'll relinquish the balance of my time to other members on our side.

Mr Skarica: I didn't attend either JK or kindergarten and look how I ended up, which tends to strengthen your argument.

Ms Gallimore: I did and this is how I ended up. So there you go.

Mr Skarica: In my former career I was a crown attorney and attended numerous homes where I saw kids running around who were one, two years of age and older than that and going to school. There was no food in the house and they just weren't fed. Eventually you saw them in trouble, and it seems to me, JK or no JK, that would not benefit them. I don't know how many pre-sentence reports I've seen where the mother was an alcoholic or drug abuser, so that kid even in the womb had no chance.

This is a bit of a political question, that I concede. The government has committed millions and millions of dollars to remedying those types of problems, feeding kids before they go to school, $10 million being committed to expectant mothers. Perhaps you could comment how you feel that would impact on those kids' education and that type of thing. It's a pretty leading question, I admit.

Ms Gallimore: It's not an easy question to answer. I think a lot of different components need to be put in place vis-à-vis an early intervention program. Early childhood educators certainly are trained to identify some of the problems, and if the children can access that program, they can be identified earlier. If we wait till five, as Fraser Mustard says, it's too late.

Mr Skarica: I would say even four is too late for some of the kids I've seen.

Ms Gallimore: Even four. I would advocate for a pre-kindergarten at age three, understanding the expense that would involve.

Mr Pettit: Thank you, Velma and Robyn, for your presentation. Are you aware, at least by the last count I had, that about 78% of the boards that to this point had reported had voted to maintain JK?

Ms Gallimore: I'm aware that a number of boards are maintaining JK in spite of the fact that it's not mandatory. The Toronto Board of Education has had junior kindergarten since the early 1950s.

Mr Pettit: Yes, so it is; at least the last count I had was about 78%. JK was certainly a burning issue in my riding of Hamilton Mountain, but one thing that came up quite often in my chats with various people was the ECE teachers. What is so unique about ECE training that makes it suitable as a background?

Ms Gallimore: We have an expert here on that.

Mr Pettit: Could you tell us what makes ECE training suitable as a background for teaching JK?

Ms Doran: Specifically, the most common form of ECE training you'd be familiar with would be the college early childhood two-year training program, the very fact that the program is two intensive years that focus solely on the early childhood years, so you've talking about a very comprehensive, specific program that trains individuals in those early years in comparison to some teacher education training that extends beyond those years. Does that answer your question or do you want more detail?

1120

Mr Pettit: I think it does.

Although the budget was just yesterday, what response have you had from any of your associates relative to the $600 million allotted for child care which, as the member for Durham indicated, was the most in the province's history?

Ms Gallimore: It's $200 million.

Mr Pettit: Or $200 million, additional.

Mr O'Toole: It's $200 million additional. It's $550 million now.

Ms Gallimore: It's $600 million total for the year. That's what it will work out to.

Early childhood educators haven't had much of a chance to respond to that yet. We're waiting to see what Janet Ecker's child care review comes out with. I'll be very interested to see how that money will be used.

Mr Pettit: I would assume that you two see this as a positive step.

Ms Gallimore: Absolutely.

Ms Doran: A cautious positive step, and I would support the caution with the issue of quality as well. Certainly the AECEO has always spoken to the components of quality child care, and at this point we're not sure where this additional funding is going to be placed.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Thank you for the presentation. I was caught by your comment on the third page of the brief where it says, "Eliminating junior kindergarten as a mandatory component of the formal school system sets up immediate barriers for children from disadvantaged families." I think it points to what Mr Skarica said in the sense of why we need mandatory junior kindergarten across this province. Often those kids need that type of structure, that type of setting, and have least access to it because of their family situation, because of economic conditions.

If you're going to tie in nutrition programs, most are going to take place in the school. You're not going to have somebody driving along in a truck, dropping off breakfast at kids' homes in the morning. It will happen based out of the school system. That points even further to why we need this program to be mandatory for those types of kids.

You made reference to the Calgary situation where they have user fees, an option of boards we will have to look at. This year I think some boards have been able to bite the bullet, have made some short-term changes and are going to be able to cope and allow the programs to continue. I don't buy that this will happen next year, the year after or the year after, because these cuts are still far from over. They're going to be deeper and deeper as the deficit numbers go out of whack again, so as that happens, these programs will be eliminated.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): They were out of whack when you were in government.

Mr Agostino: We're not going to talk about $22 billion today.

Do you anticipate that as school boards move away from these programs, there will be a movement to go to user fees and make them an option? Then what happens to those kids whose families can't afford to get the programs?

Ms Doran: Clearly it comes back to the issue of the previous question about where the family fits in all of this. If we move into a user fee system, then clearly we'll have families from the haves and families from the have-nots, where there's not an equal playing field for the children, and that concerns us.

Mr Agostino: Obviously the kids who will be hurt the most will be at the lower end of the economic scale who often need help the most.

Ms Doran: That's right.

Mr Patten: First, let me commend you on your paper. I think it's highly focused and very powerfully stated. My worry is that the pedagogical argument is not the basis on which junior kindergarten is being offered as an option; it's purely financial, from what I've heard. Yet school boards, especially those that have had a long experience with junior kindergarten, will really try to keep that program because they know the value of it. As my colleague said, we'll see what happens with the financial pressures on the school boards, not just this year but next year, when some of the capital that has been frozen is translated into operational funds and they've got to remove some more teachers or some operational costs. That's disappointing.

If I could ask, Robyn, in terms of the training you talked about, you posit here a very strong scientific analysis of the physiological learning phases at that particular stage. Specifically in your training mode you said it's very intense in early childhood education, but could you be more specific? What kind of training enables an early childhood educator to really appreciate what you're identifying here? Some of the courses, for example.

Ms Doran: You want the specifics of the training.

Mr Patten: A little bit on that, yes.

Ms Doran: It's a two-year intensive program where students would study anything from child development specific to the early years; observing; where a huge amount of time is spent in preparing, setting up the environment; acknowledging the developmentally appropriate practice for young children. There's a huge emphasis on the DAP area. How much more do you want?

Mr Patten: Okay. I appreciate that.

Mr Wildman: Thank you very much for your presentation. That was very well done. Are you aware that approximately 20 boards have announced they will discontinue junior kindergarten now that it has been made an option?

Ms Doran: Yes.

Mr Wildman: Some of these boards did not have programs before and didn't wish to go to junior kindergarten and were only being forced to because it had been made mandatory, but this number also includes boards which had junior kindergarten previously when it was an option.

Ms Doran: Some of those are the larger boards in the province too, I believe.

Mr Wildman: Yes. Peel.

Ms Doran: Yes.

Mr Wildman: You also used the example of the Toronto board, which has had junior kindergarten since the 1950s. Of course they don't get any grants from the province -- they're a negative grant board -- so they've been paying for it out of their assessment anyway all these years. I'm concerned about some smaller boards that have decided to continue junior kindergarten but are making changes because of the financial bind they're in. I understand that some of them have combined junior kindergarten with regular kindergarten programs; some of them have gone to every second day rather than every day; some that had full day have gone to half days and so on; others, in terms of the kindergarten program as opposed to the junior kindergarten program, are looking at 30 kids in a classroom, those kinds of things.

Do you have any information about the effects these kinds of changes the boards are scrambling to make just to keep the program going will have on the effectiveness of the program for kids?

Ms Doran: There is research available on the elements of quality early childhood programs, and one of the components of that research indicates there's a clear relationship between the program size, the teacher-pupil ratios and so on. I would have concerns about some of those implementation strategies, although I think those boards that have opted to maintain their JK programs have been forced to look at creative alternative solutions. You'll see one of our recommendations was for boards to look to the child care community to work together and collaborate to come up with some of these creative solutions. I think it is possible.

Mr Wildman: The Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario has indicated that it is not opposed to early childhood educators being involved in the junior kindergarten program. They have indicated they would like to see a teacher with a teaching certificate in some sort of overall coordinating role in terms of some of those programs. Those are the kinds of approaches you would be interested in pursuing; is that correct?

Ms Doran: We have had some preliminary discussions with the FWTAO around various forms of differentiated staffing models, but I come back to the point of the ECE training and how specific it is. There needs to be some assurance for equal opportunity in that teaching model, given the nature of the specifics of the ECE training.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation. It's much appreciated.

1130

TAM GOOSSEN
JOHN DOHERTY

The Acting Chair: I call forward our next group, please, the school trustees for the city of Toronto. Good morning and welcome to the committee. Please identify yourselves and proceed.

Ms Tam Goossen: My name is Tam Goossen. I'm a trustee representing a downtown area from the Toronto Board of Education. I'm sharing this presentation with my colleague John Doherty.

I've been a trustee for eight years. Over the years, I've had countless discussions with our parents on education issues, including what we do at the Toronto board that makes a difference. These things include the way we encourage parental involvement; the way we challenge our students and teachers to think and act critically on equity issues; the way we provide opportunities for our students to be trilingual, learning a third language in addition to English and French, beginning in the elementary schools; the way we welcome our new Canadian students and families into the school community; the way we value early childhood education, in providing kindergarten programs as well as setting up day care centres and parenting centres in our schools; the way we value lifelong learning by respecting the right of our adult students to a good education in our schools; the way we establish some of our best education initiatives and practices in our inner-city schools and alternative schools. The list, of course, could go on and on.

It has been stated that the most significant factor affecting the programs and services offered by school boards in Metro Toronto is immigration. From 1980 to 1990, Metro Toronto received 59% of all immigrants to Ontario, and 45% of these immigrants came from Asia. Having come from Asia myself and being the elected representative of downtown Toronto, with a sizeable Asian population, I'd like to share with you some of my experiences working with Chinese Canadian parents.

Of the Chinese parents I know, some live in public housing -- that may come as a surprise to some of you -- some are tenants living in apartments and some are homeowners. A lot of them work shifts in factories or restaurants; a few are unemployed. Generally, they work hard and, like everybody else, they contribute towards the public education system by paying their property taxes. Not only do their children attend Toronto public schools; often they themselves are adult students in our day schools or other continuing education programs.

They may not speak much English, but they are concerned parents. They respect the child's teacher and consider the instructor who teaches their child Chinese in the neighbourhood school an extremely important person because, through her, they feel better connected to the school. They may not always find the time to go to all the PTA meetings at night, but when they go they know their participation is welcomed by those present and that there will be help with interpreters and child care.

The Chinese parents I know are quite aware of the importance of parent involvement, and they support the work of the Toronto Chinese Parents Association. Through that association, they make their presence known at the board level, through committees like race relations, parent involvement and international languages. They also know the importance of working with other parents from the black community, the Greek community, the Portuguese community, as well as inner-city parents, to make sure the board does its job of providing good programs that meet the needs of not only their children but others as well.

Like all other parents, they have high expectations of their children to succeed in school. At times, when they experience difficulty with their child, they know they have access to a Chinese-speaking social worker who can help resolve the conflict between an immigrant parent and child and make sure that the school acts appropriately.

Last year, when we had to cut $20 million from our budget, we held a number of public meetings to consult with our communities, including some of those Chinese parents I have mentioned, as to where we should cut. To our parents, practically everything I mentioned earlier on the list is essential to meet the needs of our students. To them, it was worth all the property taxes they paid. It was the nearest thing to a public display of consensus: parents from all backgrounds and all parts of the city telling us they value the public schools; that they're willing to pay their proper share of taxes to support a good public education; that they definitely don't want our public schools to deteriorate the way they have in cities across the United States.

What the proposed changes in Bill 34 are saying to our parents, however, is that the provincial government does not care what the needs of our students and communities in Toronto are. Not only would they not support junior kindergarten and adult education, they also want us to hand over a portion of the property taxes that our parents and other taxpayers entrust us with for the sole purpose of educating our next generation. Parents have told us that between having a vibrant school in the neighbourhood and receiving a tax cut cheque in the mail from the provincial government, they'd prefer supporting the school any time and will redirect that tax cut to the school board. I guess we'll have to set up a special fund for that purpose.

By the time the government finishes collecting all of its $1 billion from the school system, there is no doubt that our schools will be in a sorry state. That's why I am here today to plead with you. Please vote against this bill. Don't lead us down this path of no return. By all means, learn from Ralph Klein, because he's now said to have said that he's gone too far in his government's cuts to education and health care, and he never even promised his citizens a tax cut.

Mr John Doherty: Thank you for the opportunity to address your committee on the topic of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Education Act. My name is John Doherty and I am a trustee for wards 11 and 12 in the city of Toronto.

Of the proposed changes in the legislation, I would first like to deal with the issue of the tax rate on educational dollars in Metro Toronto and Ottawa. The taxpayers in the city will not accept that money collected for the classroom be diverted to provincial coffers. The Toronto Board of Eduction agrees with this position. It is clearly unfair that money collected for education be stripped away from classroom programs. This contradicts the statement by the Minister of Education and Training in the House and the government party's promise made in the 1995 election.

I believe it is illegal for the provincial government to take tax dollars which have been raised for the specific purpose of education and divert them to the provincial treasury to meet the provincial government's own financial needs. The Toronto Board of Education funds its own operating and capital costs and has done so for many years. It also subsidizes the educational systems in the rest of Metro. We believe the Toronto taxpayers have already done their part. Enough is enough.

We are also leaving with the committee three motions, which I have appended at the back of the package, passed by the Toronto Board of Education. The motion dated April 1996 was adopted unanimously by the Toronto Board of Education.

On the issue of junior kindergarten, we believe this is a mistake and one which will only add to costs in the future. Junior kindergarten is a valuable and broadly supported program. The research is clear that young children benefit from this program and are better prepared to take advantage of the educational opportunities in grade 1. Parents also support this program. The uptake of junior kindergarten when offered has been overwhelming. In excess of 90% of eligible children participate in the program. This is a clear sign of a successful and valuable program. Claiming that junior kindergarten is a local option has not been truthful with the public. These programs are being cut around the province and are being cut as a direct result of government cutbacks in education funding, cuts to the classroom.

In the area of adult education, we wonder where the government is going with adult education. Does the government mean to condemn adults to a second-class education system? Does the province have a plan for where they are going with adult education? It would appear that the main aim of these changes is to drive adults out of the public education system and to make adult education a full cost-recovery program.

The board of education has over a century of experience in adult education. We know that we can effectively and successfully help adults complete their high school education. This not only helps the individual and their family but the province as a whole. We would suggest the province withdraw this proposal and come back with a more clearly-thought-out policy direction on adult education which meets the needs of adult learners and the province.

Briefly, in the area of the reduction of sick leave days from 20 to 10, we believe the government has not fully thought out the implications of such a proposal. This proposal raises many complex questions. Will sick days be accumulated in the future? If so, how much? What impact will these changes have on the usage of sick days? If days cannot be accumulated, what will bridge the sick days with long-term disability plans? Will this future plan be more expensive than the current plan? That's certainly some of the discussions we have had at the Toronto board trying to look at the implications of such a change. It is not really clear that these moves have really been costed out and the alternatives examined for their full implications.

The government is going to have to address this issue with boards of education. We have to avoid quick fixes that look good on paper but pass on more expensive problems to the boards of education. This issue needs to be reconsidered.

Briefly, on the issue of co-op services, we can support this proposal. We have been developing co-ops for the last number of years. Some are being formally created; others have been informally in place over a number of years. We would only ask why there is no mandate to require the development of co-ops in areas such as busing. This would bring reluctant groups to the table and allow savings from these areas to be passed on to the classroom.

Thank you for your time. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

1140

The Acting Chair: We'll begin the questioning with the official opposition, with six minutes per party.

Mr Agostino: First, to Ms Goossen, thank you for that insight. It was useful for some of us who represent communities where there's a new immigrant group; it's good insight to talk about some of the experience there. Do you see the cuts impacting much more negatively on inner-city schools, in schools where English-as-a-second-language neighbourhoods are an important component? Do you see the direction of these cuts having a greater impact on that core than you would, say, in more affluent neighbourhoods and in schools in those neighbourhoods?

Ms Goossen: Absolutely, especially if it comes down to one of the many rumours that have been floating around, the whole issue of user fees. That obviously will impact. If you start talking about charging user fees for after-4 programs, even for teaching the international languages and all the other stuff, then it becomes a crazy situation for our inner-city parents, because this is in addition to the many other cuts outside the education field. Absolutely.

Mr Agostino: Mr Doherty, on the cuts to the classroom, as school trustees you've seen the front-line impact, regardless of what we're told here in the House by the minister and the government. You're on the front line, having to make those decisions. Have you seen an impact to the classroom directly as a result of the cuts that have come from the provincial government to the boards of education and the potential now of taking money out of Toronto, obviously, and spreading it across the province?

Mr Doherty: It's clear that if there is money extracted from the Metro boards of education, what they call taking up our portion of the provincial restraint program, we will have impacts in the classroom. There will be less money for field trips, there will be fewer educational assistants in our special-needs classes and there will be fewer teachers.

You have to remember that this is on top of what in the Toronto board alone has cut $75 million out of our program mainly because of our declining assessment base in Metropolitan Toronto. In the schools in my area, most class sizes are going to be increasing by about four students in this one year alone, and they have probably increased between six and seven over the last couple of years.

We don't have any more flexibility left in our budget. This will come out of the classroom; there is no other place left.

Mr Patten: Thank you for the presentation. I have a question for each of you. Ms Goossen, you seem to suggest the high value the new Canadian population places on education, that they're very concerned and want to participate. Did I read, or was I mistaken, that your board was considering a school tax increase for the coming year, about 1.9%?

Mr Doherty: On our year, we had a 1.5% tax increase for 1996 because of our enrolment increases that were still growing by about 2% a year.

Ms Goossen: But that's not the city of Toronto board decision alone; it's after discussion at the Metro board earlier.

Mr Patten: Good. Mr Doherty, related to the issue of local taxation, some people say no matter how, the government will get the money from your board. Can you tell me what pressures or threats are there to extract the money they're looking for?

Mr Doherty: Certainly the agreement negotiated between the Metro board and the provincial government, which the Toronto Board of Education opposed, shows there is a variety of ways, without us writing a cheque, in which money can be extracted. There are things like section 27, which is that in hospitals and institutions, where if there is someone in jail from another part of the province who's down here or a child has to come to Sick Kids Hospital, the Toronto Board of Education is supplying the teachers at Sick Kids. Those types of things can be removed.

We have been directed by parents' meetings across the city to investigate all legal methods to oppose such a thing, one, because the classroom is the key thing and we don't want to lose any more money, and second of all, parents have said: "We have elected our representatives to set a tax rate. We have decided to invest our money in these services and we do not believe they should be diverted to the general coffers of the province. The province has a tax problem; they need to solve it themselves. We have our own priorities and we don't have excess cash lying around."

Mr Patten: What about the threat of pooling?

Mr Doherty: It's certainly a threat, but I think pooling is an enormously politically difficult problem to institute. There are all sorts of opinions all over the place about that, but certainly we would be big-time losers in pooling. We have already pooled with Metro. We raise 42% of the money in the city of Toronto but only spend 28% of it, so we already have shared our tax base significantly, and to take it would only mean further program cuts.

Mr Wildman: Thank you for your presentation. I very much appreciate it, looking at the various aspects.

I'm looking at some of the material you have appended to your presentation. Under the heading "Myth # 3 vs Reality, School Board Administration," the third bullet, you refer to the Sweeney report. Mr Snobelen and the Conservative members of the House are wont to quote Mr Sweeney's report. Mr Sweeney has said that he estimated 47% of school board expenditures were outside the classroom. In this, you say, "Sweeney used another definition of administration which included teacher prep time and capital expenditures." I guess some of the capital expenditures would be expended on building classrooms.

Mr Doherty: Putting a roof over the classroom.

Mr Wildman: "Sweeney concluded the administrative costs of boards ranged between 12% to 36% of total expenditure. Metro public boards averaged 19%." Obviously, there are a lot of numbers here. You refer to other percentages. Does the Toronto board have an estimate of how much is expended, first, on what you would define as administration, and then an overall expenditure outside the classroom?

Mr Doherty: As people say, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, but I think our general ballpark figure is that around 10% or 11% is spent on administration by our own account. We view that caretakers in the school are part of providing classroom services. We say that having a working boiler in a school is part of operating a school. So we look at all those expenses.

Mr Wildman: In other words, heating and cleaning the classroom you consider to be part of classroom education.

Mr Doherty: Yes, and providing a social worker for a child with emotional social problems and who doesn't have the ability to sit still in a classroom. Withdrawing that child and trying to work with the family and with that child we believe also is support for the classroom.

Mr Wildman: Let me get straight here what you've just said. You're saying that you've cut over the last two to three years already substantially.

Mr Doherty: Yes.

Mr Wildman: So if you have to make cuts this year, which you expect you're going to have to do, it's going to have to affect the classroom. My question is, does it affect the classroom in terms of fewer teachers, meaning larger class sizes, or does it just affect the classroom in terms of custodial services, heating the classroom? And what part is played in that mix in terms of special-needs kids?

Mr Doherty: I think it's going to affect everything. Obviously, the class size is partly determined through contract negotiations we have with teachers in deciding the ratio of how many students generate a teacher. About 50% of our budget goes towards the classroom teachers themselves. They will take a hit and class sizes will increase if we have to make the type of cut, a $65-million cut, in order to pay the province. A portion of that money will inevitably come out of class sizes, at the high school level as well as the elementary. As well, we will have to reduce things like educational assistants, social workers, psychologists.

And you just start stretching out the repairs longer. We paint a school every 18 years whether it needs it or not. Next, it's every 22 years, it's every 23 years. You ask schools in Mr Silipo's riding where they have two boilers, and they operate now with one boiler because of the expense of repairing the boiler that has to come out of our operating budget.

1150

Ms Goossen: I'd like to supplement that. Earlier, around the budget cutting, we certainly went after the administration and reduced the number of caretakers. The proposal was to cut our education assistants by half, as well as reducing the number of social workers and child psychiatrists in the school system. You should have seen the outcry from the community. That's what I was mentioning, the public display of consensus. We suddenly realized that these things, I suppose from administrators, even from our board's administrators, might be considered as something that may be a little bit less important to the running of the school. The parent community suddenly had a very different view of what they consider essential in the running of the school.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I appreciate very much the presentation. I just want to ask either or both of you if you could comment on what I know is a perception that a number of people in this room and many people perhaps across the province have, which is that in Metropolitan Toronto or the city of Toronto, whichever you want to take, we're able to spend a lot more on a per-pupil basis because we have such a rich tax base, and that somehow that needs to be brought down more in line with what's being spent in other jurisdictions.

I wonder if you could comment on what accounts for the need for that additional spending. You've got some useful information in the background documents, but I just wondered if you wanted to comment on that.

Ms Goossen: I'll just make a first attempt here. I think the stats from the Metro board here are very useful because they really set out the 905 boards and the Metro boards on every item.

The one area that could be interpreted as out of line a little bit is the building, the maintenance fee. We really have older buildings. In addition to that, we have what I would consider a good community use policy. We allow a lot of community groups to come and run all sorts of programs for the benefit of the communities, and that requires extra maintenance costs. Especially when it's used outside the regular weekday, when it's a weekend, we ask the community to shoulder some of that cost, but still, overall, our schools are really used almost seven days a week, and for the most part of the year. So compared to other boards outside of the city, we are really, I suppose, a welcoming place for all communities.

Mr Newman: I'd like to welcome the trustees. Does pooling exist within the boards in Metropolitan Toronto right now?

Mr Doherty: Yes.

Mr Newman: It does. In other words, some boards get more than what they put in. You've said that the city of Toronto puts in 42% and only spends 28%. Also in your presentation here, you mentioned that the taxpayers of the city would not accept money that was collected being diverted to the provincial coffers. Are your ratepayers outraged that money collected in the city of Toronto is spent in the city of Scarborough?

Mr Doherty: I think there's some frustration about it, but to a certain extent we've been living with it since 1954. But certainly when they look at that, when any of the parent associations decide they're going to get into where we get more money, they look at the fact that we're collecting 42% of the money and it's going out to Scarborough. They're saying: "We've got needs here that are not met. What are you doing sending the money out there?"

Mr Newman: But does pooling work within Metropolitan Toronto?

Mr Doherty: It probably has achieved the purpose that it was set out for, to build up the schools in North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke.

Mr Newman: Is that a yes?

Mr Doherty: Well, would I want more money for schools in my area? Yes, I would, and I think I could use the money that we raise here.

Mr Newman: The other question I had is that you mentioned the figures for Metropolitan Toronto in terms of immigration from 1980 to 1990. What are the figures for the city of Toronto?

Ms Goossen: I don't have the Toronto figures. At this point, though, depending on the area the immigration comes from, I suppose a number of -- like Scarborough or other places may share.

Mr Newman: I'd just like to put on the record that 15% of all new immigrants to Canada settle in Scarborough. Scarborough is included in those figures and I just wanted that to be brought to your attention.

Ms Goossen: Oh, yes. It's included.

Mr Newman: The last point I had was, do you support the regulation change that changed enrolment count dates from September 30 to October 31 and February 28 to March 31?

Ms Goossen: I don't really support that because in Toronto I mentioned alternative schools and I also mentioned a lot of our adult students are in our day schools as well. I think part of that is there is maybe a higher percentage of movement in our schools, so it makes the job of administrators to fix that number very difficult. So we do need a longer period of time in that sense to really fix on a number.

I think what we've been doing is fine. To suddenly push the count date later would mean that up front we would have fewer teachers to deploy, and then later on how to try to get them back is something that is not really good to the running of the school, to run our programs.

Mr Newman: Is that your position or the Toronto board's position?

Ms Goossen: We don't have an official position on this, but this is something from our experience of dealing with our schools. There's always this almost frantic activity at the beginning of the term to try to figure out the exact number of the students and to get the teachers.

Mr Doherty: I think it also depends on the type of school. In our collegiates, the population tends to be far more stable, but we have a lot of re-entry programs where we try to go out and get the kids who have dropped out to come back. In a lot of those programs we have continuous intake. It is a struggle sometimes with those kids, and if you don't have some flexibility in that, if you're constantly under the threat of losing it, then there's not much interest in going out and reaching out to those students who are on the streets, who don't have a role in society and have no future. We're saying we need some flexibility to go out and get them, and if you're constantly counting and losing staff then it takes away the incentive to reach out to those hard-to-serve people.

Mr Skarica: I'm an immigrant to this country as well, and when I came to Canada I couldn't speak any English, which I'm sure is no shock to anybody here. I spent all my schooling in the Wentworth County Board of Education and I'm looking at their administrative costs. For elementary, they're $39 per student and $69 per student, and I'm looking at yours and I see $95 and it's $81 and $114 respectively. So that's anywhere from 60% to 100% higher.

Mr Doherty: What are you referring to?

Mr Skarica: What I'm hearing from them is that they have done everything they can to reduce their administrative costs, and this is what I'm hearing from them and other 905 boards, that they feel your administrative costs could be cut down. For example, the trustees in my area make well under $20,000. It's well publicized that the Toronto trustees make substantially more; I think the figure is $49,500. As well, the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act indicates that there are 35 superintendents or supervisors who make over $100,000. In our board, there's only one.

I have a question to you. I'm hearing from the 905 people that there is room to cut administratively in salaries, trustees' salaries and supervisory salaries, and I'd like you to perhaps comment on that.

Mr Doherty: On the salary part, I know that people in Toronto have debated that issue in probably most elections since 1988 and I think it's been clear they've overwhelmingly chosen people who said that this is a full-time job in the city of Toronto and have voted that way. I think that issue has been politically settled in terms of our own accountability in that process.

Other cities have chosen to go a different route, and I think that's the type of local options we serve. I think that, from the public disclosures, we have continued to reduce the number of superintendents. Already there are over six of those people on that list who have retired and have not been replaced by the Toronto Board of Education in that area, and we're still continuing to decline. We try to provide some explanation about the differentials in costs between our boards and the 905 boards and I don't think there is a significant difference in costs in that area.

If you want to sit down and look at how we can improve our organizations, I think any organization can always improve its efficiency, but I would rather see the benefits of those efficiencies directed back to the classroom, not to the provincial coffers.

The Acting Chair: That concludes our time. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Agostino: One quick point, and I'm sure it's going to be addressed: I'm sure it simply was an oversight, but when you look at all the presenters in the next day or two that we still have left on this and up till now, there's been absolutely no representation from any separate school boards or associations.

Mr Wildman: Mr Hogg.

Mr Agostino: He wasn't representing the Metro separate school board. He was representing the reform group, the reform network. I hope that gets addressed and dealt with in the other hearings. I know requests have been made, by OSSTA; the teachers' federation has made requests; the separate school boards have made requests. I just want to make sure there is a balance in the presentations, that separate school boards are also part of the list. I think we've got to be careful in the other hearings across the province that doesn't happen.

Mr Pettit: There is a process that all three parties --

Mr Patten: I believe the subcommittee will address that question. We haven't had a chance to talk about this, but just to assure you that we're conscious some groups have felt left out, and we're going to try and fit them in at some of the other centres. In some cases, they're going to have some concerted or joint presentations. I think we'll cover them all off.

The Acting Chair: Obviously this is something that happens with many committees.

Mr Agostino: I wasn't making an accusation that it was a deliberate thing or anything else, but I just think we have to be aware, to make sure that -- and I did that in a thoroughly non-partisan way.

The Acting Chair: I think all three parties are sensitive to that. There will be a subcommittee meeting, actually, to the relevant members of all three parties, in room 110 across the hall here in the Clerk's office immediately following this meeting.

This committee stands adjourned until Monday, May 13, at 3:30 in the afternoon.

The committee adjourned at 1203.