January 2000

Download the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.

At the secondary level, the committeewas asked to study effective school organization within the prescribed1250 minutes and based on an average class size of 22. The intentionwas to consider applications that allow for or impede the assignmentof basic instructional periods in an organization which meetsprovincial requirements and provides effective learning structurefor students.

The committee reported back to the Boardof Directors of OPSOA on January 21, 2000.

The study committee found that there havebeen significant negative impacts on the program and the cultureof secondary schools in Ontario as result of the implementationof the new funding model. A reduction in student support areassuch as guidance, library, special education, ESL, alternativeand co-operative education has occurred in all of the reportingboards.

The increased expectation in scheduledteacher time has left teachers with significantly less time tofacilitate co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. Twovery obvious impacts have resulted.

First, there is less time available duringthe school day to provide the necessary on-call and supervisioncoverage and there is a noticeable decrease in important curriculumevents such as field trips and inter-school competitions. Thischange is a significant loss to the educational experience forOntario students.

Second, the increased teaching assignmenthas taken valuable time away from teachers' ability to assumeresponsibility for coaching and other essential extra-curricularprograms. In the past, these activities were supported successfullythrough flexible in-school timetable schedules. The increasedamount of scheduled time has decreased this flexibility significantly.This adjustment has resulted in a major change to our secondaryschool culture. It is also a loss to the number and quality ofcurricular and co-curricular experiences available to Ontariosecondary school students.

In addition, senior officials from boards report that the safetyof schools has been compromised as a result of the reduction inteacher time available for student supervision.

At a time when the Ontario governmentis sponsoring a significant reform of its secondary curriculumand expecting increased rigor and accountability, there is growingconcern that these goals of secondary school reform can not beachieved within the current context. The required resources havebeen reduced. Leadership in curriculum development, through departmentheads and regional consultants, has been reduced at this criticaltime. Increased supervision, program and management responsibilitiesfor Principals and Vice-Principals distract these leaders fromother proactive activities in the areas of program, student andcommunity development.

The present formula has resulted in secondaryschool timetable models that are not beneficial to students. Havinga teacher assigned to four credit classes on a given day is nota suitable pedagogical model. Students receive instruction fromteachers who have inadequate time for preparation and evaluationof their work. Individual interaction has been reduced. Othermodels that divide teaching responsibilities for a given classbetween two or more teachers result in a serious lack of instructionalcontinuity for students.

The current funding model does not andwill not serve the needs of Ontario students as originally planned.As the next stages of Secondary School Reform unfold, with anemphasis on career development, workplace experience, increasedacademic rigor and accountability, the resources are not availablefor the implementation of the original vision.

The degree of impact of these pressureshas varied from board to board depending on the resources thatexisted in a given board prior to September 1998.

Data Reviewed by the Committee

The secondary school organizations froma number of boards were reviewed to determine current strategiesto achieve operational staffing within the funding envelopes.The chart below is a summary of the results of this review. Itis based on a model of student and teacher timetables of 75 minuteperiods with a student taking a full timetable having four periods.This satisfies the 5 hours of instructional time per day for compulsoryschool age children and the time requirement of a minimum of 110hours for a credit. An assignment of six periods translates intothree per semester or six throughout the school year on an alternatingday schedule. In all cases, the boards involved in this reviewhad expenditures above grants for secondary teacher costs.

Data collected shows that boards, basedon local conditions, employed a variety of strategies in orderto try to accommodate student program and staffing assignments.Some solutions were more drastic than others and many were onetime only solutions exhausting existing funds.

Overview and Program Implications

Class Size Determination	- Reflecting attrition rate data for semester II courses - Semestering senior division for all schools - Blending of Special Education classes	- Could affect funding based on average credits of 7.5
Position of Responsibility	- No time release for department administration	- Provides support closer to funding dollars available
Teacher Advisory Program	- Current practice is within 1250 - Include within 110 hours/credit; deliver through modified timetable	- No additional cost
Supervision	- Not counted as part of 1250	- As per Education Act
Other Grants	- Moving money from other areas	- Pressure on other areas

Conclusions

1. Present funding changes have had anegative impact on program and school culture.

2. Existing and expected salary gridsdirectly affect the ability to stay within the funding for secondaryteachers.

3. Without additional funding, an assignmentof "6" is not possible within the funding for secondaryteachers.

4. Four teaching periods for any partof a semester/term is not pedagogically acceptable.

5. Other funding pressures will reduceflexibility for the next school year. (e.g. potential salary increases,special education resolutions, loss of previous grants)