Update on Review of

1
Maurice Cody Jr PS Community

• Update on Review of
• Student Accommodation

March 25, 2009
2
Presentation to Ward 11 Council
Agenda
Continued on Next Slide
3
Presentation to Ward 11 Council
AgendaContinued from Previous Slide
4
TDSBs Dream TDSBs Vision
Presentation to Ward 11 Council

• Excellent programs that
• Prepare all our students for tomorrow
• Provide equitable access to opportunities
  everywhere in the City and
• Are provided in great learning environments in
  buildings that support programs and inspire
  student learning.

5
Challenges
Presentation to Ward 11 Council

• TDSB faces four significant challenges to
  realizing this dream
• Uneven distribution of programs
• Condition of schools
• Revenue
• Declining enrolment

6
Revised April 7, 2008
Year of Construction, Past History and
Replacement Need
7
Revised April 7, 2008
Enrolment ProjectionElementary
8
Revised April 7, 2008
Enrolment ProjectionSecondary
9
Revised April 7, 2008
Enrolment Change from 2001 to 2007
Enrolment Change Elementary
Utilization Rates
Ward Boundary
Enrolment Change Secondary
Produced by Planning Division, Facility
Services Toronto District School Board, Nov
2008 Source Base Map Land Information
Toronto Facility Data Facility Services TDSB
10
Revised April 7, 2008
Utilization of Schools
Utilization Rates in 2007 Elementary
Utilization Rates
Ward Boundary
Utilization Rates in 2018 Elementary
Produced by Planning Division, Facility
Services Toronto District School Board, Nov
2008 Source Base Map Land Information
Toronto Facility Data Facility Services TDSB
11
Revised April 7, 2008
Utilization of Schools
Utilization Rates in 2007 Secondary
Utilization Rates
Ward Boundary
Utilization Rates in 2018 Secondary
Produced by Planning Division, Facility
Services Toronto District School Board, Nov
2008 Source Base Map Land Information
Toronto Facility Data Facility Services TDSB
12
TDSBs Response
Presentation to Ward 11 Council

• To respond to these challenges, TDSB has launched
  two major initiatives
• Toronto Lands Corporation, for capital asset
  management and
• the Better Schools Brighter Futures initiative,
  for program and capital planning.

13
Presentation to Ward 10 Council
Background on Maurice Cody Jr PS
HC - Head Count FTE - Full Time Equivalent
Continued on Next Slide
14
Presentation to Ward 10 Council
Background on Maurice Cody Jr PS Continued from
Previous Slide
HC - Head Count FTE - Full Time Equivalent
15
Revised April 7, 2008
Historical and Projected Enrolmentfor Maurice
Cody Jr PS(Full Time Equivalent)

• Enrolment at Maurice Cody has increased between
  2001 and 2008 by 96 FTE students.
• Long term projection suggests the growth could
  continue until 2015 and then stabilize at around
  589 (an increase of approximately 118 FTE
  students from 2008).
• The projections are based on the assumption that
  the JK intake will continue at around 77 HC
  students.

Source Actual enrolment - September 30 Month End
Enrolment Reports, Planning Division,
TDSB Projected enrolment Final school based
projections calculated in February 2009 for
2009-2010, Planning Division, TDSB
HC - Head Count FTE - Full Time Equivalent
16
Process to Review Accommodation Issues
1. Superintendent Local Review
A program or accommodation issue is identified by
schools, communities, trustees or Board staff and
is brought to the local Superintendent for their
review and consideration.
If the local Superintendent thinks a more
detailed review is required then the
Superintendent brings the issue to the Central
Feasibility Team (CFT), composed of senior Board
staff, where it is recorded, prioritized and
tracked. The issue is scheduled for review in a
list of all issues received to date.
2. Central Feasibility Team
3. Local Feasibility Team
When the issue comes up in the schedule, a Local
Feasibility Team (LFT), composed of Board staff
and affected trustees, is formed and conducts a
preliminary analysis to determine if a formal
review is required.
4. Central Feasibility Team
The LFT reports back to the CFT with initial
findings and a recommendation to proceed with a
formal review or not to proceed.
5. Board Approval
If a formal review is supported by the CFT then a
report is sent to Board recommending a Program
Area Review Team (PART) be formed or an
Accommodation Review Committee (ARC).
6. Program Area Review Team or Accommodation
Review Committee
Upon Board approval, the PART or ARC is formed
consisting of Board staff, affected trustees, and
school council representatives. The PART or ARC
will examine analyses, brainstorm ideas, discuss
options and implications, plan a consultation
strategy with the affected community, and review
the final report prepared by staff.
7. Board Approval
A final report containing the PART or ARC
recommendations is sent to Board.
If approved by Board, the recommendations are
implemented. Unless otherwise recommended, it is
expected that schools and communities will have a
years notice to implement the recommendations.
8. Implementation
17
Current Stage of Process for Maurice CodyLocal
Feasibility Team
1. Superintendent Local Review
A program or accommodation issue is identified by
schools, communities, trustees or Board staff and
is brought to the local Superintendent for their
review and consideration.
If the local Superintendent thinks a more
detailed review is required then the
Superintendent brings the issue to the Central
Feasibility Team (CFT), composed of senior Board
staff, where it is recorded, prioritized and
tracked. The issue is scheduled for review in a
list of all issues received to date.
2. Central Feasibility Team
3. Local Feasibility Team
When the issue comes up in the schedule, a Local
Feasibility Team (LFT), composed of Board staff
and affected trustees, is formed and conducts a
preliminary analysis to determine if a formal
review is required.
4. Central Feasibility Team
The LFT reports back to the CFT with initial
findings and a recommendation to proceed with a
formal review or not to proceed.
5. Board Approval
If a formal review is supported by the CFT then a
report is sent to Board recommending a Program
Area Review Team (PART) be formed or an
Accommodation Review Committee (ARC).
6. Program Area Review Team or Accommodation
Review Committee
Upon Board approval, the PART or ARC is formed
consisting of Board staff, affected trustees, and
school council representatives. The PART or ARC
will examine analyses, brainstorm ideas, discuss
options and implications, plan a consultation
strategy with the affected community, and review
the final report prepared by staff.
7. Board Approval
A final report containing the PART or ARC
recommendations is sent to Board.
If approved by Board, the recommendations are
implemented. Unless otherwise recommended, it is
expected that schools and communities will have a
years notice to implement the recommendations.
8. Implementation
18
Potential Accommodation Options toAddress
Over-Crowding
Presentation to Ward 11 Council

• Close the school to optional attendance.
• Reorganize the schools timetable and use of
  space.
• Add stand alone portables to the school site.
• Relocate non-school administrative school uses.
• Reclaim rooms from non-child care tenants in the
  building.
• Relocate Continuing Education Programs and
  Contracted Services Programs.
• Acquire rooms from joint users of the building.
• Designate new residential developments to schools
  outside of the area.
• Renovate existing space to create additional
  classrooms.
• Use space in a nearby school campus model.
• Relocate self-contained programs to schools with
  space available.
• Reclaim rooms from child care centres.
• Lease space from another property owner.
• Add a port-a-pak to the school site.
• Change the schools grade configuration.
• Adjust the schools attendance area.
• Construct a permanent addition.
• Re-open a closed school.
• Construct a replacement building.

19
Revised April 7, 2008
Anticipated Timelines(Highly Approximate)

• Local Feasibility Team meets April to May 2009.
• Local Feasibility Team reports to Central
  Feasibility Team in May 2009 with recommendation
  to proceed with a formal public consultation
  Program Area Review Team (PART) or Accommodation
  Review Committee (ARC).
• Deaf / Hard of Hearing PART presents
  recommendations to Board in May 2009
  (recommendations will address the future of Metro
  Sch for the Deaf at Davisville).
• Central Feasibility Team requests approval from
  Board in June 2009 to start a PART or ARC.
• PART or ARC meets and investigates long term
  solutions through most of 2009-2010 school year.
• PART or ARC reports recommendations to Board
  towards May-June 2010.
• If the recommendation involves a large
  construction project, then the long term solution
  could be in place by September 2012.
• It takes approximately one year to design a large
  construction project (2010-2011 school year) and
  one year to build it (2011-2012 school year).
• The TDSBs construction process involves more
  public consultation through a Local School
  Community Design Team.

20
Revised April 7, 2008
Short Term Accommodation Options

• Until the Local Feasibility process and the
  formal public consultation process (PART or ARC)
  have been completed and the Board has approved a
  long term solution that has been implemented, the
  solution for accommodating students at Maurice
  Cody will be
• Continued use of portables
• Re-organization of use of rooms.

21
Revised April 7, 2008
Next Steps

• Continue with Local Feasibility process Local
  Feasibility Team will consider options generated
  to date as well as any new options.
• Develop a communication plan to keep school
  councils of Maurice Cody, Hodgson Sr PS, Eglinton
  Jr PS / Spectrum Alt Sch, and Davisville Jr PS /
  Metro Sch for the Deaf informed.

22
Questions and Answers
Revised April 7, 2008
23
Background Data
Revised April 7, 2008
24
Revised April 7, 2008
Junior Attendance AreasWard 11
25
Revised April 7, 2008
Intermediate Attendance AreasWard 11
26
Revised April 7, 2008
Secondary Attendance AreasWard 11
27
Revised April 7, 2008
DevelopmentActivityWard 11March 2009
28
Revised April 7, 2008
Students Attending Maurice Cody by Home Address
29
Revised April 7, 2008
1.6 Km Walking Distance from Maurice Cody
30
Revised April 7, 2008
Maurice CodyAerial Photo
31
Revised April 7, 2008
Current Enrolment by Grade and Program
Maurice Cody Jr PS, October 31, 2008
Source Preliminary October 31, 2008 Month End
Enrolment Report, Planning Division, TDSB
32
Revised April 7, 2008
Optional Attendance
Count of Students Attending a School by
Attendance Area of Home Address

• The vast majority of elementary students
  attending Maurice Cody reside in the area.

Source Optional attendance report, October 2008,
Planning Division, TDSB
33
Revised April 7, 2008
Optional Attendance
Count of Students Residing in an Attendance Area
by Attending School

• The vast majority of elementary students who live
  in the Maurice Cody attendance area attend
  Maurice Cody.

Source Optional attendance report, October 2008,
Planning Division, TDSB
34
Revised April 7, 2008
Facility Facts for Maurice Cody Jr PS
2008-2009
Source Planning database, February 2009,
Planning Division, TDSB
35
Revised April 7, 2008
Historical and Projected Enrolmentfor Maurice
Cody Jr PS(Head Count)

• Enrolment at Maurice Cody has increased between
  2001 and 2008 by 113 HC students.
• Long term projection suggests the growth could
  continue until 2015 and then stabilize at around
  668 (an increase of approximately 126 HC students
  from 2008).
• The projections are based on the assumption that
  the JK intake will continue at around 77 HC
  students.

Source Actual enrolment - September 30 Month End
Enrolment Reports, Planning Division,
TDSB Projected enrolment Final school based
projections calculated in February 2009 for
2009-2010, Planning Division, TDSB
HC - Head Count FTE - Full Time Equivalent
36
Maurice CodyProposed Locations for 2 Additional
Portables Option 1
Source Design Division, Facility Services, TDSB
37
Maurice CodyProposed Locations for 2 Additional
Portables Option 2
Source Design Division, Facility Services, TDSB