York Region District School Board When Data Just Isn’t Enough: The Underutilization of the Learning Opportunity Grants for Low-Income Learners across Ontario Presenters: Sharma Queiser: Social Planning Toronto Yvonne Kelly: Social Planning Council of York Region, York Region District School Board Participants in the Knowledge Network for Student Well-Being - Community of Practice on Equity and Inclusion for Low-Income Learners FESI 2018

Acknowledgement of Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Territories York University acknowledges its presence on the traditional territory of many Indigenous Nations. The area known as Tkaronto has been care taken by the Anishinabek Nation, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Wendat, and the Métis. It is now home to many Indigenous peoples. We acknowledge the current treaty holders and the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. This territory is subject of the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement to peaceably share and care for the Great Lakes region.

Agenda Icebreaker and Introductions Setting the Stage – Purpose of the Session The Learning Opportunity Grants Overview and Background Societal Consequences of Growing Inequity in Public Education Questions for Small Groups Case Study and Strategy Development in Small Groups; Report Back Q and A We have the Data We have the Policy, the Formula and the Grants (LOG) And yet…..We Still Don’t Address the Gaps

Welcome and Icebreaker Name, title, and where you are from Yvonne

Guiding Question for FESI Day 1: Political Challenges and Opportunities What are the present and historical challenges, opportunities, tensions and paradoxes of collecting, integrating and reporting on identity-based data? Consider this guiding question as we interrogate some of the challenges and paradoxes of our current experience in Ontario of collecting data for the purpose of bridging gaps in learning outcomes for low-income learners.

What is the Learning Opportunities Grant? Provides funding to help students who are at greater risk of lower academic achievement Level the playing field for students who face disadvantage due to socio-demographic characteristics Ask audience – how many people know what the LOG is? The Learning Opportunities Grant is a special purpose grant that is provided by the Ministry of Education to all school boards in Ontario. It is provided to school boards to help level the playing field for students whose socio-demographic circumstances place them at greater risk of struggling in school. We know that students from economically and socially marginalized conditions face greater challenges in school, and consequently require the system to adapt to meet their needs. The LOG is provided specifically for this reason.

Learning Opportunity Grant funding flows through 4 different categories: The Local priorities fund is a new grant established in 2017-18 to address a range of local priorities and need. $235.4 M is allocated through the Local Priorities Fund. The student achievement envelope comprises of six discrete allocations which directly support programs introduced by the Ministry $134.1 M is flowed through this envelope. Other allocations include funding for librarians and to adjust for the amalgamation of school authorities and comprises of $10.4 M. The Demographic Allocation represents the largest portion of the Learning Opportunities Grant and will be our focus for today. $362.9 million is flowed to school boards throughout Ontario through the Demographic Allocation.

How is the LOG-DA calculated? Based on social and economic indicators that signal higher risk of academic difficulty Low Income 50% Recent Immigration 25% Low Parental Education12.5% Lone Parent Status 12.5% Derived from 2006 Census data (MoE Technical Paper) The amount a school board receives through the Demographic Allocation is calculated using enrollment data and 2006 census data. Four factors include: Parentage of school-aged children in households with income below the low income cut-off (LICO) point Percentage of school-aged children who immigrated to Canada between 2001 and 2006 Percentage of the adult population having less than a high school diploma or equivalent Percentage of school-aged children in a household led by a single parent

What is the purpose of the LOG-DA? “The largest portion of LOG funding – $358.2million – is flowed through the Demographic Allocation, which provides funding based on social and economic indicators that are associated with students having a higher risk of academic difficulty. This allocation supports boards in offering a wide range of locally determined programs for these high risk students. Examples of programs include breakfast programs, homework clubs, reading recovery, and withdrawal for individualized support. Boards have considerable latitude in determining the type of program and support that they provide with this funding.” (pg. 66, MoE 2017-18 Technical Paper) This is directly from the Ministry of Education Technical Paper “The largest portion of LOG funding – $358.2million – is flowed through the Demographic Allocation, which provides funding based on social and economic indicators that are associated with students having a higher risk of academic difficulty. This allocation supports boards in offering a wide range of locally determined programs for these high risk students. Examples of programs include breakfast programs, homework clubs, reading recovery, and withdrawal for individualized support. Boards have considerable latitude in determining the type of program and support that they provide with this funding.” So, this seems quite straight forward, right?

So, how is the LOG-DA actually used? LOG-DA is not “sweatered” Expectation but not obligation Missing Opportunities: Report Programs directly targeting at-risk students: i.e. Model Schools for Inner Cities program When resources are distributed equitably based on need: i.e. Vice Principals Well, here’s the catch - The LOG-DA is not sweatered and therefore Boards are not required to spend it in any particular way Even though the funding is provided to Boards with a clear purpose and intention, this is an expectation but not an obligation Therefore Boards do not need to track or report on how these funds are spent It is very difficult for anyone, especially those who should be benefiting from these funds, to know how they are being used. (Maybe ask does anyone know how their board uses their LOG-DA funding?) Social Planning Toronto, through the Inner City Advisory Committee of the TDSB, advocated for the TDSB to provide detailed data that outlines expenditures that fall into these two categories. These two categories include programs directly targeting at-risk students and areas where resources are distributed equitably based on need. These two represent deliberate and transparent investments to support low-income and marginalized students who are at greater risk of academic challenges. Because of the relentless advocacy of ICAC members, the Board approved a motion and we obtained the data for these two types of expenditures. Using this lens we found that about half of the funds were being spent to support low-income and marginalized students. While there is some controversy around the correctness of our accounting, members of the ICAC felt it the most accurate estimation of utilization of the LOG-DA.

For Further Reading Social Planning Toronto - Missing Opportunities: How Budget Policies Continue to Leave Behind Low-Income Students People for Education - The Learning Opportunities Grant Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives - No Time for Complacency: Education Funding Reality Check Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives - Harris-era Hangovers: Toronto School Trustees’ Inherited Funding Shortfall The practice of diverting LOG funds across the province has also been noted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I encourage you to review these reports I mention here. People for Education’s 2017 Annual report also included a historical analysis of the LOG grant and how the whole grant has become increasingly dedicated to program specific funding and proposes that this has resulted in the devolution of the LOG from its intended purpose.

Issues at hand Chronic underfunding of the education system Accountability and transparency Evaluating impact So even though research has demonstrated that family income is one of the most powerful factors affecting student success, why isn’t the LOG-DA being spent on these students? Lack of provincial funding forces school boards to use the LOG-DA to balance other budget lines. School boards are required to produce a balanced budget and yet trustees are not given a lot of options: they cannot easily raise taxes or revenue on their own, and many of their costs are mandated by the province but not fully funded by the ministry. Lack of accountability and reporting mechanisms are also an issue. When the LOG was first developed in 1997, the expert panel did recommend including appropriate accountability requirements to communicate details of decisions made, programs funded and results achieved. Unfortunately, the provincial government chose not to put any mechanism in place to hold school boards accountable.

Poorer Outcomes for Low-income students extend beyond years in school, maintaining societal/class inequities “In Canada, only 31% of youth from the bottom income quartile attended postsecondary education compared with 50.2% in the top income quartile. The evidence indicates that students from low-income families are disadvantaged right through the education system to postsecondary training.” (Ferguson et al, 2007) The post-secondary and career choices available to students in non-academic pathways are limited, thereby reinforcing disadvantage and perpetuating inequalities. (Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1997). Learning opportunities grant: Panel report to minister of education and training.)

Societal Consequences of Growing Gaps in Public Education When mechanisms are put in place to ensure all students have equitable opportunities to succeed, schools become vehicles of social mobility and can play a significant role in disrupting social inequalities, including (intergenerational) poverty. And when mechanisms are not utilized, the opposite is true – social inequalities persist. The LOG not only provided a way to support early intervention and create targeted programming for children and youth deemed at-risk, but it also positioned redistributive equity as an important educational, social, and economic investment.                       (Expert Panel on the Learning Opportunities Grant) Yvonne Redistributive equity as an important educational, social and economic investment

Growing the Gap Results in Poorer Outcomes for all of us... However, LOG funding has deviated from original intent of the grant (redistributive equity) by focusing more on performance-driven initiatives. (People for Education - The LOG 2017) Neo-liberal Trends Worldwide: Growing emphasis on Individual Responsibility VS Collective Responsibility DIsadvantaged social groups are preoccupied with fighting to maintain existing social entitlements rather then for social justice or equity beyond that. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better (2009) highlights the "pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, and encouraging excessive consumption." Canada's income inequality is growing at a faster pace than even that of the US. Times have changed. Globalization of economic activities and fiscal austerity measures of neo-liberal governments have weakened organized labour and led to a general preoccupation of disadvantaged social groups with the fight to maintain existing social entitlements rather than for social justice beyond them. These times will only be changed significantly for the better if such groups can be mobilized to fight for progressive change. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better was published in 2009. Written by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson. - It shows that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.

Interrogating the Context that Surrounds the Learning Opportunity Grants Questions for Consideration in Small Groups What are the barriers to allocating funding equitably? Possible reasons why targeted funding would not be used in the way intended. Pushback from stakeholders re: not spending LOG funds as intended. Report Back from each Discussion (one person) Yvonne

Developing Strategy to Promote Increased Utilization of Learning Opportunities Grants Consider your Case Study Devise your Strategy Identify your issue Name the change that you want to see Identify your stakeholder group. Who do they respond to? Who are they responsible to? Develop a strategy for bringing about the change you want to see Present your strategy in the form of a pitch to the stakeholder group Sharma Now you are going to have the chance to devise your own strategies for addressing the diversion of LOG funds away from their original purpose. This is your chance to take off your educator, students, administration, hat and put on your strategic, policy, advocacy hat. We’ve prepared three case studies which look at the situation in York Region, Durham Region and Hamilton. Each case study has some information about the catholic and public school board as well as socio-demographic information for the region. In small groups, we’re asking you to review and discuss the circumstances and devise a strategy for promoting increased utilization of the LOG grant. I want to mention that these areas were not chosen because they are necessarily diverting funds, we really don’t know that, but rather because of the expected participants at this session. We’ve outlined a few steps here to get you started in developing a strategy. Identify your issue: In your own words, specify the issue at hand. Name the change you want to see: Then consider your stakeholder group. Identify who would be the target of your strategy and what they would respond to. Finally, develop a strategy for bringing about the change you want to see. When your done, we’ll come back as a group and ask you to present your strategy in the form of the pitch to the stakeholder group. Present your ask and your argument to support it.

Report Back from Small Group Strategy Sessions Stakeholder Groups Report Back Common Themes and Strategies Questions and Answers Reveal of the Mystery Phrases and Winners Sharma and Yvonne

Feedback Form We value your input! Please be sure to complete the feedback from that you will find on WHOVA. THANK YOU!