To download a PDF of the report, please click here. For the Appendix, click here.

To catch up on the 2012 City Budget process, Click here.

Poverty is a reality lived by a growing number of Ontarians. In Toronto the number of poor is increasing, while income polarization between the rich and the poor grows (Hulchanski, 2007). For Toronto’s children the situation is dire. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is the child poverty capital of Ontario: 50% of Ontario’s children in poverty now live in the GTA, up from 44% in 1997 (Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2008).

Education in Ontario is considered a ‘great equalizer’, and our public system is meant to provide all our students with equal access to top quality education. Yet, when the Conservative government introduced the funding formula in 1998 Ontario schools faced an unprecedented challenge in matching their school budgets to educational requirements. Schools began to intensify the charging of fees and fundraising to subsidize their operations. This practice, subsequently institutionalized by the Ministry of Education, has led to deep inequities in opportunities and outcomes across the system, between students who could pay and those who could not, and between schools that could raise funds and those that could not.

In 2010 the Ministry of Education initiated a review of their guidelines for fees for learning materials and activities, fundraising and corporate partnerships. The Fees for Learning Materials and Activities Guideline, followed by the release of draft Fundraising Guideline was released by the Ministry in spring 2011. The fees guideline defines student activity fees, enhanced programming fees and specialized programming fees as voluntary amounts paid by students. Fees are meant to enhance a student’s school experience by covering the cost for materials and activities, enrichment or upgrades to materials and programs beyond the core curriculum (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2011a). Fundraising is defined as the raising of money or other resources for external charities, field trips, student activities and resources, and capital assets. These activities are supported by the parent council, with administrative support for collection provided by school staff (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2011b).

The new guideline addresses some of the confusion that surrounds the charging and allocation of school-generated funds. They do not, however, address the perpetuation of inequities and the overall underfunding of our public system that has led to this reliance on private money to subsidize Ontario students’ education. As Canadian politician, George Brown, knew in the 1850’s: “Schools for the poor will be poor schools”.

School fees and fundraising activities create unequal opportunities for students in schools and between schools, and make our public school system less inclusive and accessible. Marginalized students suffer. The amount of money entering school boards through grants meant to assist vulnerable students, such as the Learning Opportunities Grant, is often used to balance budget shortfalls across the system. Meanwhile, private money entering schools through fees and fundraising is kept in the schools that raise the money.

Our report examines inequities across the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). In our analysis of data obtained by the response to a Toronto Star Freedom of Information request on school-generated funds (Winsa and Rushowy, 2011) and data released by the TDSB, we discovered that fees and fundraising amounts in the TDSB vary significantly by socio-economic variables and geographic location. The schools where students are most likely to have the lowest socio-economic status generated far less in school-generated funds than the wealthier schools, while wealthier schools charged higher fees than poorer schools. While this means students who can least afford to pay are charged less, they do not have access to the same experiences as their peers, perpetuating inequities in student opportunities and outcomes across our public school system.

Key Findings:

• Over three years the 20 least marginalized primary schools fundraised 36 times the funds than the most marginalized 20 schools: $249,362.51 per school compared to $6,922.98 per school.
• While secondary schools are more reliant on fees, over three years the wealthiest 20 secondary schools fundraised 920 times more money than the poorest 20 schools in Toronto: $33,653 per school compared to $36.56 per school.
• Through fees and fundraising, the most marginalized 20% of the schools in the system raise less than 1/3 of the funds that the least marginalized 20% of schools raise. The difference is the same for both primary and secondary schools.
• The schools generating the most funds are located in wealthier neighbourhoods, while the schools generating the least funds are in poorer neighbourhoods.
• There are approximately 30 schools in the city that have another income source through private foundations. This income stream is outside of the school board’s purview so there is no way to monitor or assess their additional funding impact.

We asked parents and students to tell their stories about their experiences with fundraising and fees in TDSB schools. Their experiences tell the very real story of opportunity gaps that exist for students attending schools that do not benefit from fundraising and/or are not able to pay school fees.

Students, parents and community members express concern about:

• The financial burden of fees and fundraising on families;
• The stigmatizing effect of disclosing one’s inability to pay fees or contribute to fundraising efforts;
• The need for greater accountability and transparency in fee and fundraising initiatives;
• The gap that results from inequities of opportunity between students who can pay fees and those who cannot, and between schools that can fundraise and those that cannot; and
• The government not taking its responsibility to properly fund the education system.

“The public school system has become multi-tiered. In affluent neighbourhoods, the school can offer an enriched learning experience with better classroom equipment, better fitness facilities, and more field trips. In poorer neighbourhoods those opportunities would not be available. In a public school system, is it acceptable to offer the children in Forest Hill a better education than those of Jane and Finch?”

To achieve equality across the system school budgets must be enhanced, rather than continuing reliance on fees and fundraising which leads to inequitable opportunities and outcomes. Fees and fundraising cannot be used to subsidize school budgets.
Recommendations:

We recommend that the Ministry of Education

1. Fund the education system so that it is not necessary for schools to rely on fundraising, fees and corporate partnerships – private money – to finance our public education system.
2. Prohibit boards and schools from using any private money from any source to cover capital costs, staff, or materials required for student activities or resources for curriculum delivery.
3. Eliminate fundraising in schools beyond the raising of funds to donate to social justice causes outside the public system as it leads to inequitable opportunities and outcomes for students.
4. Establish a mechanism to ensure compliance with its policies regarding school fees and fundraising.
5. Create an “Equity in Education” grant that contains targeted and “sweatered” (protected) funding to offset all costs to address the aforementioned inequitable opportunities experienced by our most vulnerable student populations. (see footnotes 1&2)

We further recommend that the Ministry of Education and the Toronto District School Board -

1. Work collaboratively to keep a public database on all fees and fundraising on a school and system level.
2. Fund a vision for education, beyond targets for test scores and graduation rates that outlines what materials, activities and programs should be available at no extra charge to all students in every school in Ontario. This should include:

• Appropriate learning materials for all courses, including hands-on technology, arts, health, physical education and computer courses
• Access to extracurricular activities
• Participation in arts and sports programs.

Until the preceding recommendations are implemented, we recommend that the Toronto District School Board

1. Explore, through a consultation process, or implement, as per the TDSB’s fundraising policy, a centralized equity fund or subsidy program, in which fundraising efforts among all schools be pooled and equitably distributed to create a more transparent and equitable process of sharing funds between schools which have access to greater financial resources, and those which do not (i.e. Portland, Oregon model). This could include allowing all schools to retain a minimum base as well as ensuring that surpluses are shared for the match private giving with money from the Learning Opportunities Grant. Another example could be, the TDSB could explore the implementation of a formula to match private giving with money from the Learning Opportunities Grant.
2. Stop issuing charitable tax receipts for donations made to individual schools, and provide receipts for funds directed to a central equity fund thereby increasing equity, transparency and accountability.
3. Work collaboratively with parents and staff to create a sensitive and respectful process for students/families living in poverty to indicate hardship, so that students do not self-select out of activities, which their families cannot afford.
4. Ensure that all students and parents know that all fees and fundraising campaigns are voluntary and that all fees and fundraising requests from schools clearly state, multilingually, where appropriate, that, “ALL FEES AND FUNDRAISING REQUESTS ARE VOLUNTARY”.
5. Ensure that all goods and services purchased for use by a school from monies received through fees and fundraising, donations, and charitable foundations be reported to the TDSB giving a full and complete picture of the programs and opportunities that are made available to students attending each school.
6. Release an annual report on school-generated funds to improve transparency.

A report released on July 5, 2011 by Social Planning Toronto and the SPACE Coalition (Saving Public Access to Community Space Everywhere) entitled Another Winter, Another Spring: Toronto Youth Speak Out about Space reveals the importance of youth having access to public space and identifies continuing barriers that youth face when they attempt to access space.

Click here to read the full report.

“The importance of belonging is a fundamental need for all of us,” says Irwin Elman, Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, “We know that safe spaces are crucial in meeting that need for young people. I am troubled by the lack of access to these spaces in Toronto and across the Province.”

Youth use space in a number of ways. Space is critical to the development of youth-led enterprises and to run extracurricular activities. It is where young people can spend time with friends, develop skills or access services. It is used to nurture artistic creativity and innovation.

“It all begins with space – you can’t run programs, start businesses or spend time with friends without an accessible, welcoming and affordable space. The provincial government’s commitment to community access to schools has made great improvements in allowing community groups to use space in schools,” says Susan Fletcher, Chair of the SPACE Coalition. “However, youth in our communities continue to experience particular challenges in accessing space in schools, recreation centres and other community facilities.”

Policies, procedures and attitudes directed toward young people and access to space directly impact how “welcome” or “safe” youth feel, as well as what they are capable of creating. The SPACE Coalition report includes a number of recommendations aimed at improving these access issues facing so many young people.  Solving this problem will require leadership at the provincial and municipal levels and will also require listening and engaging with youth advisors to ensure that community space is opened up to enhance their opportunities for growth and development.

“While the many benefits that result from community use of public spaces are well documented, youth organizations struggle to access affordable space to create environments where they feel included,” says John Campey, Executive Director of Social Planning Toronto. “Yet when you do invest in young people and space the possibilities of what they can create are extraordinary.”

For more information please contact:

Susan Fletcher, SPACE Coalition & Executive Director, Applegrove Community Complex

416-461-8143 or susan@applegrovecc.ca

Javid, Program Coordinator, LOFT Youth Centre for Social Enterprise & Innovation

416-534-8941 x 28 or javid@conc.ca

John Campey, Executive Director, Social Planning Toronto,

416-351-0095-260 or jcampey@socialplanningtoronto.org

Keddone Dias, Youth Program Supervisor, Rathburn Area Youth,

416-626-6068 or keddoned@lampchc.org

Irwin Elman, Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth,

416-325-5669 or irwin.elman@provincialadvocate.on.ca