Equitable Allocation Through a New Funding Model for Student Transportation in Ontario

Transcription

1 Equitable Allocation Through a New Funding Model for Student Transportation in Ontario DISCUSSION PAPER Consultation Refining the Model Introduced in

2 in Ontario TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 2 Background... 2 Moving Forward... 3 Objectives of Developing a New Funding Approach... 3 Funding for Principles Guiding the Development of a New Model... 5 Addressing Local Circumstances... 5 A Need-Based Model... 6 Funding Model Components General Transportation... 7 Home-to-School Distance... 7 Additional Adjustments... 8 Student Dispersion... 9 Concentration of Students... 9 Proximity of Other Schools Traffic Conditions Terrain Dead-End Road Distance Snowfall Temperature Composite Adjustment Index Allocations for General Transportation, Mobility Accessible Transportation Needs Special Education Transportation Needs Other Special Transportation Needs Transportation to Provincial Schools Unique Transportation Services Needs Board and Lodging Safety Programs Local Hazards Local Priorities Administration Simulations of Board Allocations Phasing In the New Funding Model in Projected Transportation Allocations, Consortia Consultation Process Appendix A Home-to-School Distances for Boards in the New Funding Model Appendix B Enrolment, Home-to-School Distances and Student Kilometres, by Panels and Board Site Appendix C Adjustment Tables Appendix D Simulated Allocation Tables

3 in Ontario INTRODUCTION The Ministry of Education is committed to working with school boards to provide the best possible learning environment for our students. A large part of this commitment is ensuring that our students arrive at school safe and ready to learn. Transportation of students requires careful and responsible planning at the school board level. No two boards are identical in terms of how they deliver this important service, which means that funding provided to school boards must reflect the diversity of challenges boards face as they work to offer effective and efficient service to their students. This paper will outline details of a new funding model for student transportation in Ontario. It is intended to initiate a discussion around the details of the new model that will be introduced this year, to ensure that stakeholders have opportunities to provide input as we move toward full implementation of a new way of funding. The government s intention is to test this model with school boards in , while allowing for a full consultation during that time on each component. Details have been shared with school boards, primarily through the Transportation Review Committee, and the consultation process has begun. The ministry s intention is to refine the funding model in , taking into account advice obtained through these consultations. BACKGROUND The Transportation Grant provides school boards with funding primarily to meet the costs of transporting students from home to school, including students with special needs. During the school year, a new education funding model was introduced. At that time, a decision was made to hold funding for transportation steady on an interim basis while the ministry worked to develop and implement a new funding approach. The interim funding was based on a per pupil amount, set at 1998 expenditure levels and adjusted each year since to reflect changes in enrolment. Funding enhancements were also provided since that time totalling about $70 million, which were largely intended to offset cost increases that were absorbed by school boards and bus operators. The Transportation Review Committee (TRC) was established to advise the ministry on the way in which student transportation funding should be allocated. This Committee is comprised of Ministry of Education staff, school board officials, school bus operators, and representatives from the Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ontario Parent Council, and the Minister s Advisory Committee on Special Education. The 2

4 in Ontario structure of the new funding model, announced in June 2003, was developed with input from the Transportation Review Committee. Since the freeze in allocations at levels, as well as during the development of this new model, the ministry has consistently heard that: transportation funding allocations were not equitable among school boards; local circumstances were not taken into account to reflect the diversity of transportation needs among Ontario s school boards; and the allocations did not reflect factors that impacted a board s ability to provide transportation to its students, but that were beyond its control. The work detailed in this paper begins to address these issues and proposes a plan to move forward by commencing the implementation of a new funding model for transportation. MOVING FORWARD A new formula has been developed to recognize the different needs boards face in providing transportation services to their students. This new model also recognizes factors beyond the control of school boards that affect their ability to provide this service. As well, the model addresses the cost of providing special needs transportation services. Objectives supporting the development of a new approach to funding student transportation in Ontario: Provide sufficient funds to ensure reasonable service Allocate funding equitably Recognize differences in need, and address factors beyond the control of boards Encourage school boards to work together to achieve efficiencies The introduction of this model will begin in This is intended as a starting point in the transition to new funding levels. Over the next several months the Ministry of Education will consult with the Transportation Review Committee and other education partners to ensure that factors that impact student transportation are reflected in the new model and that adjustment parameters are reasonable and fair. Recommendations developed through this consultation process will be considered for implementation in the grants for and beyond. 3

5 in Ontario If the consultation process does result in changes to any of the funding parameters being implemented effective (or subsequent years), projections outlined in this paper will be misleading. Boards may wish to defer making any major decisions which may significantly impact their expenditures on student transportation until the results of that consultation are made available. Funding for The government is committed to stability in the education sector. To provide for a responsible introduction of this new funding approach, and to ensure stability in the system, board allocations under the new funding model will be phased-in. Funding for student transportation will not be reduced for boards if the application of the new formula results in an allocation which was less than the amount received in Similarly, in recognition that additional consultation is required before funding parameters are finalized, percentage increases will be capped for boards projected to receive increases in funding under the new model, as illustrated in the table below. As announced by the Minister, benchmarks used to calculate various components in the Education Funding Model have been increased to keep up with recent cost increases. As a result, all boards will receive a 2% increase in funding for student transportation in in addition to the amounts they are entitled to receive as a result of phasing in the new model. It is estimated that the Student Transportation Grant will total $684.7 M in , which represents an increase of $33.5 M or 5.1% over funding levels. Comparison of Application of New Model with Allocation Phase In Allocation Benchmark Adjustment Total Change in Funding for Student Transportation Increase of greater than 30% 10.0 % 2.0% 12.0% Increase of greater than 15% and less than or equal to 30% Increase of greater than 2.5% and less than or equal to 15% Increase of less than or equal to 2.5% (i.e. x%) 5.0% 2.0% 7.0% 2.5% 2.0% 4.5% x% 2.0% x+2% Decrease 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% During the consultation period, the ministry will seek advice on this phase-in strategy, and consider refinements for and beyond. 4

6 in Ontario Principles guiding the development of a new model School boards should be responsible for: All decisions related to the provision of student transportation; and Ensuring that safe transportation services are provided efficiently and effectively. The Ministry of Education should be responsible for: Providing adequate resources to enable school boards to address student transportation needs in their jurisdictions; and Providing school boards with appropriate flexibility to enable them to do so efficiently and effectively; and Monitoring board activities to ensure appropriate accountability for taxpayers dollars; and Making available to boards easy methods of sharing best practices and information, and encouraging partnering. ADDRESSING LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES Underlying the development of the funding model was the desire to ensure that: Coterminous boards are treated in the same way with respect to common local circumstances; and Different local circumstances are reflected for boards serving different parts of the province. In addressing local circumstances, it was also recognized that school board boundaries do not overlap perfectly. For example, the jurisdiction of Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board covers two English public boards, the Peel District School Board (in Peel Region) and Upper Grand District School Board (in Dufferin County). Therefore, it has the potential to be involved in two transportation partnerships. The jurisdiction served by many French language boards covers territory served by a number of English boards. CSD Centre Sud-Ouest, for example, provides transportation services in 13 different sites. To take this into account in the design of the new model, the province was divided into sites, illustrating the areas where boards overlap. There are 35 sites and each has a unique combination of four overlapping school boards (English Public, English Catholic, French Public, and French Catholic). 5

7 in Ontario In the analysis undertaken the portion of a board contained within a site has been referred to as a board site. In total 138 board sites with operating schools have been identified. An illustration is provided below. A NEED-BASED MODEL Under the new model, a board s transportation grant is calculated using the following basic formula that was announced in June 2003: Funding = (Need x Cost) + Adjustments Separate formulae have been developed for eleven separate components to appropriately recognize the differences in needs faced by individual boards across the province. 6

8 in Ontario FUNDING MODEL COMPONENTS FUNDING MODEL COMPONENTS 1. General Transportation 2. Mobility Accessible Transportation 3. Special Education Transportation 4. Other Special Transportation Needs 5. Transportation to Provincial Schools 6. Unique Transportation Services 7. Board and Lodging 8. Safety Programs 9. Local Hazards 10. Local Priorities 11. Administration 1. GENERAL TRANSPORTATION General transportation services are necessary because of the distance students live from their schools. For the most part, students making use of these services can ride a regular bus and walk to a group stop. Home-to-school distance of all students has therefore been adopted as a measure to assess differences in general transportation need. Home-to-School Distance Home-to-school distance (the shortest distance by road from a student s home to the school he or she attended in ) was measured for each student by school boards using digital maps and GIS-based student transportation management software. These calculations included students living outside the boundaries of the board s jurisdiction. The data submitted by boards was reviewed carefully by Ministry staff for reasonableness. Follow-up actions were taken with board staff when there were data issues and discrepancies. Records with home-to-school distance of over 100 km were normalized to board averages. As well, distance calculations were normalized to the student counts as reported in financial statements. Ministry staff are satisfied that home-to-school distances used in this analysis reasonably reflect the magnitude of the challenge boards face in providing transportation. Data for each school within a board site 1 was aggregated, and grouped into distance ranges to facilitate analysis. Student kilometres were weighted at 1 The province was divided into sites, illustrating the areas where boards overlap. There are 35 sites and each has a unique combination of four overlapping school boards (English Public, English Catholic, French Public, and French 7

9 in Ontario each distance range, to take into account the fact that many students can and do walk to school and therefore do not require transportation services; and the fact that the logistics in providing transportation become more difficult the further the students live from their schools. The data collection process is detailed in Appendix A. A summary of the weighting factors applied to the aggregate student kilometres for each board site is provided in the following table. Weighting Factors Applied to Aggregate Student Kilometres Distance from School Elementary Secondary Less than 1 km Between 1 km and 3 km Between 3 km and 5 km Between 5 km and 10 km Between 10 km and 20 km More than 20 km The appropriateness of these weighting factors will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes to these weighting factors may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Appendix B summarizes the distribution of elementary and secondary enrolment and aggregate home-to-school distances for each board site, as reported by each board, normalized and as validated by Ministry staff. In addition, Appendix B also illustrates how the number of weighted student kilometres was calculated for each board site based on the weighting factors shown above. Additional Adjustments Although boards may have similar - or possibly identical - student kilometre figures, that should not automatically translate into identical funding, as each board faces different conditions that are beyond its control in providing transportation services. These factors reflect differences in the location of a board s students and schools; differences in road networks; and climatic differences. The following factors were incorporated into the funding model: Catholic). In the analysis undertaken the portion of a board contained within a site has been referred to as a board site. In total 138 board sites with operating schools have been identified. 8

10 in Ontario Differences in student dispersion (i.e. where students live relative to a board s schools) Differences in student concentration (i.e. where students live relative to each other) Differences in proximity of other schools Differences in traffic conditions Differences in terrain Differences in dead-end road distance Differences in snowfall Differences in temperature During the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months, this list will be examined to determine if any of these factors should be excluded from the calculation of grants for student transportation in , and if so, why. It is also possible that the consultation process will identify other factors which also should be considered in determining grants for student transportation beginning next year. In addition, through this consultation process, the assumptions made in determining specific adjustments for each of these factors will be examined. Adjustments applied in the calculation of transportation grants will take into account the advice obtained through that process. Student Dispersion Everything else being equal, the challenges in providing transportation services will be greater for boards with a widely dispersed student body. Buses must travel further distances between students resulting in longer runs and/or lower loading factors. The Standard Distance Deviation (SDD) is a commonly used geographic factor used to measure differences in dispersion. The SDD for a school is equivalent to the radius of a circle in which two-thirds of the school s students would live. The larger the circle, the more challenging it becomes to provide transportation. Individual SDD s were calculated for each school in the province based on the data provided by school boards in support of their calculation of home-to-school distance. An SDD for each board site was calculated by averaging the SDD for each of the board s schools within the site. For , an adjustment factor of 110% has been applied to the weighted student kilometres for each board site with an SDD of more than 10; an index value of 100% (equivalent to no adjustment) was applied for board sites with an SDD of less than 2.5; and intermediate values were applied for board sites with and SDD of between 2.5 and 10. A summary of the SDDs and the related 9

11 in Ontario adjustment factor for each of the 138 board sites in the province is provided in Table C-1 of Appendix C. Concentration of Students Everything else being equal, the challenges in providing transportation services will be reduced for boards whose students are concentrated in clusters. As concentration is higher, it permits common bus stops for several students and therefore, a greater probability that a bus may be used for multiple runs. A measure of student concentration has been made for each board site. This factor represents the number of pupils of the board per kilometer of road attending schools within the board site. For , an adjustment factor of 110% has been applied to the weighted student kilometres for each board site with fewer than 2 students per kilometre of road; an index value of 100% (equivalent to no adjustment) was applied for board sites with a more than 40 students per kilometre of road; and intermediate values were applied for board sites with between 2 and 40 students per kilometre of road. A summary of the number of students per road kilometre and the related adjustment factor for each of the 138 board sites in the province is provided in Table C-2 of Appendix C. Proximity of Other Schools The possibility of multiple bus runs (and hence reduced transportation costs per student kilometre) is likely greater for boards whose schools are closer together. A measure of the proximity of other schools for a board site was calculated by averaging the distance to the closest school for each of the board s schools within the site. For , an adjustment factor of 110% has been applied to the weighted student kilometres for each board site where the average distance to the nearest school was more than 10 kilometres; an index value of 100% (equivalent to no adjustment) was applied for board sites where the average distance to the nearest school was less than 0.73 km; and intermediate values were applied for board sites with where the average distance to the nearest school was between 0.73 and 10 kilometres. A summary of the average distance to the nearest school and the related adjustment factor for each of the 138 board sites in the province is provided in Table C-3 of Appendix C. Traffic Conditions The possibility of multiple bus runs (and hence reduced transportation costs per student kilometre) is reduced in areas with significant traffic congestion. Significant traffic on roads can also result in long ride times. The number of 10

12 in Ontario vehicle registrations per kilometre of road within a board site is a reasonable proxy measurement for traffic conditions. For , an adjustment factor of 110% has been applied to the weighted student kilometres for each board site with more than 200 vehicle registrations per kilometre of road; an index value of 100% (equivalent to no adjustment) was applied for board sites with a fewer than 35 vehicle registrations per kilometre of road; and intermediate values were applied for board sites with between 35 and 200 vehicle registrations per kilometre of road. A summary of the number of vehicle registrations per kilometre of road and the related adjustment factor for each of the 138 board sites in the province is provided in Table C-4. As indicated in that table the same parameters apply to all boards operating schools in the same site. [See Table C-4 of Appendix C.] Terrain The possibility of multiple bus runs (and hence reduced transportation costs per student kilometre) is reduced in hilly areas of the province. For safety reasons, average bus speeds will be slower in hilly areas of the province. GIS technology makes it possible to calculate the average slope for roads within each board site. For , an adjustment factor of 110% has been applied to the weighted student kilometres for each board site where the average slope is more than 4 degrees; an index value of 100% (equivalent to no adjustment) was applied for board sites where the average slope is less than 1 degree; and intermediate values were applied for board sites with between 1 and 4 degrees. A summary of the average slope and the related adjustment factor for each of the 138 board sites in the province is provided in Table C-5. As indicated in that table the same parameters apply to all boards operating schools in the same site. [See Table C- 5 of Appendix C.] Dead-End Road Distance The possibility of multiple bus runs (and hence reduced transportation costs per student kilometre) is reduced in areas of the province with a large number of long, dead-end roads. This issue is typically prevalent in lake districts. Buses have to travel considerable distances re-tracing their routes when picking up or dropping off students living on these roads. GIS technology makes it possible to identify and measure dead-end roads across the province. This information has been used to compute the total length of dead-end roads which are at least one kilometre long for each board site. 11

13 in Ontario For , an adjustment factor of 105% 2 has been applied to the weighted student kilometres for each board site with more than 500 kilometres of such roads; an index value of 100% (equivalent to no adjustment) was applied for board sites with a fewer than 100 kilometres of such roads; and intermediate values were applied for board sites with between 100 and 500 kilometres of such roads. A summary of the number of length of dead end roads which are at least one kilometre long and the related adjustment factor for each of the 138 board sites in the province is provided in Table C-6. As indicated in that table the same parameters apply to all boards operating schools in the same site. [See Table C- 6 of Appendix C.] Snowfall The possibility of multiple bus runs (and hence reduced transportation costs per student kilometre) is reduced in areas of the province which receive considerable amounts of snow. For safety reasons, average bus speeds will be reduced in snowy conditions. Climate Normal data (i.e. 30-year averages) is compiled by Environment Canada for 256 weather stations across Ontario. Average annual snowfall is one of the many variables for which data is available. Weather stations were located within board sites. A measure of average annual snowfall for each board site was obtained by taking a simple average of the measures for each of the weather stations within the board site. If no station existed in a board site then the nearest station reading was used. For , an adjustment factor of 105% 3 has been applied to the weighted student kilometres for each board site where average annual snowfall exceeded 250 centimetres; an index value of 100% (equivalent to no adjustment) was applied for board sites where average annual snowfall was less than 125 centimetres; and intermediate values were applied for board sites where average annual snowfall was between 125 and 250 centimetres. A summary of the average annual snowfall and the related adjustment factor for each of the 138 board sites in the province is provided in Table C-7. As indicated in that table the same parameters apply to all boards operating schools in the same site. [See Table C-7 of Appendix C.] 2 A maximum adjustment of 5 percent (rather than the 10 percent used for factors discussed previously) has been applied to this factor because a significant number of dead-end roads provide access only to industrial sites (e.g. logging camps and mines) or to cottages used only in summer months. There is no need for school buses to use these roads as no permanent residents would be using student transportation. 3 A maximum adjustment of 5 percent (rather than the 10 percent used for factors discussed previously) has been applied to this factor because snowfall impacts transportation for only half of the academic year. 12

14 in Ontario Temperature Boards serving colder parts of the province may require more buses in winter months, as walk distances and waiting times are reduced to minimize student exposure to cold temperatures. The average annual degree-days with temperatures below 0 C 4 is another of the Climate Normal variables that Environment Canada compiles for the 256 weather stations in Ontario. A measure of average annual degree days with temperatures below 0 C for each board site was obtained by taking a simple average of the measures for each of the weather stations within the board site. If no station existed in a board site then the nearest station reading was used. For , an adjustment factor of 105% 5 has been applied to the weighted student kilometres for each board site where the average number of degree days with temperatures below 0 C exceeded 1,800 6 ; an index value of 100% (equivalent to no adjustment) was applied for board sites where the average number of degree days with temperatures below 0 C was less than 600; and intermediate values were applied for board sites where the average number of degree days with temperatures below 0 C was between 600 and 1,800. A summary of the average number of degree days with temperatures below 0 C and the related adjustment factor for each of the 138 board sites in the province is provided in Table C-8. As indicated in that table the same parameters apply to all boards operating schools in the same site. [See Table C-8 of Appendix C.] Composite Adjustment Index A summary of the eight adjustment factors outlined above for each of the 138 board sites is provided in Table C-9 of Appendix C. These factors were multiplied together to obtain a board site-specific composite adjustment index for each board. The composite adjustment index was then applied to the total number of weighted student kilometres for the board site to calculate what is referred to as the number of adjusted weighted student kilometres. A Composite Adjustment Index for each board taken as a whole was derived by summing both the weighted student kilometres and the adjusted weighted student kilometres for all of the board s sites and dividing one by the other as illustrated below. 4 If the mean temperature on a given day was -5 C, the number of degree-days below 0 C would be five. 5 A maximum adjustment of 5 percent (rather than the 10 percent used for factors discussed previously) has been applied to this factor because colder temperatures impact transportation for only half of the academic year. 6 For the period between November 1and March 31, 1,800 degree days below 0 C represents an average daily temperature of about -12 C; 600 degree days below 0 C represents an average daily temperature of about -4 C. 13

15 in Ontario Board Site Site-Specific Composite Adjustment Index Student Kilometres Adjusted Student Kilometres A 123.4% 162, ,933 B 118.6% 113, ,886 TOTAL 121.4% 275, ,819 Documentation of the calculation of the Composite Adjustment Index for each board is provided in Tables C-10 and C-11 of Appendix C. Allocations for General Transportation, Before allocations for General Transportation may be calculated for one additional modification to the calculations is required to take into account changes in enrolment that have occurred since , the year for which home-to-school distances were measured. For , proportional increases to the number of adjusted weighted student kilometres will be made for boards whose enrolment in is greater than it was in No negative adjustments, however, will be made for boards whose enrolment has declined. 7 Allocations for General Transportation are determined by applying a standard cost factor to the adjusted weighted student kilometres of each board. For , a cost factor of $34 is used. The appropriateness of this cost factor and its relationship to other parameters used in the funding model will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes to this cost factor may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Boards serving Northern Ontario are also eligible to receive a premium in recognition of higher costs for such items as fuel, for example. For , this premium is 2.5 percent. 8 The appropriateness of this adjustment factor will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes to this factor may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Measuring home-to-school distance, while fairly straightforward for many boards, presented considerable challenges for boards in Northern Ontario where digital maps of the entire road network in their jurisdictions are not available. This problem is expected to be eliminated in the next few years as the Ministry of Natural Resources improves its information systems and makes fully geo-coded maps available to school boards through the Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange (OGDE). Until that time, the Ministry does not intend to ask school boards to update the calculations of home-to-school distance for their students. Similar processes as those for will be used to reflect the impact of enrolment changes in subsequent years. 8 Per Ontario Government policy adjustments to reflect higher costs in Northern Ontario also apply to the Muskoka region. Two school boards whose jurisdictions are primarily in Southern Ontario (Simcoe Muskoka Catholic DSB, Trillium Lakelands DSB) have schools in Muskoka. They are therefore eligible for the 2.5 percent adjustment for Northern boards for that part of their jurisdiction. 14

16 in Ontario French language boards are also eligible to receive a premium in recognition of the unique circumstances that they face, including difficulties in hiring drivers who can speak French and coordinating transportation services with a variety of partner boards. For , this premium is 20%. The appropriateness of this adjustment factor will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes to this factor may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Documentation of the calculation of each board s simulated allocation under the General Transportation component of the model, reflecting current projections of enrolment for are provided in Table D-1 of Appendix D. 2. MOBILITY ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS Many students require transportation in specialized vehicles, which can accommodate wheelchairs and provide access for students with mobility problems. For , allocations for this component of the transportation funding model will be determined as follows: boards will record the number of pupils of the board requiring transportation in such specialized vehicles in their audited financial statements as of October 31, 2004; each board will be entitled to an base allocation of $10,000 per student; the base allocations for each board will be multiplied by the Composite Adjustment Index for the board in recognition that the factors affecting routing and efficiency also apply; boards serving Northern Ontario are also eligible to receive a premium in recognition of higher costs. The Adjustment for Northern Boards factor applied under the General Transportation component of the model will also be applied in the calculation of the allocation under the Mobility Accessible Transportation Needs component of the funding model. The appropriateness of this approach and the magnitude of the base allocation per student will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in

17 in Ontario Documentation of the calculation of projections of each board s allocation under the Mobility Accessible Transportation component of the model for , based upon information provided by boards in the annual Student Transportation Survey, are provided in Table D-2 of Appendix D. 3. SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION NEEDS Specialized transportation services are required for students in self-contained and partially integrated special education classes and students enrolled in Care and Treatment programs (Section 20) which are delivered at a school of the board. These classes are often not located in schools closest to where the students live. Generally, these students must be picked up and dropped off at home and may require additional supervision. For , allocations for this component of the transportation funding model will be determined as follows: boards will record the number of pupils of the board for whom an Individual Education Plan (IEP) has been developed and who receive more than 50 percent of their instructional time in self-contained special education classrooms in their audited financial statements as of October 31, 2004; boards will also record the number of approved places reserved for Section 20 students in programs which are delivered in a school of the board; each board will be entitled to an base allocation of $1,000 per student; the base allocations for each board will be multiplied by the Composite Adjustment Index for the board in recognition that the factors affecting routing and efficiency also apply; boards serving Northern Ontario are also eligible to receive a premium in recognition of higher costs. The Adjustment for Northern Boards factor applied under the General Transportation component of the model will also be applied in the calculation of the allocation under the Special Education Transportation component of the funding model. The appropriateness of this approach and the magnitude of the base allocation per student will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Documentation of the calculation of projections of each board s allocation under the Special Education Transportation component of the model for are provided in Table D-3 of Appendix D. The information in this table is based upon 16

18 in Ontario data from either the September reports or board audited financial statements, and Section 20 approvals for OTHER SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS There is a very small number of students in Ontario schools who are not enrolled in special education programs, but who require special transportation services for a variety of reasons. For example, the student may not be able to safely walk to a bus stop on his or her own; the student may be disruptive on regular buses; the student s whereabouts are being kept confidential. The administrative burden associated with reporting and approving special allocations to cover the additional costs of providing transportation services to these students is prohibitive. Therefore, for , allocations for this component of the transportation funding model will be determined as follows: boards will apply a constant percentage factor of 0.5 percent to their total enrolment in their audited financial statements to obtain a proxy representing the number of students with special transportation needs; each board will be entitled to an base allocation of $1,000 for each of these proxy students ; the base allocations for each board will be multiplied by the Composite Adjustment Index for the board in recognition that the factors affecting routing and efficiency also apply; boards serving Northern Ontario are also eligible to receive a premium in recognition of higher costs. The Adjustment for Northern Boards factor applied under the General Transportation component of the model will also be applied in the calculation of the allocation under the Other Special Transportation Needs component of the funding model. The appropriateness of this approach and the magnitude of the base allocation per student will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Documentation of the calculation of projections of each board s allocation under the Other Special Transportation Needs component of the model for , based upon current projections of enrolment levels, are provided in Table D-4 of Appendix D. 17

19 in Ontario 5. TRANSPORTATION TO PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS District school boards provide transportation for exceptional pupils attending one of the eight provincial demonstration schools for the blind, deaf and deaf/blind and for severely learning disabled students. The board responsible for transporting the student is the board that the child has the right to attend. Funding to offset the costs of providing this transportation has historically been included in the calculation of funding allocations for student transportation. This practice will continue under the new funding model. Boards will continue to report expenditures, as approved by the Ministry, that they have made to provide transportation to and from Provincial Schools in their audited financial statements. In the coming months, the ministry will consult with school boards to explore the potential to achieve savings and efficiencies through greater collaboration. In , approximately $7.83 million was provided in support of transportation to provincial schools. Projections of board allocations for this component of the transportation funding model for summarized in Table D-5 of Appendix D reflect the board s expenditures increased by 2 percent. 6. UNIQUE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES NEEDS Some boards face unique situations in providing transportation services for their students in that transportation is provided in vehicles which do not travel on roads. For example, the Greater Essex DSB ferries students from Pelee Island to secondary schools in Kingsville (in winter months when the ferry is not running these student are flown to and from the island). Under the current funding model there is no explicit allocation to cover these costs. For , boards will report expenditures, as approved by the Ministry, that they have made to provide transportation services to students living on islands in vehicles that are not able to travel on roads and receive grants to cover these costs. The appropriateness of this approach will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in In , boards spent approximately $162,000 in the provision of unique (non-road) transportation services. Projections of board allocations for this 18

20 in Ontario component of the transportation funding model for summarized in Table D-6 of Appendix D reflect the board s expenditures increased by 2 percent. 7. BOARD AND LODGING In a number of cases, particularly in remote communities in Northern Ontario, secondary students and their parents agree that arranging for board and lodging to attend a school in a distant community because there is no closer secondary school to the student s home, is more desirable and cost effective than having transportation from their own home to and from the school on a daily basis. Currently, board and lodging is based on the 1997 expenditure level adjusted by enrolment changes. Consequently, if a district school board was provided funding at that time it continues to receive funding, adjusted for enrolment changes. For , boards will report the number of pupils of the board as of October 31, 2004, for which board and lodging arrangements have been made, and will receive, as approved by the Ministry, an allocation of $5,000 for each in respect of the associated costs. The appropriateness of this approach will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in In boards reported expenditures of $125,000 for Board and Lodging in the annual Student Transportation Survey. Projections of board allocations for this component of the transportation funding model for summarized in Table D-7 of Appendix D reflect the board s expenditures increased by 2 percent. 8. SAFETY PROGRAMS In December 2002, each board received an allocation of $2.00 per pupil to assist them to provide safety programs for their students and to assist school bus drivers to keep students safe (e.g. maintaining general discipline on buses and appropriate student behaviour at bus stops; dealing with allergic reactions and other medical emergencies). The explicit designation of an allocation for safety programs was lost in when this allocation was included in the overall funding base. For , the explicit allocation for safety programs will be reinstated. Boards will receive an amount equal to $2.00 per pupil for this purpose. 19

21 in Ontario The appropriateness of this approach will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Documentation of the calculation of projections of each board s allocation under the Safety Programs component of the model for , based upon current projections of enrolment levels, are provided in Table D-8 of Appendix D. 9. LOCAL HAZARDS The measurement of home-to-school distances used in calculating the General Transportation Needs component was based on the shortest road distance. These measurements were made using specialized software and digital maps. In reality, students may take different routes to avoid local hazards such as busy streets; highway / railway crossings; bridges over open water; and bears and other dangerous wildlife in proximity to bus stops in forested areas. The administrative burden associated with modifying the home-to-school measurements to take into account such hazardous conditions is prohibitive. Accordingly, under the new approach, each board will be provided with an allocation to enable them to modify the transportation services that they provide to take into account local hazards. For , allocations for this component of the transportation funding model will be equal to 5 percent of the General Transportation allocation. The appropriateness of this approach will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Projections of board allocations for this component of the transportation funding model for are summarized in Table D-9 of Appendix D. 10. LOCAL PRIORITIES The new model includes an explicit allocation which is intended to provide additional flexibility to enable school boards to respond to local needs by providing such services as: noon-hour transportation for Junior and Senior Kindergarten programs; 20

22 in Ontario late busing to facilitate extra-curricular activities or for students who require extra help after school. transportation to enable students to have a wider choice of curricula than might be available at their home school subsidies to cover the extraordinary costs of specialized wheelchair accessible vehicles for field trips; or enhanced service standards. For , allocations for this component of the transportation funding model will be equal to 5 percent of the General Transportation allocation. The appropriateness of this approach will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Projections of board allocations for this component of the transportation funding model for summarized in Table D-10 of Appendix D. 11. ADMINISTRATION The new transportation funding model incorporates a component to recognize the cost of administering a safe and efficient student transportation system, including: Planning and optimizing routes for general transportation to ensure efficiencies; Negotiating contracts with school bus operators; Communicating with parents regarding bus schedules, etc.; Making specialized arrangements for students requiring home pick up and drop off, e.g.: o Mobility accessible transportation; o Special program and other special needs students; Coordinating transportation services with other boards; Coordinating the delivery of safety programs; and Making arrangements for transportation of students to Provincial Schools For , the allocation for the Administration component of the transportation funding model to which each board will be entitled will be made up of two distinct parts: An allocation equal to 3% of the total allocation for direct and indirect transportation services (all of the components discussed above); and An allocation equal to $5,000 per board site in which it operates schools in recognition of the additional workload associated with coordinating transportation services in different board sites within its jurisdiction. 21

23 in Ontario The appropriateness of this approach will be examined in the consultation process to be conducted over the next several months. Depending upon the advice received through that process, changes may be made for purposes of calculating transportation grants in Projections of board allocations for this component of the transportation funding model for summarized in Table D-11 of Appendix D. SIMULATIONS OF BOARD ALLOCATIONS 9 Table D-12 of Appendix D provides a summary of projections of individual board allocations for each component of the new transportation funding model. If the consultation process to be carried out over the next several months recommends no changes to any of the funding parameters discussed above, this summary provides a good indication of the funding levels that boards might expect to receive (in dollars) for student transportation over the long term. If the consultation process does result in changes to any of the funding parameters being implemented effective (or subsequent years), projections outlined in this paper will be misleading. Boards may wish to defer making any major decisions which may significantly impact their expenditures on student transportation until the results of that consultation are made available. PHASING IN THE NEW FUNDING MODEL IN To provide for a responsible introduction of this new funding approach, and to ensure stability in the system, board allocations under the new funding model will be phased-in. Funding for student transportation will not be reduced for boards if the application of the new formula results in an allocation which was less than the amount received in Similarly, in recognition that additional consultation is required before funding parameters are finalized, percentage increases will be capped for boards projected to receive increases in funding under the new model, as illustrated in the table below. As announced by the Minister, benchmarks used to calculate various components in the Education Funding Model have been increased to keep up with recent cost increases. As a result, all boards will receive a 2% increase in funding for student transportation in in addition to the amounts they are entitled to receive as a result of phasing in the new model. It is estimated that 9 Under the new approach, boards will continue to receive an additional allowance for transportation included under the Learning Opportunities Grant for literacy and math remediation programs. These allowances are over and above the projections of board allocations discussed in this section. 22

24 in Ontario the Student Transportation Grant will total $684.7 M in , which represents an increase of $33.5 M or 5.1% over funding levels. Comparison of Application of New Model with Allocation Phase In Allocation Benchmark Adjustment Total Change in Funding for Student Transportation Increase of greater than 30% 10.0 % 2.0% 12.0% Increase of greater than 15% and less than or equal to 30% Increase of greater than 2.5% and less than or equal to 15% Increase of less than or equal to 2.5% (i.e. x%) 5.0% 2.0% 7.0% 2.5% 2.0% 4.5% x% 2.0% x+2% Decrease 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% Projected allocations for each board reflecting these phase-in provisions are summarized in Table 1. 23