The board administration grant is excluded in part because the enrolment-related multipliers are the same for ADE in both panels and, in part, because other metrics that give rise to the grant are unrelated to enrolment; The demographic component of the Learning Opportunities Grant is excluded because it is not related to any characteristic that could be identified with one or the other panel. Overall, the analysis allocates 96 per cent of the funding provided to one or the other panel. Summary of analysis ADE October 2016 1,358,289 592,521 Per student Elementary Secondary Differential Foundation 5,202.22 5,792.23 590.01 School Foundation 697.31 790.98 93.67 Special Education 1,507.58 1,160.91 -346.66 French Language 172.13 39.60 -132.53 ESL ELD PANA 117.64 123.88 6.25 ALF 51.49 36.86 -14.63 Supported Schools 28.37 54.64 26.27 Remote and 63.42 55.93 -7.50 New Teacher Induction 6.11 3.10 -3.01 ECE Qualifications and Experience 91.93 - -91.93 School Operations 904.11 1,226.94 322.83 Learning Opportunities 38.14 108.23 70.09 First Nations, Métis and Inuit 16.29 48.84 32.55 Safe Schools 1.52 24.52 23.00 SUBTOTAL 8,898.26 9,466.66 568.41 Continuing Education and Programs 19.56 136.07 116.51 Cost Adjustment and Teacher Q & E 823.01 1,189.71 366.70 ITEMIZED TOTAL 9,740.84 10,792.45 1,051.61 The data are sourced from the EFIS summaries as follows: Foundation – Section 01.1 -- Foundation Allocation School Foundation – Section 01.3 -- School Foundation Amount Special Education – Section 02 -- Special Education Allocation French Language – Section 03-1 -- French Language Allocation ESL ELD PANA – Section 03-2 -- English as a Second Language; English Literacy Development; Programme aux nouveaux arrivants Allocations ALF – Section 03-3 -- Actualization linguistique en français Supported Schools – Section 04 -- Supported Schools Allocation
number of specialties. In 2006-07, a more detailed breakdown of specialist teachers was introduced. In the data set prepared for the project, I have included the detail for specialist teachers for the period 2006-07 to 2015-16. I have included the “other teachers” data in the totals for the four main categories. As is the case with other aspects of the EFIS Appendix H data, it is not always clear that boards have prepared and entered the data on a consistent basis, either within a given year or over time. As a result, some caution should be exercised in using the data, with greater caution required as the data used becomes more granular. For comparison purposes, the summary data are expressed as ratios of students to teachers. The summary results are as follows: Including only teachers in the regular program, the elementary student/teacher ratio declined from 21.8 in 2002-03 to 19.2 in 2015-16 in public boards. The corresponding figures for the secondary regular program are 18.3 and 17.3. Including both regular program and special education program teachers, the elementary student/teacher ratio declined from 18.7 in 2002-03 to 16.8 in 2015-16. The corresponding figures for secondary are 17.0 and 15.5. Occasional teachers Although the EFIS system does not capture FTE data for supply (occasional) teachers, it does report expenditures on their wages and salaries on an annual basis, board by board. To put the data into perspective for comparative purposes, both over time and among boards, annual expenditures for elementary supply teachers from 2002-03 are expressed as a percentage of the Elementary Pupil Foundation Grant received by each board for that year. The grant is adjusted to consider the fact that in-school administration was transferred to the School Foundation Grant effective 2006-07. Over the period from 2002-03 to 2015-16, expenditures on elementary occasional teachers increased slightly, from 3.6 per cent of the Pupil Foundation Grant in 2002-03 to 4.0 per cent in 2015-16. In public boards, the pattern was almost the same – an increase from 3.6 per cent to 4.1 per cent. In general, the highest users of occasional teachers were rural Catholic boards, where ratios were typically in the five to 10 per cent range. The overall public board average was higher than the total for the province, largely because the Toronto District School Board’s expenditures were generally slightly above the average.
Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board -0.13 % -1.0 Keewatin-Patricia District School Board -0.27 % -2.2 Kenora Catholic District School Board -0.04 % -0.3 Lakehead District School Board -0.13 % -1.0 Lambton Kent District School Board 0.23 % 1.9 Limestone District School Board -0.42 % -3.5 London District Catholic School Board 0.25 % 2.0 Near North District School Board -0.17 % -1.4 Niagara Catholic District School Board 0.11 % 0.9 Sound Catholic District School Board -0.13 % -1.1