Uncategorized

MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS – 27 January 2026 – PM.2026.01.27 Recommendation for Staff Presentations / Responses Previously Requested (Procedural Motion)

February 3, 2026

SUMMARY

This is a procedural motion that reiterates to the TDSB Interim Director of Education and Staff two requests made by the Consultation Working Group (WG), by way of their regular reports. 

The first was made on November 18th, 2025 requesting a response to questions from the wider parent community regarding special interest school admissions procedure. These questions were collected by Executive Superintendent Jack Nigro at the Consultations WG meeting on October 30th, 2025. 

The second was made on December 16, 2025 requesting that senior staff should prepare and deliver a timely and detailed 2026-2027 budget presentation to PIAC. The next opportunity to do this is at the next Consultation Working Group meeting on February 12th. Note that the December 16th request further follows a request made to Executive Officer of Finance Craig Snider by email correspondence from the WG co-lead on November 21, 2025. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the TDSB Interim Director of Education and Staff

(ii) The TDSB staff shall timely share written responses to each of the following questions collected by Executive Superintendent Jack Nigro on October 30, 2025 and subsequently requested by the Consultations WG:

Q: Regarding the requirement for the use of marks as a primary criterion for admission, how will students who are English-language learners with weak marks due to language barriers and/or newcomers without prior marks be evaluated?

Q: What is the rationale for using marks in arts and music when some elementary schools have limited or no capacity for arts and music instruction? 

Q: Did any arts-focused special interest schools review student marks prior to the implementation of the lottery? 

Q: For visual arts portfolios, how do we ensure submissions are not AI generated? How do we correct for socio-economic imbalances (i.e., between families who can afford professional digitalization of art pieces, vs. those who cannot?)

Q: If a student obtained the requisite 70% threshold in their marks, would he or she then be considered on equal footing as someone who scored a 90%? 

Q: If a student applies from a school outside the TDSB, will they be at any disadvantage in the evaluation process?  What if the grading systems are different?

Q: How many students from model schools applied and were admitted to CSIP under the lottery vs. before the lottery?  Similarly, when you have data for this year, will the Board share this info to help parents determine how the changes impact vulnerable populations?  What will the Board do to address inequities in this new process? 

Q: Who will be responsible for evaluating the arts auditions? Will individual schools have a say?

Q: For the students who obtained admission to a CSIP in the last three years under the lottery, will they still be allowed to stay at their school?  Will they receive any support to ensure they meet program expectations? 

(ii) The TDSB senior staff shall prepare a detailed budget report and present it to PIAC at the next Consultation WG meeting on February 12th.

This year’s budget presentation should include:

  • Current projections for student population and expected funding, projected surplus or deficit, and any options to balance.
  • Concerns regarding underutilization of buildings and potential savings that could be gained from long-term campus consolidation.
  • The supervisor and/or interim director’s priorities are for 2026-2027, especially in relation to aquatics, arts & music, and heritage language programs, as well as to the PIAC priorities enumerated in this letter: Motion for provincial budget consultation.docx
  • With reference to the linked article, please respond to the questions raised about additional funding from the province being one-time only, and if true, the impact for next year’s funding plan. 
  • Please also clarify the apparent under-spending on “pupil accommodations.” 
  • An update on the Auditor General of Ontario’s 15 recommendations to the TDSB, which were presented to members at the June 17th, 2025 meeting, including (per minutes):
    • “[D]etailed management responses” indicating the need for additional funding or regulatory changes.
    • Updates on efficiencies arising from the employee attendance support program.
    • The 5-Year Capital Plan
    • The Structural Deficit
    • The 8 recommendations that “require significant funding increases”
    • The 2 recommendations that “require both funding and regulatory changes.”
    • Any other salient reporting that would have been provided to the Audit Committee.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact resulting from the adoption of the recommendations in this report.

DECISION HISTORY

No direct decisions, however this request follows the spirit and intent of SP25.12.16 – Improving Clarity and Accountability in Communications Between PIAC and TDSB Staff.

COMMENTS

In the absence of trustees during provincial supervision, it is critical that the TDSB staff provide data to the public on matters of importance to student learning, achievement and well-being.

SPONSORS Co-SPONSORS

Sponsor:  Katrina Matheson, Co-Chair

Co-sponsors: Nicole Di Wu, Consultations WG Co-Lead

SIGNATURE

Katrina Matheson

Full Name – Katrina Matheson

Title of Official – Co-Chair

ATTACHMENTS

  1. Consultation WG Report – November 18, 2025
  2. Consultation WG Report – December 16, 2025
  3. Proposed Motion: CON.2026.01.27 Provincial Budget Consultation Statement from Co-Chairs
  4. Minutes, PIAC General Meeting – June 17, 2025
  5. Oatley, Gabe (2026, 7 Jan). TDSB posts $31M surplus in 2025. Toronto Today. Under supervision, TDSB posts $31 million surplus in 2025 – TorontoToday.ca. [Accessed: Jan 27, 2026]
  6. Passed Motion: SP25.12.16 – Improving Clarity and Accountability in Communications Between PIAC and TDSB

APPENDICES

None