A global city school system’s structures, processes, and student outcomes

policycontexts,weprovideasnapshotofhowoneofNorthAmerica’slargestschoolsystemsworksinwaysthatsimultaneouslyreinforce,andchallenge,patternsofacademicstratification.Althoughschoolinginsomeglobalcitiesisshapedbydecentralization,competition,anda‘schoolreformindustry’,publiceducationinTorontoisverymuchcharacterizedbycentralizationandincreasedpublicinvestment.Therefore,thispaperquerieswhethertheselargerhistoricalandstructuralfactorsleadtogreaterequityforracializedandminoritizedcommunities.Throughtheinfusionofequity-focusedpoliciesandanti-discrimination-centredinterventions,canthecasebemadethatmarginalizedgroupsarenavigatingtheschoolsystemwithgreatersuccess?ReviewinghistoricalandrecentdatafromtheTorontoBoardofEducationandTDSB,wereflectonandquerytheextentofdisparitythatcontinuestoexist,problematizingthedisconnectbetweenpolicyandaddressingtherootcausesofinequality.

To the extent that discussions concerning equitable outcomes within theTDSB focus on system responsibility (as compared to resorts to the terminology of'victimization'), key discoursesoftenidentifysystemicchallengesembeddedwithinaspectsofcurriculum,pedagogical approaches,andstructuralbarriers,disproportionatelyaffectingspecificracializedandhistorically marginalizedgroupsofstudents.Employingoutcomeindicators,suchasstreaminginsecondary school,specialeducationenrolment,graduationrates,andpost-secondaryaccess,weareable to create a replicable profile of similar stratifications unique to the global city. In addition to identifyingsystembarriers,wewillalsohighlightsomeofthedistinctiveinterventionstheTDSB hasimplementedinitsattempttoaddresstheobservedinequities,andtodiscusstheiroutcomes inthatregard.Ourpurposeforthispaperistoexaminemorecloselythestructuralfeatures oftheTDSBinrelationshiptoidentifiedinitiativesaimingtoreduceinequitiesacrossstudent communities. Our work is different from many recent examinations of Ontario schooling, whichhavetendedtocomefromthoseworkinginpartnershipwithhigherlevelsofeducation governance.

The TDSB in its provincial context
Inthispaperwepresentarangeofdatafromthe TorontoDistrictSchoolBoardthatdemonstrate demographicpatternsineducationalopportunity.Thechancetoachievesuccessisnotrandomly distributedamongthestudentsintheschooldistrict.Partofunderstandinghowthisdistribution happens requires understanding the policy and governance contexts within which theTDSB operates.
Also, it would be an oversimplification to say that school districts in Ontario operate in uniformly'tightly-coupled' systems of command and control.Although many goals are set centrally,thepathtoachievingthosegoalsisnotprescribed.Forexample,andmostrelevant to this paper, the Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy of the Ministry states that'recent immigrants, children from low-income families,Aboriginal students, boys, and students with specialeducationneedsarejustsomeofthegroupsthatmaybeatriskoflowerachievement' (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009: 5), but does not prescribe (or evaluate) how a school district should identify and ameliorate these problems (Flessa, 2014). Similarly, First Nations, Métis,andInuit,aswellasparentalengagement,policiesassertprovincialaspirationsforinclusion butprovidefewinducementsormechanismsforensuringcommitmenttothestatedgoals.

Historical comparisons of demographic characteristics across academic streams
ThecollectionofdemographicdatahasalonghistoryintheTDSBaswellasinitspredecessor board,theTBE.DatapulledfromtheEveryStudentSurveywerefirstpubliclyreleasedin1969by researcherE.N.Wright (Wright,1970).In1976,acomparativestudywasreleasedbyDeosaran andWrightinwhichtheyoutlinedtrendsaroundacademicprogrammeplacementandstudent demographics.Akeyfocusoftheirreportwasthedistributionofstudentswhosefirstlanguage was other than English, students new to Canada, and students' socio-economic class across academic programmes.While the structure of the secondary system has evolved since 1970, comparisonsinrelationtorepresentationarepossible (DeosaranandWright,1976).

Specialist High Skills Major programmes
Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM) programmes are relatively new initiatives created by the MinistryofEducation.Theyarededicatedtoreachingandengagingstudentswhoareperceived to be at-risk for leaving school early or not reaching graduation.The Ontario Ministry of Education has approved the SHSM programmes and has earmarked provincial funding to supporttheimplementation.Eachprogrammehasasetofcreditrequirementsandincludesthe followingareasofspecialization:artandculture;aviationandaerospace;business;construction; energy;environment;healthandwellness;horticultureandlandscaping;hospitalityandtourism; informationandcommunicationtechnology;justice,communitysafety,andemergencyservices; manufacturing; non-profit; sports; and transportation (TDSB, 2013c).As compared to French Immersion and Gifted programming, students enrolled in SHSM programmes encounter far greaterbarriersinnavigatingtheeducationsystem.Justoverhalfofstudents(53.8percent) enrolledinSHSMprogrammestakethemajorityoftheircoursesattheAcademiclevel,46.2per centgraduatedontime,and2.2percentconfirmedanoffertoanOntariouniversityfollowing graduation. Students in SHSM programmes were 1.7 times as likely to self-identify as Black and were much more likely to speak English, Spanish, or Portuguese. Parents of students in SHSMprogrammeswereonlytwothirdsaslikelytohavegonetouniversityortobeemployed as a professional and just over a quarter as likely (0.27) to earn income within the highest incomedecileascomparedtotheboardaverage.AscomparedtoFrenchImmersionandGifted programming, SHSM programmes underscore streaming through the appearance of student choice.Guidedtowardsinequitableoutcomes,theSHSMcreatesasegregatedspaceforalready marginalizedstudents.

Alternative schools
Therearecurrently22secondaryalternativeschoolsinthe TDSB (Parekh,2014).Eachalternative schoolisunique,withadistinctidentityandapproachtocurriculumdelivery.Theyusuallyfeature a small student population, a commitment to innovative and experimental programmes, and volunteer commitment from parents/guardians and other community members. While the schoolsofferMinistry-approvedcourses,thesecoursesaredeliveredinalearningenvironment thatisflexibleandmeetstheneedsofindividualstudents.Unlikemanyoftheotherprogrammes reviewed in this paper, alternative schools cater to a much more diverse student population.

Description/discussion of selected board-wide TDSB programmes
While this paper has outlined historical and current evidence of structural inequity across secondary pathways and programmes, the TDSB seeks opportunities to incorporate tools and implement programming to address and support historically marginalized communities. The TDSB's mission statement includes a commitment and valuation of diversity, equity, and accessibility (TDSB, 2016).As a reflection of this commitment, a number of board-wide programmesandinitiativeshavebeenimplemented,targetingdiversecommunitiesofstudents. BelowisasampleofprogrammesimplementedbytheTDSBinanattempttoaddressvarious aspectsofequityandtargetpopulationswhohaveexperiencedhistoricalmarginalization.

Model Schools for Inner Cities
ModelSchoolsforInnerCities(MSIC)isaprogrammethataimstoprovidegreaterresources for students living in high-needs neighbourhoods. Established in 2005, seven model schools were identified from across the board, largely selected based on the level of neighbourhood challengeasdeterminedbytheLOIaswellasondemonstratedleadershipandpraxis.Investing $25 million into the MSIC initiative, the programme established its 'Essential Components for Change' -a package of philosophical and pedagogical approaches critical to reducing the opportunitygap.Drivenbycommitmentstoequity,community,inclusivity,andhighexpectations for all students, the five essential components guiding MSIC praxis were:'Innovative teaching and learning practices; Support services to meet social, emotional and physical well-being of students;Schoolastheheartofthecommunity;Research,reviewandevaluationofstudentsand programs;andCommitmenttosharesuccessfulpractice'(TDSB,n.d.:1).Aninternalevaluation oftheprogrammeafteritsinitialthreeyearsdemonstratednotablesuccessintermsofstudent achievement,studentattendance,schoolreadiness,andstudentclimate.Withincreasedfunding distributedacrosstheseveninitialMSICsites,furtherinitiativesweredevelopedwithinthose schools,includinghearingandvisionscreeningservices,opportunitiesforparentengagementand community partnerships, nutrition and after-school programmes, specialized staff deployment (for instance, teaching and learning coaches, lead teachers, community support workers), and adopting a curriculum that embraced a social justice lens (TDSB, n.d.). Given the reported successesoftheMSICinitiative,ithasbeenexpandedto150schoolsacrosstheTDSB(TDSB, 2014c).