Childcare Feasibility Study Funding
Motion 2 · Special Board Meeting, April 20, 2026
Summary
- Proposed allocating up to $75,000 (from operating contingency) for a consultant-led feasibility study on VSB-operated, licensed school-age out-of-school care at multiple school sites.
- Study scope to include a district-wide family and employee survey, site assessment, staffing and labor considerations, equity analysis, enrollment prioritization for VSB staff, and cost/revenue estimates.
- An amendment by Trustee Fraser narrowed the initial scope to a streamlined feasibility study first, with surveys and enrollment prioritization as sequential follow-on steps, and extended the reporting timeline to the full 2026-27 school year; also added language requiring childcare to be high-quality, inclusive, affordable, and cost-neutral.
- An amendment by Trustee Mah added a requirement that any classroom spaces used for childcare include safe and secure storage for teachers' materials.
- A further amendment by the chair sought to require ministry funding before proceeding; this failed.
- An amendment by Trustee Fraser specified operating contingency as the funding source.
- A final amendment by Trustee Mah added a direction that the board ask the Ministry of Education and Child Care to reimburse the feasibility study cost upon completion.
- Debate touched on provincial downloading of childcare responsibilities, urgency of family need, recruitment and retention implications, and the risk of spending K-12 education funds on a non-mandated service.
Vote
Public comments
Read all 2 statements
Transcript
118 segments
Thanks, Chair. So I'll just read it from the screen, and it's on the package on page three. So I'd like to move that it be resolved that the VSB allocate $75,000 for consultant fees supplies, and miscellaneous costs to conduct a feasibility survey and study in consultation with employee groups on the planning, implementation, and costs of a VSB-operated pilot delivering licensed school-age child care, out-of-school care, at multiple school sites delivered where feasible by existing support staff with prioritized but not exclusive enrollment for current and prospective VSB employees. and aligned with provincial childcare BC expansion objectives. Be it further resolved that the feasibility work include a district-wide survey of VSP families and employees to identify unmet out of school care needs, including the identification of VSP staff requiring care, the assessment of potential school sites and available space, including multipurpose rooms and suitable classroom space, identifying staffing models and labor considerations within existing collective agreements and regulatory frameworks in consultation with employee groups, enrollment prioritization approaches for VSP employees, applying an equity lens, and estimated costs, revenues, and operational requirements of a multi-site pilot, including space upgrades and program materials and supplies, be it further resolved. that staff report back with an interim report by June, 2026 and final report by September 15th, 2026 on a baseline survey results and plan for one year follow-up survey, feasibility costs and proposed scale of a multi-site pilot, including potential number of space and sites, employee group interest and facility considerations and anticipated impacts on recruitment and retention of VSB staff.
Do I have a seconder? Trustee Ma, thank you. Trustee Redding, would you like to provide us with your rationale?
Yes. So also in the same agenda package on page four, I'll just read the whereas clauses to begin. So whereas the province of British Columbia has identified school-based child care expansion as a priority through Child Care BC and through the BC budget in 2026, which includes capital and operating funds for the expansion of child care on school grounds, whereas access to licensed school-age childcare remains insufficient to meet demand across the Vancouver School District, whereas many VSB employees experience barriers to securing reliable before and after school care for their children, whereas lack of accessible childcare affects employee recruitment, retention, and workforce stability in public education, whereas childcare responsibilities disproportionately affect employees with young families, particularly women and primary caregivers, And whereas school-based childcare programs delivered by qualified staff can expand access and support employee wellbeing. So I'm moving this motion as part of our budget and just note that it's supported by an open letter from parents with over a thousand signatures. It's responding to an increasing need for out of school care, not just for VSP staff, but for families and students that were already serving. So this motion is asking for the board to take an initial step respond to that need, which is growing daily and resulting in a crisis and stress level situation for families across the city.
Thank you. Thank you, Trustee Reddy. I appreciate you bringing a motion around childcare. It's important to our city. Trustee Fraser.
Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Trustee Reddy, for bringing forward this motion. And I would like to propose an amendment.
Kate, thank you. Would you mind walking us through what we see on the screen?
So the amendment moves that the key pieces are that the VSB allocate up to $75,000. It's a limit, not a prescribed amount. And then what I think is really important is defining the licensed childcare that would be operated by the VSB to be high quality, inclusive, affordable, and cost neutral. And then below the, then with some of the crossing outs and added words, the intent is to focus the work on the feasibility study. And then if the feasibility study is positive, then consider additional work. And then finally to change the timeline from a very short timeline of reporting back in June and then mid September, to have the June update, and then for the study to be complete in the 26-27 school year. So that's a summary of the amendment.
Is there a seconder? Thank you, Trustee Chen-Pedley. Please provide us with your rationale. Okay, thank you.
And as we know, childcare is so important in this city. We have heard from many people during this budget engagement and from many people for years before that about the difficulties families have in securing childcare and then how expensive it can be even if you get a space and then how disruptive it is to family life. My frustration is that the requirement or the need is so high, my frustration is that Provincial government is downloading this responsibility onto school districts. We have for many years been fully part of the process to get capital funds from the province to update our school-based childcare. The last call for requests was in September 2024. We put in six requests and we do not yet know if they were successful or not. So it's difficult to move ahead when we're not getting the support from the province. And so if we're going to do this work ourself, then I think we need to be focused in because any money that goes towards childcare is coming out of the classroom. So we have to balance our responsibility as trustees, trustees for public education with what we're hearing from so many people across the city about the need for childcare and the ability to have childcare on school grounds to make life easier for families.
I believe we absolutely need to have high quality, inclusive, affordable childcare. That is what we should be offering, but it also should be cost neutral. So the costs of offering childcare should be recouped by the and if it is fees for the childcare, but also any monies put in by the province to make it affordable for families.
The feasibility work would set out what is possible within our district. And then I think if we know if something is feasible, then we could look at whether we can prioritize enrollment and... conduct surveys. We know from previous updates at the Facilities Planning Committee that even once you get capital funding for a child to create childcare spaces, it can take a year, maybe two, to actually get the license in place to be able to start operating. So there is a lot of time to continue to refine the work if we are intending to go ahead as a board. And speaking to the timeline, we want to do the work well. We want to make sure that the consultant who comes on board has the time to understand our district. To some extent, all districts are the same, and to some extent, all districts are different. I'm concerned that if we... get a final report in September, it might be that the ministry has not even by that time set the parameters for the newly announced funds that were announced in the budget, which were $5 million for capital funding and $20 million for operating. I'm not sure if that $20 million for operating is the money that we already, we as a district and all the other districts, across BC already received the $175,000 for the early, I maybe forget the acronym and not get it quite right, but early childcare grant.
So I don't know if the $20 million is already accounted for in that money, or if that is additional money. That is something we'll have to wait to hear from the province about. And I want to make sure that we're able to do the work with the information available to be able to actually make a decision. So I think a longer timeline in light of not having information from the province, in light of wanting to consult appropriately with employee groups, a lot of this work will be over the, a lot of the timeline originally proposed would be July, August, the beginning of September, which is not a good, an easy time to be consulting with employee groups. So I hope that trustees will support this amendment. I think it's important that we continue to push forward on out of school care spaces on school grounds. And again, it reflects my frustration that the province is not stepping in to do this work and instead downloading to school districts. Okay, thanks. Trustee Freecoat.
Thank you, Trustee Reddy for bringing this motion and thank you for the amendment, Trustee Fraser. I am in support of this amendment.
And one of the main reason is many families, both within our employee workforce and across the broader community, we've seen everyone facing the same type of challenges for childcare and they're struggling for affordable out of care. So by prioritizing this and, you know, having investing in the feasible study, we're not just committing to a program yet, but we're committing to the understanding of the need, the cost and the opportunities through the proper consultation and data that we need. This will also allow us to explore a model that is more inclusive.
Sorry to interrupt trustee. We're only speaking to the amendment right now. So if you want to just keep your, I am speaking to the amendment. Okay. And just so that if it's only the amendment, because you're able to speak to the entire motion after we, so just to the red that you see the changes.
Oh, okay. Okay. Okay.
Yeah.
And then, well, I think I've spoken. Well, I've spoken on the amendment. I think the timeline on this for June, 2026 facilities planning committee meeting is actually perfect. because September is when the school starts and we know how staff and everybody is overloaded with the startup of a school year. So I agree with this amendment.
Okay, any other comments on the amendment that we see?
Trustee Reddy and then Trustee Ma. Thanks Trustee Fraser for the amendment, the printout and the copy here. I just wanted to raise a couple of points based on your amendments here. One is that the school act already stipulates the quality inclusivity and the cost recovery nature of out of school care. So I want to clarify that there is never an intention when the school act was amended, nor with the new BC budget 2026 for the funding to come out of classrooms. So I want to be really clear that that, I wouldn't be allowable from what is written into the school act about this in terms of districts actually offering the service. And the second part was just about, I recognize the frustrations around sort of applying and not receiving funds. But as I had mentioned, this would be about the new dollars allocated in 2026 that are meant to be scoped by June. So that was the intention there is that our report would align with the provincial government's direction and new funding that's available specifically for districts to deliver out of school care. So I want to be clear that that's the alignment that I'm seeking and therefore feel less supportive of the revision of the update at the June meeting and would want more of an interim report. something more comprehensive so that this board could take action. I do think that delaying this until the 26-27 school year has risks because we know that out-of-school care correlates positively with higher academic achievement. So the longer we're waiting for a report to take action when we could have that action taken by this board, I just worry that or delaying the possible results for families in the district. And the last piece here that I just wanted to respond to was about the removal of the piece stipulating recruitment and retention. In this district in particular, as well as some surrounding districts, but our district does have some pretty serious and urgent issues with recruitment and retention of workforce across the board and in many employee groups. And so the intention there was to send a signal with this motion that this could be an attribute for attracting staff and then keeping staff in the district who are clearly struggling with the same unmet childcare needs. So I wouldn't be in support of this amendment for those reasons. I wanted to be clear about that. Thank you. Trustee Ma.
A question to Trustee Fraser. You've crossed off the first dash as well as the fourth one down.
Can you explain why you've done that? So those pieces are incorporated in the additional work. So I think the key piece is to do the feasibility study first. If it's feasible for the district to offer this type of childcare, VSP operated childcare, then we should consider prioritized enrollment for VSB employees and a survey. But if it's not feasible for us to offer it, then that would be work that wouldn't be necessary until we know the answer. Thank you. Follow up, please.
Oh, your mic isn't on.
Sorry. So my question again is the fourth, one, two, three, four, the fourth dash down where it says applying an equity lens, that piece has been crossed off. And so I'm asking why that particular phrase was crossed off.
The intent was not to take out applying an equity lens, not to make it inequitable, but to be maybe a little more concise. I think we apply an equity lens in everything we do. So I'm... I'm confident that if we do this work, it will be within equity lens.
It is in our strategic plan. So I trust that that is being done. Trustee Ma, do you have a comment before, another one before we go to Trustee Richardson? Okay, I'll come back to you. Trustee Richardson.
Thank you, Chair. Speaking, I think there's no doubt that we all want increased access to before and after school. care. So I agree with these amendments from the point of view and the clarification that it's, I think somebody, the assumption is that it is inclusive and affordable because those are key items and to repeat them, although it may be in the school act, I'm not sure how many people refer to the school act when they're looking at what we're passing here as for. And I think it's the, it's just the timing of it. and to be realistic. I know we, the provincial government in your comments to your motion that the government has said that they're gonna provide additional funding. But if we look at screening that was K to three and we still are struggling with K. So I'm not too hopeful that we'll get entire funding to that they have promised the budget. So I think that the idea of waiting is useful. And I agree that the retention is something that we want to do as well. So I think I appreciate the purpose of the amendment is simply to proceed, but to in fact be a little bit more realistic in terms of what is possible for this very important efforts.
Thank you, Trustee Richardson. Would anyone who hasn't spoken yet like to speak? Okay, back to you, Trustee Moffitt.
Thank you, Secretary Treasurer.
Okay, Trustee Ma, it is changed, I think, could it be a different color? It's bold and underlined, perfect. Trustee Ma, would you mind introducing your amendment to the amendment?
Thank you. Trustee Ma, would you mind turning your microphone on and introducing your amendment? I need to have a seconder to my amendment to the amendment. Sorry, does she not get to introduce her amendment? First, okay, okay. So what you see on the screen right now, for those who are asked to second it, if you could just look at it for a moment and then I'll ask for a seconder.
Okay, Trustee Reddy, thank you very much. Trustee Ma, would you like to speak to your amendment?
Yes, thank you. So I think what is important here is that if we are going to be using classroom spaces where teachers have their resources and materials in the classroom, we want to ensure that those materials and resources are safe and secure. I know that in some schools where there is before and after school childcare in classrooms and spaces where teachers use it during the day, there are lockable cabinets, there are lockable storage for those teachers to put away some of the things that they may not want disturbed or moved when you have other young people in that area. So I believe that we need to have that in there because I think it will help our staff feel more confident and secure.
Wonderful. Thank you. And please excuse me. I said, would you like to introduce your motion? What I meant to say was read it just for accessibility purposes in future, just to read the changes that we see in case anyone's listening and is not able to see what we see on the screen. Thank you very much, Trustee Ma. Please.
Okay, so under the second dash, at the end of that sentence or that line, I have added and ensuring that utilized classroom spaces contain safe and secure storage for teachers.
Thank you very much. Are there any comments on the amendment to the amendment that is bolded and underlined on the screen? Trustee Chen-Pedley.
Thank you, Chair. I think this is a really good amendment to kind of offer reassurance for teachers. I know there are a lot of concerns, like Trustee Ma has mentioned, that all the teachers' gear and students' artwork, et cetera, are safe and secure. while being used for purposes such as out of school childcare. So I think this is a really good, important amendment and an important point to consider in a feasibility report.
Seeing no other comments. I wanted to support your amendment to the amendment as you, myself and trustee Fraser sat together and advocated for this in new builds at our BC school trustee association, AGM, It is important that we provide spaces where there is a safe locking place to lock up materials. So thank you. And I will support your amendment to the amendment. And would you like to say anything further before we go to a vote?
Yes, I have a question procedurally. So if this amendment to the amendment passes, then it becomes a part of this amendment. Correct. When we get to voting for the amendment, should that amendment fail, what would happen to the amendment to the amendment?
That would fail. The amendment to the amendment would fail and we would go back to the original motion without any amendments.
So chair, then if that were to be the case, would I be able to move an amendment again?
I am seeing a yes from our secretary treasurer procedurally. Yes, you would be able to.
Okay. Any other comments before we go to a vote? Okay. All those in favor of the amendment to the amendment that you see bolded and underlined on the screen. Okay. Unanimous support. Thank you, Trustee Ma. Now we'll go to the amended motion.
The amended amendment as amended.
Thank you. Okay, so as you can see, we have a motion with an amendment in red, with amendments in red. And so we'll go to anyone who would like to speak to the amended amendment that you see in red. Trustee Reddy.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. So yeah, just reflecting on some of the discussion so far on the amendment, I just am pretty concerned that the removal of the survey with families in particular and the removal of survey that's sort of being replaced by study overall. I just want to highlight that this is a parent-driven demand in our district. So without having engagement at some level through a survey, I worry sort of about the fulsome quality of the feasibility study. So I wanted to... highlight that for staff's consideration should this amendment pass, that that would be an important piece not to omit from this work, but also for trustees to consider how many voices would be lost without that survey, knowing that they would be the users of these potential new sites. I also wanted to highlight that some of the need which was underscored by a letter to us from MLA Nikki Sharma, who's also BC's attorney general, a very busy individual, sent in a letter asserting the importance of the voice of parents and families. So I do think this would be a severe omission. And so I just wanted to add that to my reason for voting against this amendment. Thank you.
Trustee Fraser, and then we'll go to Trustee Ma.
Thank you. And what I, In response to that, what was just raised, I would say that the feasibility study is the technical work to see what is possible. And the survey hasn't been removed, but it's been put after the feasibility study so that if we know we're able to do this, then we can survey to see where the work would be. So I don't think it's being lost. I do see that the... And coming back to another point about the anticipated impacts on recruitment and retention, I see that as another sequential step in the work. If we are able to prioritize enrollment for VSB employees, then we could look at the impacts of recruitment and retention. We can be efficient in the work we do in setting up each step to then go into the next steps. And I do have a question, Trustee Reddy. I think you said that the ministry's new funding, the way that that would be rolled out would be scoped in June. Is that, I haven't been able to find any information about the rollout. Is that something, I'm not sure of the wording you used when you said scoped by June.
Is that, are you, Finish. Okay. Trustee Reddy, if you wouldn't mind. Yeah, I'm glad to add, I mean, based on previous practice, when they announced the budget, then we get some information. So the idea would be that our report would align with that. And then we can kind of know what the guidelines and parameters are by then. Thank you.
So do we have, I just want to ask staff, do we have any indication from the ministry of when the guidelines and parameters would be available to school districts?
Superintendent?
We have not. We saw the same general announcement that you did. We've received no specific details. As you know, when we do, we share that with trustees. So nothing at this time.
If I may follow up on that. So the letter from MLA Sharma has already been referenced, but I could also highlight... that in the letter it says this program is in its early stages and more details will be made available as the initiative is rolled out. So I don't get that there's a sense of urgency in providing that information to school districts. So I want, I mean, I will be very happy if that information lands on our desk tomorrow and as soon as it arrives, then we can start working. But I just want to make sure that we are aligned and able to do the work in a thoughtful way.
Trustee Ma, I think you were next.
Thank you. So a feasibility study could include a survey. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I don't think they come one after the other, because how would you be able to determine if something is feasible unless you ask questions? And asking questions could be a survey. So I just... I don't think I can support it the way it is because I think it's too restrictive. I think a study is general and could include a study. It could include focus groups. It could be meeting with different stakeholders. It could be a whole myriad of things when you're talking about feasibility. So I find that it's just too restrictive.
Okay, are there any more comments on the amendment in red? Trustee Chen-Pedley.
Thank you, Chair.
I've gone years without organized childcare and I've waited so long my kids have aged out of it.
I understand the need to like want to do this quickly and I see this feasibility study as and streamlining it as a way to do really focused work and make sure that we can do all the other rest of the things because we have limited time and we have limited budget. So I don't think expanding, like I want to limit the scope to like as small as possible so that we can get that information in front of us and make that decision before we commit ourselves to putting more money and more time into doing all that other necessary work. if we were to look at expanding childcare. I think if the province wants to finally get off their butts and give us something tomorrow, anytime soon, that would be great. And I think we can then look at expanding the scope of doing this work. But I think at this point, a streamlined feasibility report is what we need.
Would anyone who has not spoke like to speak next? Okay. Trustee Richardson.
I'm suggesting that we vote for the amendments that are there. I think that the, one of the issues with this will be expectation management. I mean, frankly, if the survey says, would you like to have additional childcare spots? Of course the answer is yes. They've been waiting for years, but I think that we, that the idea is that we'll have further information once we're done the feasibility study. As for the amendment to the amendment in terms of ensuring classroom spaces contain safe and secure storage, I agree. I think this board was, or this district was criticized by some in Victoria as being the teachers not giving, or were not using enough classroom space opportunities. for private or not-for-profit daycare opportunities. So that's essential. But as we did it, I think, several months ago, is we asked that the Area Standards Document be amended to ensure that. So I think that these amendments are being realistic. And I think that we should proceed. And there's no doubt we all want this to work. But I think that given the... the lack of funding by the provincial government, but I'm now talking about the main motion. So I will stop and suggest we pass these amendments.
Okay. Thank you.
And Trustee Ma. I have a question through the chair. So this $75,000, would it all come out of operating or what?
Sorry, we're just talking about the amendment right now and we'll go back to, we're just talking about the red and then we'll come back to the
body of the motion after the amendment has been dealt with but my question is about the amendment because then this up to okay please go ahead thank you so does the money come out of capital operating or a blend sorry i'm just going to challenge you there it says up to you're asking now about
the trustee Fraser explained why she included the up to in her rationale for the amendment. And so now we're only debating what's in red and then where the money comes from will be a question for after the amendment has been dealt with.
But that may influence my vote on whether the amendment I vote in favor of the amendment or not.
Secretary Treasurer, would you mind weighing in on this? I would like to be as close to process as possible and want to respect the rules of Robert.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The way I read the amendment as displayed on the screen is that it does not, have anything to do with a specific dollar value. The motion itself does, so I would suggest that the question is best addressed once you return to either the motion as amended or the original motion.
Okay, thank you. I would like to say that the amendment... before I ask Trustee Fraser her final thoughts, I just want to say that the amendment does take into account steps. And as we know, budget is very strained. And so asking the changes made in red address that why go to step two, if step one isn't doesn't allow for step two. So I am in support of the amendment and I'll ask Trustee Fraser to make any last comments before we go to a vote. Okay. Seeing none there, we'll go to a vote on the amendment. All those in favor. Trustee Richardson, Trustee Chen-Pedley, Trustee Fraser, and Trustee Young. Those opposed. Okay, we have Trustee Ma, Trustee Reddy, Trustee Chen, and those abstaining. Okay, Trustee Freedcoat.
So required to pass, we would need five, correct? Because we aren't abstaining.
Majority, okay, the abstention is fine. Okay, so the amendment passes. So we'll go to now the motion as amended.
Trustee Fricot? I have few questions in regards to the main motion now. So... Sorry, I missed the part where you said 75,000 could come out of the operating cost.
Sorry, do you have a question?
That's a question.
Okay, to Secretary Treasurer. Okay, Secretary Treasurer, a question around the 75,000, please.
Trustees would have to identify the source of funding. Currently, there is no source of funding identified for this motion. Your options are to either identify savings somewhere in the budget or... given that this is a one-time expense, you can look at utilizing some of the available contingency reserve that exists in the operating fund.
Trustee Fricot, please continue. Sorry, just a follow-up. So what I'm understanding is just to do the work, just to get this report and the consultant fees and supplies, it's going to cost about 75, up to 75,000, where... one staff full-time position could be covered within that cost. Is that right? Secretary Treasurer?
To the extent that that position would only be funded for one year, yes, but this would be one-time expenses that could be covered from one-time funding versus a staff position typically would be ongoing and those funds would not be appropriate to be coming out of contingency reserve.
Do you have any follow-up? No? Okay, Trustee Richardson, did I see your hand up?
Is there anyone who would like to speak?
We're speaking to the motion as amended that you see on the screen there.
You can go ahead if you'd like.
Fine. I am in favor of this motion as amended. I think it's realistic. It does address a very important need. My hesitation of this motion and the difficulty when I read the petition that was given to us by a member of the public, I think last week, I read, I think the title of it or the title of the motion is increasing out of care spaces and VSB recruitment and retention efforts. We as a board want more out of school care spaces. And wherever they come from, we would, and I think the public and the users of those would be happy. So the only reservation I have of this motion is that it's not encouraging and looking at why third party providers who are already providing all of our daycare spaces aren't providing more. And I think the previous discussion in terms of the amendment to the amendment is that there's been some hesitation to find spaces within our existing district that we can utilize. So I think this is an important motion, but I think that, and I'm certainly in favor of it because from whatever source we can find more spaces, because I believe parents are, many parents that I speak to are making decisions on where they want their child to enroll based upon the availability of out of school care. Um, and therefore, um, our dream or our, our, our former dream or our past practice of, of encouraging neighborhood schools is faltering because schools are going, uh, students are being placed out of their immediate catchment because of daycare. So if we can resolve that. So with those comments, which are really to say, let's cooperate, let's, um, um, look at this motion and move forward for success, but also try to expand existing needs. I do note that in the existing budget proposal that we have included an additional 1.0 FTE support staff to assist in the childcare efforts of the district. And that is just another opportunity to have a shot at the provincial government when they changed the name of the Ministry of Education and added childcare, they just didn't, it was in name only, there's not the adequate funding to allow us to manage the daycare we have and to encourage further improvements to it. And so I think that this board has responded to the fact that we want more daycare by providing the 1.0 FTE manager that is funded out of this, funding from the province. But we've gone beyond that. And this motion will go a further step towards providing the daycare out of school care that we are our parents are requesting. So I think this is a necessary motion.
But I guess the outstanding question is still what are we going to do? What is the appropriate funding source? And we may others may want to add where the money should be coming from to enable this worthy effort to proceed.
Thank you. I'd like to make an amendment to the motion as amended on the screen. I'm not sure if procedurally I should ask Vice Chair Fraser to take over. Would you mind? Just so that we're... Sure.
I can take over and ask you to provide the Secretary-Treasurer with your amendment.
So I'll just read out. My amendment is to ask for the Ministry of Education and Child Care for this up to $75,000.
Sorry, we're just waiting for it to come up on the screen and it's there. Okay, so move the amended motion is being further amended. Moved by Trustee Young and seconded by Trustee Freecoat. So speaking to this amendment, Trustee Young.
Thank you. Our responsibility and mandate is for K-12 education. the downloading of responsibility from our provincial government and MLAs who are representatives in Vancouver, who understand the needs of their community. I understand where their heart is. However, they hold the purse strings and they consistently ask for us to take responsibility for things that we are not mandated to do. And I really wanted to support everything around this table and my colleagues. And I just couldn't bear to be asked for us to take K to 12 education funds as trustee Freedcoat mentioned, that could be an assistant in a classroom for a year to spend on something that the ministry should be doing or providing funds to do. I am super grateful for MLA Sharma because this shouldn't be a hard decision for her. to take to her government and to ask for support from her colleagues, especially the ones that represent our city and understand the needs of the community. And so that is why I'm asking for support for the amendment that you see on the screen.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak to this? Trustee Chen, Trustee Richardson, and then Trustee Champedly.
Just a clarify question. So means if ministry is not providing funding, we are not doing this feasible study?
Trustee Young?
We are going to ask, yes. The intention is that we do not spend K-12 education money on a feasibility study as we do get information very similar to that from our staff reported to us twice a year.
No follow-up. Okay. Trustee Richardson.
I appreciate that we want the Ministry of Education and Child Care to pay for this.
I guess I must remember about a year ago, We received a whole lot of pressure. There were meetings between the premier and some students to encourage that AEDs be introduced in our schools. This board voted, realizing we need to fund a motion. We can't just say we want to do something, but we have to say where the money's coming from. We said it was going to come out of local capital, which we don't have a lot of. The fact that it probably comes out of the... Lord Roberts annex budget. We kind of soft peddled. We paid for them because we wanted them in the school by September 1st. And we needed to be able to pay for them or to identify a source before we could proceed. And the ministry was giving lots of thoughts that they would encourage that. And then they came back and said, but we're not going to fund you. So I don't hold a lot of hope that the ministry will provide this funding. And I think this project is too important to not proceed. I guess I'm back to where my dilemma was before when I spoke a few moments ago is how do we afford to pay for this out of our existing budget so that we can proceed? Because frankly, we may be waiting a long time for the, although they could give us the money tomorrow, but I'm not willing to take that chance. So I'm going to vote against the amendment.
Thank you, trustee Richardson, trustee Jan Petley.
Thank you, chairperson. Same sentiment. I so, so want to support this amendment. You're super right, chairperson, that the costs keep getting downloaded to us and it's unfair and to take this, take these dollars out of the classroom to do this report is really, really tough. But given that the province hasn't, done anything for us, even the absolute bare minimum of upgrading our contingent, multiple seismically unsafe schools where children go to every day and staff work at every day. I don't think the work will get done if we tie this to MECC allocation. I think Trustee Reddy's rationale is to address the reasons for why this work is absolutely necessary to be done and done quickly. So I think I, I'm not in support of this amendment, I'm sorry. And I think we just have to find 75Gs somehow to pay for it.
Trustee Freecoat. Thank you, Chair. I am actually in support of this amendment. I was really hesitating to spend 75K on a feasibility study where we could be actually allocating a full-time staff a support staff that's needed every single day in schools. Given that this work aligns with the Ministry of Childcare, Education and Childcare, it's appropriate body to fund this feasibility work. It's just a report, again, another survey that we're spending up to 75 K for at the time where we're making such a difficult decision on budget and everything where it's impacting the students in the classroom. It's important that the education funding remain focused on direct services to the students and not on some type of study where I think the ministry of education and childcare is responsible for. So I'm in support of this.
Trustee Ma?
Can I try? Okay, I'm going to...
This is what I'm going to do. I'm going to speak in opposition of the amendment to the motion because I believe that the time is now. I don't think we can wait... to get funding to do this. You know, in the last four years, we have heard from the public and from parents that they need childcare space. They need before and after school space. We just received a letter with a thousand signatures on it at every venue that I go to when I talk to parents who have young children and to grandparents. they talk about the importance of childcare, before and after school childcare. And I believe that if we wait to get this money, the answer will probably be no.
Meanwhile, another year goes by, another two years goes by. And I think we need to move on this. I think in order for us to have the study done, It will inform us in terms of how to move forward with this. And the new board in the fall will have to make some decisions. And that's why I am not in favor of this amendment.
Trustee Reddy? Thanks, Chair. Yeah, I wanted to just go back to what the Secretary-Treasurer had also offered in terms of our own budget process. So really the intention for this meeting and... this board is to take action with our budget. And I do believe the secretary treasurer has outlined a couple options including education admin and previously discussing the legal and consultation fees line. Although I don't know what that line item is at this moment, that information was requested, but those are two possible sources. And then adding from this discussion tonight, restricted surplus. So I think it is a matter of the will of this board and our budget to take action on a Vancouver issue that wouldn't be met by asking the province to do this at a wide scale level. We've seen other districts also take action. I did want to clarify that there is a mandate for districts to take this on to explore the initiation of school board led out of school care provision. and to confirm that this isn't about reallocating funds for education assistance. So the education admin funds and legal consultation are not a core part of those in classroom services. So I wanted to be really clear that that wouldn't be the case and nor do I think it would be allowable in our case. Thank you.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this amendment? Trustee Young, would you like to?
Thank you. I do want to thank everyone at the table because this is Vancouver school board consistently shows leadership in ways like we heard trustee Richardson mention where we follow Vancouver coastal health requirements, yet we get mandated to do something that we do not get funds for. And so it is something we fought for and we were denied. And so I appreciate that we still have that commitment, and that we can still sit around the table and talk about how this is ridiculous that we're consistently asked to do things that are not in our mandate. So I just appreciate you all. These are hard decisions and it's very frustrating.
So then we can move to the vote on this amendment. So all those in favor? Trustee Young, Trustee Freecoat and Trustee Chen and those against? Trustee Reddy, Trustee Richardson, Trustee Ma, myself, and Trustee Champedley. So the amendment does not pass. And I will hand the chair back to you, Trustee Young. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, Chair.
Yes. Point of personal privilege. Yes. Five-minute recess, please. Yes, we absolutely can take a break. We're going to take a quick break so that everyone can do their business. We'll return in, I'm going to give 10 minutes, 11, so we can be right on at 6.15. We'll see you back in here at 6.15. Thank you.
Wonderful, thank you. Okay, thanks everyone for accommodating our recess. And we will now go back to what we see on the screen, which is a discussion on the motion as amended that we see up on the screens here. Any comments of Trustee Freedcoat and then Trustee Frazier and then Trustee Ma?
I have a question, Chair. if any of the staff would like to answer, has any of this study has been done in the past or anything that was proposed in regards to out-of-school childcare spaces, or have we received any information from Ministry of Education and Childcare in regards to this?
Okay, I'm going to look to staff. Secretary-Treasurer Coughlin.
Significant work has been done with respect to identifying school sites that can be used for child care. And as you know, we have submitted multiple funding applications to the Minister of Education and Child Care for creating those additional child care spaces on school grounds. So that has been the focus of our work. We did also have a pilot a couple of years ago at Strathcona Elementary, where we piloted before and after school care for kindergarten students, which the ministry labeled seamless day. And that was a pilot that was not successful at Strathcona in Vancouver. Other than that, we have not done a complete feasibility study for the VSB as operator of childcare or before and after school care.
Do you have a follow up on that?
Go ahead.
So we, from what I understand, so we do have a data about childcare, how many spaces we need for childcare. So doing this study, it's kind of like a repetition of what has already been done.
So there is a lot of community data that identifies the broad need for additional childcare spaces in Vancouver. What we have done specifically at the DSP was look at our existing facilities and opportunities for converting spaces that currently are used either as classrooms or libraries or multipurpose rooms into childcare spaces. We have not done a specific study, VSB has not done a study on how many childcare spaces are required on school grounds.
Any other follow-up?
Okay. Trustee Fraser. Thank you, Chair. And I'd like to make an amendment for where the money would come from and add that it would be from operating contingency.
Is there a seconder? Thank you, Trustee Chen-Pedley. Trustee Fraser.
I think because this is, so the motion under consideration is to spend up to $75,000 on a one-time basis. And I think because it's a one-time basis, the best place to come from is the operating contingency. If this motion passes, there was always the intent to have an update in June. So that seems to indicate that the work would start this year. So in a sense, it's not part of the 26-27 budget as the work's already starting. I don't want to displace any employees for this work. I am anxious that if we as a district start putting money into childcare, then that might be the start of a slippery slope. And while I can... I can live with one time 75,000 to the intent is get things moving. I would be anxious about any additional spending, but I think taking it from on a one-time basis from operating contingency is the best situation for where we're at.
Question to staff on our contingency and if we meet and will continue to meet policy requirements around that.
So our contingency reserve is outlined in the draft financial plan on page 48. is estimated to set at 6.6 million, which is slightly under the minimum of 1% mandated through policy. The 1% value would be 6.76 million. So if this motion passes, we would be left with roughly 6.5 million in the contingency reserve.
Thank you. Questions or comments? Not seeing any, we'll go to voting on the amendment that we see in red. Those in favor?
Trustee Ma, Trustee Richardson, Trustee Reddy, Trustee Champedley, Trustee Fraser, Trustee Young. Those opposed? Trustee Chen and Trustee Freedcoat. Okay, that amendment has been supported and will now be written in. As we see right now on the screen, it is the Motion as amended a few times. Trustee Ma. I have another amendment to this. Wonderful. Would you mind just reading or giving us the words of your amendment? I have given it.
So I would move to insert this at the end of this motion. the wording would be that upon completion of this feasibility study, we ask the MECC to fund the VSB with the cost born from the feasibility study.
Thank you, and we'll just wait to see it up before we ask for a seconder. Trustee Ma, your microphone is still on. Thank you.
Trustee Ma, does this look the way that you'd like? Yeah. Wonderful. Is there a seconder?
Trustee Richardson. Thank you. Trustee Ma, would you like to introduce?
We just had a long discussion before the break about, you know, that the ministry needs to show us support. And so I think that this is one way that we can do it. We can request. I mean, I'm not holding my breath, but I think that, We need to be seen as doing that. And I am comfortable with this now because it does not hold up the study.
Trustee Chen.
Question. So from the previous discussion that I assume everyone's feel that the ministry is not supporting this. So what happened? Like we spend money from the operating contingency, which already have a hole on it. and we have a bigger hole for spending another 75,000 and then ministry is not supporting it and not giving us money. Then we still have to find money to fulfill the operating contingency from the hole, right?
Any other comments?
Trustee Fraser. I'm in support of the amendment. I wonder about using the word we. Is that clear that it's the board or do we need to be specific? I guess I'm asking Secretary Treasurer.
It would be clear if we replaced we with the board.
Okay. Trustee Ma?
I'm seeing anyone in opposition of that. Okay. A friendly amendment or a friendly change. Thank you.
Wonderful. Okay. Any other comments? Trustee Freecoat.
I feel this is what I would support for sure. Cause. the cost we should not be incurring the cost of what's not our job. Um, and it should fall back on the ministry. So thank you for this amendment and I'll support it for sure.
Okay. Seeing no other comments. Okay. Trustee ready?
Uh, just briefly. Um, I understand the intention. I worry that we're retroactively asking the ministry to fund something that we're committing as a board to fund. So I just don't see it shifting our goal as a board to actually do this work in its initial steps. Thank you.
Trustee Richardson.
I think it would be fair to say that this is an aspirational provision. Your daughter will see pink unicorns before this happens. But I think the intent is that we are not being silent any longer and that we just want to remind that when you change the name of the ministry and add childcare, there are some responsibilities to go along with it.
Okay. And I support this amendment, but I'm frustrated that we wouldn't ask first and see what they say and then make a decision. And that now we're just making the decision to spend K to 12 educational funds on something that we are not mandated to do. And then asking for the money later, we saw in previous history, how that worked out for the board and the district. And so I do just want to remind everyone around the table what happened with some other initiatives that we took. But again, I am supporting this because I think Vancouver School District has showed incredible leadership in a lot of these challenges and challenging times. And so, I'll support this amendment. All those in favor? Trustee Ma, Trustee Richardson, Trustee Freedcoat, Chen Pedley, Fraser and Young. Those opposed? Trustee Reddy and Trustee Chen. Okay, so the amendment carries. And so now we're looking at the motion with many amendments passed on the screen. Are there any further comments or amendments before we move on to the vote?
Okay. Thank you for the fabulous debate tonight. Oh, trustee ready. Can I close?
Sure. You can speak. Yeah. So thanks so much for the discussion so far. I just had a couple of points just in closing after we've had a lengthy discussion, I'll be brief. But I do think that parents are demanding and desperately searching for options for out of school care in the city. So, I really hope to have the support and to meet them halfway, at least, in believing the role of a school board to take action by providing the support through the staff that we have, through the infrastructure that we have, and at least looking into it, recognizing that folks at this table may or may not be here to take the steps that come from this action, but just how thankful I am to the parents for stepping up time and time again, coming to the delegation meetings, knowing how difficult that is, signing the letters and demonstrating what a school district can do to meet their needs of their kids and families. So I really see this as something good for our district, but also for our city. And yeah, I hope that there's support to take this very initial preliminary step to start the work.
Statement Watch
Thank you very much, Chair. And I'm going to pass it over to Patricia McNeil, Director, to give you an update on the engagement. Thank you. Thank you. The engagement summary report included in this evening's package and posted to our website outlines input we received to assist in the board's consideration of the 2026-2027 financial plan. Engagement activities were grounded in our education plan, the framework for enhancing student learning, and follow best practice standards by the International Association of Public Participation, or IAB2. Input was sought from inherent rights holders, stakeholder groups, students, families, staff, and the broader public through a mix of methods and activities. The engagement period was open from January 12th to April 16th and included multiple opportunities such as meetings, workshops, and discussions with inherent rights holders and former stakeholder groups, as well as written submissions to the board, an online survey, which was available publicly and to staff, as well as students, and last week's Committee of the Whole meeting and public delegation meeting. Trustees received a copy of all written submissions on a weekly basis, as well as a copy of survey responses in early March. An interim summary report was available that first week of March as well. The report in your package this evening is an update to that interim report to include information about input and feedback received since early March. Across engagement activities, participants highlighted priorities related to classroom staffing and supports, a focus on student learning and course offerings, as well as schedules, learning resources, student wellbeing and mental health, inclusion and equity, facilities and school or learning environments, as well as supports to student families. It's important to note that priorities raised through this year's engagement reflect patterns that we've heard through previous year's financial planning, and I would be pleased to take any questions trustees may have.
Statement Watch
ELLIE WILSON- Thanks for the question through the chair. Our resource teachers in schools provide a variety of services. I think sort of to your question, they're responding to every student's individual education plan, and those vary across the needs of all students. So there would be small group work, there's push-in support that happen in classrooms, and it's all directed by a student's individual education plan. So those folks coming into our schools would need to familiarize themselves with those individual education plans and get up to speed about how to implement that. Certainly our school-based resource teachers could leave weekly, I would say, detailed plans about how they're working with students, but those would be constantly evolving plans. And I think... A lot of our folks who are sick for a day or two don't necessarily have those very detailed, detailed plans that would provide guidance to somebody. Certainly someone who's gonna be away could prepare that to support the work.
Do you have a follow-up? Go ahead.
Thank you. So if a teacher is absent, a resource teacher is absent and there is a TTOC in place for that, they won't have the full information of those particular cases for those students. Is that correct?
Through the chair, that is correct. They would have to take a bit of time to learn how to do that.