PLN: 15-06
File Code: R02
Planning Department Memo
Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students –
Report #2
To:
Martha Rogers, Director of Education
From:
Jennifer Passy, Manager of Planning
Janice Wright, Superintendent of Finance
Date:
February 10, 2015
Report Type:
DECISION
Background
A public information meeting was held on January 8, 2015 with the Edward Johnson PS
community to discuss the need to urgently find an interim accommodation solution for
some Edward Johnson PS students for the 2015/16 school year and possibly the
2016/17 school year. Board staff shared information on the enrolment pressure issue at
Edward Johnson PS and possible interim accommodation options.
At the Business Operations Committee meeting on January 13, 2015 Trustees received
a report about the interim move of Edward Johnson PS students. The report outlined
the enrolment projections, timing constraints relative to the new East Guelph (Couling
Crescent) school, possible accommodation options, a proposed process and
communication plan. Trustees moved that Option 2, the introduction of a cap on new FI
enrolment, be removed which left four accommodation options for consideration.
On January 14, 2015, Staff also met with the King George PS school council to discuss
the issue as some of the accommodation options included King George PS.
Issue
Given the enrolment pressure projected at Edward Johnson PS by September 2015,
some students must be accommodated elsewhere during the 2015/16 and possibly the
2016/17 school years if the new East Guelph (Couling Crescent) school is not open for
September 2016.
Since the public information meeting, a considerable amount of feedback has been
received by Board Staff and many of the public comments indicate a preferred
accommodation option.
This document is available in alternative formats upon request.
Page 1 of 7
Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students – Report #2
PLN: 15-06
Recommendations
1.
That memo PLN: 15-06 “Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students Report #2” be received.
2.
That an interim boundary for the new East Guelph (Couling Crescent) school
from the Edward Johnson PS attendance area only as outlined on Map 1 in
Appendix C attached to memo PLN: 15-06 “Interim Move of Edward Johnson
PS Students – Report #2” be approved.
3.
That the JK-3 students residing in the interim boundary as shown on Map 1 in
Appendix C be temporarily accommodated in the Tytler PS building during the
2015/16 school year and JK-4 students residing in the interim boundary be
accommodated at Tytler PS during the 2016/17 school year if the East
Guelph (Couling Crescent) building is not open.
4.
That the Edward Johnson PS boundary be modified as shown on Maps 2 and
3 in Appendix C attached to memo PLN: 15-06 “Interim Move of Edward
Johnson PS Students – Report #2”.
5.
That Grade 4-6 students residing in the Edward Johnson PS boundary as
shown on Map 3 in Appendix C remain at Edward Johnson PS during the
2015/16 school year and allowed to continue at Edward Johnson PS until
they graduate to King George PS for Grades 7 & 8.
6.
That staff be directed to prepare a transition plan to address the move of
students to the Tytler PS building who reside in the interim boundary and
facilitate the purchase of resources necessary during the interim
accommodation period which would then be moved to the East Guelph
(Couling Crescent) school.
Rationale
Accommodation Options
At the Edward Johnson PS Public Information Session on January 8, 2015 five potential
accommodation options were shared with the school community as well as Staff’s
evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each option. A report outlining the
five options for interim accommodation was presented to Trustees on Tuesday, January
13, 2015. Option 2, the introduction of a cap on new FI enrolment was removed from
consideration at that time. For consistency the original list of options as presented to
Trustees and the school communities is included below, with Option 2 struck out to
reflect the direction of Trustees on January 13, 2015:
Page 2 of 7
Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students – Report #2
PLN: 15-06
1. Accommodate all Grade 3-6 Edward Johnson PS students at a satellite campus
of Edward Johnson PS in the former Tytler PS building in 2015/16 and 2016/17 if
new school is not open.
2. Cap JK enrolment at Edward Johnson PS at 45 students starting in 2015, cap SK
and Grade 1 Edward Johnson PS students at current levels, impose school
specific caps in other Regular Track and Dual Track schools, plus move Grades
5 & 6 Edward Johnson PS students to King George PS in 2015/16 and 2016/17 if
new school is not open.
3. Without any portables added to Edward Johnson PS - Accommodate Edward
Johnson PS Grade 3 & 4 students at a satellite campus of Edward Johnson PS
in the former Tytler PS building, and move Edward Johnson PS Grade 5 & 6
students to King George PS in 2015/16 and 2016/17 if new school is not open.
4. With portables added to Edward Johnson PS – Accommodate Edward Johnson
PS Grade 5 & 6 students at King George PS in 2015/16 and Grade 4-6 Edward
Johnson PS students in 2016/17 if new school is not open.
5. Create an interim boundary for the new east Guelph school from the Edward
Johnson PS attendance area only, and temporarily accommodate students of the
new school in the former Tytler PS building in 2015/16 and 2016/17 if new school
is not open. In 2015/16 the school would be JK-3, in 2016/17 the new school
would grow to JK-4 if new school is not open. A full boundary review would be
completed including the King George PS school community in spring 2015.
Public Feedback
The public information meeting held on January 8, 2015 at Edward Johnson PS was
well attended with approximately 100 people present including Trustees and Board
staff. The school community attendees were a mix of families who reside in the area
immediately surrounding Edward Johnson PS and those residing east of Victoria Road.
Appendix A contains a summary of the Question and Answer portion of the January 8 th
meeting and the nine comment sheets which were collected at the meeting. A summary
of the discussions which occurred at King George PS on January 14, 2015 are also
included in Appendix A.
A webpage was created on the Board’s website and public feedback was received
through this site until February 3, 2015. In total there were 82 comments received.
Page 3 of 7
Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students – Report #2
PLN: 15-06
Of the feedback received, 65% was received from those who identified themselves as
part of the Edward Johnson PS school community, 16% from the King George PS
school community and the remaining 20% did not specifically identify school affiliation.
The majority of the comments received (74%) expressed a preference for Option 5; to
create an interim boundary for the new East Guelph (Couling Crescent) school from the
Edward Johnson PS attendance area only, and temporarily accommodate students of
the new school in the former Tytler PS building. Several other respondents expressed
support for multiple options which included Option 5 (i.e. 1 or 5). When including those
responses, the support for Option 5 increases to 81%.
Of those specifically identifying preference for Option 5, 20% of the respondents
identified themselves as residing in the proposed boundary of the new East Guelph
(Couling Crescent) school, 28% would remain in the Edward Johnson PS boundary,
16% were King George PS families and 36% did not identify which school boundary
they reside within. Based on this information it is clear that there is support from those
families residing within the boundary of the new school for Option 5 and not a just case
of people who may be unaffected by a move expressing preference for the option.
Table 1 - Summary of Responses
Total
Responses
Received
82
Respondents
Expressing
Preference
for One
Option
62
Responses in Favour and % of Those Expressing
Preference for One Option
Option 1
Option 3
Option 4
0
0
9
0%
0%
15%
Option 5
46
74%
Rationale provided supporting Option 5 included:






Minimizes the number of moves for students
Students being moved to Tytler PS would move together to the new school
Balances the grades at both Tytler PS and Edward Johnson PS
Supports the development of a new school culture in the interim
Resources acquired to support the students being held at Tytler PS can be
moved to the new school
Maintains a JK-6 environment at Edward Johnson PS
The general tone of the feedback from those supporting Option 5 was that it was the
most logical and fair of the options presented.
Some feedback expressed support for Option 5 on the basis that the other options were
not acceptable. Specifically, concerns were expressed about Options 3 and 4 including:
Page 4 of 7
Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students – Report #2
PLN: 15-06




King George PS had been a “holding school” for the past two years
Additional traffic at King George PS as a result of holding students from another
school
Impact of portables on playground space and function at both King George PS
and Edward Johnson PS
Significant funds and volunteer time invested to create a play yard at King
George PS
Despite the majority of respondents supporting Option 5, there were some concerns
expressed about this option as follows:




Moves some of the youngest students (i.e. Kindergarten)
Site and building condition of Tytler PS
Availability of before and after school care
Ability to maintain the Edward Johnson PS educational standards in another
location
Many of these concerns were addressed in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
document that was posted on the website and is attached in Appendix B.
Tytler PS
The Tytler PS site is approximately 0.49 ha (1.21 ac.) in size and is located on Ontario
Street. While the majority of the school yard is covered in asphalt, there are large
mature shade trees surrounding the property. Some older climbing equipment was
removed from the site during the summer of 2013, yet a horizontal ladder climber
remains and a couple of dinosaur climb-on toys are located beneath a large shade tree.
The size and surfacing of this school site is not unlike Victory PS in Guelph or James
McQueen PS in Fergus.
Tytler PS was used as a school until June 2013. Since that time the building has
continued to accommodate the Two Rivers Neighbourhood Group, 1, 2, 3…Go, and a
Section 23 program in addition to regular community uses throughout the building.
Regular inspection and maintenance of the building has continued. User infractions
have been identified through regular Health and Safety audits and rectified. No
significant facility condition issues have been identified since June 2013 nor during the
two years preceding closure. Recent inspections were also completed to license the 1,
2, 3…GO program in accordance with the provincial Day Nurseries Act.
Between 2005 and 2014 the heating system in the building was upgraded, repairs were
made to the stone façade, roof sections were repaired, the public address (PA) system
Page 5 of 7
Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students – Report #2
PLN: 15-06
was upgraded, and the gym floor has had tiles replaced as needed. Further, upgrades
to the washrooms were completed in late 2014 and the washroom floors refinished.
Staff has identified the need to undertake cosmetic updates to the building and asphalt
play yard prior to September 2015. There are some areas of the building which need to
be repainted and flooring repaired in one of the stairwells. In addition, there are areas
of the asphalt which require repair or replacement due to age or previous disturbance.
The work associated with asphalt repair/replacement would also present an opportunity
to refresh the line painting of games throughout the play yard.
Communication Plan
The Communication Plan has two goals; to keep the community informed through a
variety of channels, and provide a way for people to submit comments. To accomplish
these goals staff will:

Send a letter home to parents/guardians of Edward Johnson PS following the
February 10, 2015 meeting detailing the Board’s decision.

Write a media release for local newspapers and TV to be distributed following the
Board’s decision on February 10, 2015.
Conclusion
Based on the responses received there is support from the Edward Johnson PS school
community for Option 5 in order to address the urgent need to provide interim
accommodation to some of the Edward Johnson PS students during the 2015/16 and
2016/17 school years.
Creating an interim boundary for the new East Guelph (Couling Crescent) school
provides certainty for those students currently attending Edward Johnson PS who
reside east of Victoria Road that they will attend the new school together at such time
as it opens. These students can be accommodated at Tytler PS until the new school is
available. The move of these students to Tytler PS in the interim will provide the
necessary relief to the enrolment pressure experienced at Edward Johnson PS and will
not impose portable accommodations at King George PS as a result of holding
additional students.
Transportation of students from a defined geographical area will be less costly than the
options which would see students, often from the same families, transported to multiple
locations or student who reside within walking distance to Edward Johnson PS
transported to Tytler PS.
Page 6 of 7
Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students – Report #2
PLN: 15-06
As kindergarten registration has not yet concluded it is not known if there is sufficient
interest in extended day care from families who may reside in the interim boundary. A
survey is distributed during the kindergarten registration period and parents/guardians
are encouraged to fill out the survey even if they currently have child care in place. An
indicator of viability for an extended day program is 20 JK/SK students. Staff will review
the extended day survey results to confirm interest and work with care providers in the
area, as needed, to address the needs of the school community. Information on
extended day program availability is generally communicated by April.
Page 7 of 7
APPENDIX A
Public Feedback
Edward Johnson PS Public Information Session
January 8, 2015
Q&A
Q: Will the Couling Crescent school be a dual track school or an FI Centre?
Jennifer Passy – The business case that we submitted to the Ministry identified the new school as a JK-8
FI Centre.
Q: For option 2, if you cap JK enrolment at 45, where would the overflow be directed? Where would
the 46th child go for FI?
Jennifer Passy – We do not have a process conceived yet. Other boards deal with FI caps differently. A
lot of work would need to be undertaken to develop a process and fully realize an FI cap.
Q: Are there any criteria set for JK registration at this time?
Jennifer Passy – At this time, it will be the normal JK registration process.
Q: What is the cutoff date for this process?
Jennifer Passy – We will take comments until February 3rd and Trustees will make a decision regarding
the interim move on February 10th.
Q: There has been some discussion that the Catholic board may introduce an FI stream. Have you
given any thought as to the effects of this on enrolment numbers?
Jennifer Passy – We are aware of these discussions, however we do not know what direction they will
take and we will not know in time for the next school year.
Q: With enrolment going up for FI, it would seem that enrolment would be going down in the regular
track schools. Is there any appetite to look at closing any regular track programs and opening more FI?
Jennifer Passy – We have looked at schools where there is some decline, however there is not enough
empty space at any of our regular track schools to support the number of FI students that need to be
accommodated. There is also the philosophical issue of closing down regular track programs in local
schools to accommodate an FI program.
Q: How are all of the advantages and disadvantages considered or weighted as part of the final
decision?
Jennifer Passy – From a staff perspective, we have created the advantages and disadvantages for each
option as part of the dialogue for this process. It is important that we hear the community’s comments
and concerns on the options, and the Trustees will then consider the financial impact, impact on the
students, etc. before they make their final decision. One factor does not necessarily outweigh another. It
is important to hear the community perspective.
Q: When was the business case for the new school put together?
1
Edward Johnson PS Public Information Session
January 8, 2015
Q&A
Jennifer Passy – It was submitted to the Ministry of Education in the Fall of 2013 and approved in the
Spring of 2014.
Q: Was it foreseen in 2011 that the Board would be submitting a case for a new FI school in the East
end?
Jennifer Passy – I don’t believe this was under consideration at that time.
Q: There were two scenarios presented in 2011. One was cut because it was thought that it would
carve out too many students from Edward Johnson. Now the Couling Crescent boundary looks the
same. What happened with the projections between 2011 and now? You are asking us to rely on
planning decisions based on these enrolment projections when the previous projections have been
thrown out the door.
Jennifer Passy – The difference between 2011 and now is that there has been a dramatic shift in JK
enrolment for FI. Participation rate is the percentage of students that enroll in the FI program vs the
Regular Track program. Typically, the FI participation rate is between 15-20%. In new development
areas, we have seen upwards of 50% FI participation. This participation rate was not foreseen and it is a
dramatic shift that has only occurred in the last few years. The primary factor is the increase in the
number of families choosing FI, but Edward Johnson also has an excellent reputation which is a
contributing factor.
Q: Part of the 2011 discussion was the increased interest in FI. To my knowledge, East end
communities were all under planning in 2011. This growth should have been foreseeable.
Jennifer Passy – We were aware of the growth, it was the 50% participation rate in FI that was not
forecasted.
Q: Scenario 3 is the worst of them all. You would carve out grade 3-4 and send them to Tytler and
then grade 5-6 would go to King George. This would destroy the reputation of Edward Johnson. Have
you had any discussions yet with King George? What is their position on students moving over there?
Jennifer Passy – We have not had a dialogue with the King George school community yet. We wanted to
have initial discussions with this community tonight.
Q: Why was Tytler school closed in the first place? I thought it was closed down because it was an old
school?
Jennifer Passy – Tytler was closed because there was not a sustainable level of students in that
community to continue to operate the school. The school continues to be used by the Two Rivers
Neighbourhood Association, an early learning pre-school program and section 23 class, along with other
community uses.
2
Edward Johnson PS Public Information Session
January 8, 2015
Q&A
Q: Option 2 is repulsive. Parents would not be able to choose the FI stream. I have a two year old, and
may not know whether or not they will be able to take FI. We know that there is a significant
advantage to have FI, so I would potentially have one child disadvantaged. It seems counter-intuitive
to cap a program if so many people want FI. How is what’s best for the student weighted against
costs?
Jennifer Passy – Comments and concerns are taken very seriously by Trustees as part of their decision.
Q: How would a cap work? I have a child in SK and one who will be in JK next year. Would it be a
lottery? If so, would there be preference for those with siblings already in the program?
Jennifer Passy – There is no process or details regarding how a cap would work at this point in time.
Right now it is just a concept that would need to be explored in further detail. Various boards operate
caps in different ways.
Q: If money is going to be involved in preparing the other schools for this move, couldn’t you just get
Couling Crescent opened more quickly?
Jennifer Passy – There are some timelines that we are able to control and some that we are not. We are
not able to control how long it takes the City to review a site plan and issue building permits. We also
cannot control the weather. We usually allow two full years for design and construction of a new school.
It would be ideal to have the school open in 2016, but we do not have an approved site plan at this point
in time.
Q: What is the preferred scenario?
Jennifer Passy – There is no preferred scenario at this point. Staff is collecting comments until February
3rd and will provide its preferred scenario in advance of the February 10th meeting.
C: Edward Johnson is a great school. Tytler is a concrete jungle. Kids would be at a disadvantage at
Tytler with no play areas. Parents fundraised a lot for the play yards at Edward Johnson.
Jennifer Passy – There is no doubt that Tytler has a much smaller yard. It is not unlike Victory PS in the
Exhibition Park neighborhood. My understanding is that the school had arrangements to use fields in the
neighborhood parks.
Q: Edward Johnson has a good relationship with the Y. Some students even walk to the Y. For the one
option that would pull JK-3 into Tytler, a concern would be how this would affect after school
programs. What consideration has been given to this?
Jennifer Passy – This is a good question and the details of this would need to be investigated further.
There is the possibility that bussing could be coordinated for students at Tytler.
3
Edward Johnson PS Public Information Session
January 8, 2015
Q&A
Linda Benallick – As part of the kindergarten registration process, we look at all schools and survey for
interest in extended day programs. Bussing could possibly be facilitated if Tytler is a satellite for Edward
Johnson.
C: Speaking as a kindergarten teacher who has been through a lot of reviews, the big thing is keeping
cohorts together. The goodbyes and splits do affect the students. Just a comment for Trustees to
consider.
Q: As a new parent to the Board, and talking to other parents, I’d like to know how the new scenario
for Couling Crescent came about? How do the lines get drawn? What is being done different now in
terms of projections than in 2011?
Jennifer Passy – We keep close track of subdivision plans and building permits, so we have a good
handle on growth in the City. Our projection system takes into account development, as well as census
data and current participation and then we formulate our enrolment projections. What’s different now
is the higher FI participation rates.
Q: For option 5, the Couling Crescent boundary, what grades will the new school have when it opens?
Jennifer Passy – It will likely grow into its building, possibly opening JK-4 or JK-5 if it opens in 2017. The
grade 7 and 8 cohorts likely won’t be large enough in the first couple of years, which is why we would
have them remain at King George until the new school could support a more robust 7/8 program.
Q: Are there other communities out there that have experienced the same type of FI growth as
Guelph?
Jennifer Passy – Yes, this is something that my counterparts across the province have also been dealing
with. Peel and York region have instituted caps in their FI programs.
Q: Are there active discussions regarding how to plan for this FI growth on a larger scale, for example
provincially?
Jennifer Passy – I’m not aware of any discussions at the provincial level. The FI program is a choice, and
not every board offers it. A Public English board’s mandate is to provide English education.
Q: In terms of funding, is there a way to lobby to get more funding to support the FI growth?
Jennifer Passy – There is growth in FI, but there is also decline in other areas. When we make a case for
funding, we need to look at the Board as a whole and balance this growth against other areas.
Q: Is the Couling Crescent map a proposed boundary because a formal boundary review would need
to be undertaken to establish the official boundary?
4
Edward Johnson PS Public Information Session
January 8, 2015
Q&A
Jennifer Passy – This is the business case boundary. A full boundary review would need to involve the
King George community as well.
Q: So students would potentially be moved and then moved back again?
Jennifer Passy – Our preference as staff would be not to move students again.
Q: Are the new projections based on the 50% participation rates or the typical 15-20%?
Jennifer Passy – They are based on the 50% participation or slightly higher.
Q: I also find the cap repulsive. It’s a terrible idea. As a teacher in Peel in a school with 1000 JK-5
students, I would say you need to take into consideration the school community. Even though I don’t
love the idea of Tytler, I like the idea of starting a new school community and then moving together to
the new school. Also, having worked through numerous additions, the construction process is awful
so don’t move kids into a school that’s under construction.
Q: Are the new subdivisions factored into projections for Couling Crescent?
Jennifer Passy – Yes.
Q: Thank you for the opportunity to come out and have a discussion tonight. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide comments. I have 3 children in grades 4, 3 and 1. Two kids would stay together
if they moved to Tytler. As I understand it, the older kids would not be kept together when Couling
opens. If there were enough kids, would you consider opening Couling JK-6 in 2017 and then have the
students remain there for grades 7 and 8? Also, if you have to buy equipment for the new school
anyway, can’t you buy it early and have it at Tytler?
Jennifer Passy – We wouldn’t want to move students to Couling Crescent, only to have them move again
the following year. The issue would be having enough students for a viable 7/8 program.
Q: This is not a boundary review or an accommodation review. Does this process have a title and is it
governed by a process? Is this something that has occurred in the past?
Jennifer Passy – The Board has been faced with an emergency move in the past, for health and safety
reasons. This is considered an emergency move and there is not a lot of time to make a decision prior to
the beginning of the staffing process.
Q: Did staff raise the issue of the emergency situation after seeing the enrolment for 2014/15?
Jennifer Passy – Staff raised concerns about enrolment at Edward Johnson last fall, and it was
determined that additional portables would be added to the site.
Q: In scenario 5, Edward Johnson grades 4, 5, and 6 would stay together and graduate out together?
5
Edward Johnson PS Public Information Session
January 8, 2015
Q&A
Jennifer Passy – Yes.
Q: If Couling Crescent is going to be a JK-8 school, would Edward Johnson students still be directed to
King George, or is it possible that they may be split between the two schools for grades 7 and 8?
Jennifer Passy – Staff have not considered splitting the Edward Johnson feed for 7/8 at this time.
Q: When will the preferred scenario be made available and will there be an opportunity to comment
on it before it is presented?
Jennifer Passy – We are collecting input until February 3rd. A preferred scenario will be presented to
Trustees on February 10th. The report will be posted on Friday, February 6th with staff’s preferred option
and there will be an opportunity to delegate the Board on February 10th.
Q: There are over 4000 residences planned in East Guelph within the next 5 years, so you may end up
being overcapacity again very soon.
Jennifer Passy – We are aware of the plans. I’m not going to suggest that there will not be pressure at
the new school. This is all the more reason to start an FI management plan now. Much of these new
units are multi-residential where we typically do not see a lot of students, however we have accounted
for all of these developments.
Q: I grew up in a dual-track system and was shocked when we moved to Guelph and found out my
child had to be bussed to Edward Johnson. There is not as much of a sense of community because the
kids only see each other at school. Has there been any thought to establishing more dual-track schools
so that kids could attend the FI program at their neighbourhood school?
Jennifer Passy – When opening a new school there is consideration as to whether it is an FI centre or a
dual track school. To avoid closing the regular track component of schools, there has been a shift
towards FI Centres. There are issues where the regular track program can become unbalanced in dualtrack schools. These are the types of questions that we would need to look at should the Trustees
approve the undertaking of an FI management plan.
C: Option 5 sounds like the preferred option, but I have concerns about kids being split up. My son is
already upset about possibly being separated from his friends.
6
Parentcouncilminutes
January14,2015
Minutestakenby:EmmanuelleDrewitt
PresentationfromGarySlater(SuperintendentofEducation)andJenniferPassy
(ManagerofPlanning);MarthaMcNeil,trusteealsohere.
GarySlater:
‐BuildingnewschoolinEastend
‐FrenchImmerson(FI)centreisplansofar
‐2yrprocesstocompleteaschool(approval+paperwork+1yrbuildingphase).
‐highenrolmentpressureatEJPS
‐ProposalareverypressingforF15;tryingtodealwithpressures,someproposals
haveimpactonKGPS
‐Thisisunfoldingoverafewweeks;decisionwillbemadeFeb10,2015bytrustees.
JenniferPassy
‐Trusteemeetinglastnight,EJPSmeetinglastThursday.
‐willsummarizereportthatwaspresentedtotrusteesandEJPScommunity.Report
alsoavailableontheboardwebsiteathttp://www.ugdsb.on.ca/ejplan/
‐EnrollmentpressureatEJPS,boundaryreviewin2011‐12;intendedtorelieve
pressurebutisstillaproblem‐rightbackwherewestartedin2011
‐atEJPS:Unexpectedsituationthisfallgot+30JKsthisfall.Currentlyat490
students,withroomfor501.Thereare10portableclassroomsplustackedon
building.
‐verybigJKpressure;kindergartenregistrationfornextfallstartsFeb2nd.
‐ifwedonothing‐exceedthespacebynextyear;exceedby1000studentsover10yr
forecast.
ChallengesatEJPS
‐Capacity
‐Limitsonnumberofportables,roomfor2‐3moreatmost.Addingportablesnot
ideal.
‐withtheadditionofthenewschoolintheEastend,thereisa2yrshorttermissue.
‐requiresreliefof150studentsforF15,200forF16fromEJPSdependingonwhen
newschoolisbuild.
‐Zoninghasgonethroughtobuildschool,butstilllotstodo,permitting,oneyear
constructionetc.
ScenariostoaddresspressuresatEJPS
‐Takeout150studentsandwherewouldtheyfit?
 KG?Noevenwith6portables
 Wouldtheyfitatarborvistainsouthend?no
 NoportableoptionsatWinegardandnotenoughspacethere,buildingwise.
BasedontheTrusteemeetinglastnight,Option2isoffthetable.Thiswascalling
forcappingJK‐1enrollments.
Option1
TytlerwouldbethesatellitecampusforEJ
Spaceisavailable,communityusesatthemoment(2riversgroup,session23
programusingafewrooms,earlyreadingprogramforpreschoolers‐1,2,3);session
23usewouldhavetocease;theothertwowouldcontinueasthesewereusingthe
schoolbeforewhenitwastytlerschool.
Pros:Gr.3‐6wouldremainwiththeirmates;
Con:difficultieswithstaffing,allocationofPrincipal,admin,officecoordinator,staff
tomovebtwsitesduringschoolday,libraryandphysedresourcesnotthere.
Coordinatingbusingifstudentsfromsamefamiliesareattwosites.Mayface
multiplemoves,gr3goingbacktoEJafter.Jk‐2ofover400+studentsareleft
behindatEJ(noreadingbuddies,andadminwisealotoflittlepeopleunderone
roof).
Option3
NomoreportablesatEJ,studentsintwodifflocations,3‐4atTytler,5‐6atKG;add
3‐4portablesKG;wouldbefeedingtobecomeKGstudentsinthelongterm.Design
wastoaccommodate6portableatKGifneedaroseinthefuture;portableswould
belinedupalongtheparkinglotfencewithappropriateamountofroomandpathto
gobetweenthemasperregulations.
‐samestaffingorresourceissuesinoption1applieshereto.
‐studentswhocametoKGcouldbeEJstudentsorKGstudentsandwouldbestaffed
accordingly.
Option4
‐PortablesaddedtoEJ,Gr.5‐6movetoKGfor2015/16andGr.4‐6toKGin16/17;
6‐7portablesrequiredonKG
PRO:‐cohortremainstogether
CON:challengeaddingportablestoKG
‐staffingcanbedoneintwowaysEJstaffedorKGstaffed
‐createsa500+JK‐3atEJwhichisstillhardtomanage;
Q‐DidyoulookatJohnGaltasanoption?Theyhavealotmorelandto
accommodateportables.
A:DidnotlookatJohnGaltasthereisnoroomthereinthebuilding.Wewere
lookingforspacebothinsideandoutsidethebuilding.
Option5
Createaninterimboundaryforthenewschool.Hadtodothisexercisetoapplyto
ministrytocreateanewEastendschool‐conceptualboundaryidentifiedinthat
process,couldusethisasaninterimboundary.Thenewschoolwasproposedto
accommodatestudentseastofVictoriafromEJandKG;Fortheinterimboundary,
thosestudentsfromEJeastofVictoriacouldbeselectedtogotoTytler.Tytler
wouldthenhaveJK‐3in2015/16andJK‐4in2016/2017,thengototheneweast
endschooleventually.
Inthisscenario,boardwouldstilldoacompleteboundaryreview.Staffwouldstill
doboundaryreviewwithKGandEJtodeterminewhatthepermanentboundary
wouldlooklike
PRO:Wouldstartanewschoolculture,movetogethertonewschool;minimizing
thatdisruption.Wouldn’timpactKGstudentswhomaybedirectedtothenew
school;avoidstheovercrowding;CON:doesn’tfollowourregularboundaryreview
process;tighttimelineintermsofstaffing/idprincipalandaddressfacilityand
resourceissue;butsomeofthemoneydesignatedfortheNeweastendschoolcould
starttoflowtowardsTytlerintheinterimasresourcesboughtcouldbetransferred
tothenewschoolwiththestudentsoncetheneweastendschoolisinoperation.
Informationfordelegations:
‐ProcessconcludesonFeb10;
‐therearetherearedelegationopportunitiesbetweennowandFeb10;namelyon
Jan27,Feb3rdandFeb10.
‐normalobligations/process:needtoregistertoappearatmeetingbynoononwed
beforetheTuesdaymtg.
‐Formoreinformation,tosubmitcomments,andsign‐upforemailnotificationof
futuremeetingsandwebsiteupdates,visitwww.ugdsb.on.ca/ejplan.
Ifyouregisteracomment,itwillbeanonymousthoughyoucanidentifyyourselfas
KGparent(maybehelpfulforthetrusteestoknow).
Q&Aperiod:
Q:newCoulingschool;whatgradeswillitcover?JK‐4andbuildup?
A:JK‐8incrementalgrowth;andoncetheyhaveenough7‐8studentstomakeit
doable.
Q:continuallyshockedattheforecastingeffortsoftheboard.Constantlyreshuffled
anddealingwithemergencies.Whatistheboarddoingtoplandifferently;toavoid
thisinthefuture?
A:lastroundofboundaryreviewwaspartofcapitalplanningprocess;ministry
initiative;boardhadtoreact;forcedbyministryinresponsetoimplementationof
fulldaykindergartenacrosstheprovince;lotofchangebutdrivenprimarilyby
ministrytoprovidefulldaykindergarten.Withregardtothissituation‐FI
participationrateshavegoneinJKfrom15‐20%toupwardsof50%innew
neighbourhoods.Thishascaughtuscompletelyoffguardandisnotsomethingwe
couldhaveforecasted.40yrofFIinthisboard,butincreasingparticipationrates
hasdefinitelycausedagreatamountofpressureonourexistingschools.
Q:mykidalreadymovedtwice;youproposeaninterimboundarybutthenfull
review.PleaseClarify.IsKGhavinganotherboundaryreviewagiven?Arewegoing
tobeovercrowdedforsure?
A:Regardlessofwhatwegowith,therewillbeaboundaryreviewthisyearinthe
spring.
Q:Whydopiecemealboundaryreviewsratherthanacitywideboundaryreview?
A:BiggestpressureisaccommodatingFIhereinGuelphandbeyondintheboard.
BoardhasdevelopedaTermsofReferencecommitteetofigureoutwhattodowith
FIpressures;thiscommitteewillbereportingattheendofMarch.
Q:IfincreasesinFI;arethereEnglishschoolsemptying?Isconsolidationofexisting
Englishschoolsanoption?
A:SomeroominEnglishschoolsbutnotalot;Guelphisstillgrowing,population
wise;LookingatEastsideofGuelph,therearenoclearoptions;thereisn’tthat
muchspaceinourjurisdiction.
Q:IsthishappeninginEnglishschoolstoo‐themovingaroundofchildren?
A:yes
Q:Option3,EJstudentsremainEJstudentswhileatKG.Whydifferentiatethetwo?
A:fromateacherstaffingperspective,ifthestudentsareblendedintoKG,they
wouldhaveKGteachers;iftheEJstudentswerekeptasstandaloneEJclasses,they
wouldbestaffedbyEJteachers:distinctioniswhoisteaching,bargaining/union
implications..TherearepotentialinefficienciesinhavingEJstaffedclassesatKG–
possiblybettertobeblendedintoKG.
Q:IsituptotrusteestodecidewhichwayitgoeswhetherwegoblendedintoKGor
EJstaffed?
A:Yes;butyouhavetorememberitisnotjustacost/moneyallocationissue.Ina
wayitismorecomplexifstudentsgotoasatellitecampusasanewprincipaland
adminstaffwouldhavetobeappointed.Wewouldn’tnameanewprincipalif
studentsstayasEJstudentsinKG.
Q:Wouldn’tmoremoneycometoGuelphifnewschoolcreated:
A:thefundingisallocatedbasedonnumberofstudentsnotbyschool.Admin
staffingdeterminedbyratiosofstaff:students;$$availableisrelatedtostudents
notcollectionofstudentsintoaschool
Q:wearenewtothearea.Isthereanappealprocessforcurrentlyregistered
familiestoremainatKGifstudentshadtomove?
A:thiswoulddependontheageofstudents;ifoption5selected,jk‐5mayormay
notbeaffected.Studentsbeyondthosegrades,wouldbeallowedtostay.Thereisno
appealprocesstotheboundaryreviewbutthereisanoutofareaprocesssubjectto
anumberofcriteriaandspaceavailable[andrenegotiatedeveryyear].
Q:aboundaryisalinebuttheimplicationsareoveranarea‐wouldn’tyouhave
busingissues?
A:Inevitably.Therewouldbeinefficienciesforbusesaslineswouldhavetobe
drawn.Duetothenewguidelinesrelatedtomaximumwalkingdistancetoschool
forthelowergrades,therewillbemorebusesregardlessofwhatwepick.Wewould
probablyhavetwobusesrunningtoeachschoolratherthanhaveonebusdelivering
studentstotwodifferentschools.
Q:Anyconsiderationgiventothefactthatwejustgotmovedaroundinthelast
review?
A:ThisiswhywearehavinganFIreview.
Q:Thinkinglongtermhere‐AreyouconsideringthefuturehighschoolFI
pressures?
A:yes,thatisonourradar.Willlikelyneedanothersecondaryschoolnotjustbased
onFIdevelopmentsbuttotalnoofstudents.
Q:Thisisourfirstyeartobeawholeschool.Loathtohavetheholdingschool
situationagain.Anyconsiderationthatwehavealreadyservedtheboardtwice?By
beingaholdingschoolforJohnGaltandLeeStreet?
A:ThisiscertainlyapointthatIwouldrecommendmakingthroughtheejplan
website.
Q:Wehavejustoverseen$93,000renovationtoourschoolyardandyouwantto
put6portablesintothere??Thiswouldcreatemuchlessspacefor500kids;
A:Theseareexcellentpointstosharethroughthewebsiteforthebenefitoftrustees.
Q:Whatistheweightofparentalopinioninthetrustee’sdecisionmakingprocess?
A:Yourcommentsdoresonate;manyofyourconcernsareEJ’sconcernsaswell.
Concernedparentscommentsdocontributetothedecisions.
Q:isthereanamountofplayspaceperchilddedicatedlikethereisforexample
amountofbuildingspacededicatedperchild?Orisdoyouonlyhavebuilding
guidelines?
A:theamountofplayspaceispartofourdiscussionbutyouhavetorememberthat
thisschoolwasoriginallydesignedwithpotentialfor6portables.
Q:Whydesignaschoolwithportables?Whynotplantohaveabiggerschoolinthe
firstplace?
A:Boardhastodevelopasustainableplanforschools,whichincludesthese
contingencyplanstoaccommodateunforeseenorprojectedgrowthsothatit
doesn’tcreateschoolsthatenduphalfempty.Theapproachwehavetakenis
consideredmoresustainableandhassomeroomtodealwithpressures.
Q:IhavejustmovedfromMiltonschool,whichwasbuiltfor700studentsandnow
has1200studentswith20portables.Theproblemtherewasthattheboarddidn’t
followthesubdivisiongrowthcloselyenoughandcompletelyunderestimatedit.
AreyoucloselyintouchwithconstructiondevelopmentinGuelph?Ithinkweare
waybeyondthemodelofafamilymovingtoaneighbourhoodandstayingthere.I
havemovedseventimesforjobs.Theboardsneedtoaccountforthisshiftin
living/movingintotheirmodels.Thereisaneedtorethinkthesustainabilitymodel
currentlyusedbytheboards.
Q:Iampartly/mostlyanEJParent.AtEJ,Theprincipalhasdealtwiththepressures
bysplittingupthekidsthataregoingoutforrecessintotheyardbyyears‐splitthe
amountoftimebetweengroups.YeswehaveahugeyardatEJbutcurrentlyclosed
offinpartbecauseofdrainageissues.Justsaying..
[Icouldn’tspeakaswastakingnotesbutdoesthatmeanourkidswouldhavehalf
thetimeoutsideforrecesses?Icanseetakingturnsgoingoutsidebutwouldbe
verymuchopposedtohavinghalfofthetimeformykidtorunaround.Learning
wouldsufferiftheydon’tgettorunaroundduringthoserecesses].
OVERTIMESODECIDEDTOMOVEON…
Trusteeprovidedhercontactdetailsforanyonewantingtospeakaboutthe
issue:
martha.macneil@ugdsb.on.ca
519‐830‐2139
GarySlateralsosaidtheywereavailabletodiscussthisandtojustphonehimatthe
board..
Jan 8th – Jan 9th, 2015
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted
correspondence with regard to the Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students
and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all
recorded communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent
or message has not been changed.
Jan 8, 2015
Of the options presented at the meeting tonight, I take exception to just one – Option 2.
I’m not even sure this option is constitutional – could there be legal action taken?
This option does not address 2 major concerns.
The first is that many parents of current students have young children at home that will
be starting JK in the next year or two. I can assure you, I do not want my children to
attend 2 separate schools, so that idea of a cap and a random lottery for enrolment is
extremely objectionable!
The second is that this cap severely limits those parents whose children have not yet
started school. EJPS is a wonderful school with a great reputation, and also a
regimented plan for french-english implementation. In order to keep with a french
school, students will have to be sent to the far side of Guelph (thus flooding other french
immersion schools causing similar problems), or will be forced into English only schools
and if they can’t start 100% French by grade 1, they will not be allowed into the
program. This just hurts students, as a French certificate opens many doors later in life.
It is also against our freedom to choose a French speaking school!
Therefore, the idea of Option 2 is absolutely repulsive.
Please, please heed this letter, and avoid option 2 at all costs.
Thank you.
NB – increase in enrolment in French immersion means more parents are wanting their
children to have the French option – capping is counter-intuitive and will create ill-will as
parents are continually disappointed.
PS – is there any way donations can make a difference to improving life for our students
regardless of decisions? Ie resources for PE, library, etc? Please let us know – I may
have the ability to make a large contribution.
Jan 8th – Jan 9th, 2015
Jan 8, 2015
Besides the worry of having my son be bounced around for 1-2 years I would like an
exact idea of what a “satellite school” looks like.
Jan 8, 2015
I believe the least disruptive solution would be to create the Couling Cres population
now.
Please start a French Immersion Management Plan as soon as possible.
I find it frustrating that planning does not seem to be anything but short-term for many
projects including this one.
For example:
1. Fenced plan area built one year and then had to be added to the next year
2. Portables not ready for September
Jan 8, 2015
My child will be going to Couling Cres. School when it is built. I will need after school
care for my child. She is presently at the Kensington YMCA. This issue is of grave
concern to me. I prefer Option #5.
Jan 8, 2015
Scenario #5
Jan 8th – Jan 9th, 2015
Jan 8, 2015
I have to admit option 5 – a quick re-zoning of the students and east of Victoria and bus
them to a new “waiting” or “holding” zone until the new school of Couling Cres. to open.
Simply put it will keep families together as I don’t believe siblings split up would help
foster the school/family environment.
A suggestion would be to move up the progress of the new Couling Cres. site and move
the students as soon as possible even if it is during the year, as long as facilities were in
place.
Jan 8, 2015
I am in support of option 5 – creating an interim boundary for the new East Guelph
school. This is the most fair and logical option for the students and families.
Jan 8, 2015
Option #2 (caps on numbers of students): Terrible idea. Too many problems to list!
Preference would be for Options 4 or 5.
Option #3 would have each of my 3 kids at different schools.
Jan 8, 2015
From this parents perspective Scenario 5 is my preferred scenario.
It makes a “boundary” change now that will inevitably occur.
The other scenarios have Tytler operating as a holding tank as opposed to where a new
school community is being formed.
I am not only advancing this scenario out of personal interest because it is the “best”
scenario for my family but also because I believe it preserves the integrity of Edward
Johnson as a school. The other scenarios break it apart and I fear what that will do to
the education the kids receive and the reputation of the school.
Jan 8th – Jan 9th, 2015
I would suggest that parents be invited to visit Tytler school so they can see the facility
before the decision is made.
Thank you.
Jan 8, 2015
Thank you for holding the information session tonight. The only option that would make
sense from my perspective would be option 5. I couldn't see any of the options being
what is best for the children and the school. If any other option were to be implemented
I would have a child in JK at Edward Johnson and my other child who will be in grade
three next year at another school. Splitting the school up will be breaking up a truly
wonderful and unique environment that Edward Johnson is. I have been a parent here
for three years we moved from Toronto. I understand the enrolment pressures of French
immersion. They have the same issues with the TDSB. At the time of our move we were
actually placed on a wait list for SK French immersion for my daughter for a school we
lived three doors from and given the choice to attend another school 30 minutes away.
I will be honest the school is the main reason we chose to live in the north end of
Guelph. This decision was a great one. This school even though most children are
bused truly has a unique sense of community I wouldn't want to see that jeopardized.
The children are happy I see it everyday. As a member of the parent council I have
never met a bunch of parents who are dedicated to the school and making it better for
our kids. Please consider the best option here for our children. Thank you for your time.
Jan 8, 2015
Good evening
As a parent of a child at EJPS, I attended tonight's session. It was very informative. It
was clear that UGDSB must develop a FI enrolment policy sooner than later.
Having been told that unforeseen circumstances has put the board in this "emergency"
situation, leaving parents with little opportunity to have input into these decisions, I
would strongly recommend the board choose the least disruptive option for short term
(ie next school year). This would grant the board time to develop a plan to address FI
enrolment issues which may include consultation on a cap for all FI schools as well as
follow your own boundary review policy for the new school and at least give parents the
perception that they had the opportunity to be part of the discussion.
As it has currently been laid out, parents have approximately 30 days to provide
comment prior to a decision that will impact our children for years and the preferred
Jan 8th – Jan 9th, 2015
staff option is still not known. Certainly the process 3 yrs ago for the current boundary
review was much more transparent.
I would suggest option 4 for the next school year as a temporary measure and take the
time to develop a long term sustainability plan. Regardless, as a parent whose child
currently attends the Afterschool program at the Kensington Y, I hope you will be
flexible as some of the options listed will have significant impact on families beyond the
3:15 pm school day.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comment.
Jan 9, 2015
Thank you for the information you provided last night. I had come up with what you
might offer and never believed that my children who are only 2 years apart would be
going to different schools. I know we are not the only family like this and will make it
very difficult for working families to have young kids at different schools, it becomes a
schedule and daycare mess. However, I understand I still have choice I can pull my kids
from the French program or leave them and try and make it work both financially and
with schedules. I knew this would occur at some point but we had figured when they
were older and could get home on their own not when they were under 10 years old. I
know it's a numbers game and geography so I realize this is very difficult with lots of
variables. My only real concern is the Tytler School it was closed because it would be
too costly to upgrade and now chances are 1 of my kids will be going there and I
worried they will be at disadvantages due to lack of technology and facility issues in this
school. Plus I'm a little concerned of the location, I did by a house in the East End
because of schools in the area that my kids could go to and this isn't in the area I
desired my kids to go to for safety reasons. I know you have protocol but I also know
from a business side you have your preferred options I just hoped that you would have
been honest and let us know where you were leaning although I have a good idea from
the way it was presented. To end as I realize in reading this it may sound hard, not my
intent, this is very difficult decision that you will take all the factors into consideration. It
is just frustrating because it seems that you have to always be on the reactive instead of
the proactive. I could have told you back in 2011 we would be sitting in that gym again
as we were last night and we will be going through this again in 5 years when the new
school is over flowing and unfortunately my kids will be the ones in the middle being
shuffled. The kids will handle it better then us adults and we should probably learn from
them. Good luck with your decision as I again appreciate that this isn't easy and there is
no way to make everyone happy.
Jan 9, 2015
Jan 8th – Jan 9th, 2015
For the options suggesting moving kids to Tytler, my first concern is building safety. I
would hope that the overall condition (mold is a concern) of the building is addressed
prior to making that decision.
Also, it would be greatly appreciated if the board would work with the YMCA or
alternative after-school care provider to explore the option of housing an after-school
program at Tytler
Jan 9, 2015
Option 5 appears to be the most equitable choice.
We selected and purchased a home where we could walk our children to a French
Emerson School that is highly rated. Bussing our children to one or two different
schools so that other children can be bussed to EJ does not seem fair or wise.
Boundaries should be reset so that those in walking distance of EJ are not affected.
Additionally, the outer lying students were going to be disrupted eventually, so having
that happen sooner and leaving everyone else as is surely has the least impact.
Jan 9, 2015
Arguments can be made for and against any of the five scenarios proposed by the
Board. We know that whichever scenario is chosen is going to affect students and
families. The question is which scenario causes the least disruption.
It seems that scenario 5, in which students who would leaving EJ in two years time to
attend Couling Cres., would be housed at Tytler, is this scenario. Yes, families will be
affected, but the opportunity to start building the new school community is definitely
beneficial. The students would have time to get to know each other, their teachers, and
other staff members. The school culture could begin to develop. If this move is a given
in two years time, and making it in Sept. 2015 would alleviate enrollment pressures at
EJ, isn't this the best answer?
In all honesty, this is my preferred scenario because it would allow my two children, who
will be in grades 3 and 6 next year, to finish their elementary careers at the
neighbourhood school they walk to every day. Both children have attended EJ since
JK, and I think it's unfair to ask my daughter to move for her final year. As well, my son
would be bused to Tytler for two years, then moved back to Edward Johnson (to which
he can walk in under 10 minutes). This seems a bit ridiculous. Why move students
unless they are waiting for a new school to be built?
Families that would stay at EJ would not have to undergo a move to Tytler just to be
returned to EJ in two years, and EJ siblings would not be broken up which would
alleviate a different set of worries in terms of before and after school care. The Edward
Jan 8th – Jan 9th, 2015
Johnson community could continue to function as a primary/junior school with the
benefit of older students to assist where needed in the school.
This scenario seems to affect the fewest number of families and students by minimizing
the moves made by the students and staff.
Jan 9, 2015
I am a parent of a grade 3 student at EJPS and would just like to offer my opinon on the
Interim Accommodation.
It would seem to me, after careful review of the given options, that Option #5 (Create an
interim boundary for the new east Guelph school from the Edward Johnson PS
attendance area only), is the best option for all the reasons listed as "Advantages" in
Appendix 'A'. It appears to accomplish all the goals of the Interim Accommodation
("Avoids continued overcrowding at EJPS and additional pressure at KGPS for next 2
years") and is the least disruptive to the EJPS community and I believe that this should
be very strongly considered. The EJPS families that live well within the boundaries
should not have to be affected by the enrollment influx (i.e. having to change before and
after school care providers and bussing or transporting children to a school further from
home).
Thank you.
Jan 9, 2015
Hello! I was unable to make the meeting last night but certainly appreciate the
opportunity to leave a comment :)
I do not believe I will be affected by the boundaries per say (at least I hope not as we
are within 2.5 kms of the school) but I would like to make a comment with regards to
expansion.
I am desperately hoping that should the school grow anymore than it already has (and
perhaps even if it stays the same), that a petition can be made to add an "actual"
addition to the school as opposed to the portable situation we have now. We have more
classrooms in portable form than we do in the actual school. I am very opposed to
portables for many reasons! The teachers (and students) are completely unmonitored
and unchecked (which I don't believe is right at all! - there should be nothing happening
behind closed doors...), quite unlike the busy hallways of the main school; the kids (as
young as 6) have to walk outside to get a drink or use the bathrooms, which poses both
security issues as well as issues in our winter weather!; and of course, there is
significant sensory deprivation, especially in the older units -many of which we have.
Jan 8th – Jan 9th, 2015
Now, I am not an architect but this school has been built in a very simple format - one
that would be very easy to add onto, certainly as opposed to a more modern school with
all of their angles and levels etc., and there is certainly more than enough room.
I implore the board to make more permanent and appropriate arrangements for this
school, as the populous is certainly not going to get smaller!
Once again, I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you, xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
(current EJ parent of 3)
Jan 10th – Jan 16th, 2015
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted
correspondence with regard to the Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students
and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all
recorded communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent
or message has not been changed.
Jan 12, 2015
I would encourage the trustees and staff to consider what grade levels will best be
served by Tytler school's space and resources. I am concerned about the emphasis
placed on outside play/inquiry in the JK/SK program and the lack of natural spaces
available for those classes at Tytler. My child's kindergarten class at times spends the
entire first third of the day outside, along with two recess periods. My child's
kindergarten class needs a volunteer (or two) in order to safely bring the large class to
nearby parks. It alarms me that JK/SK students who spend a large amount of their time
outside would be spending the majority of that time in a small, paved area. Exploring
trees, soil, plants, gardens, animal tracks, etc... has been a big source of inquiry for her
class over two years. Certainly teachers can be creative - but I do feel it is a strong part
of the environment the kids experience and Edward Johnson and would regret other
children (of mine and others) not having significant access to natural spaces.
Jan 13, 2015
I attended the meeting held by the board last week on the required changes and
possible options for Edward Johnson Public School. First of all, it was very well run and
all the options were well thought out and presented. My SK daughter falls into the
category of students who will be transitioning to the Couling Crescent School when it
becomes available. While I would like to see her stay at Edward Johnson, I think the
move to the temporary location (forget the name) is the most viable for all of the
students. It makes no sense to me to be moving out grades of students, potentially
dividing families and creating additional change when a new school is imminent. While
my family would not see an impact of divided siblings, this alone is reason not move out
a couple of grades. I very strongly am in favour of moving all the Couling students for
start of Sept 2015 with a second move to the new school once it is complete.
Jan 13, 2015
After attending the parent information session last week at Edward Johnson, I sincerely
hope that option 5 will be selected to reduce the overcrowding currently experienced at
this school.
Jan 10th – Jan 16th, 2015
I live in the northern part of the boundary and to suggest that I will drive (and I assume
driving will be my only option seeing as their current bus ride is almost an hour although
45 minutes is the current maximum and Tytler is much further) ONE of my children to
Tytler while my youngest attends Edward Johnson for one-two years before my eldest
returns to EJ is absurd. You must realize you will be asking families who live directly
across from the school now to also commute to Tytler?
The obvious solution is to divide the children by their geographic area (also known as by
which school they will attend) and leave those who are in the correct boundary remain
at EJ without disruption.
The other options presented at this meeting were completely unacceptable.
Thank you.
Jan 14, 2015
Looking at the 5 choices the most logical seems to be scenario 5. Even though the
kids will be housed at tytler for 2 years it will at least be the group that will be moving
into the new building. Transition is always difficult But this group being together will
start bonding then the excitement of moving to a new building and being able to walk to
school for a lot of them.
Thanks
Jan 14, 2015
Concerns:
1. What makes EJ special? Maintaining a JK - 6 grade curriculum. Advantages: older
children helping younger ones fosters sense of school family and responsibility.
Promotes a collectivistic culture where it becomes "we" vs "I". Focus is maintained on
the whole versus a sub group. Lowering the grade level to a JK - 2 (or 3) will only
destroy the foundation of what makes Edward Johnson the #1 school (Fraser report).
2. The cost to provide resources (library / gym) at Tytler is non value added unless it is
provided for the new Couling school group and they can transfer these assets to the
new building.
3. Option 5 has the least disruption and encourages new school community and
maintains the intent of EJ spirit of JK - 6 grade levels.
4. Any option other than 5 devalues residential properties within the school boundary
as families will not want to move to this area for only 2 - 3 years (JK - 3). After all why
go to the EJ school if you can not attend until grade 6.
5. Is École L'Odyssée a resource to consider as well?
6. Were there any lessons learned when Paisley Road and Victory were reduced to JK
- 2 / 3 grade levels; advantages / disadvantages and does it remain an effective FI
program?
Jan 10th – Jan 16th, 2015
7. Does the Board of Education share their vision for the FI program as a result of
provincial legislation (eg full day kindergarten). This may help parents understand the
options provided and the recommended solution (a value added one I may add). Is it a
priority to maintain a JK – 6 program or is there another objective that needs to be met
as well?
Thank you:)
Jan 14, 2015
I have reviewed the 5 submitted proposals and am happy to hear the capping proposal
has been removed. Having grade 5 and 2 students at Edward Johnson I am very aware
of the situation that the school and board are in with respect to overcrowding. Whatever
is decided will not be a popular decision however the board must consider the impact
that these decisions have on the families impacted. For the vast majority of us our
school day does not run from 8:45 - 3:15. It runs from 7:30 - 6:00 or longer and as
parents we have devoted considerable effort to make arrangements to accomodate this
extended day. Any proposal that involves moving existing students must be
accompanied with on site before and afterschool care. As parents we are very
protective of our children and finding child care providers is extremely important. It is
often a major component in chosing where we live. If you put students at Tytler there
has to be these programs. You're going to need them at the new school when it's built
so you might as well put them in place now.
Jan 15, 2015
I find it ludicrous that all these options involve separating siblings to two or possibly
three different schools. Why is there no option being presented where the whole of the
new Couling Cres. school population would move together to Tytler and begin to
establish itself as a new community, with principal, administration and teachers? Would
this not be the best option for families with multiple children and to begin this new
school community in a positive way rather than a disjointed, unappealing plan?
If my three children who next year will be in JK, grade 2 and 4, are placed in three
separate schools, we will be looking at the option of removing them not only from FI, but
also from this short-sighted school board. We can not begin to express our
disappointment with this "process" now and from three years ago. We assumed the
board would have learned from it's mistakes then, but apparently not.
Jan 15, 2015
I live among the group of families that lives in the area east of Victoria Road. I have
reviewed all of the available options and am a strong supporter of Option #5.
Jan 10th – Jan 16th, 2015
This option seems to be the most reasonable and least disruptive to families and young
students.
Thank you.
Jan 15, 2015
I've reviewed the 5 options that the trustee's need to decide on and wanted to at least
provide my view to the mix.
I have a daughter currently at EJPS. She has an anxiety disorder and it took us the
ENTIRE first year of school to finally be comfortable going to the school and staying all
day, every day. Now that she's in xx, it's been much better, but she still has her
moments. A HUGE part of the progress made is due to the wonderful teachers that
she's become comfortable with and who are excellent and supportive people. I can
guarantee you that there are many other families with little ones that have had to
struggle with this sort of thing as well.
My point is this, moving JK-3 to other schools (or splitting up the cohorts of SK-3 for the
coming year, is FAR from the least impactful choice on the children (regardless of any
inconvenience to the families). Option #5 in my opinion (trying to be as unbiased as
possible given this one is the worse impact on my child) is a horrible move to do to the
youngest of the children as a whole. Yes, the new boundary children will have to move
to Couling in 2 years, however, you’re now making these little children move to Tytler,
then move again to Couling. It seems to me, based on reading a number of the
feedback comments, that people are simply looking at this in how it will affect them and
not the impact on the little ones that are being shuffled around too much.
Option #2, although people seem to think putting a cap on enrolment is unjust, is in my
opinion the least impactful overall. The grades 5-6 children are moving to KGPS when
they hit grade 7 anyways and they’re also the smallest group of children to move. They
are older, so it won’t mentally affect them as bad. You can keep the cohorts together,
and KG has the capacity. In 2 years, you can then just reinstate 5-6 back to EJ when
the Couling School is opened. Parents with children in multiple grades at EJ will have
to multi-school eventually when the first hits grade 7 anyways, so what’s the problem
with it being a bit sooner?
This option (#2) creates the least impact on the fewest number of children, and I believe
allows for an easier timeframe for getting KG ready to take the extra kids than having to
redo and staff Tytler by the end of August. You mentioned already that other Regions
have enrolment caps too, so this shouldn’t be a problem here (at least for a couple
years) as well. I’m sure the rules you developed for the cap will have some caveats
such as if a sibling is already at EJ, etc…
Jan 10th – Jan 16th, 2015
Finally, I also wanted to point out my thoughts on the reason for the greater influx of FI
at EJ recently. It’s because many of the East Guelph people only have the choice
between Brant and EJ. I personally have been told by DOZENS of people that Brant is
a terrible school and EJ is an excellent school. If you were told this when enrolling your
child in school, where would you go? I have NO evidence on the matter and am not
saying Brant is actually a bad school, I’m merely pointing out one strong reason why we
made the decision to go EJ and not Brant.
I thank you for your time in reading my ramblings!
After submitting my comments just a few minutes ago, I noticed a Media Release
posted today that says Option #2 was now taken off the table. Can the review minutes
that came to this decision be posted for public review? The media release says
"following a successful motion by Trustee Susan Moziar."
Based on the same reasons from my previous comment why I thought Option #2 was
best, I now must redirect to the next option that I feel causes the least impact on the
majority of the children, Option #4. My child will suffer much less if she's in a portable at
EJ, than if you moved her around to 2 different schools in the next 2 years all while also
splitting the cohorts of JK-3 or 4 up.
Thanks for your time again, and I don't envy the decision you'll have to make here!
Jan 15, 2015
would like to have some input on this re-zoning aspect of EJPS. Option 4 is the only
option that will work.
The reason i say this is because Tytler shouldnt even be considered as an option. The
school was closed to all those in the Two Rivers neighbourhood because of its lack of
structural integrity, lack of proper ventilation in extreme temperatures (ie kids were
passing out in extreme heat of may and june, and freezing in cold snaps - i know this
first hand as I lived in the area and heard from several neighbours), and the fact that the
facilities for activities -gym, and playground- were not safe for young children.
I do agree the boundary for Edward Johnson will need to be changed once the couling
cres school is built, however sending jk-3 students to a school previoulsly closed due to
inadequacies is absolutely unacceptable. I researched this school extensively and
absolutely refuse to send my 4 year old to Tytler under any circumstances. To a
concrete playground. She is the child who overheats easily and has already had a
seizure due to temperature extremes.
The fact that some parents are concerned about spliting up students siblings as
grounds to move the jk's is ludacris. They will be moving to King George for grade 7
anyway. Why is is a problem to moving them in grade 5?
The younger grades are much less adaptable, and have just left the security of home,
and now we are suggesting moving them to an usafe school? Unacceptable.
Jan 10th – Jan 16th, 2015
I would appreciate consideration of this argument before any plans are made to move
JK/SK/primary grades.
This is an extremely important time developmentally and changing all of their friends,
teachers, and entire environemt, developmentally, is a bad move on the school boards
part. After the age of 8 it is proven that change is less detrimental, and has much less
of a permanent impact socially, emotionally, and logistically.
Please condsider these young children before a decision is made. I will be forced to pull
my child if the decision os made to go to Tytler. I have accepted that EJPS may not be
the place that she complete primary education as i will be in the Couling boundary, and
that is a tough enough pill to swallow,as i bought my house knowing that she would be
in the district of EJPS. But i will not, and i am sure that most parents will agree, not send
our kids to a school that is inadequate. King George for the junior grades 4-6 is a much
better option until a new french immersion school can be built.
Thank you for your time.
Jan 16, 2015
I'm a mother of a daughter that I'm about to register for her first time in school, emerging
at j/k and was hoping for Edward Johnson.
We actually live in the area of the new school being built at couling crescent.
I've read all of the purposed 'possibilities' of what is going to happen next year and the
year after.
I'd just like to say that I'm very thankful that you've done a great job at communicating
with the public and I feel like i'm fully informed and up to date about what the
possibilities are.
I feel that although the littles (j/k and s/k students) are little, they are more resilient and
easier adaptable to change then say 4-5 grade children who have already formed bonds
with their peers that have been forming for years, familiar routines, clubs and teams,
etc...
Moving the "couling' cresent children to a temporary location for a year (possibly two
depending on school being ready), seems like the more 'sound' solution, if you are
keeping booth schools as j/k to grade 6.
Splitting up kids and moving them around from place to place just seems like its going
to be a nightmare to sort out.
Also, I'm not sure why the grandfathering of students is permitted when we as a city
have such amazing schools and high enrollment for certain areas.
Jan 10th – Jan 16th, 2015
Whatever the decision is going to be, I'm thankful you are making it earlier into this year
so we can begin to prepare our preschoolers for the atmosphere they will be attending,
as my daughter is very excited for school!!
Jan 17th – Jan 23rd, 2015
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted
correspondence with regard to the Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students
and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all
recorded communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent
or message has not been changed.
Jan 18, 2015
I was at the meeting during the first week of January to hear about the issues and
comments from the community. As a parent of 2 children (Aged 2 and 4) who will be
attending the new Couling Cres school, I support the option of having the future Couling
Cres students attend Tytler Public School until it is ready. As a teacher in the Peel
board, I know what it is like to have a school with a large number of students. This
option allows the future Couling Crescent students and teachers to move together as a
"Team" from Tytler.
If this option is the approved one, please consider having a before and after school
program, or alternatively allow child care centres (such as Tiny Hoppers, YMCA
Kensington) the ability to run buses from their location.
Jan 19, 2015
I am a parent of a kindergarten kid who is just settling into the new school at King
George. Portables in playgrounds and overflow of children from another school, would
be detrimental to the current school community which is just starting to emerge after the
building of the school and other school's being temporarily housed there. I hope you will
vote against King George being the recipient of the portables. King George has had
enough upheaval and uncertainty in the last couple years and we are still in a phase of
adjustment and transition.
Jan 20, 2015
I recognize the need for a solution to the problems associated with enrolment
projections at EJPS. As a parent of a child at KGPS, and a close neighbour of the
school building, I believe strongly that Option 4 would impose an unfair burden on the
KGPS community. The property at KGPS is too small to accommodate 6 to 7 portables
and still allow for adequate outdoor space for recreation. The playscape has recently
been upgraded following significant private fundraising and parent effort. I am also
concerned that the additional traffic on Metcalfe, Lemon and St. Catharine streets that
Option 4 would generate would pose significant safety concerns, especially during the
winter months. Although I am not opposed to KGPS being part of the solution to the
Jan 17th – Jan 23rd, 2015
enrolment pressures in FI, Option 4 places too much of a burden on the KGPS
community.
Jan 20, 2015
Hello,
I have 2 kids:currently one is in JK and one in Grade 2. Some of the options presented
would send my kids to different schools. This would be difficult to handle from logistics
point of view ( transportation, after hours ). Would they take the same bus? Keep in
mind that if the younger kids spend more time in the bus , there might be additional
issues ( toilet, fall asleep ). Different busses - double the trouble.
Would there be any option for families with multiple kids to enroll them in the same
school (even King George)?
In my opinion, option 5 is the option that makes more sense.
Thank you.
Jan 21, 2015
I am in support of option #4. It seems to disrupt the least amount of children and keep
peers together. although this option would split my children between two schools it
seems the one that would be least disruptive to all. Grade fives and sixes (and
eventually fours) would move to a school they would attend in 7 &8 anyway and
everyone else could remain where they are. The two extra portables seem like a far
better option then trying to arrange a whole new set of buses, staff and resources to a
school that has been closed for 2 years and from what I understand is lacking in green
space and possibly has issues with structure and temperature control. The students
that would attend the new school (which includes just my son in this scenario) could
move when the new school is open. The people that seem to support the movement of
the Couling Cr kids to Tytler seem to be the same people who remain in the EJPS
boundary and won't have to send their kids there.
Jan 24th- Jan 27th
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted
correspondence with regard to the Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students
and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all
recorded communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent
or message has not been changed.
Jan 25, 2015
Hello,
If I were an EJPS parent, I would vote for option 5 for a number of reasons:
-it would keep families together, which I think is the most critical
-it would keep a balanced number of students of all ages at the two locations
-it minimizes the number of moves and the number of students impacted by the moves
-it would begin to build the new school culture
-teaching resources acquired for Tytler can move to the new school
As a King George parent, I vote for option 5 as it will minimize the impact on our school
community. In addition, I would like to vote against option 3 or 4 for the same reason.
We have just gone through several transition years, where we were a holding school for
John Galt and Lee Street. We have also just spent nearly $100,000 on the schoolyard.
Many volunteer hours went into this and it is very disheartening to think that the yard
would be taken over by portables. We have seen much benefit from having a better
outside space for the kids to play in through recess, including many less incidents of
conflicts as the kids have more space to run in and more play areas to spread
themselves out. I strongly believe this physical activity outside subsequently helps the
students learn in the classroom. The yard is already relatively small and I cannot
imagine losing all that space to portables and then fitting 6 portables of kids together
with the existing school population in that much smaller space. I think it would also
affect the school’s community if students and teachers from different schools were
housed in one place, especially if the EJPS students were kept as separate from the
KGPS students and the classrooms were staffed separately.
I am glad you are looking more closely at the FI pressures in the board and that you
were successful in getting a new school in the East end that will alleviate pressures at
EJPS in the long term. I hope you will choose option 5 in the interim as I believe it has
the most wide ranging benefits.
Thank you for your time
Jan 26, 2015
This is the first year we have entered schooling in Guelph as my child is in J/K. It is
imperative to us that he receives French literacy as nowadays this is a mandatory skill
for most employment. I am an RECE and understand the developmental needs of
children. Moving the young children from school to school is a terrible idea as it breaks
Jan 24th- Jan 27th
the consistency and trust of the children who cling so desperately to routine and
expectations. Some of these little ones have just turned four and have been moved
from daycare to a school and are just learning the new routine.
Any option to keep the Kindergarten classes as stable as possible would be my vote.
Older children are more adaptable to changes.
I just hope this new school built in the East End will be built for 2000 students as the
East End neighbourhood is mainly residential with single family homes and more and
more to be built.
Jan 27, 2015
As parents of a grade 1 & 4 student at KGPS we are opposed to the proposals to put
portables on our school grounds for several reasons. 2014/15 is the first year since our
children have been moved from EJ that they can call the school their own as we've
been a 'holding school' for two other english schools. We are finally a FI center and
developing our own sense of community, culture and strong parental involvement.
During this time much thought, time, and money has gone into designing, fundraising
and developing our small outdoor space for our children. The space is already packed
with kids playing at recess and there is no room to accomodate portables and still allow
sufficient space for our children to play and get the excercise they need. Traffic and
parking during pick up and drop off, escpecially during the winter months as snow piles
up is already overwhelming. I worry for the safety of our children if 7 portables of
additional students were being dropped off and picked up on a daily basis. For all these
reasons we feel that KGPS should not be asked to assist in the accomodation of
overcrowding at EJ by placing portables on our grounds.
Jan 27, 2015
For our family and other families who are within walking distance from Edward
Johnson, option 5 makes the most sense by far. Especially to those families with
multiple young children and before/after school care in the neighbourhood. Also, so
many great volunteering opportunities start for the kids at this JK-6 school from lunch
monitors to reading buddies. This creates such an overall fantastic school spirit and
community! Please consider a boundary review, moving those kids to Tytler and then off
to their brand new school. We chose to live in this neighbourhood so our children could
go to the neighbourhood school.
Jan 27, 2015
Good Evening,
I attended the Public Information Session hosted Thursday, January 8, 2015. The five
proposed options were presented clearly and I trust that great consideration will go into
Jan 24th- Jan 27th
selecting the fairest option. Unfortunately it appears there is no clear option that will
satisfy all families impacted by the capacity issue at Edward Johnson. However, I was
quite pleased to learn that Option #2 (Capping proposal) has been eliminated.
My daughter will be starting JK this September. Based on the remaining four proposals
for consideration, we would be impacted if Option #5 is selected as we live in what
would be the new boundary. I appreciate the strategy of Option #5 as it makes sense in
preparation of the new Couling Crescent school.
My main concerns are the standard of education be maintained and that a quality before
and after school program be established. I would prefer if a before and after program
could be established at Tytler and transfer to the Couling Crescent when opened. This
would reduce bussing costs and the extra time children would be shuffled from location
to location.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my feedback.
Xxx
Jan 27, 2015
To whom it may concern,
After attending the ej move plan meeting, i am more than a little disappointed!! None of
the move options presented are ideal and will result in upset people no matter what.
My biggest issue is what i heard about the overall planning, mainly money was secured
in 2011? Nothing has been done with it?? Why??? The land is vacant!! Why not build,
neighbourhood's were approved and more that 50% built at that point.
In September of 2012 ugdsb knew enrollement pressures needed to be addressed and
again nothing done until a surprise meeting in February 2015!! That is completely
unacceptable!! Shame on the school board for operating in such a poor manner!
I would like to comment that building on the east side is nearing total completion, within
the big detached housing developments and that new entrants should level off for the
next 5 years, until the next big neighbourhood's get approved.
Also I don't think there is enough time to commission a mothballed school in time for the
new year and even make it into a nice experience for children to learn. Or at least i hope
we are not being lied to and a decision has already been made??
Finally, fastrack the Couling Crescent school now! For opening 2016, move 5,6 to
King George, add a porta pack to EJ make it work!
If the planning committee needs help making fair, timely decision's, give me a shout i
would be glad to help out!!
Good luck, see you all February 10th
Habs Rule!!!
Jan 28th
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted
correspondence with regard to the Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students
and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all
recorded communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent
or message has not been changed.
Jan 28, 2015
Thank you for taking the time to elicit feedback from the school community on this issue. I
realize that the thought of our children having to change schools is worrisome to most parents
including myself.
I work for xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx and am a parent of two,
(hopefully three in September) students at Edward Johnson. I am aware of the New Way school
program currently at Tyler PS. It is a successful program and would be a shame to move those
students who lack consistency and predictability in their lives. Particularly when obtaining an
education has been a challenge to many of those students in the mainstream system.
I realize that the options are limited and most parents would like a solution that does not
involve their children moving from Edward Johnson. I am no different. I would prefer the
temporary boundary be drawn. I worry about having children at multiple schools and to be
frank do not like the area that Tytler is located in, nor do I like the lack of greenery on the small
play ground.
I know this will be a difficult decision and appreciate the ability to provide feedback.
Sincerely,
Xxxxxxx xxxxx
Jan 29th
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted
correspondence with regard to the Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students
and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all
recorded communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent
or message has not been changed.
Jan 29, 2015
Hi- I wanted to submit my comments on the proposed accommodation options for
Edward Johnson in September 2015. My son is currently one of the hundreds of
kindergarten students at EJ. Because of the size the student population at EJ right now,
I don't think that he gets much interaction with older students, which I feel is a real
detriment to his development. As such, I feel that it's important to keep EJ as a K-6
school, and strongly oppose the options of moving all students in upper grades to other
facilities. The option of adding more portables to the school is also not very appealing
as the school is so crowded as is. I feel that the only reasonable option is Option 5, to
draw new boundary lines and move students that will be moving already to a new
school. I feel that it is the least disruptive of all the options.
Regards,
xxxxxxxx
Jan 29, 2015
I am in support of option 4 as it seems the least disruptive. It makes the most sense to
me to move the grade 5 & 6's to King George a little earlier where they will be able to
get settled and meet up with some of their old friends that were moved earlier due to the
previous boundary review. I don't think getting upset about a playground having a few
portables on it at first can be compared to the emotional and mental stress that it
causes children when they are uprooted from their school and friends. No one likes to
see a playground that was just built get portables put on it but we need to think about
the students not the cost of the playground. Edward Johnson is a feeder school for King
George is it not? Are there not quite a few former EJ students currently attending King
George as a result of the previous boundary review? Also, has anyone been inside
Tytler PS? Can we remember that it was closed for a reason? I would invite the
Trustees to perhaps take a tour of Tytler before they make a decision and seriously
consider if they would want any of their children attending Tytler - no grass, oldest
school in Guelph and the bathrooms are in the basement. Has there been any updates
to Tytler? Is it safe for our children to attend? Is there mold? Is there asbestos? A little
Jan 29th
sweeping and painting will not make Tytler ok to send our children to. Please take your
time and consider the children when making this decision. Thank you.
Jan 29, 2015
I echo many of the sentiments from the parents who have expressed interest in the
Option #5. I believe that this seems to be the most logical, common-sense approach,
while also respecting the culture of EJ and minimizing disruption for the most
students/parents. It allows the children who will be switching to Couling Cres school to
begin their transition together. Other options would have my three children in three
different schools and the logistics (with before & after school care) are absolutely looney
to try to plan (especially as a single mom).
I am hopeful and optimistic that those who are working on this new building site are
doing so with expediency. Are there elements of this project that could be shared with
parent professionals in their respective fields that could help speed up the building
process? Volunteers or experts for a reduced cost?
I am thankful to read the input from parents of students at the other schools; and
concerns about EJ students impacting their children's school lives.
I really appreciate the way the Board consulted with parents for direction on this matter.
It is refreshing that a novel approach has been used to make the wisest decision
possible. I hope that conversations continue with other jurisdictions who have moved
forward through enrolment pressures of a similar nature so that we can minimize any
“re-invention of the wheel” situations, waste of financial resources or precious time. Has
anyone discussed any of this with their older children? What do the students think of all
of this? This is their reality.
It may be useful to have a parent advisory committee to provide feedback/ questions/
comments/ to the Board/School to maintain a communication connection and way to
alleviate stress/ create networking. There is a wealth of knowledge, finances and love
and support that will be needed through this transition process and who better to help
support than each other?
More advocacy needs to be done to receive an increase in Ministry funding for such
wonderful French educational programming opportunities. Who would be an effective
leader in a matter such as this?
Jan 29th
Let’s move forward positively! Let’s find a good solution and support everyone in the
best way we can.
Many thanks for all the hard work going into making this a success.
Xxxxx xxxxxx
Jan 29, 2015
I have already offered comment regarding the Interim Student
Accommodation, however I wanted to add, as a few others have already touched on,
that Tytler PS is in a high crime neighbourhood and less than 500m from an intersection
notorious for drugs and violence. I, for one, will not be in agreement with our child
attending a school in that area. If we wanted our child to attend a school in an area like
that we would have stayed in downtown Toronto!
I acknowledge the difficulties that you are now facing with the enrollment influx, however
it is hardly fair on the students and parents to go from a school environment like EJPS
to Tytler PS. I believe that the effect on the students will be negative and will affect their
happiness and moods, their comfort, their confidence, and ultimately their well-being
and grades!
-Xxx xxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jan 29, 2015
I attended the info session. Thank you for taking the time to communicate with us. I did
find it unfortunate that more parents did not take the time to attend.
School selection for me is one of the most important parent decisions. Last year it took
me a couple of months to choose which school to enroll my son in. To date I am nothing
but pleased with the choice to enroll in EJ. My son (xx) has severe anxiety and requires
support from the school for speech, learning etc. A move for him next year (pulling him
from his resources) would be detrimental. I think this would be the case for many
children making the shift from kindergarten to grade 1.
Jan 29th
I also have a child who is enrolling into jk. At this time I find it unacceptable that I do not
know which building/school this is for.
I will NOT allow my children to go to Tytler. I have concerns of mold, asbestos not to
mention the complete lack of outdoor play area.
I think adding portables and moving 5 and 6 to King George is the best option to get us
through the next 2 years.
I have read all the reviews. I appreciate parents don't want their children being split,
moved etc. But the reality is that these children will be moving to KG in a year or 2
anyway. It is much less disruptive than putting a hundred kindergarten aged children in
condemned school.
Tytler is unfit for any child and should not be an option at all.
All efforts should be directed towards getting the new Couling crescent school opened
as quickly as possible. Any money spent on interim accommodations (at Tytler) is
money misspent. I would be more than happy to help with anything that would help in
getting things moving in that direction.
For my children and all children affected by this unfortunate situation, I hope Tytler is
not considered as an acceptable choice. If it is, I believe separate issues will surface
regarding enrollment decline.
Thank you.
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted
correspondence with regard to the Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students
and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all
recorded communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent
or message has not been changed.
Jan 30, 2015
I am a parent of a current SK and a potential JK for 2015/2016 at Edward
Johnson. After reviewing the options presented to the community, I would like to offer
my opinion. While clearly there is no ideal solution to this short-term issue, of the
scenarios given option 5 is the one I would support. Provided Tytler is properly staffed
and has appropriate and safe facilities, this option would allow the community of the
new school to begin to form, keep primary aged siblings together, not create any
additional space pressures for King George and keep a more balanced grade
distribution at Edward Johnson (having a SK with a grade 3 reading buddy I think the
interaction of different grades is important).
I hope that the Board is undertaking more long-term planning to address the ongoing
French Immersion pressures in this city, I think this problem clearly reflects the interest
in the French program here and capping enrollment is not responsive to that interest. I
am pleased to see the community consultation being undertaken and hope it continues
throughout the planning process.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.
Xxxxx xxxxxxx
Jan 30, 2015
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the enrolment pressures at
EJPS. My preference is for Option 5 as I believe that keeping families together is very
important. I realize that our children will eventually go to separate schools once our
eldest is ready for middle school, but in the younger grades I would prefer to have our
children in the same school for various reasons, including walking to school in the
morning (we live in the EJPS neighbourhood) and having our children at the same after
school care program (as two full-time working outside the home parents, we require
after school care and we have both our children at the Kensington Y program). I also
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
think it is critical to keep the dynamic of the school the same as it is now, with a range of
students from JK through to Grade 6. The younger kids benefit from having the older
kids as reading buddies, lunch monitors, etc. A school that is only the very youngest
grades will generate quite a different school dynamic. I realize this is a very difficult
decision and it is impossible to please everyone, but I think keeping families together
(and not moving students who are 500m walking distance from EJPS) and keeping the
full spectrum of grades at EJPS are important considerations. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide feedback on this matter.
Best regards,
Xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
Jan 30, 2015
I would like to provide input to these proposals as the parent of two children at King
George PS, given that a number of the proposed options have implications for that
school as well as Edward Johnson.
From the outset I should make it clear that, like every one of the numerous other
parents I have spoken to, I strongly oppose any of the options (Options 2, 3 and 4) that
would see students from Edward Johnson being housed at King George. King George
was reopened following construction three years ago. For two of those three years, the
school housed students temporarily whilst their own school was being rebuilt. Indeed,
the current academic year is the first in which King George has only housed its own
students.
The housing of students temporarily was highly disruptive on the King George PS
community, including children and parents, and it is only now that a cohesive
community is being created. It would be extremely disruptive and indeed unfair on the
King George community if it were to be asked yet again to house students from another
school. I have confidence (I hope not naively) that the school board will not do this.
Many thanks.
Xxxxxxx xxxxxx
Jan 30, 2015
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
Hi there, I have already submitted some feedback previously regarding the issues at
hand. However, I have spent time reading every single comment posted on the site and
just wanted to say that I share the sentiments of the other notably concerned parents
who feel that Tytler is not a good choice, simply based on the demographics of the
neighbourhood it is situated in.
In my original comment, I was careful not to say anything untoward regarding Tytler's
neighbourhood but as I have seen other parents sharing their feelings about it, I felt it
necessary to stand behind them and back their position. My initial gut reaction when
the option of Tytler was brought to my attention was pure worry. Worry about the safety
of the neighbourhood, worry about no playground on the property, worry about only
hardtop, worry about the building condition and accessibility itself.
Understanding that this is not an easy decision for the board to make, I trust that you
will make the right decision for the health and safety of our youngsters.
Jan 30, 2015
I would like to also thank you for taking the time to hear and consider the opinions of the
parents. I think the best option for many including my family is Option 5.
Please know that there are a number of school age children that attend the Kensington
YMCA, my daughter being one of them. The main reason she has been at this daycare
since the age of 2 is because it also provides her before and after school care which
includes walking the children to and from school at Edward Johnson. This is a very big
deal to me as a mother.
If my daughter who is currently in grade 4 (and in the E.J. boundary for both home and
daycare) was moved out of E.J. next year, we would be forced to give up the only
daycare she has ever known. This alone wouldn't be a huge deal if there were an
equivalent daycare centre within walking distance with the same program and
capabilities of ensuring the children got to and from school safely - which there is not.
As a single mother with no flexibility in my work schedule, I can't even imagine the
logistics if she is forced to change schools.
Thank you
Jan 30, 2015
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
I'm so appreciative that the board is allowing everyone to give their feedback regarding
the plans for Edward Johnson children for the next year, and I hope that everyone does
take the time to give their opinions. The more information they have, hopefully the
better the decision they can make.
Although I understand that choosing any one of these options will inevitably create a
less-than-ideal situation for some, hopefully everyone can remember that it hopefully
will only be for one year's time, and then everyone can get back to "normal". Boundary
issues happen from time to time, and I do remember as a student myself, I was
displaced for a few years as well. I was with my fellow students in a different
environment but it did not phase us in the least, because we were with each other the
entire time. My parents had two kids in two different schools, but you adjust and deal
with it as best you can for a short time.
After reading the comments regarding Tytler as an adequate (inadequate?) location for
young students, it made me even more supportive than I already was for option 4.
Although it may be a strain on King George's grounds, it would hopefully be only for one
year, and in the grand scheme of things would have much less of a negative effect, as
compared with all the families that would be shipped to Tytler. I do agree with another
posting- worrying about the grounds of a school is less important than worrying about
kids in a building that sounds like it shouldn't be used at all.
In option 4 - upper grades are going to a school they would be going to eventually
anyways, and although that means the younger students will be in a school with only
junior students, it would only be for a year, and then it would be (hopefully) back to
normal.
I also wonder, like others, if there's anything the community can do to help the
progression of the new school so that we can be more confident that this change will
only be for one year's time. I think that would ease a lot of stress within the community,
no matter the situation they are in. It seems that the new school in the south (Arbour
Vista) went up very quickly, and I would expect a similar timeline, especially since it is
the same layout.
Feb 1, 2015
Focus: Before and After School Care - Interim Accommodation
Re: Transportation/Boundaries
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
Personal Parent Perspective: Since we live in what will be the Couling Crescent
boundary, and have only one child who will be in Grade 3 next year, in the end all of the
scenarios are pretty much the same in terms of how they impact our family. Our biggest
concern is before and after school childcare.
As this is an Interim Accommodation, we strongly advocate that until a formalized plan
is adopted that interim accommodations for before and after school care be
considered.
In our particular case, I am advocating that the Kensington Y Daycare, (which will be in
the new Edward Johnson Boundary) become a bus stop for students housed at Tytler
until Couling Crescent is open. I’m guessing that other licensed daycares that serve the
current EJ population (First Steps etc.) may also be interested, as would home day care
sites in the area. This would require that Transportation make accommodations for
addresses that are within EJ boundaries, allowing them to be used for bus pick-ups for
students who would attend the Tytler site.
This way if families have students in multiple schools as a result of this Interim
Accommodation, they could at least have a consistent drop-off and pick-up point for
their families and not have to scramble to find alternative childcare for next
September. This also could take the pressure off the the board to try and set-up an onsite before and after school program at Tytler, and could instead focus on building a
plan for doing so in the new Couling Crescent building.
Thank you for considering this in your planning,
Xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx
Feb 1, 2015
As a current EJ parent (who is also a English teacher in our board who has lived
through the impact of FI accommodation as a staff member) I believe that Option #5 is
the best of the proposed scenarios.
While there are very tight and hard timelines for staffing and infrastructure set-up,
Option #5 might be the best long-term choice if the official review process allows for the
admin and staff placed at Couling Cres.(holding at Tytler) to build a school community
that they could bring forward with them into the new building when it is ready.
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
I know that the excellent admin and teachers that will be placed at Couling Cres.
(holding at Tytler) will strive to make this the best scenario for the students, parents and
staff.
I also know that for this scenario to succeed, that the board understands the need
actively provide the formal supports necessary for this new school community to thrive
in its transition years and movement to its new site, and will also consider these needs
in its upcoming Immersion Management Plan.
Xxxxxxxxxx
Feb 1, 2015
UGDSB,
I would also like to state my support for option 4 where students would be able to
remain with their classmates and where no student is sent to Tytler PS. I don't believe
any student should be sent to Tytler PS, which was Guelph's oldest school, until it was
closed two years ago. Option 4 allows students to either remain at EJ PS or go to the
newly renovated King George, both of which include a suitable playground for young
children to play on. Option 5 would split kids up from their existing classes and force
some to attend an old shutdown school with an all pavement playground. I also can't
imagine why we (taxpayers) would sink money into a building that was
previously shutdown primarily due to the ever-increasing costs it was taking to upkeep
it. To put money and resources towards this very short-term "solution" seems unwise
when we can utilize other existing facilities in the short-term, that are safe and sound.
Further more, I was a student in the UGDSB French immersion program (including 4
years at Tytler PS) and was moved around various schools between KG - G6. Moving
between school's wasn't much of a problem since we were kept with our current
classmates which I believe is extremely important for young children. Being moved to
an old closed school and being separated from you classmates/friends (option 5) seems
to contain too many negatives compared with option 4. Again, with option 4, no student
would be sent to Tytler PS.
Regards,
xxxxxx x xxxxxx
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
Feb 1, 2015
I submitted a comment online, but in case it wasn’t received, here is a brief summary of
my sentiments:




students who will attend Couling Cres school should be kept as a group
(with their teachers) and moved to Tytler PS
When Couling Cres opens, the students AND teachers move together as a group
and open the school together
My children will be part of Couling Cres school, and while I don’t love them going
to the concrete jungle of Tytler, it is best for the families of the neighbourhood
Please consider having a large before and after school program to accommodate
parents who have to do pick ups from various schools given the enrollment
issues.
Feb 1, 2015
As a parent of a King George School student, I am concerned about the board's
strategies for managing school populations. This school has only been open for 3 years
and already there are plans to add 6 or more portables to the site. The outdoor play
area is already too small, and the portables would seriously impact the kids' ability to get
outdoor exercise and play. When the weather is wet, students are restricted to playing
only on the tarmac at recess. If the school population increases, how will there be room
for everyone? Parents at King George have invested over $90,000 in developing the
playground. Will all that work and money be for nothing? I attended the meeting at King
George with board trustees, and it was suggested that these are reactionary measures
needed to deal with an emergency situation at Edward Johnson. It seems to me that
schools surrounded by portables are far too common, and that this problem pre-dates
full day kindergarten. If the Edward Johnson students come to King George we will of
course welcome them, but I think everyone is aware that once portables are installed,
they never go away.
I hope that the board will review its strategies for housing school populations and make
some much needed improvements.
Feb 1, 2015
Please post the following online and for
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
Option #1 and, perhaps, option #5 seem to be the best of the proposed options.
The Ward area of Guelph is undergoing a bit of a renaissance with increased housing
turn-over (retirees/elderly leaving and younger families moving in) and the upcoming
building of Metalworks (a large residential development). Not developing Tytler for both
the current need and the future needs seems short-sighted. There is a growing
community and the environment is not scary or dangerous as some commenters have
reported.
The new King George school and community has put tens of thousands of dollars into
developing the grounds of the school and if the proposal is to now turn it into a mess of
portables the outrage from the community, and parents of students who attend King
George will be palpable -- you will be facing massive protests and work will not proceed.
Why not plan for the future while at the same time address the immediate needs of
those in our community?
Developing Tytler school, which already exists, will address the immediate needs while
also developing a school for this growing community, thereby making it even safer. This
option will also gain the support of other areas families (i.e. King George families) to
address the library and phys. ed. needs because they will want to help this plan
succeed. Energies will go into making a solution happen, rather than fighting against
one.
Feb 1, 2015
With all the concern with lack of activity for our children these days, i think it would be a
very poor idea to limit one of the children's best places for running around and having
fun. on any day at King George PS the soccer field is full of little running feet. By losing
one and possibly both soccer fields for 2 years what are we saying to our children? Just
go sit in the corner and be sedate. We already have a fairly small play area where
teachers have to schedule use of the play structures on certain days. How would this be
with half the area and another 150 children?
Lets show the children that the school board actually has their best interest at heart this
time and find a solution that really works! Use Tytler school which is available and easily
made ready for the Couling Crescent families.
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
Xxx xxxxxx
King George parent
Feb 1, 2015
As a parent of students in grade 2 and SK at EJ who are within a 10 minute walk of the
school option #5 is the least of all evils for the enrolment issues we face. One very
important part of a school is its community. This includes the families and neighbours
that reside in the neighbourhood of the school. As we walk to school each day we meet
our other friends in grades JK-6 and the strong sense of community we have adds to a
positive school experience for our children. If EJ is a JK-2 school next year where will
the bus patrols, lunch monitors, reading buddies, mentoring and positive playground
influence come from?
If the school board thinks that keeping all the grades together as one larger cohort is
important why do they not keep the students together in the same classes year after
year? The majority of time at school is spent with those in your class and time at recess
means the option of playing with other students in your grade or possibly your
neighbourhood friends. Keeping grades together is not as important as keeping
communities together. The logistics for families with children at different schools, when
the children are not old enough to walk themselves, of getting the siblings to and from
those schools would be challenging to say the least. The effect on the young siblings
being at different schools could be traumatizing.
Please do not rip apart the Edward Johnson community and please give the Couling
cres school community the opportunity to develop by putting them together in a suitable
location.
Thanks for your time,
Xxxxx xxxxx
Feb 1, 2015
Option #5 makes the most sense to me for the following reasons:
1. Keeps the EJ community together
2. Allows for the future Couling Crescent community to make bonds and grow together
3. Keeps my children together at the same school
4. Allows younger children to have positive role models in older students at both
locations
5. Allows older children to develop a sense of caring and mentoring for the younger
students at both locations
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
6. Does not waste resources for transportation as we are a 5 minute walk from EJ
7. Keeps the play yard open and spacious for recess
Thank you,
Xxxxxx xxxxxxx
Feb 1, 2015
I would like to offer my opinion that of all the Options available, Option 5 makes the
most sense.
Busing children out who live within a 5-10 minute walk of the school just doesn't make
sense. Then there are the families who were affected by the past boundary reviews
and actually went so far as to move to avoid their children having to change schools. If I
were in that situation I would be ready to give up, if my kids were just going to end up at
another school regardless.
if kids will have to be split up inevitably, it makes sense to keep those together who live
in the immediate area and group the children who will eventually be going to Couling
Cres. Lets not move children around, just so that they can move again in another year
or two. It's not fair to the children, it's not fair to the parents….it just doesn't make
sense.
My only concern would be the condition of Tytler school. I know very little about the
situation there, but I would have to hope and assume that it would meet all current
building codes if any of our children will be spending their days there.
Ultimately, an extension on the current school would be a wonderful thing!
Thank you
Feb 2, 2015
Dear Martha,
Thank you for attending the parent council meeting at King George School. My
husband and I were at that meeting, and felt that there was certainly a need to provide
further feedback. We are the parents of three children at King George, a xxx in grade
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
five, and xxxxx in grades 3 and SK. Our children were moved to King George from
Edward Johnson when it was opened as a K to 8 School.
First of all, I would like to express my disappointment overall in this school board's
planning for school attendance boundaries. Children seem to be shuffled from school to
school with very little long term vision. Furthermore, the philosophical move to create
full french immersion centres does not allow for flexibility when enrollment in french
increases with a subsequent decrease in english enrollment. It seems that dual track
schools would allow more flexibility.
My family and I are strongly opposed to scenarios that send children from Edward
Johnson to King George. Our school has acted as a "holding school" for two years.
This school needs an opportunity to build a stable community to engage parents in
supporting our childrens' education. The small group of parents of the children who
have attended this school since its inception as a holding school have worked very hard
to "green" our small inner city school yard. With fundrasing and community
engagement, we have managed to maximize the small school yard and create zones for
play. Even with maximizing the space, the school yard is crowded. Our soccer field
was divided into two smaller fields as part of the greening initiative. Even with these two
smaller fields, the children must play on them in shifts, so that any one child is only able
to play soccer for one recess per day. If portables are added, one of our soccer fields
will be removed, and we could have 150 more students using the play space. Will
children only be allowed on the field for two recesses per week? Will this send more
children to the climbers? If so, they won't fit. The climbers are closed for most of the
school year, and when they are open they are covered in children for the entire outdoor
playtime with our current population. This overcrowding and reduction in space to move
will likely lead to conflicts among the children. The emotions and anxiety that can
accompany such school yard conflicts makes children less available for learning in the
classroom. The benefits of physical activity on learning are well outlined in education
research. I believe that all children are better students when they have adequate
outdoor time and space to move. The "solution" to the Edward Johnson overcrowding
cannot be to overcrowd King George.
We are unsure why schools with greater classroom capacity and outdoor space were
not considered in this review. The schools for whom we "held" students, John Galt and
William Winegard, are under capacity and have far larger outdoor spaces than King
George. The school board had no issue with combining English Track and French
Immersion in those two "holding" situations, it seems both fair and logical that these
schools would be considered.
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
But, since these were not part of the scenarios presented, we ask that you choose
either scenario one or five in which the Tytler building eases the overcrowding at
Edward Johnson. Scenario 5 seems to be the least disruptive, as the new school
community can begin to develop. The administrative disadvantages seem to be
surmountable.
Thank you for considering the impact on the space, both indoor and outdoor, on l'ecole
King George, when coming to a decision.
Sincerely,
Xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
Feb 2, 2015
We are a family that will be affected by the interim student accommodation at EJPS and
a future Couling family. We have 2 children currently attending EJPS in JK and Grade
2. Our major concern is that our children will be split up as suggested by some of the
options. It is very important to us that our children stay together to ease not only their
fears, but our concerns surrounding the logistics of busing and before and after school
care. We strongly feel that the best option for our family would be Option 5, which
includes initiating a Couling Boundry review and having our children attend a holding
school until Couling is ready for us. Although we have some major concerns around
Tytler’s facilities, we feel that our children would benefit from attending a school with
future Couling families that is working toward building a school community. We are
looking forward to the new school and want to make this a positive experience for the
children that will be displaced from EJPS. Let’s start gearing up for the new school now
and forming connections with the parents, staff, and students that will be a part of the
Couling community in the very near future.
With Regards,
Xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Feb 2, 2015
Hello school board members and school staff;
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
Our son who started JK at EJS is currently in grade 3. His experience there has been
positive and we are happy with our choice to place him there 5 years ago. We live within
walking distance of the school, which influenced our choice to send him there.
Of the options presented in the summary we strongly favour Option 5: Using Tytler to
house the students who are likely to be attending the new east end school upon its
completion. Our son's cohort was already affected by the opening of King George when
he entered grade 1. We think that further disrupting his cohort will have negative
impacts on him. We realize that he may lose some of his friends to Tytler, even with
option 5 but we think the loss will be offset by the consistency in setting, staff and many
of the children.
Beyond our own family's interests, it seems that option 5 is least disruptive to the two
existing schools and their students, containing the disruption to the group who are
already going to moving around anyway when the new school is built.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity for input:
Xxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
Feb 2, 2015
My preference would be Option 1, 3 or 4. I would prefer my children to stay at Edward
Johnson until the new Couling Cres school is completed. According to research done at
McMaster University in 2013, students who switch schools prior to Grade 3 have an
elevated risk of poor performance on standardized tests. According to the study,
"moving between schools lowers math achievement by over 10 per cent of a standard
deviation, 9 per cent for reading, and 6 per cent for writing.". Given the findings of the
study, careful consideration must be given prior to selecting Option 5, which would
move these higher risk students.
Further, I have strong concerns about my son starting his education at a learning centre
that has been cobbled together at the seemingly last minute, due to poor planning.
These little people have enough change to deal with - moving from daycare (or in some
cases at home with parent/guardian) to full day schooling (which means new schedules,
routines and the elimination of naps) - without having to navigate in a new setting that
no one is familiar with. Option 5 is by far the worst option of all presented.
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
Please take care in selecting the preferred option. The education of our children is at
risk.
Xxxxx xxxxxxxx
*The study referenced above was reported on in the Toronto Star. The article can be
found
here: http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2014/02/21/switching_schools_befo
re_grade_3_affects_academics_study_finds.html?app=noRedirect
Feb 2, 2015
I was in attendance when the school held its information session. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide some feedback. There are pros and cons to every scenario, but
when there are cons the question becomes "What is the contingency plan - how are we
going to deal with the negatives?". In my opinion Scenario 5 provides the most pros
and feasible ways of dealing with the cons. I agree that if eventually a group of students
will be attending a future school together, they might as well move together to
Tytler. The more that can be kept the same, the more they can reserve their coping for
other situations that come their way. The resources (e.g. gym equipment, library
materials, etc.) would need to be purchased for the new school anyway, so let the
investment in the kids move with the kids. It has been said that there would be pressure
to get staffing and administration in place in time, but if this F.I. accommodation is in
crisis mode than I would think the project's timelines would be prioritized. There is
certainly a pool of qualified candidates, rather the human resources get bogged down
by process. And although a formal boundary review would not be conducted in time,
again if we are in crisis mode, I think some exceptions to policy could be made. I would
like to think that a walkable boundary around Edward Johnson would allow those who
reside closest to continue to attend, that those who have existing child care
arrangements within the walkable boundary would allow those students to continue to
attend, and that another quality before/after school care arrangement could be offered
to the Tytler students. I feel strongly that adding more portables anywhere is not a
solution. They take up green space, they are unsightly (I don't understand why they
can't be theme portables, with art covering the exterior walls), and they are awkwardly
separated from the main buildings. It is an unfortunate side effect that the
implementation of full day Kindergarten has turned the main buildings into day care
centres. Surely if school boards can demonstrate the increase in F.I., there should be
Ministry funds invested in not only new capital projects but in accommodation upgrades
(e.g. Tytler). Thank you.
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
Feb 2, 2015
Hello,
I am submitting the following feedback regarding the Edward Johnson PS Interim
Accommodation.
I am a parent of a child at King George PS, who had one school move between
kindergarten and grade 1, due to a boundary review. Furthermore, she has been at King
George through two turn overs of population, while the school was a ‘holding school’ for
two successive school populations that came and went. Finally in the 2014-2015 year,
we have a stable population at King George. The school feels very different now, and I
think it has to do with the fact that people who are there are not going anywhere- they
are at their home school and are finally setting in.
As I already mentioned, the population at King George has already done 2 successive
years with a transient populations- this is enough time for anyone to experience being a
‘holding school’ and our kids have already said goodbye to enough friends over the last
3 years. I think that the King George population now deserves to gel as a community
with its’ stable population.
With that in mind, and from our experience at King George, I think option 5 is best
from the students’ perspectives- move the kids as a school community, and let them
gel as a community. I think the make up of the school community – the people you
invest in forming relationships with- is more important than the physical location- then
they can move as a community to the new school when ready. This goes for both the
kids and the parents- it is difficult as a parent to try to get to know other parents only to
learn that they will be moving on to another school next year. It also makes for a very
dis-jointed Parent Council. I think it affects teachers’ morale as well, since it is difficult
for staff to gel as a community, for the same reasons.
Option 3 is too many moves for those grades 3 & 4 students.
If you are going to be splitting kids up and moving them to different locations, please
move to King George only students who would be coming to King George anyway (a
sub set of option 4) and staying through until graduation- so that they may settle in right
away, knowing that they will not be moved again. That way, people who join the King
George community can immediately feel invested in this community, and hopefully
settle in more quickly.
Jan 30th – Feb 2nd
Sincerely,
Xxx xxxxxxx
Feb 3rd
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted
correspondence with regard to the Interim Move of Edward Johnson PS Students
and in keeping with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, all personal information and/or identifiers have been severed from all
recorded communication (i.e. e-mails and letters) prior to distribution. The intent
or message has not been changed.
Feb 3, 2015
Good Morning,
As a response to the EJ Interim Accommodation options, I would like to put my support
behind Option 5. In my opinion, starting the Couling school’s new cohort at Tytler is the
most positive option for everyone. My reasoning is that this option:
1. Keeps EJ area siblings together, making logistics simpler for these families, and
ensuring little ones the comfort of having older siblings present.
2. Maintains EJ as a JK-6 school. My kids (grade 3&1 currently) have both enjoyed
their interactions with older kids in the school: lunch monitors, reading buddies,
etc. Even just watching the older grades perform at holiday concert is inspiring to them!
I think losing the older grades would take away something significant from their school
experience.
3. Creating a cohort of Couling kids, starting to establish resources, staff, and culture for
the new school seems to me to be the best way to manage the transition. If I were
located East of Victoria, I believe I would still choose this option.
4. This would also allow the grades 4-6 (who have the most developed friend groups) to
stay together at EJ. My perspective is that grades JK-2 would be most adaptable and
find it easier to move. Unfortunately I think the move would be hard on the grade 3’s.
A few other thoughts:


Perhaps we can come up with some measures to ease the logistical challenge
for these families who will have to send kids to multiple locations. i.e. bus routes
that would drop grades JK-3 at Tytler and then bring 4-6 to EJ (so bus times and
bus stops are the same for families and younger kids can be on bus with older
siblings. ??)
I have no concerns regarding the Tytler building; the Two Rivers neighbourhood
is lovely, and I trust that the necessary updates would be made and safety
Feb 3rd

measures would be taken to ensure a good experience for the kids attending
there.
Perhaps some thought should be put into improving the reputation of the English
track schools in our area. I know many parents who have chosen EJ not because
it is FI but because the school is more highly rated than Waverly or Brant.
Options 1, 3, & 4 do not seem practical or beneficial to me.
Thank you for considering and valuing parent feedback.
Sincerely,
Xxxxxxx xxxxxx
Feb 3, 2015
Sorry for being a last day person – my comments:
First and foremost, I found that a lot of the comments made by previous parents are
along the lines of ‘I don’t want my kid to go to Tytler because it is an older school’ or ‘I
don’t want my life to have to change because my kid has to go to a school that is further
away’ or “I don’t want to move my kid because we are walkers’, etc. It is quite
disturbing that in a society where we are supposed to look out for the greater good of
the community as a whole, we are so selfish and self-absorbed as to what may seem
like an inconvenience at first, but could be ultimately a non-issue.
Things will have to change. This is a fact. There are too many students at EJ now, and
there will be way too many more if things stay on pace for how they are going. The pros
and cons for all of the options are very polarizing. The school board needs to stop
doing all of these mickey-mouse quick-fix jobs that are always looking backwards
instead of looking forwards.
Option 5 seems to be the popular choice amongst most of the commenters. I have zero
concern with my daughter going to Tytler. The school board would face too many
lawsuits if it were an unsafe school that was not up to code.
My comments on Option 5:
1) The new school is being built for roughly 500 students, and will be FI only. This
is too small for the proposed boundary. Once everyone who lives on the East
side of Watson sees this new school, nobody will want their children walking
across Watson to go to Ken Danby or Holy Rosary. Also, the board does not
Feb 3rd
2)
3)
4)
5)
realize that the majority of people moving to this area are younger families and if
you use the 50% child enrolment in FI, the boundary will probably have to be only
the East side of Starwood at the most.
If the Jk-3’s are going to go to Tytler, what will be done about bus
monitors? Grade 2 or 3 students are not responsible/mature enough to assist
with this. I have two recommendations for this.
a. My first recommendation on this would be to make sure that the buses
that pick up here also pick up the grade 7/8 students that go to King
George and drop the younger students off at Tytler first, and/or
b. Make all grades from JK-6 for the new boundary go to Tytler.
Either of these options would ensure greater safety for the younger students, and
would also aleviate some of the ‘my family is going to be split up, and how will we
ever survive having to deal with it now even though we will have to deal with it
eventually’ concerns.
Make sure that the new Couling school is open for September of 2016. If a
builder can build a six-storey appartment building (well-built) in seven or eight
months, there is absolutely no reason why this school cannot be built. Get in
touch with the Mayor, get in touch with the councillors and get this school being
built ASAP (even if it is going to be too small). Get shovels in the ground by
August/September of THIS year. Make sure there are penalties to the builder if
it is not built safely and on time.
At the new school don’t plant rinky-dink little tiny trees that will die. Make sure to
plant larger trees (+/-15 year old trees) so that there will be shade! Go around
the neighbourhood and see what trees are living and which are dying and plant
the ones that grow fast, grow tall, and provide shade. Sunny weather is HOT at
the park across the street as THERE ARE NO TREES.
Put in money to make for a decent play area for all of the children, as a lot of
families have been fundraising at EJ and will not benefit to any of that money as
it is in use at EJ.
Most importantly the school board should do a full review of all JK-6 boundaries and
re-establish them all. This ‘let’s look at one school at a time’ methodology is so nearsighted and doesn’t plan well at all. The school board and the city need to better plan
on when and where schools are built and have them being built before there is an
‘EMERRRRRGENCY’ meeting on over capacity. The growth in areas is known to the
city and the school board needs to do these reviews on a more-frequent basis and not
just one here, one there. I would do JK-6 every three years, 7/8 every four years. This
shouldn’t happen.
Thanks for reading my rant.
Feb 3rd
Feb 3, 2015
In regards to the enrolment problems for 2015, I feel that option 4 is the best option. I
have a child enrolling this Sept and one child already attending. Edward Johnson is a
K-6 school afterwards the students move to King George. Moving the 5-6 students to
King George is just making a required move happen a little sooner. If option 5 is taken
then many students have to make two moves, one of which is unnecessary. This can
be stressful on the kids involved. Tytler school is very run down and was closed for a
reason. So why would we be sending our children there? I can not imagine any parent
wanting their child to attend that school. Adding portables to King George for 1 or 2
years and no children having to go to Tytler is a much better option for all kids
involved. Even if your children end up in different schools.
Thank you,
xxxxx xxxxxx
Feb 3, 2015
Hello,
Firstly, I would like to strongly suggest that every parent affected by this issue, write the
City and demand that they get a move on with the new school so it is completed before
September 2016.
Next, all of the options presented are undesirable. My kids (and likely many others) will
not be kept together except in option 5 - all those in the new school boundary are
shipped to Tytler. I don't know Guelph very well, but I do know the area is not a good
one to be sending kids aged 3-9 by bus with little supervision. From what I've read it is
also in a deplorable state and it seems a waste of money and time to set it up and bring
in resources temporarily. Why not have the kids in the East Summit Ridge area housed
at William Winegard where enrollment is low? Or split the families up between Ken
Danby and Winegard?
Option 4 would be the most desirable if Grade 4 could stay at EJ in 2016/17. Otherwise
as mentioned by others, this means two schools for two kids and the nightmare of trying
to facilitate drop-off, pick-up and daycare times and places separately in a single parent
home.
Feb 3rd
Unfortunately, our family has had to face many upheavals over the last year and the
kids are exhibiting signs of anxiety over the challenges and changes they've had to
face. I worry about how these further changes will affect them in the short and long
term.
Sincerely,
Xxxxxx xxxxxxx
Feb 3, 2015
Both of my children currently attend Edward Johnson and would be greatly affected by
most of the options presented. Ideally, we would like to see them both remain at EJ until
grade 6 graduation, especially since we moved to be within walking distance of the
school. To us, the obvious solution is to relocate the students who would eventually be
moving to Couling Cres. instead of moving the students who are in the catchment area
for the school. We realize, as parents, there is not one solution that will please
everyone.
We are advocates of the FI program and are glad to see that the program continues to
grow and prosper. We find it frustrating that the Board continues to implement "band-aid
solutions" to a steady influx of registrants. How many boundary/accommodation reviews
will it take before a reasonable, long term solution is found?
It is a disservice to all the French Immersion families who are enrolling in one school,
only to see their child (or children) shifted, sometimes repeatedly, over the course of a
couple years. Transitioning is difficult under any circumstance.
Why is our Board not planning in advance for projected enrollment ? Why are new
buildings being built not large enough to house the growing Immersion population?
How can you build a positive school climate and nurturing environment with a continual
shift of students being displaced ?
A tree can not grow if it is continually uprooted. Why is it so easily proposed that we
continue to do exactly that to our children?
Feb 3, 2015
Hello,
Thank you for hearing our voices.
I will not repeat all of the very well scripted messages to date, but would like to support
the strong push for option 5. This minimises the impact to King George, builds the
Feb 3rd
community of students that will form the nucleus of the population at the new school and
keeps all families together. Furthermore, the consideration to accommodate some of
the logistics concerns (such as the Kensington Y bus proposal) would be a great
gesture from the board, as these proposals will create a lot of stress for many of our
families, regardless which is chosen in the end.
I sincerely hope the board considers this very strong support for option 5 when making
it’s final decisions.
Appreciated.
Feb 3, 2015
Hello,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the interim student
accommodation options. It is reassuring to know that the board is conducting such a
thorough and comprehensive study of the potential issues related to interim student
accommodation.
As many other commenters have mentioned, there is no one option that will please
everyone. Many families may potentially be inconvenienced by having their children
changing schools multiple times, or for families with multiple children, having their
children at different schools. However, we must carefully consider the impact of interim
accommodation on the students themselves.
It is my strong opinion that regardless of the accommodation option chosen, all of the
JK through grade 3 students should be able to remain at Edward Johnson. These
young students face bigger challenges with any change in routine than their older
counterparts; indeed, it can take months for a JK or even SK student to settle in to their
environment and situation. Primary students need the comfort of familiarity and routine
in order to reach their full potential. While it is true that some of these students will
eventually have to change to the new Couling Crescent school, allowing them to remain
at Edward Johnson for an extra year before making one permanent change will
minimize the impact on these children.
As Edward Johnson feeds into King George, Option 4 is the most logical option. The
older students can more readily adapt to changing schools, especially as they would be
attending King George eventually anyway. While it is true that the Edward Johnson
Feb 3rd
property is short on space, surely a few more portables can be temporarily
accommodated.
Along with many other commenters, I have concerns about using the Tytler campus as
a holding school. As it hasn’t been used as a school in more than two years, I expect
that it is likely that resources, such as library books, computers, and sports equipment
have been removed from the building. It seems doubtful that the school would be
outfitted with the same quality and quantity of resources that Edward Johnson and King
George contain when the students would be present for less than two years. In
addition, a number of commenters have voiced their concerns over the condition of the
building and of the playground. I also harbour concerns about the safety of the school
neighbourhood. It is well-known throughout the city as a high-crime neighbourhood, and
I don’t believe any student should be made to attend school there.
While reading through some of the comments already submitted, it seems as though
many of the commenters who have voiced their support for Option 5 are parents whose
children would not be affected by it. Of course, it is easy to support an option when it is
the only one where your family wouldn’t be affected. However, we must consider the
impact on the children of switching schools twice in two years; for current JK students, it
would be three schools in three years! As a community, we must do our best to protect
the primary students from the potentially severe emotional and developmental
repercussions that such a disruption would have. I expect that Option 4 makes the most
financial sense, as well.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments. I trust that the board will
continue to consider these and other potential issues with complete objectivity. Should
you have any questions, please let me know.
With kindest regards,
Xxxxxx xxxxxxxx
Xxx xxx xxxx
Feb 3, 2015
To whom it may concern,
I was extremely concerned to hear that the school my children attend, King George
Public School, was mentioned in several possible scenarios to temporarily house
Edward Johnson Students while their new school is being built.
Feb 3rd
Firstly, I am very concerned about the social environment that will be created with an
increased number of students in a very compromised and decreased amount of (small)
outdoor space. My family has been heavily involved in the “greening” our beautiful yard
& we believe that it is a wonderful asset to the Upper Grand District School Board
property. It would be a shame to cover what small outdoor space we have with
portables.
Second, I also feel we are just beginning to be able to build our school community after
having hosted two separate schools over two of our first years as a new school. Holding
students & their families are rarely invested in their holding school and the students do
cause wear & tear on resources such as library books (of which we have very few as a
new school) & gym equipment that the holding school then has to absorb & reallocate
funds towards.
The bottom line is that the educational experience for King George as well as Edward
Johnson students will be unduly and negatively impacted by this scenario.
Please consider other options that will take this into account.
Sincerely,
Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
Feb 3, 2015
I believe it is important for all readers of the posts to be aware of
misinformation. Parents may be using the posts by others as a source of information to
arrive at their desired outcome. While reviewing some recent posts in support of Option
5, I have identified several statements not to be accurate. Some identified include:
1. "My preference is for Option 5 as I believe that keeping families together is very
important. I realize that our children will eventually go to separate schools...".
Fact - With option 5, it does not mean that families are kept together. Option 5 would
move students deemed to be located in the Couling boundary to Tytler for the
2015/2016 if they are in the ages for JK - G3 and does not include G4 G6. Therefore, if this option is selected, siblings will be sent to separate schools if they
fall into the different categories.
Feb 3rd
2. "I also think it is critical to keep the dynamic of the school the same as it is now, with
a range of students from JK through to Grade 6. The younger kids benefit from having
the older kids as reading buddies, lunch monitors, etc."
Fact - As stated above, Option 5 would send only students falling in the age category for
JK - G3 to Tytler, and no students from the G4 - G6 category. Therefore, this option is
against the exact thing the writer is trying to support by supporting option 5.
3. "I think everyone is aware that once portables are installed, they never go away".
I'm not aware that once portables are installed, they never go away. Perhaps the
school board can clarify if this is a factual statement of if the portables would be
temporary and would be removed once the new school is completed.
In addition, there are other posts stating that option 5 should be selected as other
options would affect their children's before and after school accommodations. If option
5 is selected, it would affect my child's before and after school accommodation. I don't
believe that individual cases should be something that affects this decision, but agree
with other posts where similar before and after school care as of today should be
available next year no matter which option is taken.
There are several concerns made about how play area outside would be affected no
matter which option is selected. I would like to conclude by stating that I would rather
my child to be given a smaller amount of play area on grass then a whole playground on
concrete. I doubt I would find anyone who would rather their children play outside on
concrete over grass.
Feb 3, 2015
I am wanting to provide feedback with regards to some of the options that have been
presented for the challenges at Edward Johnson Public School. I am a parent with 3
children currently at King George. Two of my children were moved from Edward
Johnson 2 years ago in that boundary review. My 2 oldest children have therefore been
apart of King George while it was a holding school for 2 years. While I think children are
very resilient and most are able to adapt well to change this is a school that has gone
through tremendous change in the last 2 years. Not only have they had students come
and go but also there has been a large amount of staff turnover that has come along
with that each year including losing their principal and vice-principal all in the same
year. These students have not had any stability since moving to King George. There
has been a tremendous amount of parent involvement in helping this school get
Feb 3rd
established and that has been extremely difficult when half of the school has not been
invested in building resources that would remain at King George. We have worked
extremely hard to create an environment that will provide an opportunity for active play
for our children with our new playground and while we have always known that
portables could be in our future it certainly was not thought this would happen so soon
and for a temporary situation. I also think from a parent perspective that it would be
very challenging to be a student coming to a holding school and how disruptive this
could be for students. I hope all of these are considered when final decisions are made.
Thank you
Xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
Feb 3, 2015
Please accept our comments
as follows:
We support option 5 where all kids that will be relocating from EJPS to the new school
be temporarily moved to Tytler PS where they can create a sense of community and
school spirit that they can take with them to the new school. This would have the least
impact on any of the schools (EJPS or KGPS) potentially involved and the students and
their families living in close proximity to both of these schools, while relieving the strain
on EJPS.
There were many reasons our family chose to move to the area we are currently living
but one deciding factor was the close proximity to EJPS. Both of our children enjoy
attending this school together and living so close allows us the opportunity to walk to
school. Guelph is a city the promotes and supports a walkable city. If one or both of
our children were to be relocated temporarily or permanently to a new school it would
take away our opportunity to walk to school and create a lot of frustration trying to get
them to school on time with each of the schools starting at different times.
We truly hope this is option, which we see is the most sensible option, considering this
sensitive situation. Our kids enjoy attending EJPS with their friends and as a family
we have also volunteered our time and made efforts to help and support other families,
volunteers and staff in creating the school atmosphere that presently exists.
On a final note, I am very disappointed in the lack of planning by the school board for
the future of EJPS. This isn't the first time this scenario has been an issue It has
been 4 years since this situation last played out. The school board has had that time to
plan for this but is now dumping this on the EJPS student community in the middle of a
Feb 3rd
school year in preparation for the September 2015 school year. Shame on you for the
lack of forsight.
We truly hope the board does a better job in planning ahead for the future of the French
Immersion program without considering such drastic measures in such a short period of
time.
We thank you for this opportunity to express our opinions on this touchy subject and
hope you choose this most practical and least disruptive option for the benefit of all.
Feb 3, 2015
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for allowing a forum for families of King George to express their views on the
proposed Edward Johnson accommodation plan.
It is unfortunate that The ill forecasting of student populations and growing
demographics have resulted in Edward Johnson being overcrowded and in need of
being temporarily replaced. This seems to be a scenario that has played out time and
again. While this is the third year of King George operating, the first two years our
school housed, supported fundraising, allocated resources for and welcomed 2
community schools. Both of which were English track schools. It is interesting to me
that the option of an English school hosting a French track school has not been tabled
and/or largely dismissed.
Of great concern is that of the schools physical life space. The grounds as they stand
barely accommodate the growth, development and physical play needs of our current
student population. Adding upwards of 7 portables and 150 additional bodies not only
further restricts movement and free play but also compromises the physical safety of the
students who are at an increased risk of harm and injury due to crowding.
In addition, and of great offence, is the board's sheer disregard for the painstaking,
committed and hard work that was involved in transforming a flat yard into a field of
berms, greenery, sitting areas, and play features. All of these additions involved
countless volunteer hours by our families and children. It also included Tens of
thousands of dollars in fundraising, gifts in kind and physical resources (tires, linings,
engineering plans, artistic design, equipment both small machinery and tools). All of
which came from our hard-working and generous families and their small businesses.
Feb 3rd
I understand that it is much easier to make a quick, logistical decision on
paper. However, I implore you to look beyond the logistics and pay considerable
respect to the dedication put forth by the families and friends of King George who are
now advocating for our children's school to be afforded the opportunity to connect and
invest in our families and to further build our resources (books, classroom resources,
gym equipment, etc) following it being depleted and divided from the past 2 years of
accommodations.
Please consider other options into your decision making and evaluations. One such
option is to utilize the near vacant yet very suitable space at Tytler Public School.
Respectfully,
Xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx
Feb 3, 2015
I am writing in support of Option 5, I feel it is the option that causes less disruption for all
the schools and students involved. I also feel that the options that remove older
students from EJPS have many cons. I have children in older grades, one just moved to
Grade 7 this year and one is currently in Grade 6 at EJPS, I also have a child in Grade
1. None of these options greatly affect any of my children for the coming school year. As
a mother of a past and current Grade 6 student I know how much they are involved at
the school, they are safety patrols, lunch monitors, reading buddies, mentors, they help
with pizza & milk programs, they help with the recycling program. The little ones look up
to them and love having them around, I have seen it and I think they will be greatly
missed. Not to mention, who will do all the jobs that these older ones do currently at the
school?? For parents, some of these options, especially number 4, would be so chaotic,
some parents I know would have 3 kids in 3 different schools, this would severely limit
there ability to be involved with any of the schools to any useful capacity, not to mention
attending school assemblies. What a crazy morning routine these ones would have.
Please vote for Option 5!!!!
Feb 3, 2015
Thank you for the opportunity to have my voice heard with regards to the options
presented for consideration.
I wish to submit my strong preference for OPTION 5.
Thank you kindly
Feb 3rd
Feb 3, 2015
Hello!
I am a parent of two children at King George. I am deeply concerned about the overall
poor planning process that seems to be a part of the boundary review process that we
never seem to get a break from!! Since my children started into the public school
system four years ago, we have been through three boundary reviews! It's
disheartening that the ones who pay for poor planning are our kids! Please learn from
this and start looking at projected high school scenarios NOW to plan for the fast
growing east side of Guelph before these kids reach high school!!
It would be very hard for our school community at King George to have to be a holding
school again!! We have finally become our own community after several years of having
to integrate with others while new schools were being built. At the same time, I
recognize how difficult it must be for the EJ students to be facing this review and be
forced into a community where they feel unwelcomed! I really feel like the best option is
number 5, where the community from EJ who will go to the new school when it is built
will stay together as a cohort and community.
In regards to the comments made about the neighbourhood being unsafe around Tytler,
do you realize that this is where many of the kids who attend King George live? We
need to be careful about what we are saying in regards to some of the families who live
in the neighbourhood around Tytler who your children might be attending school with
next year!! The Ward is an amazing, vibrant community. There is poverty and crime in
every neighbourhood and it saddens me that there are such stereotyped viewpoints
being expressed here that aren't grounded in reality.
One more suggestion...has the board looked at building a new, two storey school on the
current EJ site in the future to create more classroom space?
Thanks!
APPENDIX B
Frequently Asked
Questions
(FAQ)
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the Public Information Session and online feedback.
Question Quick Reference List
January 12, 2015 Questions ....................................................................................... 2
Why was Tytler PS closed?........................................................................................ 2
Who has been using the Tytler PS building since it closed? ................................. 2
In Option 5 why would the interim new school only start JK-3? ........................... 2
Will students get bussing if they are relocated? ..................................................... 3
February 5, 2015 Questions........................................................................................ 4
Is Option 2 (caps) still on the table for consideration?........................................... 4
If Edward Johnson PS students are moved to King George PS and not
integrated into classes with King George PS student would they be part of the
school’s teams and assemblies, etc.? ...................................................................... 4
Would Edward Johnson PS have EQAO results for its Grade 6 students who
could attend King George PS? .................................................................................. 4
In Option 4 would the students moved to King George PS who are entering
Grade 6 in 2017/18 have to return to Edward Johnson PS for one year, just to
return to King George PS the following year? ......................................................... 5
Is it staff’s intent in Option 5 that the students who would be directed to the new
Couling Crescent school would form a new school housed in the Tytler PS
building and not a satellite campus of Edward Johnson PS?................................ 5
Will before and after school child care be available or will there be access to
other area daycares? .................................................................................................. 5
Is the Tytler PS building safe for students? ............................................................. 5
1|Page
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the Public Information Session and online feedback.
January 12, 2015 Questions
Why was Tytler PS closed?
At the time of the last East Guelph Accommodation Review in 2008, the enrolment at
Tytler PS was 124 students in 322 pupil places resulting in a utilization of approximately
39% and was not projected to increase significantly during the forecast period. In 2007
the Ministry of Education had announced funding to support the replacement of
buildings where a significant amount of renewal work was required including Tytler PS
and King George PS.
Based on the low enrolment in Tytler, combined with the Ministry’s funds to rebuild a
consolidated school to accommodate Tytler PS, Laurine Ave PS and King George PS
(Regular Track) students on one site, it was decided to close the school.
In 2011 it was determined that students would remain at Tytler PS until the new Laurine
Avenue PS (now John Galt PS) school was opened in September 2013. As such, this
is only the second school year that the Tytler building has not operated as a full school.
However, other users have been occupying the building.
Who has been using the Tytler PS building since it closed?
The Two Rivers Neighbourhood Group (TRNG) continues to operate in the Tytler PS
building. The TRNG offers fitness classes, occasional cooking classes, fresh food
pickup, recreational after school youth drop in, as well as summer and PD day camps.
The TRNG provides an emergency food cupboard which operates with specific office
hours. Special events are run on evenings and weekends as well. The TRNG operated
in the school and provided many of the same services, prior to the school closing.
An early literacy program operates in the Tytler PS building as well, and did so prior to
the school closing. 1, 2, 3 Go supports reading for pre-school aged children in the
community. A care and treatment program, referred to as Section 23, is also running in
the school this year. Section 23 programs serve students who, for a variety of reasons,
require their educational needs to be met outside of the regular school system. Should
it be decided that Edward Johnson PS students will be housed in Tytler in 2015-16 the
Section 23 program will be re- located.
Just like many of our other school buildings, there are regular community users who
utilize the building’s gym and other space during the evenings and weekends.
In Option 5 why would the interim new school only start JK-3?
Option 5 indicated that the interim new school would start JK-3 in 2015-16 and grow to
JK-4 in 2016/17 for a few reasons. Moving approximately 200 students from Edward
2|Page
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the Public Information Session and online feedback.
Johnson PS will provide the necessary relief to the immediate overcrowding. Further,
allowing Grade 4-6 students to remain at Edward Johnson PS would avoid moving
these older students before they make a transition to King George in the coming
year(s).
In Option 5, the new school’s grade configuration may look like the following:
Year/Grade JK
15/16
16/17
SK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Couling students hold at Tytler
Couling students
remain at Edward
Johnson
King
George
Couling students hold at Tytler
Couling
students
remain at
Edward
Johnson
King
George
17/18
Couling students at new school
18/19
Couling students at new school
Couling
students
remain
at
Edward
Johnson
King
George
King
George
While the new school on Couling Crescent is intended to accommodate JK-8 students,
determination about when 7/8 instruction may start at the school would have be
considered based on class sizes as part of the full boundary review.
Will students get bussing if they are relocated?
Eligibility for bussing is primarily based on the walking distance to a school from the
student’s residence and the student’s grade level. Starting in September 2015 bussing
will be provided to students who must walk:


over 1.6 km (JK to Gr 6)
over 3.2 km (Gr 7 to 8)
Following the Trustee’s decision on February 10, 2015, Wellington Dufferin Student
Transportation Services (WDSTS) will be reviewing all routes and bell times to address
3|Page
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the Public Information Session and online feedback.
all boundary and accommodation changes as well as the reduced walking distances.
Transportation eligibility may be confirmed by consulting the www.findmyschool.ca
website after March 23, 2015.
February 5, 2015 Questions
Is Option 2 (caps) still on the table for consideration?
A report outlining the five options for interim accommodation was presented to Trustees
on Tuesday, January 13, 2015. Option 2, the introduction of a cap on new FI enrolment,
was removed from consideration following a successful motion by Trustee Susan
Moziar. A decision on the remaining four options will be made at a special board
meeting on February 10, 2015.
If Edward Johnson PS students are moved to King George PS will the Edward
Johnson PS students be incorporated into classes with King George PS students?
The decision about whether Edward Johnson PS student are integrated with King
George PS classes or remain Edward Johnson PS students staffed in separate classes
rests with Trustees on February 10, 2015.
If Edward Johnson PS students are moved to King George PS and not integrated
into classes with King George PS student would they be part of the school’s
teams and assemblies, etc.?
The extent of integration would be a decision made between the principals of the two
schools.
Would Edward Johnson PS have EQAO results for its Grade 6 students who
could attend King George PS?
If Trustees determine that students sent from Edward Johnson PS to King George PS
are staffed separately from King George PS then the EQAO results from those students
would remain with Edward Johnson PS. If integrated, EQAO results would be reflected
in King George PS.
4|Page
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the Public Information Session and online feedback.
In Option 4 would the students moved to King George PS who are entering
Grade 6 in 2017/18 have to return to Edward Johnson PS for one year, just to
return to King George PS the following year?
In Option 4 staff would recommend that any students who were moved from Edward
Johnson PS to King George PS in 2016/17 who would otherwise return to Edward
Johnson PS for only one year be grandparented at King George PS.
Is it staff’s intent in Option 5 that the students who would be directed to the new
Couling Crescent school would form a new school housed in the Tytler PS
building and not a satellite campus of Edward Johnson PS?
While there are tight timelines for staffing, creating this school community allows for the
assignment of a Principal and staff which would travel together with students to the new
building. To maintain a satellite campus would present challenges with staff travelling
between school sites, allocation of additional VP time etc.
Will before and after school child care be available or will there be access to
other area daycares?
As kindergarten registration has not yet concluded it is not known if there is sufficient
interest in extended day care from families who may reside in the interim boundary. A
survey is distributed during registration and parents are encouraged to fill out the survey
even if they currently have child care in place. An indicator of viability for an extended
day program is 20 JK/SK students. Staff will review the extended day survey results to
confirm interest in before and after school care and work with care providers in the area,
as needed, to address the needs of the school community. Information on extended
day program availability is generally communicated by April.
Is the Tytler PS building safe for students?
While the Board would have some cosmetic updates to complete prior to the school
accommodating students, there is no reason that the school should not accommodate
students on an interim basis. The Tytler PS students moved to John Galt PS in
September 2013. Regular inspection and maintenance of the building has continued.
The building has continued to be used since that time by the Two Rivers
Neighbourhood Association, 1, 2, 3…Go, community users and a Section 23 program.
5|Page
APPENDIX C
Maps
WELLINGTON RD 38
New East Guelph School - Interim Boundary
Map 1
CONSERVATION RD
G
LP
UE
H LA KE
WE LL IN G TO
BRAN
O
D
NA
ME
SPEEDVALE AVE E
D
ER
RD
SR 10
A
OS
M
A
ER HYLAND RD
ES
ELGINFIELD DR
COULING CR
JONES BASELINE
R
PR
D
124
WATSON RD N
Y
T AVE
W AVERLE
VICTORIA RD N
WOODL A WN RD E
N RD
MOU N TF
New East Guelph
School Site
EASTVIEW RD
OR
D
OO
DR
VICTORIA RD S
GRANGE RD
EL
IZ
AB
ET
H
ST
Legend
YORK RD
New East Guelph School
Interim Boundary
UGDSB Planning Dept., Feb 2015
FLEMING RD
E RD
N OR
R
SE VE RN D
W
AR
ST
GRANGE ST
G R A NG
O N DR
A
U DEN RD
R
WATSON PKY N
DD
CAS S INO AVE
T
In the 2015/16 school year, JK-3 FI students living within
the Interim Boundary area will attend Tytler PS.
In the 2016/17 school year, JK-4 FI students living within
HIGHWAY 7
the Interim Boundary area will attend Tytler PS if the New
East Guelph School is not yet open.
L
INDIAN TR
0
0.5
1 km
SR 6 N
CAMPBELL RD
SR 6 S
TOWNSHIP RD 3
GU
S
GRANG E
METCALFE ST
DELHI ST
VICTORIA RD N
WATSON RD N
RD
DR
GRANGE ST
WATSON PKY N
K ST
RD
D
LEY ST
NORFO
L
P AIS
QUEEN ST
WOOLWICH ST
NICKLIN RD
DAWSON RD
HANLON EXWY
SILVERCREEK PKY N
IMPERIAL RD N
ELMIRA RD N
WELLINGTON RD 32
EDINBURGH RD N
ALMA ST N
LONDON RD W
A
OS
LINGTO
124
N RD
SR 10
Map 2
RD
Ed Johnson PS
OO
A RD
2 km
DS
LR
IA
R
AM
ER
B RANT
RW
STA
IM
IR
ELM
PE
SPEEDVALE AVE E
W EL
AVE
D
OO
ST W
WE
1
Edward Johnson PS
Interim Boundary
WELLINGTON RD 31
WAVERLE Y D
R
0
Legend
WOODLAWN RD W
WESTMOUNT RD
HIGHWAY 7
PAISLEY RD
E
H LA KE
CURTIS DR
SPEEDVALE AVE W
JONES BASELINE
CONSERVATION RD
LP
OLWICH TL
MILL RD
WELLINGTON RD 38
MARDEN RD
HIGHWAY 6
W ELLINGTON RD 30
GUELPH-W
O
GUELPH-NICHOL TL
WELLINGTON RD 39
WELLINGTON RD 86
TR
D
WELLINGTON RD 7
HA
WELLINGTON RD 51
SC
CRO
WS
FOO
WELLINGTON RD 22
Edward Johnson PS - JK-3 FI Interim Boundary
EFER RD
EIGHTH LINE
SECOND LINE E
FOURTH LINE E
SIXTH LINE E
EIGHTH LINE E
SPLINT RD
UGDSB Planning Dept., Feb 2015
In the 2015/16 school year, JK-3 FI students living within the
Interim Boundary area will attend Edward Johnson PS
SR 16 E
SR 16
In the 2016/17 school year, JK-4 FI students living within the
Interim Boundary area will attend Edward Johnson PS.
CAMPBELL RD
SR 6 S
MARDEN RD
TOWNSHIP RD 3
U
E
VICTORIA RD N
WATSON RD N
WATSON PKY N
METCALFE ST
DELHI ST
LIN GT ON
WEL
24
RD 1
SR 10
RD
GRANGE ST
D
GRANG E R
DR
ELIZABETH ST
D
ST N
UR
RD S
QUEEN ST
NICKLIN RD
WESTMOUNT RD
DAWSON RD
EDINBURGH RD N
A
OS
OO
LEY ST
AM
ER
Ed Johnson PS
W
P AI S
TH
ALMA ST N
ELMIRA RD N
HANLON EXWY
SILVERCREEK PKY N
LONDON RD W
AR
IAL
ER
S
WHITELAW RD
L
EASTVIEW RD
Map 3
WELLINGTON RD 32
RD
P
SPEEDVALE AVE E
R
STA
IM
B RAN T
AV E
OD
WO
EST
W
A RD
2 km
Edward Johnson PS
Interim Boundary
IR
ELM
1
WELLINGTON RD 31
WAVERLE Y D
R
0
Legend
PAISLEY RD
IMPERIAL RD N
WOODLAWN RD W
WOOLWICH ST
CURTIS DR
SPEEDVALE AVE W
JONES BASELINE
CONSERVATION RD
G
HIGHWAY 7
SR 20
KE
PH L A
OLWICH TL
MILL RD
H IGHWA Y 6
W ELLINGTON RD 30
GUELPH-W
O
GUELPH-NICHOL TL
WELLINGTON RD 39
WELLINGTON RD 86
TR
D
WELLINGTON RD 7
WELLINGTON RD 51
SC
CRO
WS
FOO
SECOND LINE E
FOURTH LINE E
SIXTH LINE E
EIGHTH LINE E
HA
EFER RD
WELLINGTON RD 22
WELLINGTON RD 38
SPLINT RD
In the 2015/16 school year, Grade 4-6 FI students living within
SR 16 E
SR 16
the Interim Boundary area
will attend
Edward Johnson PS.
In the 2016/17 school year, Grade 5-6 FI students living within
the Interim Boundary area will attend Edward Johnson PS.
Edward Johnson PS - Grade 4-6 FI Interim Boundary
UGDSB Planning Dept., Feb 2015
EIGHTH LINE