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