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!