April 18 to April 27, 2012
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
Lee Street Boundary Review 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.
April 22, 2012
My family lives in the Summit Ridge area and are quite upset at the tought of our kids having to go to
a holding school and then to a new school. Lee Street will be too far away for our kids to walk esp
since we can see Ken Danby from our back deck. Ken Danby was part of the reason we moved to this
"high tax" area. What bothers me more is that there should be no need to move anybody if all of the
kids living on the other side of Watson had schools of their own. Please do not move the Summit
Ridge kids as like I have said we can see Ken Danby from where we live and it's closer. Thank you
kindly.
April 24, 2012
Have the Ken Danby parents vote on Full Day Kindergarden (and increasing class sizes by 2 kids) vs
bussing kids to holding school. The results get sent to the newspaper, Liz Sandals, Laruel Broten,
Dalton McGuinty....
April 24, 2012
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a parent of 2 children who currently attend Ken Danby PS. We live on O'Connor Lane and I can
actually see my son during the recess periods from our backyard.
I love the fact that my children can walk to school without the need to cross any streets. We always
felt we wouldn't move from our current house as the school is ideally located and this is important to
us.
I reviwed the current question and answer section (which does not have all the questions answered by
the way) and I realize that I can probably not come up with any arguments you have not alraeady
heard. However, I wish you would stongly reconsider your boundary review and keep O'Connor Lane
residents at Ken Danby.
I really disagree with your illogical boundary recommendations to move O'Connor Lane residents to
the new Lee street school and will be extremely disappointed in the board if this passes.
Please feel free to contact me for futher comments.
Sincerely,
1
April 18 to April 27, 2012
April 24, 2012
I understand the necessity of moving some children to the holding school. But when deciding the age
of children that will be moved I worry that my daughter (who is currently in JK) will be one of them.
She struggled during her transition into JK and the thought of her having to experience 3 schools in
her first few years makes me very upset. The youngest children at Ken Danby have already had to deal
with so much change; please don't make them experience even more.
April 24, 2012
I am a parent of 3 small children living on Law dr. We are a 4min walk to the school and we are left
out of "A". Our children currently cross 1 quiet dead end street to attend school. If they have to go to
the new school they will have to cross 4 streets and a driveway for the plaza. We can see Ken Danby
school from our home!!! I don't think that anyone is thinking of the children when making these
decisions it's all about what looks good on paper and how the numbers add up. When you look at "B"
the numbers are much more balanced through to 2017! I also ask some of the school board staff to
go to the corner of starwood and grange at 8am and see how dangerous it is going to be for the
children living in our neighborhood.
April 25, 2012
Scenario A needs to be chosen as staff have recommended. The Summit Ridge area needs to stay at
Danby for all the reasons staff have already identified. We would have no choice but to move Boards
and go to Trinity should you make the poor choice of Scenario B.
We moved to this property for access to schools East of Starwood.
April 25, 2012
I am writing again as the comment section last time I wrote would not let me finish the letter entirely
for some reason. We never thought that it would ever be a possiblity that our children would have to
switch schools as we are a 4min walk from Ken Danby. If "A" is chosen not only will our children have
to switch to a new school they will be switched twice. We have stayed at our current residence so that
our children would never have to cross starwood or watson to go to school and now it looks like they
may have to cross starwood!!! If "B" is not chosen and/or "A" is not fixed to include the streets closest
to the school than I think you will have a lot of families opting to send their children to Holy Trinity
instead. At least they will only have to transfer schools once and not be bused somewhere else when
we can see 2 schools from our driveway. Before Ken danby was built we had decided that instead of
busing our children we would send them to catholic school if the public school was not built in time.
We thought we were very lucky that it was ready in time for our children to start school. Please
consider the children when making your final decision! Please leave our streets O'Conner, Lee, Law
etc inside the boundaries for Ken Danby. Our family loves going to Ken Danby and would like to
continue going there! I understand the need for a new school and if we lived on the otherside of
Starwood we would be very excited about not having to cross Starwood! Please listen to the families in
our neighborhood. There is a very large petition going around. A lot of parents were surprised to hear
that our streets were even being considered outside the boundaries, but why would we ever think that
2
April 18 to April 27, 2012
we would be unable to attend a school you can see from your house? Thankyou for taking the time to
read this.
April 25, 2012
l would like to keep Scenario A
April 25 2012
We Strongly support Scenario A for the following reasons:
1)In Scenario A, the students South of Grange and East of Starwood (eg. Law Dr., O'Connor Ln., etc.)
will have an increased walking distance of a couple hundred meters; this is far less than the 1Km (or
more) increased walking distances imposed on the Summit Ridge students by Scenario B.
(Measurements taken using Google Earth). While these distances may not be obvious when looking
at a street map, please be aware that students in the Summit Ridge area currently access Ken Danby
via a short walking path between Trimble Cr. and Buckthorn Cr.
2) While those students South of Grange, East of Starwood will now have to cross Starwood, a rather
busy street; the children from the Summit Ridge area would have to cross BOTH Starwood and
Grange (2 busy streets) in order to access the Lee St. School. It does not seem fair to go with Scenario
B, a plan that will both increase the walking distance and hazards of the Summit Ridge children by
factors much greater than those that would be imposed on the children already living closer to the Lee
Street School.
3)Due to the increased distance and hazards imposed by Scenario B, many parents in the Summit
Ridge area would feel the need to drive their children to the Lee St. school if Scenario B is selected.
This would increase traffic congestion in the area, not to mention air pollution generated by additional
vehicles now driving their children to school as opposed to allowing them to walk to Ken Danby.
Given the disproportionate increase to both walking distance and hazards to the Summit Ridge area
children if Scenario B were selected, and the imbalance of school populations (which could result in
yet ANOTHER boundary review?) We Firmly stand behind 'Scenario A' - The Staff's Preferred Scenario.
April 25, 2012
As a parent of three children that will be attending the same school next year. My support is in favour
of Scenario "A" for the Lee Street boundary review. Our house on Trimble Cres. is closer in proximity
and walking distance to Ken Danby Public School and is the sole reason for us selecting the location
for our house. In Fact we can literally see Ken Danby Public School from our house. It doesn't make
any sense for all three of our children to have to walk past Ken Danby School to get to Lee Street
Public School. Second, I will not support the decision to send our youngest daughter of four (who will
be entering JK next year) on a school bus to a holding school for a year.
Regards,
3
April 18 to April 27, 2012
April 26, 2012
I would like to support the children from the Summit Ridge Subdivision and agree that they should be
able to continue attending Ken Danby for the 2013/2014 school year.
Bussing children to a temporary school only disrupts their learning and puts them at a disadvantage. I
can say this from experience as my daughter was moved schools on a temporary basis when St.
Joseph’s was under construction and her grades deteriorated to the point where extensive tutoring was
needed.
April 26, 2012
Request the board adopts Scenario A
April 26, 2012
Request the board adopt Scenario A
April 26, 2012
We are in full support of the children on Trimble Crescent and Summit Ridge Subdivision continue to
attend Ken Danby effective the 2013/2014 school year.
We strongly Support Senario A.
April 26, 2012
I am writing in support of Scenario A regarding the residents of Summit Ridge Subdivision. I hope that
I am not too late. My children attend Ken and I have been very pleased with the school and its staff.
My wife usually walks the kids to school through greenspace trails everyday, moving them to Lee St.
and King George would require the kids to either be bussed or driven to school. With all of the
promoting the UGDSB has done of "living green" and being "Earth friendly" it would seem that
scenario B is a contradiction.
April 26, 2012
I live at Crieghton ave and wish to vote for scenario A. For the children of Summit Ridge subdivision
to continue attending Ken Danby school
April 26, 2012
I would like to see scenario A for the students of Ken Danby stay from Summit Ridge subdivision
4
April 18 to April 27, 2012
April 26, 2012
Our family lives on Trimble Crescent. Our oldest child, is in senior kindergarten at Ken Danby. In
September, our son will start junior kindergarten, and 2 years later, our youngest son will also attend
school at Ken Danby. Additionally, we have 2 nieces, who also live on Trimble Crescent, and attend
the same school.
We are writing in support of boundary A, whereby Trimble Crescent will be included in the boundary
that keeps our children at Ken Danby.
We are opposed to boundary B, for the following reasons:
- Safety: Currently, our children only have to cross at one major road (Grange Road). By moving to
the new Lee Street school, our children will have to cross 2 major, and very busy streets at Grange
and Starwood
- Distance: Currently, the walk to school for our children is a manageable distance, using the nature
paths that exist behind our residence. We choose this route, because it adds a valuable continued
education aspect to our children's day, however it is also a shorter distance than taking the city streets.
Our concern with the location of the Lee Street school is that the walking distance using city streets will
increase significantly, and our children may lose the daily opportunity to use these nature trails.
- Social: Our daughter will start grade 1 in September, and we are concerned that she may be in a
position of attending 3 schools in a very short period of time. The social implications of this are of
concern to us.
Thank you for considering our concerns,
April 26, 2012
Dear Trustee Members of the Upper Grand District School Board:
We wish to express our concerns and indicate the reasoning behind our opposition to Scenario A of
the Lee Street Boundary Review based on the following points:
Currently, we have two children attending Ken Danby P.S. and a third child entering school in 2014.
Our current residence on O’Connor Lane was purchased in 2000 based on the fact that the Upper
Grand District School Board was building a public school on the lands directly behind our home.
While one of our children had to be bussed to Edward Johnston P.S., we were advised by school staff
this was temporary and that she and our future children would be enrolled in Ken Danby once it was
completed. At this time, there was no indication that the Board would consider removing our
residence from the Ken Danby school boundary.
In the Lee Boundary report Board staff do not recommend Scenario B as it may cause future
displacement due to possible overcrowding, however the report does not take into consideration that
proceeding with Scenario A may displace children for a second time or may split siblings between
schools.
We note in the report, Board staff do not recommend Scenario B as it will create overcrowding and
will require a subsequent review of the school boundaries. In response although we recognize Board
5
April 18 to April 27, 2012
staff calculated future enrolment numbers based on their expertise, respectfully, these enrolment
numbers are based on assumptions and may be affected by various external factors. We woul
d like to draw the Board’s attention to the reference regarding enrolment numbers in a March 2009
report prepared for the Ontario Minister of Education. The report, Planning and Possibilities: The
Report of Declining Enrolment Working Group indicates that enrolment projections are based on
assumptions on future demographic trends and the report states further that other assumptions could
be made leading to different projections. The report then lists assumptions that are possible and
could affect predicted enrolment numbers.
Similar to other planning reports, it appears that the report provided by Board staff is number based
without any other factors such as quality of life or safety being addressed. When comparing
enrolment numbers between Scenario A and B, the difference for the Lee Street school in 2021 is 41
students. As indicated above, given this number may be affected by other external influences, it is
unfortunate that the report lacks information on the impacts to the community including quality of life
and safety. The current report process is very adversarial. In future; we recommend that community
engagement be conducted prior to the development of possible scenarios not after. By speaking to
the affected neighbourhoods and providing neighbourhood feedback before staff make a
recommendation may not only address public concerns but would assist the Board in making an
informed decision.
One of the points missing from the report is student safety. We note that the report speaks to safe
walking distances, but does not consider the requirements to implement a safe walking route
especially for those children north east of Starwood Road. While we are aware that School Boards
within the City have always expressed concerns regarding student safety; Scenario A to have children
cross Starwood, appears to be contrary to previous comments made by the Board of Trustees with
respect to students crossing roads.
It should be noted that prior to the installation of traffic signals, adult crossing guards were temporary
posted at the intersect
ion of Grange and Starwood and we realize that the use of adult crossing guards may be an option to
assist with the safe crossing. Further, according to past Trustee minutes (June 23, 2009, March 23,
2010) the Board of Trustees clearly supports adult crossing guards, as they have expressed concerns
with respect to the City of Guelph’s recommendation to remove crossing guards during the lunch hour
period.
During the March 23, 2010 minutes the Board encouraged school principals and Councils to voice
their concerns to the City of Guelph with respect to the recommendation to remove lunch hour
crossing guards, further the Board has expressed concerns with respect to the expected increased
number of JK/SK children who would be crossing roads.
While as stated previously we do realize that the use of adult crossing guards may alleviate concerns
with children crossing roads, crossing guards may not be available. We draw the Board’s attention to
a City of Guelph report dated September 12, 2011, in which City staff note challenges maintaining
existing crossing guard staff levels and according to this report, the Upper Grand School Board was
notified of this concern.
Given this information, we would enquire as to whether or not Board staff took the above points into
consideration when recommending Scenario A, as Scenario B reduces the need for adult crossing
6
April 18 to April 27, 2012
guards/additional traffic signals along Starwood and helps to address the Board of Trustees’ concern
with an increased number of JK and SK children required to cross roads.
From our personal viewpoints: we do not support Scenario A as this scenario would result in our
children who currently do not need to cross any roads, including the child scheduled to start JK in
2014 in having to cross Starwood in order to attend school, further it would require our child who has
already attended a holding school to do so again.
We thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours truly,
April 27, 2012
Change is difficult, and I think everyone would prefer to keep the status quo. Since that is not an
option, parents in the Summit Ridge area will naturally support Scenario A, while those in the
O’Connor/Lee/Law/Fleming area north of Starwood will lobby for Scenario B. Everyone’s arguments,
while self-serving, are valid and significant. The bottom line is that there is no single scenario that will
satisfy everybody. If the Board is recommending Scenario A, I think we should trust their expertise and
demand that they do everything possible to minimize the impact on the affected children and families.
One thing is clear from this process—there are a lot of caring parents in this neighbourhood that are
willing to take a stand for their kids. My hat’s off to you all.
April 27, 2012
I would like to support Scenario A because we would have to walk past Ken Danby to go to Lee Street
which doesn't make the most sense. I would prefer to not have to drive which would no doubt happen
because we are often running late but can still walk the 5 minutes to KDPS. When we are late, the
walk to Lee Street would take that much longer & driving would be necessary & not a very
environmental option.
7