Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
Question Quick Reference List
November 22, 2012 FAQ Update ................................................................................................................ 3
What is the focus of this boundary review; King George PS or Victory PS?...........................................................3
Can we do a business case for a renovation at Victory PS? ...................................................................................3
Can other groups (i.e. Paisley PS or RT at Victory PS) be engaged in this process? ...............................................3
How many portables can be accommodated on King George PS site? ..................................................................3
What is the true capacity at Victory including the portables? ...............................................................................3
What is the average cost of running a school bus for a year? ...............................................................................4
What is the cost of a portable? ..............................................................................................................................4
What does the Board believe is the appropriate age for children to walk home from bus and be at home alone
after school? ...........................................................................................................................................................4
Is 110% utilization at a school a trigger for a boundary review and is this a Ministry –mandated cap? ...............4
What is the plan if the enrolment at King George PS surpasses the On the Ground (OTG) capacity in 2017? .....4
..................................................................................................................................................................... 5
November 6, 2012 FAQ Update .................................................................................................................. 5
When did the Board last invest in the Victory PS facility? .....................................................................................5
When is the next planned investment in Victory’s physical structure? .................................................................5
What is the cost of maintaining Victory PS versus other schools of similar size?..................................................5
How can we use the scheduled FDK renovation as an opportunity to increase capacity and accessibility?.........5
What funding sources are available to the Board to help support a permanent expansion of Victory PS as longterm solution to the enrolment pressure issue?....................................................................................................5
What are the specific constraints to expanding the kindergarten wing? ..............................................................6
What is the Board’s perspective on balance of smaller, community school buildings in areas with slower or
more stable growth and the larger new school buildings in areas experiencing faster development? ................6
October 26, 2012 FAQ................................................................................................................................. 7
What is the impact of Full Day Kindergarten on Victory PS? .................................................................................7
Did the Boundary Review Committee consider removing regular track (RT) students from Victory PS? .............7
As a community can we opt out of Full Day Kindergarten? ...................................................................................7
What do the projections take into consideration? ................................................................................................7
What are the average historic French Immersion attrition rates? ........................................................................7
What is the boundary review process? ..................................................................................................................8
Why are the timelines for public input so short? ...................................................................................................8
Will you schedule an additional public meeting?...................................................................................................8
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e |1
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
These reviews are happening too frequently. We need a long-term solution. .....................................................9
An advantage for Scenario 1 is “Ability to respond to future FI trends without Boundary Review process”.
What does this mean? ............................................................................................................................................9
Is it possible to increase Victory PS’s capacity by building an addition?................................................................9
Is it possible to increase Victory PS’s capacity through the use of portables? ................................................... 10
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) says buildings must be made accessible. Can
Victory PS be expanded in conjunction with a retrofit for accessibility? ............................................................ 10
Did the committee consider the impact of moving young children to a new school? ....................................... 11
What will happen in 2017 when King George PS is over capacity?..................................................................... 11
Have you considered the higher traffic volumes resulting from development in downtown Guelph? ............. 12
Did you consider the impact of the boundary review on residential property values?...................................... 12
Would it be possible to change Scenario 1 so fewer FI grades were moved to King George PS from Victory PS –
only grade 6, or just 5 and 6? .............................................................................................................................. 12
For Scenario 1, do you have a plan for addressing the loss of mentoring provided by grade 4-6 FI students to
the JK-3 students? ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Will students entering grade 6 at Victory PS be grandparented? ....................................................................... 12
Will students entering grade 8 at John McCrae be grandparented? .................................................................. 12
Will students get bussing to King George PS? ..................................................................................................... 12
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e |2
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
November 22, 2012 FAQ Update
This update provides additional information to the public in response to feedback received via the Board’s
website and through delegations to Board and communication with Board staff and Trustees since the last FAQ
update on November 6, 2012.
What is the focus of this boundary review; King George PS or Victory PS?
The focus of this boundary review is the JK-8 French Immersion program at King George PS (effective September
2014). Within this review we have also considered capacity issues at neighbouring schools, hence Victory PS is
also involved. French Immersion capacity at King George PS provides an opportunity to resolve overcrowding at
Victory PS.
Can we do a business case for a renovation at Victory PS?
A business case for the renovation of Victory PS is not a realistic proposal. The Board has no capital funds that
have not been committed elsewhere, there are no additional dollars available from the Province and the Board
could not complete a major renovation at Victory prior to September 2014 given the number of projects
planned and underway.
Can other groups (i.e. Paisley PS or RT at Victory PS) be engaged in this process?
The scope of the Boundary Review Committee’s task was laid out in Report #1 and was approved by Trustees.
Report #1 explained that King George PS did not have the capacity to resolve projected overcrowding at both
Victory PS and Paisley PS, which is why the Paisley PS community is currently involved in the South Guelph JK-8
FI Boundary Review. Further, when Report #1 was released in June 2012, every parent received a letter from
the Principal indicating that this was a French Immersion boundary review (and therefore would not consider
changes to the Regular Track program at Victory).
How many portables can be accommodated on King George PS site?
King George PS has the electrical capacity for up to six (6) portables. This is a standard practice for new school
designs. Staff recognizes that the site configuration does not easily lend itself to accommodating six (6)
portables.
What is the true capacity at Victory including the portables?
The On the Ground (OTG) capacity of Victory PS will be 294 pupil places after the renovation is complete for FDK
(2014). There are currently three (3) portables on the Victory PS site. Portables accommodate an average of 23
students each which equals another 69 pupil places.
The OTG capacity plus the portable capacity would not be considered the “true” capacity of Victory PS.
Portables are deployed when necessary to give schools a buffer and some flexibility but it is irresponsible to plan
on filling every school to its maximum capacity including portables. The disadvantages to portables on the
Victory site have been listed under the question “Is it possible to increase Victory’s capacity through the use of
portables?”
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e |3
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
What is the average cost of running a school bus for a year?
A bus costs on average approximately $40,000/year to operate. This fee is inclusive and is paid to independent
bus operators who are contracted by Wellington-Dufferin Student Transportation Services.
What is the cost of a portable?
The cost of moving a portable is approximately $6,000.00, including trucking, set-up, connection to services and
inspection. It is important to note that the Board owns approximately 95% of all the portables across the
district. Since the elementary enrolment across the district is fairly static, when portables are required they are
moved from schools with declining enrolment to schools where enrolments are increasing.
What does the Board believe is the appropriate age for children to walk home from bus and be at
home alone after school?
Wellington-Dufferin Student Transportation Services Policy 15 addresses parents accompanying students to bus
stops. The following is an excerpt from the policy:
Junior Kindergarten, Senior Kindergarten and Grade 1 students must be accompanied to the bus stop and
met at the bus stop for morning, afternoon and noon hour transportation. Furthermore, for safety
reasons, it is strongly recommended that all students enrolled in Grade 2 and Grade 3 be accompanied to
the bus stop and met at the bus stop.
There is currently no policy or Ontario law that specifies an age at which a child can be left home alone.
Is 110% utilization at a school a trigger for a boundary review and is this a Ministry –mandated cap?
The Board has defined a school with greater than 110% utilization as “overcrowded”. This is not a Ministry
mandated cap but rather one of several criteria that would determine whether a school needs to be reviewed.
Schools can differ significantly in how well they can absorb enrolment pressure. Although a school may fall into
the category of overcrowded, a number of other criteria would need to be considered such as washroom
capacity, site restrictions, portable capacity, septic capacity, etc.
At Victory PS, the issue is the projected enrolment relative to its capacity, along with the constraint of a
maximum 3 portables and concerns about the size of the site.
What is the plan if the enrolment at King George PS surpasses the On the Ground (OTG) capacity in
2017?
Staff acknowledged in Report #2 the need to monitor and address the growth at King George PS in the future.
Enrolment pressure projected at King George PS is attributed to both residential development and growth in
French Immersion occurring in East Guelph. Current projections suggest that King George PS may require one
(1) or two (2) portables by the 2017/18 school year, which would be reasonable.
Although King George PS has the electrical capacity for six (6) portables, Staff recognizes that this would not be
desirable for the site. If the upward trend in enrolment at King George PS is projected to be sustained beyond
2017, it will be necessary for the Board to consider options to meet the accommodation needs of the students.
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e |4
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
November 6, 2012 FAQ Update
This update provides answers to questions about Victory PS -- the building, site, investments and suitability for
expansion. We understand that some parents view an expansion to Victory PS as their preferred solution to
projected overcrowding, and so we're offering these responses so that you have the facts. It is important to
note, however, that consideration of any physical alterations to the Victory PS building, except those already
approved in the FDK Capital Plan, are beyond the scope of the boundary review. Likewise, there has been no
consideration to removing the regular track program from the school.
When did the Board last invest in the Victory PS facility?
The Board invests regularly in building maintenance and repair in its facilities. At Victory PS in the past 10 years
the Board has invested in the following (not limited to):
replaced the entire mechanical system,
replaced the roofs of the 1919 and 1953 addition,
repaved a significant portion of the parking lot and playground, and
installed a solar array.
When is the next planned investment in Victory’s physical structure?
The Board has 25 year renewal plans for each of its facilities. As previously indicated, the next planned
significant investment at Victory PS is the conversion of three standard classrooms into two purpose built Full
Day Kindergarten rooms.
What is the cost of maintaining Victory PS versus other schools of similar size?
The costs to operate Victory PS are in line with other facilities.
How can we use the scheduled FDK renovation as an opportunity to increase capacity and
accessibility?
Capacity cannot be increased with the interior renovation approved.
The conversion of three standard classrooms (23 students each) to two FDK rooms (26 students each) results in
a loss of capacity. The provincial funding for this project is limited and can only be spent on FDK.
Renovations to address accessibility are managed on an as needed/as requested basis and may be done in
conjunction or exclusive of any other renovation plans within facilities.
What funding sources are available to the Board to help support a permanent expansion of Victory
PS as long-term solution to the enrolment pressure issue?
None at this time.
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e |5
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
In September 2011, the Board launched the Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) Capital Plan, a comprehensive $90million plan to address enrolment pressures resulting from the implementation of FDK and growth in key
residential areas. Along with renovations at many schools, the plan includes the construction of four new or
rebuilt schools in Guelph -- two JK-8 FI centres (King George PS and a new school on Zaduk Place) and two JK-8
regular track schools (Laurine Avenue PS and a new school on Lee Street).
Much of the funding for the FDK Capital Plan is coming through provincial dollars specifically dedicated to FDK
capital construction, but the Board is also using $27 million in unspent New Pupil Place funds (an expired
program) and $8 million from a site reserve fund.
Every project goes through multiple approval steps through the Ministry of Education to ensure that funds are
spent responsibly. Our funds for capital improvements are limited, and committed through to 2014.
Under the Education Act it is the duty of the Board to promote student achievement and well-being, but we
must also "ensure effective stewardship of the board’s resources". The Board cannot borrow money, or raise
taxes. It is illegal for the Board to run a deficit.
If enrolment pressures arise that cannot be resolved through any other means in the future, the Board will work
to identify solutions that might involve new construction. Funding is not guaranteed, and must be applied for
annually -- the needs of the UGDSB are stacked against the needs of every other school board in the province.
What are the specific constraints to expanding the kindergarten wing?
There is no funding available to expand the building’s capacity beyond the FDK renovation.
Structural constraints do not make expansion a cost effective solution to addressing enrolment
pressure.
The school site size is not suitable for accommodating additional enrolment.
What is the Board’s perspective on balance of smaller, community school buildings in areas with
slower or more stable growth and the larger new school buildings in areas experiencing faster
development?
The Board supports schools of all size. Viable program for elementary education means, in the opinion of the
Board, the ability to provide and support the required curriculum within a balanced organizational structure.
The FDK Capital Plan takes into account the limitations of some school sites or buildings that may not be obvious
at first glance; for example, a rural school cannot be expanded because of limits to septic capacity, and or an
urban school may not have enough land. The Board attempts to “right-size” schools so that they are neither too
small nor too large, but the best possible size and configuration for each school’s elementary program.
The FDK Capital Plan is designed to ensure that the Board is as efficient and cost effective as possible when
accommodating students and looking after the significant public assets that it holds in trust.
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e |6
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
October 26, 2012 FAQ
What is the impact of Full Day Kindergarten on Victory PS?
FDK will be offered at Victory PS in September 2014. This is the fifth and final year to implement this provincially
mandated program.
The FDK Capital plan proposes a $400,000 renovation at Victory PS, converting three regular kindergarten
classrooms (approx. 750 sq. ft.) into two FDK classrooms (1,000 sq. ft). An addition to expand existing
classrooms was considered, but deemed not feasible for a number of reasons, including proximity to property
lines. With the interior renovations the on-the-ground (i.e. bricks & mortar) capacity of Victory PS will be 294
pupil places, a reduction from 317 pupil places.
FDK funding from the province may only be spent on FDK related projects.
Did the Boundary Review Committee consider removing regular track (RT) students from Victory PS?
No, they didn’t.
The focus of this review is on the French Immersion program. The primary goal of the review is to create a viable
and sustainable JK-8 French Immersion program at King George PS while also addressing projected
overcrowding at Victory PS which is being driven by growth in the French Immersion program.
As a community can we opt out of Full Day Kindergarten?
FDK is a provincially mandated program, and must be implemented in all elementary schools by September
2014.
What do the projections take into consideration?
Enrolment projections consider a variety of factors including historic and future enrolment trends, attrition rates
between programs (i.e. FI to Regular Track) and birth data to generate forecasts.
Future residential development information is received from the City and yield rates by housing type are applied
to this development. This generates a student yield which is applied by grade and program at the schools where
the development is assigned for each year of the projection.
Census data is also used to verify assumptions about future student populations.
What are the average historic French Immersion attrition rates?
Historical FI attrition rates are applied on a grade specific and school specific basis in our projection model
system.
Historically at Victory PS, an average of two students per grade (grades 1 to 6) leave the FI program. These
students may join the RT programs at Victory PS, or June Ave PS. Some of the attrition may also reflect the loss
of students to gifted education after grade 3. Fluctuations in enrolment in general also reflect families moving in
and out of the attendance area. There is commonly an increase in enrolment from JK to SK which represents
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e |7
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
students who did not enroll in JK. This increase has typically been just above 10% since we started our JK
program in January 2005.
What is the boundary review process?
A boundary review process is used to address situations where a school is overcapacity (>110% utilization) or
underutilized (<80% utilization) or in any school where the program delivery requires a higher than average
(Board-wide) allocation of staff resources.
A boundary review process is used when contemplating moving less than 50% of a school’s enrolment.
Victory PS was identified as a school with enrolment pressure to be addressed. With Full Day Kindergarten in
2014, Victory PS is projected to be 123% utilized. This overcapacity issue at Victory PS is projected to continue
beyond 2014.
Of the two shortlisted scenarios in Report 2, the percentage of students that are contemplated to be reassigned
from Victory PS in 2014 is approximately 20% in Scenario 1 and approximately 27% in Scenario 2.
Why are the timelines for public input so short?
The King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review follows the requirements of the board’s School Boundary Review
Policy #320. Boundary reviews usually take 4 to 6 months to complete. Parents were informed of the initiation
of the King George PS review in a letter home on June 13, 2012. The final report will be considered by trustees
on December 18, 2012.
Input from the community is welcomed, valued and strongly considered in the recommendations of the final
report. The following methods have been/are available for public input:
Public Information Session on October 23, 2012. Following the presentation by staff there was an open
question and answer period, opportunities to speak in person with Planning Department staff, and
written feedback forms available.
Online feedback form, available until the public input deadline of November 30, 2012.
Delegation to the Board of Trustees, at any Regular Board or Standing Committee meeting through to
December 18. Parents wishing to appear as a delegation must submit their request in writing, in
advance. Instructions are on the board website.
Also please note that the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review is one of a series of boundary reviews that
must be completed prior to the implementation of FDK in 2014. A delay in one boundary review sets a
precedent that parents might rightfully expect in subsequent reviews, creating a cascade of delays that is not in
the best interests of students.
Will you schedule an additional public meeting?
We’re sorry – no.
The King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review is following the procedures set out by Board policy. This FAQ is an
enhancement to the boundary review web page that allows us to address questions more fully than may have
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e |8
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
been possible in the public information session, or that have come in subsequently. If new questions or concerns
come in we may respond with a new or revised FAQ.
Parents are reminded that they are welcome to delegate at the public sessions of the Board’s regular and
standing committee meetings. Instructions are on the board website.
These reviews are happening too frequently. We need a long-term solution.
We hear you, and fully appreciate your concern. Accommodation and boundary reviews happen when there is a
need. In the last three years, French Immersion enrolment in Guelph elementary schools has grown from 1,654
students to 2,186 students – approximately 33%. The numbers have been trending upward since 2001, and
there’s no sign FI numbers in the City of Guelph are leveling off or will decline.
Capacity and enrolment are also are also affected by Ministry of Education initiatives. For example in the last 10
years the board has been affected by these two initiatives:
In 2003, Good Places to Learn introduced primary class size caps which increased the amount of
classroom space necessary to accommodate students (full implementation was required by 2007/08).
Full Day Kindergarten was first introduced in UGDSB schools in 2010. FDK doubles the requirement for
kindergarten space which has typically been used by classes of half-day or every-other day students.
FDK must be in all of our elementary schools as of September 2014.
We make every effort possible to minimize the impact of boundary changes on students and families.
An advantage for Scenario 1 is “Ability to respond to future FI trends without Boundary Review
process”. What does this mean?
In Scenario 1, it is proposed that FI grades 4 to 6 at Victory PS will be redirected to King George PS. Normally,
these students would have gone to King George PS in Grade 7, so we’re advancing that shift by three years.
The Scenario 1 advantage “Ability to respond to future FI trends without Boundary Review process” means that
the board would have the flexibility to adjust the grade shift upwards or downwards without the necessity of a
4-month boundary review. For example, if there was a sustained trend towards declining JK enrolment resulting
in extra capacity at Victory PS, the board could take advantage of that classroom space and hold back Grade 4
students who would otherwise go to King George PS.
This is not to suggest that the grade level shift would fluctuate from year-to-year. Nor does a drop or increase in
the total school enrolment automatically result in changes to the availability of classroom space.
Is it possible to increase Victory PS’s capacity by building an addition?
The original 1919 three storey building, by virtue of its age, code constraints and site constraints does not lend
itself to construction of an addition. An addition would require extensive renovations to the whole building to
meet present building code requirements. The site size is a significant limitation to the expandability of the
building and the current site design does not comply with contemporary zoning provisions i.e. parking
requirements.
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e |9
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
The available design drawings for the single storey 1953 did not indicate that any provision for the addition of a
second storey was made at the time of construction. The building would have to be reinforced right down to
the footings to support a second storey.
The most economical course of action to provide a second floor would be to demolish the existing single storey
structure and replace it with a two storey building. Assuming that the site plan approval from the City of Guelph
is possible, the cost per classroom space would be more than double the normal classroom costs.
Is it possible to increase Victory PS’s capacity through the use of portables?
Yes, but there are limitations and disadvantages.
The original 1919 Victory PS Public School building was built on a 2.2 ac. (0.9 ha) lot, less than half the size of
modern school properties of 5-6 ac. (2.02-2.43 ha). An addition was added in 1953. At times, the Victory PS site
has also housed up to five portable classrooms.
In recent years the school, with considerable help from parents, has put a lot of effort into landscaping and
greening of the grounds. Victory PS is a historic building in which the community takes considerable pride.
The return of portables to Victory PS does not appear in either scenario. Reasons include:
1. The installation of portables cannot fully resolve the enrolment pressures at Victory PS.
2. Although portables are sometimes a necessity, we must also consider negatives impacts, including the
loss of play and green space, increased student density during outdoor activities, and challenges to
supervision and safety caused by obstructed sightlines.
3. Guelph Hydro no longer allows secondary services to be added to a property – there can only be one
service per property. More than 3 portables will necessitate expensive upgrades to the school’s
electrical supply system.
4. Portables are typically used to as a solution to accommodate temporary fluctuations in a school
population, and not as part of a long-term accommodation plan.
In seeking to provide the best possible learning environment for students the Board seeks to align enrolment
with a school’s on-the-ground (OTG) capacity.
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) says buildings must be made accessible.
Can Victory PS be expanded in conjunction with a retrofit for accessibility?
No. The province has not provided any funding for accessibility retrofits.
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) does say that standards will be developed to
make Ontario’s facilities and buildings accessible to the disabled on or before January 1, 2025.
The AODA defines five areas for which standards will be set:
Customer Service
Transportation
Employment
Information and Communication
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e | 10
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
Built Environment
The government is proposing to handle accessibility for built environment in two ways:
1. Design of Public Spaces Standard, covering accessibility in new or redeveloped outdoor public spaces
(including school playgrounds).
2. Amendments to the Ontario Building Code that will cover accessibility in new or substantially renovated
buildings.
The draft of the Design for Public Spaces Standard went through a 45-day public consultation period which
ended on October 1, 2012. We do not know when the regulation will be finalized or come into effect.
The government has not released any details about the proposed changes to the Ontario Building Code, but has
affirmed that they will only apply to “new construction and renovations in buildings” and not existing structures,
such as Victory PS Public School.
Although the Board does not have the money to remove all of the physical barriers to accessibility which exist in
the district, the principles of accessibility are a high priority for the Board. New schools have many features that
promote accessibility. For instance, King George PS Public School has an elevator with a mid-floor stop at the
gymnasium’s stage, allowing disabled children, staff or visitors to participate in school assemblies, plays or
graduation ceremonies.
The accessibility needs of individual students are addressed through consultation with the school principal and
the Board’s Special Education department. The Special Education Department monitors the needs of individual
students with disabilities and works with Plant Operations to prioritize modifications, as required.
Did the committee consider the impact of moving young children to a new school?
Yes. The committee considers and discusses how students may feel in any given situation. Educators and school
communities have many resources at their disposal to minimize social impacts and facilitate transition. Both
Victory PS P.S. and King George PS P.S. have worked closely with their communities in the past to make for
smooth transitions of students and will continue to do so in the future. As we move closer to any change there
will be many opportunities to get involved by assisting in the creation of a plan ensuring a smooth transition.
Does King George PS have before and after school programs? Will there be space for my child?
At present the school has an after-school program for JK/SK and Grade 1-6 students from 3:05 to 6:00 p.m.
provided by the Guelph YW-YMCA, with no waiting list. There was insufficient demand in 2012 for a beforeschool program. Parents are surveyed annually to determine the need and viability of before and after school
programs. Details about the program currently in place at King George PS, including rates and contact
information, are provided on the board website.
What will happen in 2017 when King George PS is over capacity?
The capacity of King George PS Public School is 504 student places. Enrolment projections for 2017 are
approximately 565 students. Planning for the school’s construction included the space and servicing for future
portables to address short-term enrolment issues. Enrolment growth occurring in East Guelph which
contributes to the forecasted pressures at King George PS is being monitored.
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e | 11
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
Have you considered the higher traffic volumes resulting from development in downtown Guelph?
Traffic volumes that may affect student safety are monitored on an on-going basis by Wellington-Dufferin
Student Transportation Services.
Did you consider the impact of the boundary review on residential property values?
No. Our responsibility under the Education Act is to enhance student achievement and well-being. The impact of
Board decisions on the real estate market is not a consideration.
Would it be possible to change Scenario 1 so fewer FI grades were moved to King George PS from
Victory PS – only grade 6, or just 5 and 6?
One of the reasons for moving grades 4 to 6 as a group was that they all belong in the intermediate division.
In response to this suggestion, the committee will study the feasibility of moving only grade 6, or grades 5/6,
from the perspectives of both accommodation and programming.
For Scenario 1, do you have a plan for addressing the loss of mentoring provided by grade 4-6 FI
students to the JK-3 students?
We will be looking at this question, and believe that there are workable solutions.
In Reading Buddies, there may be the opportunities for grade 6 regular track students to use their Core French
skills when sitting down with SK FI students.
Grade 3 FI students may be presented with leadership opportunities involving younger classmates.
Creativity, optimism and adaptability can go a long way towards turning a “loss” into something that enriches all
of the students at Victory PS.
Will students entering grade 6 at Victory PS be grandparented?
In Scenario 1 all students in FI grades 4 through 6 will go to King George PS, without grandparenting.
In Scenario 2 grade 6 FI students living in the area redirected to King George PS will be grandparented at Victory
PS for the 2014/15 school year.
Will students entering grade 8 at John McCrae be grandparented?
Yes, FI students attending Grade 8 in the 2014-2015 school year will be grandparented at John McCrae. King
George PS will offer a JK-7 FI program that year, and expand to JK-8 FI in 2015-2016.
Will students get bussing to King George PS?
Eligibility for bussing is primarily based on the walking distance to a school from the student’s residence, and the
student’s grade level. Bussing is provided to students who must walk:
over 1.6 km (JK to Gr 1)
over 2.4 km (Gr 2 to 6)
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e | 12
Frequently Asked Questions are based on feedback received through the King George PS JK-8 FI Boundary Review web page,
letters, emails, feedback forms and questions received at the Public Information Session on October 23, 2012.
over 3.2 km (Gr 7 to 8)
Map 5 in Report #2 shows the approximate walking limits from King George PS for the three grade levels. In
Scenario 1, some of the students would qualify bussing based on distance criteria. In Scenario 2, a majority of
the JK-6 FI students directed to King George PS would qualify for bussing based on distance criteria.
Wellington-Dufferin Student Transportation Services will complete a detailed walking route investigation prior
to the 2014/15 school year. Transportation Services reviews the safety of designated walking routes.
Transportation eligibility policies and additional information may be found here: Transportation Services Policies
Printed: Friday, November 23, 2012
P a g e | 13
June 25th to September 11, 2012 In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
King George JK-8 FI 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.
June 25, 2012
My daughter is going into SK at Victory PS and my son will be attending Victory in 2013. We
live on the north side of Woolwich St at Clark St. We are a 3 minute walk from Victory PS. I
understand that the boundary will be changing for Victory and this concerns me slightly. We
are so close to the school and my kids walk and ride their bikes everyday. This is something
that is very important to us as well as the community. It really helps the sense of community as
well as the good environnmental and health habits. Not to mention all of their friends so
close by on all the neighbouring streets on the south side of Woolwich. It would seem a true
shame to send them on a bus to school seeing as we are literally 3 minutes from the school. I
know the school district is not all that large to begin with, but if we are going to have to bus
children from this district to King George PS, I would hope it would be from a part of this
district not as close and walkable as this side of Woolwich to Victory PS.
June 29, 2012
I am just wondering what you forsee happening to students who live west of the Hanlon that
switched to Paisley Road Public School from Victory for French immersion this year. My
daughter is in Grade 6 next year so will go to John McRae for Grade 7, but where is she
likely to end up for Grade 8. Will she be considered North and go to King George or south
and stay at John McRae?
September 9, 2012
I'm not looking forward to moving my child 3 times in 4 or 5 years. These boundary reviews
should have been done all at the same time.
1 September 12th to September 27th In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
King George JK-8 FI 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.
September 17, 2012
Please don't touch the Tytler kids.
September 21, 2012
I share the same feelings as the parent giving feedback on June 25th. We live on Dufferin St,
and it would be a shame for my daughter (currently in SK)to have to be bused to King
George, when we live within a short walking distance of Victory P.S. One of the main reasons
we chose to buy a house in this district, was its amazing sense of community. Please try to
preserve that for the families that live close to the school!
1 September 28 to October 19, 2012 In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
King George JK-8 FI 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.
September 28, 2012
It seems that the Victory over-run is an additional 60-70 students. Could this not be
accomodated by putting back portables that were recently removed?
Additionally could the parking lot not be repurposed for the same? With parking available at
Exhibition Park, plenty of residential parking available and Exhibition Arena having parking
spaces for staff could these options not be leveraged to minimize displacement of children?
October 4, 2012
Although I recently moved to KG area, we were in Tytler area before this. I wanted to express
my deepest concern that our Tytler area children will once again be moved OUT of the
boundaries for their current school (making it their third or fourth move) - KG.
This community is probably our lease resilient and these moves are putting pressures on our
least resourced community members. THis effects everyone - esp. children.
So just my wish that Tytler children are not, once again, the first to be shuffled around. There
is research evidence speaking to the real dangers of such on-going disruptions to this
community.
Please do not publish my name.
October 9, 2012
My daughter is currently receiving after-hours care through the Victory Kids' Club program
offered by Victory P.S. Should the boundary review deem necessary for her and others to be
moved to King George (which I am very much against), does/will King George P.S. offer a
similar program?
Having spoken to other parents about the boundary review subject, many are prepared to
switch their kids out of the French stream into English,rather than switch schools. This may
drastically change some schools' enrollment projections for the English programs. Food for
thought.
1 September 28 to October 19, 2012 October 12, 2012
I'm really dissappointed in the boundary review. We are less than 3 blocks away and walk,
ride or skate to school every day and now we would have to bus to school.
This seems contradictory to all that the board is advocating. Was there any thought put into
walking radius when the boundary? As there are children who are much further than us who
are still within boundary. It defies logic. I will be in attendance on the 23rd and am eager to
understand how we can in good consience make this recommendation.
Certainly not enough public consultation. Shame that you did not leverage more community
input on the scenarios like was done last review.
October 12, 2012
According to the report, there are 200 of 284 students enrolled in the French Immersion
Program. Averaging out 84 RT students over 8 grades (JK,SK, 1-6) is 14 students per grade.
Why are 14 students per grade being given priority? There is an obvious demand for French
Imeersion in our community.
Why has the board not adopted a French enrollment cap at the JK-Grade 1 level to prevent
these changes ahead of time? This would avoid people having to decide half way through
their child's education if they shpould continue in French or choose their home school.
Geographically, the proposed boundaries do not make sense. Someone living on Division is
far closer to Victory than someone living on Hamel.
Thank you for reading.
October 14, 2012
I am very unhappy with both options presented. Why were parents not included in this
process? I would like to know more about how you determined the projections of students for
future years. As a member of this community and knowing a majority of the new parents in
the Victory area, I feel the baby boom has ended here and we will actually see a decrease in
the numbers of students entering JK in the next couple of years. Already this year we are down
one kindergarten class from last year. Can you please provide me with the census information
that you used to determin your projections.
I do understand that cuts need to be made but why such a drastic number? Can't we
eliminate grade 6 French and English? That would be a more reasonable time frame.
Furthermore, we live 3 blocks away from Victory and we have been eliminated from the
school in scenario 2. I can't believe that children should be made to go to school over 2.4 K
away when Victory is 3 blocks away! What happened to healthy living? There is no way
2 September 28 to October 19, 2012 families can walk that distance with young children especially with the demands of work. If
scenario two is implemented than my children would get a bus to King George but their
friends one block away would not. They would be forced to walk to King George through a
secluded path and cross two major streets to get to school. How is this safe?
I feel you need to give the public more information to how you came to these two s
cenarios. Could you please provide the minutes?
October 15, 2012
With two young children, and living in the immediate vicinity of Victory P.S., we are once
again faced with potential upheaval of school plans for our children. We decided to put our
(now) 5 year old son in FI at Victory because of the possiblity of changing Victory French only.
We do not want our son bussing to another school when we have a great neighbourhood
school 3 blocks away. Now we are faced with 2 different scenarios. Either he busses to (yet
another) school starting in 2014, or starting in 2016, thereby being split up from his younger
brother. And I know several children who currently attend Victory FI who do not live within
the current boundaries. How is this possible? My children deserve the opportunity to walk to
school and live in the neighbourhood along with their school friends. When one lives 3
blocks away from a P.S. there is NO REASON why they should take a bus elsewhere. If I had
to pick one of the two scenarios offered, I would take the Jk-3 option at Victory, mainly in the
hopes that by the time my firstborn gets to Grade 3 the boundaries will need to be reviewed
again as King George will be overcapacity.
Thank you for your consideration.
October 15, 2012
I have a child in SK FI at Victory, and my 2 year old will attend in 2014. I would like to
understand how it is possible, in Scenario 2, that we are left with such a tiny boundary. Are
there really THAT many children attending FI at Victory within those boundaries? I know
children who are currently attending Victory who do not live within the existing boundaries,
but have after school care within the boundaries, thereby skirting the actual boundary rules.
If those living outside the boundaries were eliminated, would there really not be enough
space for the neighbourhood kids to go to their neighbourhood school? Something doesn’t
add up.
Thanks for your help.
October 17, 2012
I am writing to express my concerns with the recently released plan by the Upper Grand
District School Board with regards to Victory Public School. As a parent of 2 Victory students,
and a member of the Exhibition Park community, I am intimately aware of the importance of
Victory as a pillar of the community; a walk-able, community school with a excellent track
3 September 28 to October 19, 2012 record of serving the educational needs of children in grades JK-6, in the heart of a growing
and diversifying downtown. Victory’s strength is community; that which it fosters within its walls
by welcoming students in English and French Immersion programs, and that which it
facilitates through the school’s connections to its immediate neighbourhood, and the city.
From a school and community development perspective, both scenarios presented in the
Board’s plan are problematic and shortsighted. I won’t go into details in this letter, feeling
confident that members from the Victory community will voice their concerns. Importantly, the
timelines for public input and decision-making on this issue are ridiculously short, which is in
sharp contrast previous boundary reviews, which lasted several months.
Recognizing the growing population and space constraints, there are a number of other
viable scenarios, including this one: Victory needs to grow. The newer section of the school
has a flat roof. A second floor could be added to the facility. By my calculations, this would b
uild classroom space to accommodate 120-150 more students. At the same time, the school
facility does not currently meet legal regulations as set out by the Accessibility for Ontarians
with Disabilities Act, coming into law over the next 2 years. Fortunately, there is adequate
space available in the playground to accommodate the addition of an elevator. Not
discounting the effort and costs associated with renovation, these structural changes would
adequately meet the current and future needs of Victory, and the Board, the entire Exhibition
Park community, and the City of Guelph.
I urge the Board to lengthen the timelines for public input on this issue, and recognize the
many issues with the current proposed scenarios, welcoming the opportunity to build effective,
inclusive, long-term solutions.
October 18, 2012
The two proposals to changing Victory school will tear apart this community. Either children
two blocks away from a neighbourhood school will have to be bussed, or in grade four, the
English stream students will lose the majority of their friends as the French Immersion children
will have to go to another school. How enjoyable will it be to graduate from the English
stream as one of 16 students? What will moving grade four through six of FI do to the
mentoring of young FI students? Since the last change to our neighbouhood school, less
than 18 months ago, the vast majority of children walk to school with their friends and
siblings. Your proposals will change that dynamic significantly. Having a child already
moved to another school, I know that neighbourhood friendships do not always survive the
loss of school time interaction. If the first proposal goes through, when my daughter is in
grade four, I will have three primary school aged children in three separate schools. How am
I supposed to wait for my son's bus, then walk my Kindergarten aged daughter to school, then
get my grade four daughter to her school? Am I supposed to drive them? Will I have two
4 September 28 to October 19, 2012 children bussed to two different schools, with another to walk? Then there is the issue of
support. Who would I give my monetary support or volunteer time to?
When I was in school, primary only went up to grade five. What about that option? Then the
numbers are down,
the English and French streams stay together, and each stream has three years in middle
school instead of two. I would rather have Victory stay a community school for all the children
who live surrounding it up to grade five, than a segmented, neighbourhood-killing hodgepodge that serves no one except the tally books.
October 18, 2012
My son is in FI SK at Victory. My younger son will attend JK in 2014. I am concerned about
the boundary review. I have a question I hope you can answer. Is there a rule around
allowing exceptions to boundaries based on where after-school care is arranged? I know
several Victory students who do not live within the existing boundaries, but go to a
grandparent in the neighbourhood after school. Could you point me to the rules and
exceptions regarding attendance within Victory School boundaries? I’m not asking in order to
cause any trouble for other students, only to know what my options are for my own children.
October 18, 2012
Hi Maggie,
I just read the article in the mercury about the boundary review. I saw your comment that you
were surprised parents hadn’t shown up last night. The reason for this is very likely that the
UGDSB website indicated that a meeting was no longer taking place on Tuesday, but had
been moved to next Tuesday. I had planned on being at the meeting yesterday, and will
certainly be at the meeting next Tuesday, as this affects both of my children. We live north of
Division. We think it is unfathomable that we live 3 blocks from a Public School yet have to
send our children on a bus to a different neighbourhood, particularly when children further
away will still be allowed to attend Victory. Perhaps this is also the reason for the quiet from
other parents, we would never have imagined the review would affect us when we live so
close to the school.
Is there a possibility to revisit the boundary scenarios? I certainly have some thoughts, but
would need to see the details of how many children live in which areas to give intelligent
input. Please help me to get involved as I this is very important to us, and to many of the
families in our neighbourhood.
Warm regards,
5 September 28 to October 19, 2012 October 18, 2012
I am writing this letter as a concerned parent and resident of the Exhibition Park
neighbourhood. Currently there is a boundary review underway for Victory Public School to
relieve pressure on French Immersion enrolment. There are two solutions that have been
recommended by the committee. These recommendations are:
1Children in the current French Immersion area go to King George for grades 4-6. If a
family is located North of division children will get bussed to school. Families that are located
on the South side of division and below will have to get their children to school by other
means.
2Create a new boundary for children currently enrolled in French Immersion: Families
located on the North Side of Division and up go to King George K-8.
The rationale to support this change is two-fold:
1With the introduction of full day kindergarten there will be additional demand on class
rooms that are currently shared by Junior and Senior kindergarten. In addition, there is a
projected increase in enrolment over the next ten years which will trend approximately 100
children above carrying levels, which is currently 295.
2King George has been recently built and is currently a holding school for a number of
schools under renovation. It is expected that in 2014/2015 this school will be sorely under
utilized and needs to add students.
Problematic Projections
I have a concern with some of the rationale in point one of the rationales. Let’s first look at
the numbers. In Report 1 Victory 2011/2012 enrolment is 270. Projected enrolment for 2012
is 300. As a parent who’s children are at Victory Public School kindergarten. They have this
year reduced a full class of French Immersion on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Our children were
combined with another g class and the Junior Kindergarten population in this class is five
children, much less than the previous year. This speaks to a decrease in enrolment in 2012.
In addition a boundary review was just completed in 2010 which decreased the Victory Public
school boundary significantly. As part of the boundary review students affected by the change
in Grade 5 in 2010/2011 would be grandfathered into the 2011/2012 Grade 6 class. This
number would have contributed to the 270 enrolment in 2011/2012 and should contribute
to a decrease in demand in 2012/2013 as these students from outside areas will no longer
return.
Prior to 2011 Victory PS was accommodating close to 450 students and had an additional 2
portables that have since been removed. Victory accommodating close to 450 students is
available in Report 2 of the boundary review which illustrates previous and future projections.
Of interesting note in Report 2 it shows Victory above capacity 295 students in 2011, which is
6 September 28 to October 19, 2012 when the boundary review had taken effect and 2012. However we know that the 2011
enrolment numbers were actually 270 as published in Report 1 meaning that the problem
statement of potential enrolment demand may not be as large as envisioned.
The challenge with these projections is that it doesn’t accommodate the decrease in
population as a result of grandfathering of the 2010 boundary reduction and 2012 showed a
decrease in junior kindergarten enrolment. In addition, as stated earlier projects show a
starting point above 300 enrolment in 2011/2012 when we know actual enrolment was 270
students. So the overall projections could have a significant variance.
Finally, the revised boundary review of 2010 outlines an area which has little growth
capability. There are no new housing starts planned in the Exhibition Park area beyond 2014
and without new housing starts the numbers of new enrolment should stabilize as there will
not be new families moving into the areas in large amounts and less children as families
mature. Over the past 2 years there have been 60 home sales in the Victory French
Immersion area according to the MLS system. This number has actually had the reverse affect
on some French Immersion enrolment as incoming families will only be able to participate in
the program if they have attended French Immersion previously and some of these sales have
seen children enrolled in Victory FI leave the school. Of these sales more than 20% (15) were
outside the Victory English boundary which would also potentially decrease the overall
attendance of Victory PS.
Summary:
Does not allow for sufficient time to evaluate outcome of accommodation review of
2010
Bases projections on 2011 enrolment of over 300 when 2011 enrolment was 270
actual numbers.
Bases projection on continued growth when current incoming junior kindergarten
classes have been combined, meaning less incoming students.
Does not consider that no new housing starts are planned meaning demand will
stabilize and in the long term decrease as neighbourhood population becomes comprised of
older families.
Proposal Problems
Now let’s review the impact of both proposals. Part of the rationale of moving children from
Victory at Grade 4-6 age groups is that King George is in walking distance. I find this
assertion problematic. I currently live 700 meters from Victory public school. My children,
aged 5, walk or bike to school. They enjoy this as they encounter the classmates and the walk
is all on side streets and there are no major roads to cross. I enjoy the walk with my children
as it is 5 minutes for me to walk home, so I can maintain my current work schedule without
having to rely on pre-care or driving. Conceivably when my children are older they may also
be able to walk to school by themselves. Moving to King George would be a change to close
to 3 KMs with the need to cross 2 major streets, Woolwhich and Eramosa. My children would
7 September 28 to October 19, 2012 take approximately 40 minutes to an hour to make this walk. I may be able to walk back in
20-30 minutes, but the impact to wake times, breakfast would be large resulting in less sleep,
unnatural wake up times and potentially more pressure on eating breakfast quickly impacting
children nourishment and promoting bad eating habits. It would also likely require before
care, which is an additional financial burden, since a return walk of 20-40 mins would have
significant impact on work schedules.
The reality is that children will have to be driven. It is not feasible for a 9 year old to walk this
far, especially in the colder months. This isn’t aligned with the city, or boards objective of
walking to school. This also has an impact on costs to families when it comes to gas, and
negatively impacts carbon footprint of Guelph in either bus or family driven scenarios. Not to
mention school bussing will have both capital and operational budget impacts to the board.
In addition, it will likely eliminate the possibility of children walking themselves to school as
the distance and dangers are too great. The above impacts both scenarios.
As part of the 2010 accommodation review the commitment to my community was to
establish a dual track French Immersion and English program at Victory. I feel that with the
option 1 proposal this is not being achieved. A K-3 school is not a full French Immersion
program at Victory. It eliminates a buddy system and does not allow the younger students to
learn and be mentored by the older ones. In addition it divides the community as English
enrolled students will no longer have their age mate French Immersion neighbours to play
with on school grounds. In addition the logistical impact on parents who would have to drive
one sibling to school and arrange for the other to arrive at Victory seems avoidable.
Summary:
Impacts family logistics
Impacts children wake times
Impacts household income
Impacts carbon footprint
Impacts community unity
Impacts carbon footprint
Impacts healthy walk to school options
Bussing adversely Impacts school budgets
The Need for Another Option
The community needs a better solution. These proposals impact the unity of our community. It
takes neighbourhood children away from each other. It takes away parent’s ability to walk
their children to school. It adversely impacts household income. It adversely impacts Guelph’s
carbon footprint. It impacts siblings going to school together. It impacts the effectiveness of
the French Immersion program by taking away its older student leaders (I know our children
have reaped the benefits of reading buddies from older grades). This committee may be
serving the short term goals outlined in their objective, but it does not look at the problem
holistically: by generating additional attendance at King George they project that King
8 September 28 to October 19, 2012 George will be over capacity in a few short years. They will need to build portables to
accommodate. What will occur then? Another boundary review? Move children again? Close
Victory because there isn’t enough demand when children less than 3 blocks away are being
bussed to school? We need a solution that does not look at the enrolment as numbers, but as
people, families, playmates, as a value to a community. The objective has to be: how can we
keep the community in tact and address some of the challenges we foresee? We need to
move away from the solution being bussing children off to centralized super schools and
support community schools. If we do not, we could lose them.
The accommodation review is only in its second year of implementation. I do not believe
there is sufficient data as to date to make decisions that will have such an adverse affect on
the community. I implore the committee to allow for some additional years to elapse to
understand the true numbers and if there is an actual problem that needs to be addressed in
such a drastic manner. Let’s mitigate this pressure by building portables or renovating existing
floor space, to note there is currently a portable at Victory that isn’t in use. Victory, just two
short years ago, was supporting over 400 students, the 10 year projections do not come
close to this number. I agree attendance of 400 is not sustainable long term, but by building
out it does provide additional time to evaluate whether such a drastic measure is required.
We understand that King George will need additional students to fully utilize its footprint, but
please don’t pursue that objective at the expense of families and communities. If King George
is planning on decreasing play space to accommodate, let’s first explore that at Victory. If
we’re going to sacrifice play space let’s keep together play mates. I recommend that this
review is postphoned until 2015, one year after full day kindergarten to understand the true
impact and evaluate at that time whether there is a true need for something as drastic as what
is being proposed.
Please help us keep our community in tact.
9 October 20th to October 24, 2012 In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
King George JK-8 FI 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.
October 23, 2012
Hello all,
I am curious as to how the UGDSB arrived at the decision to annex all of the low income and
subsidized housing complexes, the vast majority of rental homes, and nearly all apartment
buildings from the catchment area for Victory PS. The Victory School is the community school
for the Exhibition Park Neighborhood, which quite frankly, is one of the best neighborhoods
in town.
The School Board is certainly sending a clear message to the neighborhood about who is 'in'
and who is 'out' in our little community.
I have stopped short of calling this decision intentional, because I have no idea who came up
with it or why. And I realize that the proposed changes are only for French Immersion
students. But keep in mind that during discussions over the last boundary change (you know,
the one that occurred barely two years ago?) Residents of Exhibition Park overwhelmingly
endorsed a plan to keep the school dual track, and to keep all the children from 'our'
neighborhood at 'our' school, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
A solution to the current the student density issue at local schools must be achieved by
moving children on to King George School as a class, with all friendships being kept intact.
Presently, our kids only attend Victory PS until grade 6 anyway, so moving them slightly earlier
makes far more sense than removing children from the neighborhood on a case by case
basis dependent primarily on their parent’s annual income.
The proposed school boundary change is not in the best interest of the environment as kids
who now walk to school will be bused or driven, and because the area being annexed is
further in distance to King George than the area being retained by Victory.
The proposed school boundary change also is not in the best interest of social justice and if
school administrators think that they will push this change through without facing strong
protest, public scrutiny, and negative media attention, they will find themselves sorely
mistaken.
Concerned Exhibition Park community member
1 October 20th to October 24, 2012 10/23/2012
My comments are based on my review of the available information and are follow up to my
attendance at the Oct. 23 public review meeting at KG school.
I understand that there is a problem and appreciate the planning committee has made efforts to solve
the problem with available data and projections against a set of assumptions and priorities. This is
how plans are made and is necessary to approach such planning project. It relies on accurate
assumptions and accurate assessment of the overall priorities. However, I have the following
concerns with the process and resulting recommendations and wish to voice them for your
consideration:
1) The current scenarios/recommendations were made without input from the community or impacted
group. I understand we now have the opportunity to provide this input, however the time frame is too
short for the Victory Community to come with viable alternative scenarios.
I encourage you to extend the feedback/consultation to allow for viable scenarios to be raised by the
Victory Community that consider our priorities.
Recommendation 1 - Extend to feedback period to such a time that informed alternative scenarios can
be provided from community feedback.
2) It appears that projections were based on the idea that parents prefer to keep children in FI vs.
attending a closer proximity school. I feel this is the fundamental decision this Boundary Review is
posing to me. Forget the fact that all previous plans suggested a full FI program at Victory which is a
key reason I live in the area and my children are enrolled in the FI program at Victory, that is history
(although upsetting that it is now changing and being reduced). At this stage, if Scenario 1 passes, I
am faced with a basic decision – send my kids to Victory in RT or ship them to KG for FI.
I will tell you that I will choose to keep my children at Victory in the Regular Track vs. risking their
safety to walk to KG at ages 8 to 10 (that is simply not safe). Unfortunately, this limits the education
options for my children and is very disappointing. I also have the impression from other parents and
the group attending the Oct. 23 session, that many others share my view.
Regardless of my disappointment, the problem is simply; if my view is shared by as few as 1 in 4
parents (it could be quite a bit higher) the key assumptions the scenario 1 and 2 projections are based
upon fall apart. You simply will have a transfer of students at Victory from FI to RT, you do not get
increased enrolment at KG, you have the same issue at VP, the solution does not work.
This is a quantifiable number or assumption, by surveying the parents in the Victory Community group,
you will gain the knowledge to this lynch pin assumption. I encourage you to seek this data.
Recommendation 2: Understand this number by seeking formal feedback from the affected parents
If it breaks the projection, seek alternative scenarios.
3) Further to point 2, I firmly believe the highest priority to parents in the community is attending a
local, safe school in our community. One that that we can and do support strongly. The community
support of Victory is a success story and it should be encouraged and supported, not disbanded. It`s
2 October 20th to October 24, 2012 common sense and a basic child safety issue that I want my children to attend the school 2 minutes
from my house. The one I can hear the children playing in from my front yard, the one we can
conveniently and safely walk to. This is the highest priority - safety, this is what the citizens and tax
payers want, it is priority 1. For many of us it`s an important reason we choose to live in this
neighbourhood. Certainly this should be the top priority in considering solutions, not the 4th
consideration behind temporarily filling a new, shiny school.
Recommendation 3: Align the priorities for the decision process with the priorities of the community.
Put proximity to schools and child safety at the top of the list and search for solutions that promote
this.
I understand we need to work jointly for a viable solution. I urge you to take the feedback above and
from this overall review process to consider:
- Will the proposed scenarios work if a portion of the parents pull kids from FI - quantify that number
to ensure your solution works
- prioritize safety and common sense convenience above numbers, align with the priorities of the
community
- ensure the solution is long term (it seems you will fill KG in 2016 with the growth expected in the
east end)
Seek alternatives that promote an FI program from k-6 at Victory and enables local community
support of a successful school program.
October 23, 2012
My son is currently in grade 3 at Victory PS. Based on his location of residence, he will have to move
to King George PS 2 years sooner than he normally would. The drawback from his standpoint will be
that he will be taken away from the majority of his friends. My assumption is that he will be reunited
with his friends 2 years later under scenario two. As such, we would prefer scenario one, so that he
would be shifted to King George with all of his friends. This would minimize the emotional downside
of this transition. Regardless of whether scenario 1 or 2 are chosen – my son will remain in the FI
stream.
October 23, 2012
Please consider surveys from affected parents on the following points:
3 
Would parents prefer portables at Victory (even lots) over either scenario

Numbers of parents that would move from French to English stream as a way of staying at
Victory
October 20th to October 24, 2012 The timing is insufficient for enough parent feedback/involvement. At present there is no opportunity
to hear the Boards thoughts on the various suggestions brought forward. We need another meeting
please to hear back from you.
October 23, 2012
As follow ups from the meeting held tonight:
a) Being a resident within the streets around Victory, I believe I speak for others by saying I would
prefer to have a portable at Victory than go to King George.
b) Should either of the options that are proposed be approved, our family will either switch to
English or move.
c) We have a daughter currently in FI grade 1. If option 2 is chosen, she would have to walk to
King George from one street away from Victory (she’ll be in grade 4).
d) What about the single story flat roof at Victory? Why isn’t that an option?
e) We would like the process delayed and another public meeting to review alternate options.
October 23, 2012
I would rather my childs classroom be in a portable at her local school Victory then have bused to
King George. Consideration to renovate Victory to accommodate FI program. Adding to the
additional wing. We would like another public meeting at Victory PS. We would like an extended
time frame of 4 weeks to submit to the Board alternate scenarios. The attendance of someone from
the Capital/Building Dept to discuss adding on to Victory PS rather than moving students.
October 23, 2012
Yes please act to postpone the date of the next meeting/deadline for delegations so that we may
formulate a response. Yes please consider any remodeling options for the school or the use of
portables to accommodate more students. I would consider shifting my child out of the current French
program into the English stream if I had to as a very last resort.
October 23, 2012
I would prefer to see more portables at Victory than buses moving students out of the neighbourhood.
Is electrical service really an issue? It seems like a small issue to overcome. A community school is
critical to my family. We can see the school from our house but understand my kids would go to
another school. Would my children stay in FI? I think that slowing down this process to allow for more
community input and involvement. I ask why is Victory so good? Why is it so valued? Why are there
so many parents involved? Should this not be learned from? Repeated?
4 October 20th to October 24, 2012 October 23, 2012
1. We would switch our child to English rather than not attend Victory.
2. I would propose moving grade 6 FI to King George as well as students north of Speedvale
choosing Division as a boundary is clearly not supporting the community that the houses between
Division and Speedvale belong to.
3. This process needs to be extended to allow true community input beyond the planned deadline of
December.
4. Keeping the Victory community intact and as a walkable school needs to be a priority.
October 23, 2012
I definitely would take out my child from French immersion if either scenario would happen. I definitely
feel that the whole process is much too rushed and would prefer to be more involved in the process. I
also feel the walking distance for a nine year old child not appropriate, actually very dangerous. Also
the thought splitting siblings, makes me extremely mad and angry.
October 23, 2012
Why can’t kids go to King George after grade 4? Or 5? Better for kids.
October 23, 2012
A community school is very important. Please slow down this process. Please insure that feedback is
responded to. I would like to see more options/scenarios & more community involvement. Please
include estimates of students switching to RT from FI.
October 23, 2012
I would much prefer that my child be in a portable at Victory, particularly for grade 4. I would much
prefer that Woolwich be the boundary rather than Division or Speedvale for scenario 2. I think socioeconomic diversity is very important!! I also have a sense that this would create less fractioning of the
“Victory Neighbourhood”. I just (August 2012) moved to Victory neighbourhood specifically because
of Victory PS. Truly, this was the first priority for us. Sigh.
Please slow down this decision process. Please hold another public meeting. We would consider
switching our child to RT to stay at Victory PS. I have HUGE concerns about my child walking to King
George in rain and snow/ice. 2.4 km is a long way for 9 year olds. I feel this is a short-term solution
considering King George will be over-capacity in 2017.
October 24, 2012
5 October 20th to October 24, 2012 As a Victory parent of 1 and 2 in the future I am very concerned about this boundary review. I
understand the need to do something but I don't think the 2 options are realistic or fair for the
community. I paid more for my home to be in this area so that I could send my students to this
school. I pay more property taxes as a result of this and they are going up again (1 of only 2
neighbourhoods in Guelph that are facing this increase).
If approx. 80 students need to move why can't it be the English strand? There are currently 84
students and this would work perfectly. Why disrupt more students and families to keep the school
dual track? It is apparent that the Victory neighbourhood is in more support of a French school than
English based purely on numbers of enrolment in each track. If we have to keep it dual track as a
result of previous agreements made during a boundary review than both tracks should have to
compromise and we should remove the grade 6 students from both strands a year early to attend
Willow and King George. These students are leaving in a year regardless and many schools in other
boards have k-5 schools. I am upset that a 'promise' was made at the last boundary review to keep it
dual track. If I knew then that that was going to mean chopping up the French track I would have
been more involved to express my concerns or to advocate for my children...as I am sure many other
parents would have been as well
. Why can't the majority of the school have their say? And based on numbers the majority have more
of an interest in French over English.
In scenario 2 I can see the school from my street but can't send my child to it....in 1214 I will have to
go past Victory to get my grade 1 and JK students 3 km to King George. How does this make any
sense??? In scenario 1 what is the French program going to look like at Victory? In a dual track
school the immersion program is already less than it would be at a full immersion school. This will be
even more 'watered' down when you don't have junior students to act as reading buddies, morning
announcers in French or during assemblies. The French program at Victory will not survive or benefit
from scenario 1. I urge (and beg) you to please reconsider these 2 options and either remove grade
6, remove English or provide the school with an addition to keep it as it is!!!
October 23, 2012
40 developmental asset tool on resiliency for children recommends strongly connection between
community and positive outcomes for children. By removing children from neighbourhood school
arguably impacts children detrimentally. Why would students who reside less than 1 km away from
the school is bussed outside of the neighbourhood to a school almost 3 km away. This doesn’t make
good sense for students and their families.
What are the options for before and after school care for those being moved out of the boundary who
have kids club? It does not make sense that you can’t plan beyond 2-3 years need to think long term
sustainable.
I don’t support a boundary review for Victory PS & I don’t support either option but a boundary review
is my least favourite option. Would like more time. Would like another public meeting. I have
concerns for transportation & safety of JK/SK and above (aka my child in 2014). We would consider a
switch to English program.
6 October 20th to October 24, 2012 October 23, 2012
We do not agree with either scenario. We will be faced with moving out of the area or we will move to
the English track for both of our children. The area identified is s2 is not ‘walkable’ and is not in line
with any Ontario government priorities. What happens after 2017? I am concerned kids could be
moved again.
I prefer portables! The worked before. We need more time to consider options and another public
meeting.
1. Move grade 6 to King George and the area north of Speedvale as this is not a close walking
distance.
2. Grandfather the boundary in s2 – allow kids already at VPS to remain, move grade 6 to King
George.
October 23, 2012
I would much rather see more portable use if that would mean students could remain at their
neighbourhood school.
I hope you consider the number of students that will switch from FI to RT as a result of the potential
boundary change. I know our family would strongly consider moving to English stream as a result of
this change.
A much more satisfactory solution would be to make King George a 6-8 school, keeping Victory
students in their neighbourhood until grade 5.
I would like to suggest you extend this process to include a formal parent input portion where we can
present alternative scenarios.
October 23, 2012
1. Two weeks extension December 14th
2. Public meeting requested
3. I would consider switching my FI to English in 2014
4. Request for projected transportation impact of downtown Guelph condos 2014!
October 23, 2012
Section 5.0 page 10: grandparenting of current grade 6 students to John McCrae for BOTH grade 7
and 8 is critical. Stability and continuity for students is very important. Unnecessarily switching
students between grade 7 and 8 will be very disruptive.
7 October 20th to October 24, 2012 October 23, 2012
I would rather have my kids in a portable @ Victory than have them in a class room. I would like a
survey to be conducted with regards to preference for portables to boundary change.
We would move our children to RT when they were moved to King George. I would like consideration
of an option created with parental input.
I would like to extend the process. Would like the opportunity for 2nd public meeting. I would transfer
my kids to English to keep them at Victory.
October 23, 2012
I would like for you to slow down the process & allow the community to have more input. More time
& another public meeting.
I have concerns about children walking to school along Woolwich & Eramosa. They are too small to
be walking along major roads.
My daughter will start school in 2014. I would like to have her in the French program however I
would consider putting her in the RT program.
October 23, 2012
This process needs to be done with the inclusion of parents & recognize the impacts on property
values. Keeping families in the neighbourhoods where they live should be a number one principle. As
a single parent living close to Victory PS – having before & after school care – and the ability to make
it to work on time and home. The change will make it impossible for me to manage making my only
option to put my kids in English regular track. So this is what I will do.
Victory PS is special due to the families and neighbourhoods who live close to it – disrupting this
environment will have deep reaching consequences far beyond the few impacts noted in this report.
Portables would be way more preferable or building on the playground space. 2.4 km is not
walkable for an 8 year old, nor are many safe walking routes.
What will before and after school care options be? This is crucial. Parents work together to care for
kids in the neighbourhood. Splitting siblings is never a good thing. Moving the least amount of
families should be key. There has been lack of time provided for any substantial input. More
grandfathering is needed. Change new enrolments. Need to listen to what the parents present to the
trustees.
8 October 20th to October 24, 2012 I would like the trustees to report back on how our comments have been addressed – could just move
grade 6, they are older! Please extend timeline at a minimum 4 weeks and a follow up meeting at
Victory PS.
Transportation representatives need to be present. How many crossing guards will be needed – who
will be crossing guards at Victory PS.
What kind of school is JK-3. This does not provide ½ the learning opportunities and mixed age
advantages. Projections aren’t a way to make decision. Victory is a well valued functioning school!
October 24, 2012
I am extremely angry to hear about the proposed boundary review for Victory Public School and I feel
that there has been a lack of transparency from the board on this. However, as much I as I would like
to pour my heart out about how this will affect me and my children I believe that all children in my
community are important so I have decided to address some of the flaws with this boundary review
change with research. The Search Institute developed a list of building blocks for healthy
development for children broken down by age category (available online). Essentially, this research
(conducted over several years with over 2.2 million children) suggests that the more assets young
people have, the less likely they are to engage in a wide range of high-risk behaviors and the more
likely they are to thrive (makes sense right?). The following are 10 of the 40 Developmental Assets
for Grades K-3 (age 5-9) that will be negatively affected by the changes at Victory Public School:
1.
Caring Neighborhood | Parent(s) and child experience friendly neighbors who affirm and
support the child’s growth and sense of belonging.
2.
Caring School Climate | Child experiences warm, welcoming relationships with teachers,
caregivers, and peers at school.
3.
Parent Involvement in Schooling | Parent(s) talk about the importance of education and are
actively involved in the child’s school success.
4.
Community Values Children | Children are welcomed and included throughout community
life.
5.
Children as Resources | Child contributes to family decisions and has opportunities to
participate in positive community events.
6.
Service to Others | Child has opportunities to serve in the community with adult support and
approval.
7.
Safety | Parents and community adults ensure the child’s safety while keeping in mind her or
his increasing independence.
8.
Learning Engagement | Child is enthused about learning and enjoys going to school.
9.
Bonding to School | Child is encouraged to have and feels a sense of belonging at school.
10.
Equality and Social Justice | Parent(s) encourage child to be concerned about rules and being
fair to everyone.
Therefore, moving children out of neighborhood schools is potentially detrimental to them in terms of
their ability building up their developmental assets and can have negative long-term consequences. It
takes parental involvement and community involvement out of schools and neighborhoods.
Changing schools frequently at a young age affects bonding and learning engagement. It also
9 October 20th to October 24, 2012 decreases safety to children. We need to invest in our children and offer them stability long-term, not
come up with short-term solutions for our children's education every 2-3 years.
October 24, 2012
I am writing as a concerned member of the Victory Public School neighbourhood and community.
Our community recently went through a review of the boundaries of Victory and all of our students
had to endure a change in the boundaries, losing friends and classmates, as well as some teachers, in
the process. The school is just settling into its new rhythm as the second year after this changes begins.
Now you are doing it all over again.
The re-evaluation of Victory’s boundaries not only affects the students. It affects the entire community
on a macro level, and it affects each and every family, on a micro level. The process for this reevaluation has been incredibly fast, leaving very little time for the community to review, assess and
give input to you. I was not involved in the last boundary review, but this time I feel the need to speak
up, even though both processes have affected my children and family. My family, like many in
Guelph, chose our home based on many factors, a significant one being the school our children
would go to. Moving students mid-stream (grade 4 for example) is disruptive and difficult at best. This
process is tearing away at the fabric of our community. Moving them so soon after a recent shuffle,
that could be traumatic.
My suggestion is to right size the full catchment area, allowing the same geographic areas for all
schools in Guelph for the programs they offer. Therefore, if a school is French and English, it is the
same catchment for both programs. That way if a student needs to leave the French program, they do
not lose all of their friends and social supports with the move. Furthermore, keeping catchments local
encourages a walking school, where the cost for busing is reduced, the physical benefits of walking to
school are incurred and students and parents alike get to know each other and the neighbourhood.
I encourage you to step back, take a pause and reconsider this move. And if you do decide to make
this change right away, please, let this be the last for a while. Our community is reeling!
Respectfully submitted,
October 23, 2012
I would prefer my children in portables at Victory over either scenario 1 or 2.
Scenario 2 is just not feasible – the Victory boundary would be too small. Although scenario 2 would
enable my children to stay at Victory through grade 6, the proposed new boundary is too small for the
long-term viability of the school.
This timeline is much too short (one month maximum) to get well thought-out, viable options beside
the 5 already considered.
10 October 20th to October 24, 2012 I am concerned that the ultimate goal of the boundary review is to have the ‘right’ numbers at two
schools for a span of 3 years – not to look at the long-term health of neighbourhoods and
communities.
I would strongly consider moving my children from FI to English track to stay at Victory.
We want more time (an extra two months I think is realistic) to prepare alternate options and at least
one more public meeting.
My children, if they go to King George, are within 2.4 km but would have to cross Woolwich &
Eramosa. What is the likelihood that they would be bused?
October 23, 2012
Encourage examining moving both FI and English track students in grade 6 only. This would minimize
impact, students required to move on in grade 7, this would move children just 1 year ahead of plans.
Prefer scenario #1 of the two presented in report. Walking distance boundaries are a concern,
crossing a river, ascending a significant hill and major traffic are major obstacles to young walkers.
Potential increase to downtown traffic should also be considered.
Discourage use of portables.
Serious concern over long term viability of the plan. May considered switching to English. Request
more time for input and another public meeting where analysis of alternate scenarios are presented.
October 23, 2012
Build up on top of the existing kindergarten wing at Victory PS. Tear down the whole wing and start
from scratch, if the existing structure does not accommodate more weight on top. Get families to
donate/fundraise if not enough funding is available for this. Exhibition Park parking lane & street
parking offers plenty of parking, so parking issues should not be a concern.
King George needs to offer both before and after school child care. Can they guarantee they could
accommodate all the overflow of kids potentially moving over from Victory kids club?
The community needs an additional public meeting plus more time before the boards/committees
meet and make their decision.
Please do not break up our unique community! Victory would be able to accommodate all its
enrolment with a little willingness to be open-minded.
October 23, 2012
11 October 20th to October 24, 2012 Do not agree with either scenario – esp staff recommendation. Projections questionable because of
culture of neighbourhood that values neighbourhood schools – Victory PS is a successful school – why
undermine culture/support/community – building on is possible. Exhibition Park accessible.
By changing enrollment structure changing community – affecting draw to neighbourhood, affecting
property values; affecting sense of community.
Walking through intensification of core to attend school – may be in a portable.
Exhibition Park area is a stable neighbourhood and will remain so if school can accommodate the
students. How many of us will move? Or change programs?
Goal #1 of study is irrelevant to parents of Victory PS, who moved to neighbourhood because of
Victory.
October 23, 2012
My daughter is currently in grade 6. We are going to have to walk 45 minutes to John McCrae for 7
& 8 when we could walk 5 minutes to King George. Maybe only move grade 6 students from Victory
and move the 7 & 8 students here at King George sooner.
October 23, 2012
What impact would many #’s of FI children changing to regular track have? What if your #’s are
wrong? What long term solutions are being discussed?
I would most definitely take my daughter out of FI and put her in English. I would strongly urge you to
put off full day kindergarten to save the numbers in school. This is a community school and this has
been an ongoing community problem. Something should be done. Please consider building on top
of the kindergarten area as well.
October 23, 2012
Please reconsider these scenarios. I think Victory is a successful school, and part of a wonderful
community.
I will consider switching my two children to English if either of these scenarios are accepted.
I like that my kids can walk to school – in the neighbourhood.
October 23, 2012
Please consider portables – we have 2 kids and chose our property because of the FI program at
Victory. I would prefer my children to go to Victory in the French program in a portable rather than
break up our community.
12 October 20th to October 24, 2012 Lets get together as a community and come up with other solutions – please delay by 2 weeks and we
would like a follow up meeting.
October 23, 2012
I’m saddened that my feedback isn’t as articulate as it could/should be, this whole process seems very
rushed. I feel as though I’m being forced to choose between language and location. Should that be
the case, I would opt to stay put. My son is just over 1 block away from Victory. The idea of putting
him on a bus seems ludicrous.
October 23, 2012
1. Survey: portables or scenarios?
2. Insisting on 2 more weeks or spring decision so parents can get organized.
3. Follow up public meeting.
October 23, 2012
Survey ALL Victory parents if they would prefer to have their children in portables versus either of the
scenarios presented. I bet it would overwhelmingly be in favour of portables. Try telling the majority it
can’t be done because of some electrical excuse, etc.
Not asking, but insisting at least 2 more weeks for parents to organize alternatives.
A follow-up public meeting to discuss to conclusions.
October 23, 2012
I strongly disagree with making the Victory boundary smaller. Too many families have moved into the
area for their child to go to such a wonderful school.
I don’t agree with doing the change from grade 4 either. I think grade 6 would be a better choice or
even 5-6 they will be that much more mature for the culture shock changing from a small community
school to a much larger scale school.
October 23, 2012
2017 - King George will be over capacity – what then – wouldn’t you be more proactive to renovate
Victory instead of anther shift.
Reconsider portables. Need more time. Public meeting with 1 week to 1-2 months. We will consider
changing all 3 children into English stream. Both scenarios are band-aid solutions. Fix the problem –
expand Victory.
13 October 20th to October 24, 2012 October 23, 2012
1. Strongly feel that a time extension needs to be given in order to offer parents an integral part
of this review process.
2. I would definitely consider moving my child out of the French immersion program into English
stream if my decision is to bus her to King George.
3. Expansion of current Victory location needs to be examined and considered. Hydro limitations
are not sufficient.
October 23, 2012
This entire process is incredibly short-sighted. You cannot create scenarios based on a 3 year
projection, particularly when it would appear that you may end up with fewer students at Victory than
capacity. What do you do then? Change the boundaries again?
I take issue with your objective of filling a giant newly built FI ‘centre’ by draining a small
neighbourhood school of its students. It’s a terrible solution, to a problem that we did not create.
Neighbourhood schools are good for community, good for the environment and good for kids.
Why can’t grade 6 kids be sent to King George? Why not make it so that older kids, who may be
more prepared to be in a larger school, are those that are re-directed?
All of this should be assessed in 2015 when we have real numbers to work with, not projections that
seem extremely wishy-washy and highly variable.
We need 2 more weeks for public input on this process. This timeline is unacceptable. We also need
another public meeting on the subject before the December vote.
Additionally the walking map, by the way, is ridiculous. These are busy streets that will only get busier.
Extremely dangerous for these small kids to be walking those routes. You should note that I will
absolutely consider putting my child in English, and many other parents will do the same. This should
be considered.
October 23, 2012
Why are portables not ‘favourable’ at Victory?
Why is $400,000 being spent on renovations when you could just have 4 smaller kindergarten
classes?
I find it laughable that ‘walkablity’ is stated as important when I live less than 1.5 km from a school
and my child is expected to walk 3 km to school staring in grade 4 (age 9) over a major street and a
river.
14 October 20th to October 24, 2012 What is going to stop FI families from switching their kids to RT to remain at Victory? How would
‘capacity’ be figured out then?
Whole grade re-assignment is the best idea (grade 6). It makes no sense to ‘grandfather’ for the last
grade. I WOULD RATHER MY KID BE IN A PORTABLE!
Follow up meeting.
October 23, 2012
Follow up meeting @ Victory.
I would rather have my child in English at Victory than French in King George.
October 23, 2012
2017 – another boundary review will be required to address over-capacity @ King George with either
scenario. Moving kids again will be very detrimental.
How will you address the many parents who will pull their kids out of FI? This will completely skew
your numbers. We may consider moving our 3 kids into English even though I would prefer they stay
in FI (and are thriving in it).
Why can’t Victory be expanded? 2nd floor on single story? We would much prefer portables than
moving kids.
After school care will be essential – how do we balance pick ups with kids – at different schools.
We want more time for parents to discuss scenarios – 2-4 week delay. We want to be more involved
in decision.
October 23, 2012
1. Please provide opportunity for a longer review of final report.
2. I would prefer to have any children in portables than across town
3. Please consider expansion options at Victory – it can be done if we make it a priority – your
capital & construction folks need to help.
4. The community (as evidenced by the engagement of parents at this meeting) is part – a critical
part – of what makes Victory such a strong & vibrant school – please value the community &
neighbourhood continuity as equal to the numbers.
5. I would consider pulling my kids (2 of 3, 3rd in grade 7 this year) from FI to remain @ a
neighbourhood school.
15 October 20th to October 24, 2012 6. I appreciate the efforts of your staff in putting together some scenarios for us to react to – it
can’t be easy…and we don’t want you to have to do it alone – involve us, wherever you can &
please consider our suggestions.
A difficult evening, well managed.
October 23, 2012
If my children have to go from walking 1km – over 3 km to go to a new school, I may choose to keep
them in English. What planning has been done for this? To keep them in the neighbourhood. Why
has the school board removed all of the lower income neighbourhoods from the Victory boundary?
Has anyone sought understanding of the impact of this gentrification on the neighbourhood. None of
this is a long enough term solution – what will happen in 2014 & 2017 when all of these schools
need another boundary review? Will my children have to move schools again? It is unacceptable to
have to move my children twice due to shortsighted boundary review. What kind of an engagement
process is this? Where does the community get to have a say in where do our children go? What is
the rush? We want a follow up meeting & at least a 2 week delay in decision making. What will
happen to my property value when people realize that by moving into Exhibition Park they are not
allowing their children to attend the local school? Have you compared the cost of bussing this # of
kids against expanding Victory?
Has there been an assessment of risk for young children crossing Woolwich & climbing Eramosa?
Have you considered how long that walk is.
Victory is a great school! Why change enrolment structure when you can change the building
structure!! We can give up playground space with Exhibition across from it.
Why should my kids walk all the way to King George first to be in a portable? Why not move only
grade 6 out?? We need broader community planning for more than 3 years at a time.
October 23, 2012
Please do not split cohorts in gr.4 to move to King George. These kids have already lost ½ their
cohort when west end children kids left Victory in the ARC review. To do this again too many of the
same kids creates instability and severs friendships / engagement in school.
I live on East side of Woolwich and do not want to go back to scenario 3, 4 or 5. But beyond just my
child’s needs, I don’t like to see any families in the current borders to have to go. I’d rather see all
cohorts (if they have to) move together.
Has the committee looked at how a k-3 school would work well, advantages and disadvantages?
How can parents make a decision about this if this hasn’t been reviewed / understood?
Would prefer to add onto school or utilize portables if at all possible.
Need to analyze how many families would change from FI to engl – we may consider
16 October 20th to October 24, 2012 We need an extension to this process to allow time to review all feedback and another public mtg
forum to share the outcomes. We really want to hear how you analyze the feedback /data and come
to decisions
Why are we not revisiting the ARC decision when the trend in Exhibition Park Neighbourhood is FI?
We haven’t discussed the English program being split? Why? What about making a more equitable
split / transition and looking at #’s to move the FI and English grades 6 to respective schools?
We need more than future projections for numbers, and more projections on impact of these choices
on
- the students
- the school
- the neighbourhood
- community
- real estate
- quality of educational programming
If I had known how the ARC review would play out for the engl program – I wouldn’t have wanted
Victory to stay dual track.
October 23, 2012
Please provide another public meeting so that we can understand whether our wants & concerns have
been considered.
Please delay the date set for final boundary review to allow for parents to respond.
Please answer the following questions before you finalize this decision because it is impossible to
understand the impact w/out a full picture
1. Transportation
2. Childcare services
3. Structural options
4. Potential for portable expansion
Please take into consideration the adjustments required from the children emotionally, and physically
instead of just looking at numbers. Victory has a passionate community and we are willing to make
things work through hardwork and creativity…capital campaigns etc.
17 October 20th to October 24, 2012 We would prefer to add on or add portables because your scenarios seem to water down Victory and
leave one with a strong fear that this decision will create a bigger chance of future closure.
What about making Victory a FI only school?
YES! I would take my child out of the French stream and put him into English track.
Why not take a more equitable approach and move both French and English grade 6 classes.
October 23, 2012
Please offer a survey to consider use of portables as temporary solution to overcrowding @ VPS
Consider a major renovation of the kindergarten wing – put the $400k into tearing down the entire
wing and building 2 story
Delay the decision to allow more input from the community – set another public meeting to give
feedback to parents
Survey the community to determine
1. How many current families would switch to English
2. How many families NOT YET sending kids to VPS – will consider ENGLISH over FRENCH
because of scenario 1 or 2. Thereby skewing numbers further
Why are you not considering re-opening the ARC decision and making VPS a FI school. Why not
make an EQUITABLE split and students in BOTH FRENCH and ENGLISH – disperse them all and
maintain a dual track school. If the Board feels strongly about the efficiency of DUAL TRACK
SCHOOLS – please advise and present the data to the community.
October 23, 2012
Why is $400,000 being spent to REDUCE the capacity of the school? Review other options to better
spend that money to accommodate FDK…Second floor/portables/addition, etc, upgrading hydro
We currently have 3 portables. Why do you state that Victory is not favourable to having portables?
Whole grade assignment is definitely more favourable than breaking up the neighbourhood, splitting
up FR/EN friends & neighbours
Don’t gut our wonderful school community
Rejected scenarios N of Speedvale and E of Woolwich add up to 70-80 students, which is the number
needed to reduce projected 360 down to capacity of 294, Why not reopen these for consideration?
Move only GR6 if still need more (sts?)?
18 October 20th to October 24, 2012 Might consider moving to RT if change goes thru
Delay the process. Slow it down. Give parents time for input.
Have another public meeting
October 23, 2012
Scenario 2 is ridiculous and unfair, I would be ok given where I live but I still think it’s a no-go.
Scenario 1 – the kids are too young in grade 3 to move. I highly doubt this is your best move and only
move.
We need MORE TIME please. This should continue longer into the winter.
We need people to actually be able to answer questions here.
I would definitely consider moving my kids to English. That’s 3
What exactly happens when King George is over capacity down the road? Let’s make Victory larger
first.
October 23, 2012
Extend this process by minimum 2 weeks to allow for parent involvement
Include transportation as many of us within walking distance have significant concerns about a grade
4 navigating the route independently.
I’d request another public meeting
We would consider moving to English stream to stay @ Victory or move out the French Public Board
We have 3 children. Scenario for us is one in daycare, one @ Victory, one @ King George. 3 drop
offs and pick ups! It’s excessive!
Please have construction perspective @ the next meeting
We are facing another 17 years in this school board. Please consider a longer term solution than a
scenario where my children will be moved again when King George is overcapacity!
Consider moving Grade 6 only or Grade 5+6 when our children could be more equipped for the
work.
Please provide us with information on plans for accessibility for children w/ disabilities.
19 October 20th to October 24, 2012 October 23, 2012
I would like to see more planning done for the longterm. I went to Victory in the 1980s from K-2 when
they needed a boundary change. I was sent to Paisley for Gr.3 and then Brighton PS for Gr.4. The
boundaries then changed again for FI, and I was sent back to Victory PS for Grades 5+6. King
George will be over capacity by 2017 and I want to know what will happen then? I think Victory needs
to be added onto or portables added. This is obviously not a new problem and I would like to see
some actual planning done.
October 23, 2012
We need more time.
More time for parental input
Why not a vote?
We are considering moving to ENGLISH
October 23, 2012
This process is too rushed
It needs to be slowed down to allow for community to respond + prepare
I would like another meeting to be held to show that you have heard our concerns and to hear how
you have handled our suggestions.
Why spend 400 thousand to make a school smaller?
Why not use that $ to expand a second floor on the K wing now
I want to see plans that say expansion isn’t viable.
Why do all K classrooms have to be 100 sq.ft. for ELP? You are not renovating all schools to meet this
requirement.
October 23, 2012
We would prefer to have portables then move to King George
We think a second floor should be added to the Kindergarten wing so that all kids can remain at the
school if portables are not an option
20 October 20th to October 24, 2012 The other boundary options need to be re-considered – especially an option that the parents come up
with.
We would like extra time before decisions are made
An option for removing kids should be taking grade 6 out instead of JK-6 or 4-6
We would like Victory to have the option of keeping JK+SK part time instead of full time
We definitely need the before and after school program + if that cannot be offered at King George,
we don’t think we can make it work there as our kids are both needing this + are currently in the kids
club at Victory.
October 23, 2012
I would like to see a pause in the process for further review/consider further options for the existing
Victory site. Specifically, are there opportunities to invest in the school to better service the community
and even more importantly ensure the long term viability of the school.
I would like to have additional meetings for public input + to have the opportunity for the Board to
reply/address parent input/concerns.
If faced with the choice of sending my children to a new school (King George) for FI or keeping them
in our community I would switch to the English program. I suspect many other parents may feel the
same and it may be wise to send out a survey to parents,
October 23, 2012
A few comments & suggestions that came up tonight were ones I strongly agree with:
I would choose portables over a broken-up school
I (and most of the FI parents I have spoken to) would switch to English rather than leave Victory. That
kind of demographic shift would completely negate your projections.
I would be more comfortable with a shift that takes place at GR.6, rather thanGR.4.
I want more time to be involved in scenario solutions.
I want a chance to have a more iterated and involved process for the remainder of this review.
I do not support a boundary change that would result in an “elitist” sifting (i.e. excluding rentals, etc.)
I want to explore more options around increasing space at Victory (i.e. building or portables)
21 October 20th to October 24, 2012 Unfair that we paid substantially more for my house and because I want my students to go to Victory
and now won’t
Should combine 2 other scenarios N of Speedvale Ave & E of Woolwich to keep those who can
obviously walk to the school without crossing busy streets (i.e. Not Division, S of Speedvale) - #’s work
for projections
Advantage / goal is to make it walkable but living on St. Andrew I can see the school but have to go
to King George – those further ( E of Woolwich) get to stay & they are closer to King George.
How am I supposed to get my grade 4 to King George and my grade 2 and JK to Victory? And work
We lose substantial property value by being bumped out of Victory Area – houses worth less than we
paid
We need a longer time to review options as a community
We need another public meeting for feedback from blue sheets
I will move my students to English instead of being bumped out of school and bus them or have my 3
kids at 2 different schools
Board should consider an addition to the school before moving us
Should put in a new hydro line to service portables and then East of Guelph can populate King
George when they expand.
After FDK the enrolment pressure in Victory would be done bc there is no room to build – give us
portable or do addition for 2 classes
“no room for portables bc of site lines/supervision” – why are we housing 2 additional portable that
are not being used?
22 October 25th to October 26, 2012 In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
King George JK-8 FI 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.
October 25, 2012
I am opposed to both options one and two, as proposed by the Board/committee. The disadvantages
of both options are too great.
Figure out a way to renovate the school or utilize the portables to keep this community and Victory
families together. It is extremely upsetting for me to think about my children attending different
schools, being on different buses etc. How will my eldest child help out with child minding after
school when my youngest starts in JK?
Grade 4 is a terrible time to transition children. This will cause the children a great deal of
unnecessary emotional stress.
Children aged 9 cannot possibly be expected to walk from the Victory area to King George School.
THIS IS A CHILD PROTECTION CONCERN. Parents cannot be expected to walk this distance with
their children. We have jobs and commitments. If this proposal goes through, my child, and
eventually my two children, will be on different buses! How are parents supposed to manage different
bus times and locations?
Also, I have waited almost two years for my daughter to be able to attend the after-school program at
Victory. It is a very popular program. Although there is room in the King George after-school
program now, can you promise me there will be room in 2014 when my daughter is there?
I would rather have my daughter stay at Victory in a portable or a crowded school then switch her to
King George. We live here and are part of the Victory community. The proposed changes would tear
this community and families apart. This is unacceptable.
Lastly, how dare the School Board make this plan knowing full well that King George will be overcapacity in just a few short years. These are people's lives. These are sensitive children, not ping
pong balls. A long term solution needs to be developed.
October 25, 2012
I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed boundary changes for Victory Public
School. I am a parent of a JK student at Victory, will have another child start in JK there in 2015, and
I am distressed by the short-sighted, exclusionary proposals that have been made by the board. I am
also shocked by the timeline between the public meeting and the vote by the board.
To begin, the two short-listed scenarios for the boundary revision are problematic on several levels.
Scenario 2 suggests that the portion of the current boundaries that is FARTHEST from King George
will walk (or, if they’re lucky, be bussed) after being excluded from Victory. Yet, the walking distances
1 October 25th to October 26, 2012 proposed are laughable. We live off of Woolwich, just south of Speedvale, and my husband walks
downtown to work each day. He is a 40 year old man and over 6 feet tall, and it takes him 20-25
minutes to walk downtown at a brisk pace. These walking requirements would have children as young
as 8 years old walking almost twice as far as that, at a slower pace. It would take them over an hour
to get to school, all while they cross a river and several major intersections. This suggestion is simply
unsafe, irresponsible planning. Moreover, like other concerned Victory parents, I can’t help but notice
Scenario 2 restricts Victory’s boundaries to a fraction of what they once were, favouring families with
the highest property values, but who are actually physically closer to King George than the ones who
will be streamed there.
Scenario 1 removes children from the school at a young, and very crucial time in their academic and
social development. My son is a December baby, and so will be shifted from his home school at 8
years old into a much larger, much farther away school. Friendships will be broken up, mentoring
opportunities lost, relationships with teachers severed. Meanwhile, the english track students will enjoy
a consistent educational experience, while the FI students are sent away. It doesn’t make sense. I am
aware the board needs to fill King George, a school they have invested millions in, but draining a
successful, engaged, neighbourhood school of its students is not the way to go. We decided to live in
that neighbourhood because we wanted a neighbourhood experience for our children. Walking up to
an hour to school, or being driven there everyday was not what we invested in for our kids.
The message of the unusually short time-line to respond to these proposals has not been lost on any
of the parents at Victory: the process is being intentionally hurried, and the answers we need are not
being made available. The public meeting on October 23rd suggested that other scenarios could be
attainable. So, what is the true viability of using portables until 2015 when we have a better sense of
the student numbers, post-full-day-kindergarten? Has a renovation been fully explored? Why cut FI
students off at grade 3? Why not cut FI as well as English track students off at grade 5 when they are
more emotionally mature to handle such a move? Beyond Scenarios 1 through 5 what other creative
ways can we come up with to protect one of Guelph’s historic and thriving community schools? And
most importantly, what happens in 2017 when King George is suddenly over-capacity because they
have drained small, neighbourhood schools of their students? What then? A plan that looks only 3
years ahead is unacceptable. You cannot continue to shuffle kids around and expect that they are
receiving a quality education. They need consistency, a sense of community, and to feel cared for.
This plan achieves none of those directives, and so does a great disservice to our children. They are,
after all, what we’re talking about here.
I urge you to reconsider these scenarios, and take a longer, more detailed look at their ramifications.
Right now, there is a team of dedicated parents putting together proposals for other, more inclusive
scenarios and I ask that you work with us to arrive at a solution that works for everyone.
October 25, 2012
1. Where is our feedback since September 21st -- why has it not been posted online?
2. I come from Kingston where I have never once in many years heard of boundaries for schools
being changed. Why is this such an ongoing issue here in a similar type and size of core city area?
3. We would like to understand exactly where your projected numbers are coming from. They have no
references attached and we would like to see them.
2 October 25th to October 26, 2012 4. We would like to know what the options are regarding adding on to Victory. It is inadequate to say
"just can't do it" when we have watched you do major renos at Laurine and King George. Just lay it
out for us.
5. Why not more portables? Again, please be clear about this potential issue of power supply. The
new larger type portable at Edward Johnson would seem to be a great option.
6. The Victory parking lot could certainly be used for portables and/or renovation footprint if that is a
concern. It would be very easy to accomodate those few teacher spots elsewhere in the park or
neighborhood.
October 25, 2012
On the subject of the King George Boundary review, today I would like to talk specifically about
walkable communities. One of the goals of our city is to have walkable communities. One of the most
significant opportunities for this to be applied is with our children. While I can empathize with the need
to find a way that allows the educational system to serve its students most effectively, I think that the
idea of larger, more consolidated schools will turn its back on the ideal scenario that is in our own
backyards.
From our location, google maps estimates the 900M walk to Victory school to King George to take
an estimated 11 minutes for an adult. Our children, according to google maps, would have a walk of
about 2.5 km. For an adult, this would be an estimated 32 minutes. Considering that children in
grade 4 who will be somewhere between 9 and 10 years old, this will surely be a longer time,
travelling along the major routes and crossing major intersections. I would argue that this is beyond
what the majority of adults would consider a walkable distance, let alone children.
I understand that there is no planned school bus system to address this distance, and depending on
the public transit system could extend the travel time accounting for the bus schedule. Driving will
impact the road system at prime rush hour times, not to mention the financial and environmental
impact of the use of cars and busses, and the schedules of the Guelph workforce who may even need
to start driving to work in order to drop their children off to school. I don't see how any of this fits into
the goal of having a walkable community.
Meanwhile, in our own backyard, there is a school that is renowned for its french immersion program
that is shutting its doors to its neighbours. The goal of having a walkable community is not just the
goal of the citiy's politicians, it is the goal of its inhabitants, something that makes Guelph the place
we have chosen as our home, and we will fight to keep this goal—with all of its many benefits—in
practice.
I urge you to pursue a better way to feed the schools that are nestled in our communities so that they
can continue to nurture their neighbourhoods and keep our communities thriving. Please look at the
numbers beyond the direct cost of education.
Thank you for your time,
3 October 25th to October 26, 2012 October 25, 2012
As a Victory parent of 1 and 2 more in the future I am very concerned about this boundary review. I
understand the need to do something but I don't think the 2 options are realistic or fair for the
community. I paid more for my home to be in this area so that I could send my students to this
school. I pay more property taxes as a result of this and they are going up again (1 of only 2
neighbourhoods in Guelph that are facing this increase).
If approx. 80 students need to move why can't it be the English strand? There are currently 84
students and this would work perfectly. Why disrupt more students and families to keep the school
dual track? It is apparent that the Victory neighbourhood is in more support of a French school than
English based purely on numbers of enrolment in each track. If we have to keep it dual track as a
result of previous agreements made during a boundary review than both tracks should have to
compromise and we should remove the grade 6 students from both strands a year early to attend
Willow and King George. These students are leaving in a year regardless and many schools in other
boards have k-5 schools and would allow all students to attend their local school for JK-5. I am upset
that a 'promise' was made at the last boundary review to keep it dual track. If I knew then that that
was going to mean chopping up the French track I would have been more involved to express my
concerns or to advocate for my children...as I am sure many other parents would have been as well.
Why can't the majority of the school have their say? And based on numbers the majority have more
of an interest in French over English.
In scenario 2 I can see the school from my street but can't send my child to it....in 1214 I will have to
go past Victory to get my grade 1 and JK students 3 km to King George. How does this make any
sense when I live within a 3 minute walk to the school??? In scenario 1 what is the French program
going to look like at Victory? In a dual track school the immersion program is already less than it
would be at a full immersion school. This will be even more 'watered' down when you don't have
junior students to act as reading buddies, morning announcers in French or during assemblies. The
French program at Victory will not survive or benefit from scenario 1 and the boundaries for scenario
2 are not fair for local community members. I urge (and beg) you to please reconsider these 2
options and either remove grade 6, remove English or provide the school with an addition to keep it
as it is!!! If a boundary change is necessary I purpose that the previous options mentioned at the
meeting be reconsidered and the new boundary cut at N of Speedvale and E of Woolwich. Are the
students N of Speedvale not already being bused because they would have to cross the busy street of
Speedvale? On top of this, Victory is not their neighbourhood school...June Ave is. Those E of
Woolwich also have to cross the busy street to get to Victory and are substantially closer to King
George than many of those affected by the scenario 2 boundary changes.
I beg you to please encourage the board to reconsider the options they have presented to the Victory
community!
October 25, 2012
I attended the information session held on Tuesday evening and hope that the messages from the
Victory school community will help redirect the actions of the board in their planning process with
respect to the King George Boundary review. I strongly believe that there are other ways to address
the capacity issues at both King George and Victory. I am a parent of 3 FI children at Victory and
when there were 5 portables on site to accommodate all of our students, though not ideal, it still
worked. It worked for our community because we were still able to walk our children to schooI and
4 October 25th to October 26, 2012 maintain the strong connections there, whether they be with other families or with the school staff.
Going to a community school affords families many opportunities, many of which were mentioned at
Tuesday’s meeting and throughout the accommodation review process from a few years back.
Bottom line for me - if my children are forced to go to another school such as King George for their
junior years, a school which I deem not accessible to our elementary population, I will definitely have
to reconsider the program they are enrolled in versus attending the community school. Victory school
is more to this community than just somewhere our kids spend 6 hours a day. It is a place where
connections are maintained and where kids are afforded many opportunities as they get older in the
school. If you force the junior FI students out of their neighbourhood school, you are breaking down
the confidence that has been built up over the primary years and taking away the desires and goals of
our children - the goals of becoming leaders in their school for the kids with whom they have grown
up in our community. These kids have formed strong bonds outside the classroom and it becomes a
threat to everyone’s quality of life when you take away an integral part of what so many families have
worked hard to achieve. I believe there are viable solutions to housing the increase in Victory’s
student population come 2014. Besides a potential opportunity to build literally onto the school
above the primary wing, the ability to add another hydro service to accommodate more portables on
site cannot be out of the question. I would like to hear the board’s arguments for why either of these
options is not a viable option for this school.
I understand your need to build up the King George population. Surely there are other schools from
which you can take students to fill the King George classrooms while still maintaining the Victory
population. I believe that schools such as Paisley Road will also be over capacity come September
2014 and that it would be perfectly viable to bus students enrolled in the FI program there to King
George. When so many of the Paisley FI kids are already out of their neighbourhood school, why
would you not consider redirecting some of that population as an option in this boundary review
process. I am very interested in obtaining the current and projected enrollment figures for all the
central Guelph schools to see how all the schools will be under pressure with respect to capacity once
full-time kindergarten takes effect in Sept. 2014. I think it would also be beneficial to see where the FI
kids live with respect to their schools so as to minimize the impact of any student relocation. Why is
there not a bigger plan to look at all the central Guelph schools impacted by full-time kindergarten
and work with all the numbers at once to come up with solutions rather than the piecemeal fashion
always taken by the UGDSB to take on one community at a time. You might be able to sell your
potential solutions to capacity issues better if communities knew your bigger plan worked for more
than a year or two. Please consider taking a broader perspective at this issue and start proposing
longer term plans for our schools, with stronger consideration for community needs and desires. This
will ultimately require more time from a planning perspective, but with all the boundary reviews you
will likely have to do over the next year, surely all of this allocated time would be sufficient for the
board to do so.
October 25, 2012
Victory school is more than a school it is a community that must be considered first before projections.
One must consider with scenario 1 that children will not be walking to school due to distance –
5 October 25th to October 26, 2012 affecting health and obesity. Has research of moving a child in grade 4 in FI been considered as this
is a year of transition.
Why change a successful school, not currently in a ‘super school’.
Options supported
1. + size of Victory
2. Grade 6’s move to King George
3. Revise boundaries – north of Speedvale to move as already bused to Victory
Yes, I would change my kids to English if scenario 1 is approved (2 children, currently in SK).
This is a community school and therefore this must be a community decision with parent involvement!
Due to nature of full-time JK/SK impacting class space it must be considered due to the space of
school to not offer this option and let parents make the decision if they want to send to part-time
JK/SK or not live in our community.
A review should also be completed of those children (families) who have 2 residences but principle
residence is not in Victory neighbourhood but attend Victory.
October 25, 2012
I recently attended the information session and would like to provide my comments below.
- Our family is very disappointed with both of the preferred scenarios. We live on Edgehill Dr and
purchased our home 5 years ago specifically because it was within the boundary for Victory Public
School. It will be extremely disappointing news if we are now told our daughter can no longer attend
Victory Public School for the remainder of her primary scholastic time. We live about 3.5 km from
King George and the last thing we are interested in is our daughter having to bus to King George,
when we currently live a few blocks from Victory, our neighbourhood school, and can walk there in 10
mins.
- We currently have our daughter enrolled in French Immersion at Victory. She very much enjoys the
program, but as much as we want her to be a French Immersion student, our family would be faced
with making a very difficult decision of switching her to the English stream. I think it is very unfortunate
that families like ours are being forced to make these decisions which will compromise our children's
education. It is also disappointing to understand that this entire process will very likely have to repeat
itself, as it appears there will be a large quantity of children making the same move from French
Immersion to English, thereby drastically altering all of the current projections.
- I am also concerned how this boundary review will impact the property value of our home. When we
were house searching, we specifically avoided areas in which we would have to bus our children to
school, despite the lower prices of houses in those areas. With this boundary review forcing our house
out of the desirable Victory neighbourhood, we will be facing a much lower property value on our
6 October 25th to October 26, 2012 home. This will result in a very negative impact on our family as we will be faced with the decision of
selling our house and looking for a new home within walking distance to a primary school for our
daughter.
- this process seems to be very rushed and has had very little parent and community input. At the very
least I would like to see this process slowed down to give us, the community, time to present
alternative solutions to the current options. It is rather disheartening that the community has not been
involved from the beginning, but there is still time for you do the right thing and change that.
- As much as I dislike the use of portables, I would much rather see my daughter in a portable at
Victory then being forced to leave her neighbourhood school. In the recent past Victory easily
accommodated up to 400 students through the use of portables. I do not understand why this cannot
be an option in the future.
- I would like to add I was absolutely disgusted with the response of the board when asked the
question what happens in 2017 when King George is projected to be over capacity. The response
was King George is able to have up to 6 portables to accommodate the capacity. It is extremely,
extremely disheartening to think that the board really things the best interests of my child are to leave
her neighbourhood school within walking distance, leave half her friend behind, to be transported to a
relatively large school across town via bus, to be stuck in a portable at that new school. This is
absolutely ridiculous.
- My daughter is currently making use of older children as reading buddies, playground and lunchtime
supervision, and as crossing guards. By removing grades 4,5,6 the younger grades will no longer
have access to these great resources. Very disappointing.
- As an alternative to the plan of moving grades 4,5 and 6 I would like to know if you have
considered a mix of using portables, and only moving grade 6 students. I do believe this would
provide the capacity needed, as well as keeping our children at our neighbourhood school through
Grade 5 at the least.
- Victory just recently went through a boundary change, and now another one. These seem like very
short sighted decisions that are being made. A move needs to be made to move towards a more
sustainable long term decision, without sticking a knife through the middle of our neighbourhood.
Thanks for your time and consideration in reading these comments.
October 25, 2012
I have a question that I would like an email response to.
Is there a mandate as to schools having to provide a certain number of parking spots?
7 October 25th to October 26, 2012 October 26, 2012
I would like a response to this email.
I understand the pressures of school capacity has been an ongoing issue for Victory School. After a
boundary review and change less than two years ago, we are presented with two new options that,
unlike the last change, is proposing to funnel children who are within easy walking distance to their
community school to walk up to 2.4 km to a school in another neighbourhood. The only benefit to
this is to the numbers that some people seem to care so deeply about. It does not benefit the
community the children are leaving, the parents, or the kids themselves.
Since the numbers are so important, can we not alter them in a way that will maintain the
cohesiveness to our community? When I way a child, elementary school went to Grade 5, and middle
school was 6, 7, and 8. What about changing Victory to a JK to 5 school? The oldest kids go to their
respective middle schools for three years, not two, the children in regular track and French immersion
stay together and graduate together, the FI kids are 2 years older making the walk to King George
less onerous, and it keeps siblings together that much longer.
Before you say the numbers are still too high, I must point out we had 7portables two years ago. I
understand that there have been changes to electrical standards/guidelines, but we are not talking
about reinstating all the previous portables, just one. And just long enough to examine a pla
n to renovate the school.
This school has been standing and serving this community for almost one hundred years. As it
continues to serve, this issue of capacity will keep coming up. This is why a serious examination of
renovating the kindergarten wing needs to be addressed. In the meantime, would not moving the
upper grade of both tracks and one more portable relieve the pressure the numbers are under?
October 26, 2012
Just to let you know, if grades 4 to 6 FI are moved, our child will most likely move to the regular track
to keep her in our community school.
8 October 26 to November 5, 2012 In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
King George JK-8 FI 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.
October 26, 2012
To any and all this may concern:
I recently attended the information session and would like to provide my comments below.
- Our family is very disappointed with both of the preferred scenarios. We live on Edgehill Dr and
purchased our home 5 years ago specifically because it was within the boundary for Victory Public
School. It will be extremely disappointing news if we are now told our daughter can no longer attend
Victory Public School for the remainder of her primary scholastic time. We live about 3.5 km from
King George and the last thing we are interested in is our daughter having to bus to King George,
when we currently live a few blocks from Victory, our neighbourhood school, and can walk there in 10
mins.
- We currently have our daughter enrolled in French Immersion at Victory. She very much enjoys the
program, but as much as we want her to be a French Immersion student, our family would be faced
with making a very difficult decision of switching her to the English stream. I think it is very unfortunate
that families like ours are being forced to make these decisions which will compromise our children's
education. It is also disappointing to understand that this entire process will very likely have to repeat
itself, as it appears there will be a large quantity of children making the same move from French
Immersion to English, thereby drastically altering all of the current projections.
- I am also concerned how this boundary review will impact the property value of our home. When we
were house searching, we specifically avoided areas in which we would have to bus our children to
school, despite the lower prices of houses in those areas. With this boundary review forcing our house
out of the desirable Victory neighbourhood, we will be facing a much lower property value on our
home. This will result in a very negative impact on our family as we will be faced with the decision of
selling our house and looking for a new home within walking distance to a primary school for our
daughter.
- this process seems to be very rushed and has had very little parent and community input. At the very
least I would like to see this process slowed down to give us, the community, time to present
alternative solutions to the current options. It is rather disheartening that the community has not been
involved from the beginning, but there is still time for you do the right thing and change that.
- As much as I dislike the use of portables, I would much rather see my daughter in a portable at
Victory then being forced to leave her neighbourhood school. In the recent past Victory easily
accommodated up to 400 students through the use of portables. I do not understand why this cannot
be an option in the future.
1 October 26 to November 5, 2012 - I would like to add I was absolutely disgusted with the response of the board when asked the
question what happens in 2017 when King George is projected to be over capacity. The response
was King George is able to have up to 6 portables to accommodate the capacity. It is extremely,
extremely disheartening to think that the board really things the best interests of my child are to leave
her neighbourhood school within walking distance, leave half her friend behind, to be transported to a
relatively large school across town via bus, to be stuck in a portable at that new school. This is
absolutely ridiculous.
- My daughter is currently making use of older children as reading buddies, playground and lunchtime
supervision, and as crossing guards. By removing grades 4,5,6 the younger grades will no longer
have access to these great resources. Very disappointing.
- As an alternative to the plan of moving grades 4,5 and 6 I would like to know if you have
considered a mix of using portables, and only moving grade 6 students. I do believe this would
provide the capacity needed, as well as keeping our children at our neighbourhood school through
Grade 5 at the least.
- Victory just recently went through a boundary change, and now another one. These seem like very
short sighted decisions that are being made. A move needs to be made to move towards a more
sustainable long term decision, without sticking a knife through the middle of our neighbourhood.
Thanks for your time and consideration in reading these comments.
October 26, 2012
from the most recent FAQ:
Q: "Is it possible to increase Victory PS’s capacity by building an addition?" Looks like the answer is
"Yes, but it will cost more".
Q: "Is it possible to increase Victory PS’s capacity through the use of portables?" Looks like the answer
again is "Yes, but it will cost more".
So, my Q: why not just spend the money on what is a better solution?
October 26, 2012
I noticed on your "FAQ" posting you conviently neglected to mention the concern that was raised that
you eliminated all of the low income, rental and subsidized housing from the boundary review. It is
rather concerning that the boundary review includes the high priced housing (that is also closer to king
george) but excludes all of the lower priced housing.
Please explain this.
2 October 26 to November 5, 2012 October 26, 2012
I understand that the first reason for a boundary review is underutilization of a school. If King George
is underutilized, then it should draw students from areas that could benefit from it. Drawing students
away from Victory would not benefit the students, the families, the community, or even Victory School.
Furthermore, it is not necessary to include Victory in a boundary review as it has not been at 110%
percent capacity for the previous 2 years (which Policy 320 describes as the second reason—
overcrowding—for a boundary review).
As parents of a JK FI student at Victory, we are very happy about what going to school at
Victory does. Each morning, parents and children walk to school together. We see other families and
neighbours walking in groups. We are safely escorted across the street by senior student crossing
guards. We learn names very quickly. It is very easy to see how this school is a community centre.
By chopping the FI portion of the school off at grade 3, or cutting out such a large part of the
neighbourhood, the school will fail to provide successfully for the students and the community. It will
cut out buddy programs at the school. It will separate friendships that have developed in the
neighbourhood and at school. It will separate siblings from each other (our next will enter Victory in
2015). It will also force us and other families into cars in the morning, as an alone walk across so
many major roads and the river to King George is simply out of the question for an 8 year old.
We request more time for this boundary review, especially as it is unnecessary for Victory as
described by Policy 320. This will allow the community more time to provide input. It will also prevent
us from making rash decisions as to whether we need to sacrifice out children’s academic future by
pulling them out of FI, or sacrificing so much else in this safe integrated community. In the meantime,
solutions to enrollment pressure such as using portables or removal of grade 6 seem like much more
community and school friendly options.
October 29, 2012
I would hate to see my family separate to go to school. I would hate to break up the community like
this. It would really deflate both of my children's confidence to go to different schools. It would destroy
friendships which can also affect children when they are so fragile and young.
I would rather have my child in a portable and at Victory- her neighbourhood school. I would rather
take her out of French and keep her at Victory. I would rather get rid of Full day Kindergarten and
keep BOTH my kids at Victory together where they belong. The Board cannot possibly have their
numbers right. They have been making the same mistake over and over for the past 30 + years.
Counting heads, projecting numbers, overreacting and sending young ones to different schools all
over Guelph. It is time to think of a better solution- RENOVATE VICTORY! The definition of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Sound familiar?
Let's work together to keep this community school a community school. The Board should work with
the parents to come up with a solution, that works for the children- Not for the Board,
October 29, 2012
Dear Public School Trustee,
I am a parent whose daughter attends Victory Public School. I am concerned by the recent Board
proposals for boundary review. It has been a very top-down process which has neglected the
viewpoints and interests of the community.
3 October 26 to November 5, 2012 The School Board has erroneously paired two problems together; the underutilization of King George
and the over-enrollment of Victory due to Full Day Kindergarten. These are separate issues and should
be treated as such. I do not believe other solutions for dealing with Victory’s issues have been given
enough thought. For example: portables, renovations, even smaller boundary for FI/RT inclusively.
I urge you to reject both current proposals and give time for the Victory community to be part of the
solution of the issue that faces their school. A K-6 community school for both French and English is
clearly in the best interests of the children.
Regards,
October 29, 2012
Dear Upper Grand District School Board Trustees,
I'm writing as a parent of two children currently in SK and grade 2 at Victory Public School. Although I
appreciate the need for a boundary review and the possibility of my children needing to attend
another school there are a few concerns I have with the options and preferred scenario selected for
this boundary review. My first concern is the lack of safe walking route children have to get to the new
school. Currently I live one street over from the school so walking is our norm. Unfortunately even
though the King George is considered walkable for us (2.4km) I do not think it is a safe walk for an 8
year old so my only option will now be to drive my younger child to Victory PS then drive my older
child to King George. From my observation and conversation with other parents the congestion and
amount of traffic will increase at Victory PS and at King George. This will create wait times, parking
challenges and likely concern from the residents near both the schools. Many parents who currently
walk will need to drive due to time constraints on needing to get to work and the fact that they don't
feel it is safe for their children to walk alone. I think a discussion with transportation staff and an
examination of possible increased cars in these neighbourhoods should be a consideration and a
helpful aspect for options presented for this review.
My next concern is that I rely on before and after school care at Victory PS. I understand the new
school has only after school care and that there are a few spaces available but selection is based on a
lottery that you must continue to update each year lending to year to year uncertainty if child care will
be available. The lack of school child care at King George will be a major pressure point for many
parents as many kids in french immersion are currently in Victory PS - before and after school Kids
Club program. I know this is outside the purview of the review but it was not acknowledged in the staff
report and should be as one of the negative impacts of scenario one as grade 4 and 5 students will
still need care.
Thirdly the staff projections seem higher than necessary and without knowing how they came up with
the numbers it is difficult to have a fulsome discussion on possible other scenarios. It would be helpful
for parents and staff to have more time to discuss and understand the projections to be able to
explore other options that would be viable and meet the needs of both schools.
4 October 26 to November 5, 2012 If the projections were higher than need be then more options could be examined e.g. grandfather
current children and limit future enrolment at Victory PS; consider moving just grade 6 students (who
are older and perhaps can more safely find ways to walk or bike to King George school) and a
smaller boundary shift, the current challenges could also be addressed. The current scenario one
seems to be too much with a significant negative impact to the whole neighbourhood and it does
seem possible to develop options that would have a smaller impact to families and children yet still
reduce the enrolment challenges at both schools.
A possible next step could be for staff and parents to have time to do some analysis together and
determine if there are other scenarios/options that can work for everyone. Alternatively based on input
from parents staff may be able to act on some of the suggestions to modify their current analysis and
options. It is clear though, if it would be welcome that there are many parents that would dedicate
their time and expertise to this important initiative.
I appreciate the challenges boundary reviews present and that there are many considerations to
weigh. I want to thank you for your time and commitment to this work.
Best Regards,
October 31, 2012
I think both of these options are an insult to the parent community after enduring the ARC.
Honestly, our children went through many struggles with losing friends and severing
friendships. Some are still struggling two years later (both for students displaced to Paisley
and those still at Victory).
My son is currently in Grade 4 and therefore would move to KG under Scenario 1 for Grade
6. Even though it would only be one year, I would switch my son from FI to English as I do
not feel comfortable with him walking to KG at age 11. And I certainly wouldn't be driving
him daily.
It really is shame that the school board did not listen to the ARC members (the first ARC). It
was clearly brought up during the first ARC that this problem would arise, as there was a
significant increase in FI enrolment, as well as the introduction of Full Day Kindergarten. The
writing was on the wall, the board chose to ignore it and implement a short term bandage to
the problem and now the school is in the same position it was 4 years ago!
Before the Trustees make their decision, I would encouage the Board Staff to survey FI
parents to determine how many would make the switch to English. This community wants a
community school, not a French Immersion school. Have you considered removing FI from
Victory all together?
Thank you,
5 October 26 to November 5, 2012 November 1, 2012
I have confidence that the UGDSB with full knowledge of its resources has studied and reviewed this
matter thoroughly before the two scenarios were put forward. I would support whichever one the
Board elects to proceed with. I was disturbed to get a letter home from the School Council yesterday
which appears to be advancing another proposal. This suggestion does not appear to be supported
by any research or study. Nor does it represent the views of the silent majority of the parents who
support the Board's proposals and therefore chose not to attend the "Parent Meeting" held on October
29th.
November 4, 2011
We agree with the staff recommendation in the report that current Victory Grade 6 students should go
to John McCrae for both Grade 7 and 8, rather than going to John McCrae for 7 and King George
for 8. All Victory parents would agree with that.
Knowing that past decisions on issues in the various review processes have been changed suddenly, it
is crucial to emphasize our support for this recommendation and the importance of the continuity for
students going to one school for grades 7 and 8. Any other option would be unnecessarily disruptive.
We want to confirm this decision that current Victory Grade 6 students will complete both Grades 7
and 8 at John McCrae.
Thanks
November 5, 2012
While I understand the need to reduce enrollment at Victory school, I would prefer that the Board look
at renovations or additional portables first. If cuts to enrollment are ultimatley needed I would only be
fair to move bused students to King George before any other scenario. They are already on a bus,
and they are already separated from their neighbourhood English cohorts. It would be more fair to
move them than others within the walkable Victory neighbourhood. I do not support moving Grade 5
students to King George as they are still too young to be moved from a walkable community
to a big school.
6 November 6th to November 20th In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
King George JK-8 FI 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.
November 7, 2012
•
If renovation is not an option, what is the projected cost to King George portable
deployment? Where does this money come from? How can they assume they’ll have this
money for expansion but not Victory?
•
What are the costs for transportation year over year to King George? What is an
acceptable pay back period if renovation can reduce this OPEX?
•
Why is deploying portables at King George a better option to manage over-runs than
using already deployed portables at VPS?
•
What is the true capacity at Victory including the deployed portables?
•
Is there a driver to remove the already deployed portables at Victory? If so why?
November 8, 2012
I urge the Review Committee to place sufficient weight on how beneficial it is to have children
walk to and from school. It provides children (and parents) excercise and a decreased
association with the car or bus for daily life. It encourages familiarity with their
neighbourhood and neighbourhood recognition of its children (community building). It
decreases the costs associated with bussing. It builds school community when parents meet
and talk at school when dropping off and picking up. Overall the health of the community is
greatly enriched by walking to school. It is so very important. Thannks
November 10, 2012
Has the board considered surveying all Victory families to see whether any of them would
voluntarily choose to move their kids to King George, given the option? It might save a lot of
aggravation.
November 13, 2012
I respect that you, The Boundary Review Committee, have been mandated with a very
challenging task.
Your decision on this matter could have a long term negative impact on a strong and vibrant
community, its economic benefit to the city and the health of its citizens, in particular that of
their children.
1 November 6th to November 20th It is very important that you recognize this process as your opportunity to distinguish
yourselves and set a new standard by broadening the scope of variables to be considered
and collaborating with parents and residents to establish a future path which will not only
maintain this robust community but potentially enrich it further.
Victory Public School and its community has an enviable legacy because of the hard work
and commitment of its citizens and this deserves to be supported.
This is your opportunity to significantly impact your legacy and you have our support.
Respectfully yours,
November 13, 2012
I am a parent of a toddler who will begin full day kindergarten in 2014. My plan is to enroll
my child in the FI program. I recognize the pressures that the board faces in planning for
increased enrollment (and reduced space associated with accommodating full time
kindergarten). However, the proposed re-zoning (and especially Scenario 1 - sending children
enrolled in FI to King George for grades 4-6 instead of Victory) is cause for deep concern. If
Scenario 1 is pursued, young children will be expected to walk through the downtown core to
get to school - a route that crosses several busy streets. More importantly, however, I object
to number-crunching solutions that might be ideal on paper, but result in an outcome that
takes children out of their neighbourhood. Although my daughter is not yet school-aged, I
regularly interact with children in the neighbourhood (on their way to/from school as well as
outside of school hours). The school, and its children, is an integral part of the
neighbourhood. A neighbourhood school promotes safe and healthy lifestyles - interacting
with neighbours, walkability, and community embeddedness. Indeed, our decision to move to
the Exhibition Park neighbourhood last year was strongly influenced by the proximity (and
walkability) of the neighbourhood school, Victory, as well as the strong sense of community in
the area.
Please consider all of the needs and values associated with this decision carefully, and not
just the 'numbers'.
November 13, 2012
Don't relocate our kids. Renovate our school!
November 13, 2012
I am a parent whose children attended Victory in the past. My youngest is now at John F.
Ross. I was involved in the East End Review committee several years ago. I am happy that
the new King George School is a result of that review.
2 November 6th to November 20th I am NOT pleased that Victory is now at risk of losing students. This is a school that has been
threatened with uncertainty many times in the 20 years that I have lived in the
neighbourhood. Don't mess with a good thing. This is a very strong school community. It
provides children with a caring environment. Kids walk to school. A community school has
been proven to be best for kids. There has to be a better solution to the overcrowding. What
about an addition on the newer portion of the school?
November 13, 2012
I love our school and the community that develops between children and parents as we walk
to school and back every day. I would dearly love to see Victory stay a community, dual track
school that accomodates K to 6. It seems that long term projections (2017) show many
schools over capacity. An expansion of Victory School seems like a winning solution.
If expansion is not possible at this time, please consider the impact of a grade 4-6 move to
King George. It will involve drop off and pick up at two schools. I will not be able to walk one
child to King George and one to Victory. The reality is we will have to drive. We will need
before and after school care for our school age children, but now, rather than with a
neighbour or Victory Kids Club for both of my school age children, we will need childcare in
two different places (one near King George and one near Victory).
I hope the board will consider moving grade 6 students in both tracks as a solution to
enrollment pressure at Victory. If that is not sufficient, I wonder if the best solution is not to
move children who are already bused. Please keep our kids walking to school until they are
old enough to navigate to King George independently!
November 13, 2012
My concern is having children going into grade 6 and grade 3 in 2014 and having them in
separate schools for years!! Both are presently in the FI program and of course ideally having
them together is important. However, dividing communities is also very difficult. I honestly
do not know what the best option is. For our situation I'm leaning toward moving grade 4-6
FI to King George as my children would only go to different schools for 1 year. At least by
moving grades friendships that have been developed can continue.
thanks for reading
November 14, 2012
I support Scenario 1 as it provides a reasonable solution while maintaining a dual track
community school to the extent possible. Grade 4 is a natural transition and having a strong
senior FI program will benefit students instead of it loosing steam as English is introduced and
the natural effects of dual track school interfere with true immersion in french. However, it is
3 November 6th to November 20th critical that the Bus eligibility be strongly reviewed as indicated! The route is potentially
hazardous.
November 14, 2012
The Province of Ontario’s Places to Grow Act (2005), in which Guelph is specifically named
as a place of growth, declares the need to create “compact urban forms” and “intensification
areas that will be planned and designed to support transit, walking, and cycling for everyday
activities”. It also specifically notes that “investment in community infrastructure… such as
schools… should be planned to keep pace with changing needs and to promote more
complete communities”(Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 Office
Consolidation, January 2012, p.23). In light of this Provincial Act, and its intent to
coordinate planning across jurisdictions such as provincial/municipal/local boards, I would
like to know why the board staff have recommended solutions that fracture an existing
community and create a situation in which there will almost certainly be increased bussing
and driving, thereby working against the Provincial Act. Why, when the province and the city
are both focussing on creating stronger, denser communities and decreasing traffic loads,
would there not be a long-term plan within the school board that would work in the same
direction? Thank you for your time.
November 14, 2012
I've read the FAQ's and reports, and been to a limited number of meetings.
I have two questions that I feel have not been addressed, both having to do with safety.
Question 1 - I took some time to tour the exterior of King George PS. I am not happy about
the size and quality of the grounds there. Visually it seems like a very small space for the
proposed number of children, with very little equipment to guide activities. The 'grass' area
will quickly lose all vegetation when the full amount of students arrive, becoming a mud pit in
wet times and a rock hard dust bowl in dry times. Also, I understand that the contingency
plan at King George is to have 6 portables. Your FAQ's about Victory decry portables
because they take up valuable space and create blind spots impossible to supervise. I would
like to know the outside area available to students at King George, with and without
portables. I would also like to see a drawn up exterior plan of King George including 6
portables, and an accompanying safety plan concerning blind spots. I would like to know if
the Board has a policy for minimum number of square metres of space per child during
recess. I would like to see a comparison of square metres of space per child at recess at
100% capacity for King George compared to Victory, and an analysis of the safety and
psychological / development consequences therein.
Question 2 - What does the board feel is the proper age for a child to
walk home on his or her own from a bus stop. I see buses travel close to my street, so I
understand that my child will have to cross Exhibition street. I have 2 children 2 years apart.
4 November 6th to November 20th Under Scenario 1, my grade 4 son will go to KG, and my grade 2 daughter will go to Victory.
When I am bringing my grade 2 daughter to and from school, that means my grade 4 son
must get himself to and from his bus stop independantly, and then wait at home for us to get
there. Does the Board consider it at all appropriate for a grade 4 (8 years old at the
beginning of the school year) to cross Exhibition st, walk home and be at home by himself?
Does F&CS have the same view of this situation as the Board, or is the Board forcing parents
into a situation where they will be in conflict with F&CS? How has the Board reached it's
conclusions as to what age is safe and psychologically appropriate to walk home and be at
home by him/herself?
I fully expect answers to these questions on an update FAQ document, and as a direct
response to my email. Thank you.
November 14, 2012
I appreciate the work and analysis of the staff at the ugdsb in looking at this issue. However, I
believe more scenarios should be assessed to maintain the local integrity of the victory p.s.
french immersion population. I, like many other parents, will consider transferring my child to
the english stream at victory p.s. in order to keep my two children at the same elementary
school. I note that reviews of the english program or additional infrastructure were not
considered when assessing the options. Thank you for considering my comments during your
public input process.
November 14, 2012
I am a Victory Public school parent! I was like to voice my concern with respect to the current
King George boundary review, which is a short term solution to a long term issue. I would
implore the board to think of alternatives to moving our children out of their neighbourhood
school. I would support the use of portables as an alternative to moving the 4,5,6 grades to
King George. If this not possible, please consider moving all the grade 6's both English and
French so all the children can stay at Victory through grade 5 together with their cohorts! Our
school is vital part of our community please respect when you come to ultimate decision.
Thank-you.
November 15, 2012
I am a parent of two English students attending Victory. I am concerned about the
suggestions being put forth to the board by some of the parents at Victory.
I don't like the ideas of more portables on an already small playground and limited
washroom space - or turning the library into more classrooms.
5 November 6th to November 20th I do understand the concern about the distance to King George. Buses should be available. I
don't understand the resistance to sending children to a brand new, beautiful school.
Exhibition Park is a vibrant, generous and friendly community. Our children will continue to
play in the parks, go skating at the arena and ride their bikes in the streets regardless of
where they are attending school. I don't agree that these boundary changes are 'destabilizing
our community', it may make us even better.
November 20, 2012
Hello. Your office has shared with some parents the average costs of running a school bus
for a year ($40k), and of getting a portable ready for use ($20k). Thank you for that
information; I have a few questions of clarification, if you don’t mind.
I assume the annual school bus cost includes salary, insurance & licensing, repairs and fuel.
Does it also include the purchase price amortized over a reasonable lifetime, or is that price
isolated in another budget stream? Of the $40k running cost, approximately what
percentage of that is fuel cost – which is likely to be the most vulnerable to sudden inflation?
Comparatively, does the cost of bringing a portable ‘online’ reflect an *annual* running cost
(utilities/insurance/maintenance), or are there one-time hook-up costs included in that
~$20k? Approximately what percentage of these are energy bills (and therefore most
vulnerable to sudden inflation)?
Thank you for your time.
November 20, 2012
Hi,
To begin, I would like to say that we DO NOT support the proposed Scenario 2 – Victory
JK 6 FI Boundary Change. Scenario 1 is more appropriate.
My family and I are moving to the Victory Public School area in January and one of the
reasons we chose this area was the proximity to Victory Public School for our 2 children. We
are moving to a house on the north side of Division st and were very disturbed to discover
that this side of the street could be reassigned to King George.
We believe this is a terrible solution as it means that any friends of our children who live on
the south side of our street will be attending a different school than our children degrading
the sense of community that we hoped to enjoy in this area.
Why is the boundary splitting a street? We do not understand the logic here as it seems to
make more sense to set the boundary to all streets north of Division and not split a street.
Regards,
6 November 21st to November 30th In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence with regard to the
King George JK-8 FI 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.
November 21, 2012
Chairperson Borden & Electoral area City of Guelph trustees:
I am writing to register my concerns regarding the most recent discussions regarding Victory
public school as relates to the King George population/numbers review.
As you are all aware – people with young children choose their neighbourhood in no small
part based on the school they believe their kids are going to be attending. My family is no
exception. We have 2 kids at Victory in grade 3 and grade 1 French immersion. We love our
street, neighbourhood and think the school is pretty good too. We are not unreasonable
people – obviously sometimes things change and budgets and other limitations have to be
considered.
At the same time it seems there has been almost non-stop disruption – the ARC process no
sooner came to a close and here we are again. It is time consuming, distracting and
exhausting for everyone. The scenario that has grade 4, 5 and 6 students heading to King
George seems ill conceived in a number of ways. Grade 4 is too young to be at that school,
busing children who currently walk to school is not in the best interests of students, and no
hard numbers have been offered up to show whether the board will be saving or losing
money on that option. The part that really makes it impossible to swallow is the complete
absence of a long term plan for Victory. People can cope with disruption if they can
understand how it relates to the bigger picture. Thus far I have not seen or heard anything
that demonstrates how this moving 4, 5 and 6 FI to King George is good for Victory school or
its students and families in the long run. In fact, it sounds like we'll be back at this in 2 years'
time if the numbers on King George being over-capacity in 2014 are correct.
There are a significant number of families considering switching their kids to English track. My
husband and I are currently visiting private schools in Guelph; we are not the only ones. If my
kids are going to have to get on a bus then I'd like some inkling as to where they might be
going to school in 2- 3 years time and I value having them at the same school. We are not
squeaky wheel people but we are not prepared to have the question of where the kids will be
going to school keep coming up every 2 years. It looks as though Victory may be able to
cope with its current and projected numbers. Students and families should not be
disadvantaged by being shipped out of the neighbourhood if the board is not prepared to lay
out a 5-10 year plan for Victory. Parents have to make important decisions about their kids'
education – we need information and some reasonable level of certainty to do that. Right
now the board looks as if it is making decisions on an ad hoc basis. This does not give
1 November 21st to November 30th parents a level of comfort that things are being well managed according to a long term plan.
If we cannot get a reasonable level of certainty from this board we'll may have to pay to get it
from a private institution – this will be extremely disappointing given the taxes we pay and our
personal beliefs in the importance of a strong public education system.
I'd welcome your perspectives on how you are planning to vote on this issue,
Best regards,
November 21, 2012
As I understand, the capacity at Victory does not include the 3 portables that are currently
sitting on site. Can we not use the 3 portables that the board has left there for years to help
with capacity? I understand that this is still a bit tight on capacity. Can we not then move
grade 6 French students to King George to eleviate the final capacity issue? This will allow
the community to stay together and grade 6 students are going to King George the next year
anyway. In the future it has already been stated that King George will be above capacity.
Taking grade 6 means they can easily be moved back to Victory when this happens. This
temporary move can also mean that in 2014 Victory can go through its own review when the
planning time has more time to deal with it. This will allow time to look at an addition to the
school that would see the current addition removed. Removing this addition would allow for
a new addition with a smaller footprint due to the fact that we could make it a 2 or 3 story
which would increase the playground space, provide a larger and more useable gym and
create accessibility (which would conform to the new accessibility laws and allow students with
accessibility constraints to stay at their local school with friends and siblings). The planning
department stated that the Ministry would not allow for funding if they could not prove there
wasn't space somewhere else and they say there is at King George. However, when Victory
would go under its own review the implementation period of that plan would be at the point
that King George would be at/over capacity so the board could prove that there isn't room
somewhere else.
Please do not tear our community apart for a short-term solution!
November 21, 2012
Please keep the kids in our area going to Victory school. We do not have kids yet but we
moved to this area (we live on Barton St.) so that our kids could go to Victory, not be bused
somewhere else!
November 21, 2012
My son attended Victory from K - 6. A child needs a school in his community that he can
attend by walking. Having a neighbourhood school allowed my son to build friendships that
2 November 21st to November 30th continued as he moved to Willow Rd. And..the annual Dessert Party brings the
neighbourhood together even if your child has graduated and is attending another school.
November 21, 2012
Now that we have progrssed a little further along with this, I really feel strongly that the long
term solution here is to properly renovate Victory to allow a long term dual track school that is
a cornerstone of this neighborhood. I will happily tolerate a short term (say, 1 year) disruption
of my kids (say, by sending them to King George for the year) while Victory is renovated to
last for the next 50 years. I am astonished by the number of reviews and moving kids around
that has taken place over the years -- it is time to end the madness! Please, make this happen
-- it is clearly the most sensible, sustainable solution.
November 21, 2012
I have done an analysis of the playground of King George PS vs. Victory PS, based on
satellite images and site plans. My analysis focuses on the issue of crowding on the schoolyard at recess. I measured Victory's yard using satellite images, including the 3 portables in
existence. At 100% capacity, children at Victory enjoy an average of 18.6 square metres of
space. I measured King George based on site plans, with no portables. At 100% capacity,
each child enjoys 13.3 square metres. In Report 2, Scenario 1, in 2017 King George is
projected to be at 565 children, and the plan stated is to install 6 portables. Taking away the
space taken by portables, each child in 2017 at King George will enjoy 10.8 square metres
of space, or 58% of the space they enjoy at Victory.
Victory has no serious aggression issues of which I am aware. Increasing crowding on the
schoolyard by 42% is certain to increase aggressive behaviour in the children. Other factors
on the King George yard that will increase aggressive behaviours are the lack of trees
(increasing the temperature during hot times), increased audience because of the higher
population, decreased supervisability because of 6(!) portables, lowered level of relationship
with any given supervising staff (because of higher population), lower level of relationships
between children (because of geography of catchment area), lack of suggested activities
because there is very little equipment, and the height level of the existing equipment
reinforces a hierarchical or peking order structure among the chilren.
Please please please reject the idea of putting 6 portables on the King George yard. This will
take your down the ability for King George to go over capacity, and therefore it will no longer
be desirable to include Victory in this boundary review. Since there is already a plan, there is
obviously money earmarked for these six portables. Switch that money to a portapack at
Victory. That solves the following problems: overcrowding at King George, the need for
further boundary review at King George, your current fight with Victory parents, your future
fight with the same parents.
November 22, 2012
3 November 21st to November 30th I recently purchased a home on Edgehill Dr., and the option of sending my son to Victory was
definitely part of the purchasing decision. 1 month later, I find that I may not be able to send
him there next year. Please reconsider your decision to simply bus kids to another school.
There has to be a better option!
November 22, 2012
I am friends with a student and his family at Victory P.S. in Guelph. All students at Victory
deserve the right to attend their neighbourhood school. I am also a teacher and
fundamentally disagree with the funding formula determined by the province and followed
through by school boards which end up closing many small community schools. Schools are
not just schools, they are community centres where we gather to better our neighbourhoods
and cities. We built these schools with our taxes dollars and we should keep them as valuable
resources in our communities. Shipping students further away (because of a boundary
change) is not in their best educational interest. Walking to school (role modelling
environmental sustainability) and learning alongside immediate neighbours are foundations
to building strong communities and in the best interest of our children.
November 22, 2012
As a former teacher with 30 years experience in the classroom I can say with certainty that
smaller schools, rooted in their community are a better way to serve out kids. Victory is a fine
example of this model.
If we really care about our kids, as we say we do (Putting kids first ...!) then we need to
examine what method of delivery does this. Bussing them, or making them walk across busy
steets, taking them out of their neighbourhoods, splitting them from their siblings... really? Let
some sanity prevail.
Victory is a gem. Preserve it.
November 22, 2012
I believe that victory school should be protected as it is and not changed, it will destroy the
community that has been created over so many years. Please don't change what works.
November 23, 2012
It has become very clear that any decision regarding uprooting children between schools and
neighbourhood communities should not be a rushed or rash one. In reading all the
communications mixed information and unexplored possibilities making a decision in the next
few weeks with so much citizen confusion and stress would be very unwise. This process
should be slowed down.
4 November 21st to November 30th November 23, 2012
Can we do a business case for a renovation at Victory PS?
A business case for the renovation of Victory PS is not a realistic proposal. The Board has no
capital funds that have not been committed elsewhere, there are no additional dollars
available from the Province and the Board could not complete a major renovation at Victory
prior to September 2014 given the number of projects planned and underway.
How much would the renovation cost? What about getting the community involved to help
fundraising?
November 25, 2012
I do not support the boundary review. This FI affects students at Victory School and removes
the option of a neighbourhood, walkable school community for FI students who currently go
to Victory.
November 25, 2012
I am concerned about this review, it doesn't make sense.
The short term goals "achieved" by both options are not in scale with the disruptions they will
cause. The disruptions are significant for outcomes that may or may not materialize -- or if
they do, not for long, according to your own projections.
Is it your medium-term intention to sell Victory?
This review is just a numbers game.
We deserve better.
It doesn't seem to have outcomes in mind apart from getting students shifted around. That's it.
Surely you are more invested in outcomes than suggested by this review.
Both options are horrible. They stand to pit one street against another -- in the same
neighhourhood. Or they stand to pit English stream against French Immersion.
Imagine the investment families have made to have their children attend a neighbourhood
school. That was a key value that determined many decisions in investing in a home near
Victory. Those same parents make considerable contributions, in any number of ways, in
support of the education system. How much do you think that will happen once they are split
between two schools? How much do you think that will happen if they then made the decision
to move?
5 November 21st to November 30th Do you think your projections will hold? Do you think you have an accurate idea of just how
expensive this will be for the school system, for its outcomes?
What are your assumptions about how parents will respond to a change and w
hat are your assumptions about what the cost of it will be?
As it stands, my daughter is going to be impacted by Bad Option 1 or Bad Option 2. The
punch line, as you heard me say at the open forum, is she will have to walk past the school
across from her house, crossing two busy roads, along traffic with basically no sidewalk
separation from it, with a real possibility of attending school in a portable in some other
neighbourhood.
Does that seem like a good outcome to you?
My daughter is doing well, but I can only imagine the additional stress in a family if so much
hangs on whether or not the student in the family is doing well in school.
Does that seem like a good outcome to you? On top of everything else families have to worry
about?
I will close by reiterating that this seems to be mostly a numbers game, but I will add that it
doesn't bode well for public education, that a successful school like Victory be tossed aside
like this.
November 25, 2012
This is one of the most absurd undertakings this school board has been part of in recent
history. Here you have Victory Public School - A neighbourhood walking school with a strong
school community and parent council. Your plans (both of them) stand to pit neighbour
against neighbour. But as a testament to the strength of this school community - it hasn't.
The school community is standing united to say enough is enough. This school and this
neighbourhood is worth investing in. In the long term it is worth a renovation to
accommodate the addition of full day JK/SK (for which there are provincial dollars). In the
short-term, it is surely worth a couple of portables in the school grounds versus sending our
young children 2 kilometres across two busy roads just so they can (likely) be housed in
portables in your ill-conceived plan. The families in this neighbourhood are here for the
purpose of having their children attend their neighbourhood school. We have all gone to
great lengths, great investment and great care to have our children attend a school in their
own neighbourhood because it is of the utmost importance to us. How can you possibly
project the attendance of either Victory or King George (or other schools for that matter ie.
6 November 21st to November 30th John McCrae) when you clearly do not understand the will of our families to have our
children attend a school in their neighbourhood? Even if that means moving.
November 26, 2012
I feel like lots of the concern for parents revolves around not being able to walk their children
to school. Could the Victory kids who would be sent to King George be transported daily
from Victory to King George and back at the end of the day. I feel like that would address the
issue of one drop off location, people could still walk, before and after school programs at
Victory could still be used and the board would get the number balance they require. Thanks
for your work on this.
November 27, 2012
I'm a parent of 2 current & 1 future student at Victory Public School, and it seems obvious to me that
Victory school needs to permanently end boundary reviews. I think the best way to do this is with a
renovation.
In 2010, my family moved directly across Exhibition Park from Victory School. The woman who grew
up in this house told me that thirty years ago, she also was in several boundary reviews and moved
schools three times.
After kindergarten at Victory she was sent to Paisley in grade one, to Brighton School in grade three,
and then back to Victory for grades five and six.
A friend told me that an 80 year old neighbour remembers getting reassigned twice while she was in
elementary school – she started at Victory, was moved away, and then sent back to Victory a few years
later.
A 91 year old previous principal of Victory told another parent that he remembers classes being set up
on the gym stage in high population years. Other years, he fought to keep Victory open when the
numbers were too low.
Clearly, capacity is a longstanding issue for Victory School.
It must be very expensive for the Board to keep doing all these reviews. The time and energy you are
all
devoting to this one, multiplied by another one by 2017 when King George would be full (and Victory
will have space again) to move our kids back to Victory, is immense. Not to mention confusion and
annoyance for children, teachers and parents.
I think it is obvious that we would all be better off if Victory was made just a little bit bigger. There
aren't new houses being built in in our neighbourhood. Families move in, but not that frequently (it
took us over a year to find a house in the area, for example) -- and families move out as well.
If you look at the school grounds, it would be quite straightforward to simply knock down the
kindergarten wing and rebuild a two or three story "box". This could match the original school
beautifully. It could increase yard space (the current addition is very awkwardly positioned at an angle
and wastes a lot of outdoor space – and we'd no longer need portables). It could easily make the
school accessible. It would be a model of a green, sustainable, affordable way to maintain and
modernize an historic, downtown school. You could become a provincial best practice of how to do
this.
7 November 21st to November 30th It is the right thing to do. In the long run it will also be the cheapest thing to do (no need for portables,
buses, reviews every three to five years). The original building is going to stand for another hundred
years at least.
Built properly, so will an addition. The Victory population will be stable at last, as a proper, dual track,
community, sustainable school.
You've said the capital budget is committed til 2014. That's perfect – it gives us all time to plan this
addition proposal properly, working together with Board staff & Victory parents. Using the empty
portables at Victory will give us enough space in the meantime, as our parent delegations are telling
you. I am eager to hear your opinion on this. Please let me know any barriers you see to this plan.
November 27, 2012
After such a long, arduous accommodation review process in which the board agreed to keep the
English track program at Victory, I find it disturbing that a board member was quoted as saying that
the English program is not viable there. If that is what the board believes to be true, perhaps it needs
to be revisited. Otherwise, seeing as how a program cannot be eliminated under the current boundary
review, I fail to see how these comments are helpful.
November 27, 2012
I am concerned by the short sighted suggestions for the King George boundary review. The initial
report spoke to a need to relieve overcrowding at Paisley road, John McCrae and Victory schools as
well as bring more children to King George School. However, both your suggestions seem drastic in
the number of students you want to cut out of Victory either by removing 3 grade levels or by shrinking
the boundary area again. Did you know some of the people living on Division St can actually see the
Victory school yard from their homes? Why cut so many children when it is not necessary to meet
capacity guidelines? Both of your suggestions also end up creating an overcrowding concern for King
George within 3 years of the implementation. The suggestion of then using portables at King George
doesn’t make sense when there are already portables set up at Victory that could be used to address
over capacity concerns as they have in the past. The portables could be used in the short term until a
longer term strategy and plan is developed for all French immersion schools facing overcrowding in
Guelph.
I am also concerned that the South French Immersion schools review is not being reviewed in tandem
to the north French immersion review as this would be an opportunity to look at the French immersion
boundary and capacity concerns overall. It would also have provide for more creative strategies
overall.
Even though this is not happening I thin
k my suggestion would address concerns for the north French immersion review as well as fit in to any
south French immersion review. My suggestion is that instead of making a drastic cut at one school,
place all north Guelph French immersion students attending grade 6, 7 & 8 at King George? Create
a grade 6, 7 & 8 North French immersion boundary for King George and then tie that into the south
French immersion review. This alleviates some pressure at Paisley, Victory and John McCrae. It also
seems like it would be less of an impact on the students and their community school in that the
children who would already be moving to King George for grade 7&8 would only be switching
schools a year earlier. Let the kids in John McCrae who are there for grade 7 in 2013 stay and finish
grade 8 in 2014 and divert everyone else in the north boundary to King George for 6, 7 & 8 in 2014.
If through the south end review it is decided that John McCrae kids should be considered south
instead of North then my suggestion would still stand but with the removal of John McCrae students.
8 November 21st to November 30th The second part of my suggestion is to set up individual school reviews for French immersion and dual
track schools that still have ongoing capacity concerns. These reviews would look at longer term
strategies and solutions and be a process that fully engages the school community being affected.
Thank you
November 27, 2012
I trust that UGDSB is making decisions in the best interest of all of its community members and not
only those members from neighbourhood groups. Victory parents, like parents in some other Guelph
neighbourhoods, have been lucky to have the option of two publicly funded education systems (the
French stream and the English stream) within walking distance to their homes (an option many
UGDSB residents have not had). When difficult decisions must be made about relocating children
because of enrollment pressures, the most community-oriented decision involves moving French
stream children to a single tract French immersion school that has been built for this purpose.
Community schools should embrace the full spectrum of their community members–which is what the
English stream is committed to. Research shows that the majority of students from French immersion
programs will eventually end up in the English stream, so supporting the English stream in
neighbourhood schools is essential. If a neighbourhood school within walking distance is a priority,
students in the Victory neighbourhood will have the option of attending a socially and academically
inclusive education system housed in Victory’s English stream.
November 28, 2012
The first scenario swiflty pulls off the "Band-Aid"
I do feel for my neighbours and community; however I do trust the UGDSB has studied these
scenarios before putting them forward and has a complete understanding of the available
resources.
This decision needs to happen soon as there is a noticeable tension affecting our Victory
Class roooms and our community.
My family moved to the Exhibition Park area so that my son could go to Victory school. We
had done some research and found that it is one of the best schools in Guelph. Furthermore,
we want to pursue the French stream, another factor that helped us decide to move here.
Unfortunately we live on the wrong side of Division, yet still south of Speedvale. I do not feel
comfortable putting my son on a bus to travel across the city to go to school. I love this
neighborhood and want to stay here, but feel inclined to move if the boundary review decides
to adopt the new boundaries.
My suggestion would be to expand the boundaries to ones that make sense. Please consider
all of the families living south of Speedvale that are so close to the school. It doesn't make
sense to send these children across the city to attend elementary school.
Thank you.November 29, 2012
9 November 21st to November 30th November 29, 2012
Assuming the projected enrollment numbers for Victory PS can be believed to be reasonable,
I understand that the UGDSB faces a difficult challenge in trying to accommodate a growing
student population.
As a parent of a young child, I moved into this area with the intent/hope of enrolling my son
in FI at Victory in a few years.
To that end, I realize a significant segment of residents within Victory PS' current boundaries
are going to be upset regardless of the decision made by the board. Nonetheless, I would
like to throw my support behind the Staff's preferred scenario that would see all Grade 4-6 FI
students attend King George PS while JK-3 FI students remain at Victory.
And while some part of me really questions the existence of a school that can only serve
students up to grade 3 in a given track, I personally would prefer that my then 4 year old son
can be walked to a school less than 700 metres from my house instead of bussed past that
school en route to one that is 3KM away.
And I realize eventually he would be bussed to King George in any scenario, I think it makes
for less disruption if between JK-3 if he needs to be withdrawn from FI and enrolled in the
regular track because doesn't need to also change schools/routines.
In closing, thank you for accepting my feedback. I do not envy the position the board and
trustees are in to have to make these decisions, but do appreciate being provide
d such an easy avenue through which to void my opinion.
November 30, 2012
As the parents of children who will begin French Immersion classes at Victory PS in 2014 and
2016, we recognize that the Board is faced with the difficulties presented by implementing
Full Day Kindergarten. Having said that, we cannot support either of the scenarios put
forward to date by staff. We urge the members of the Board to strongly consider the input
provided by the parent delegations and work with them to find a solution that is aligned with
the values of the community. Victory PS is the cornerstone of the Exhibition Park
neighbourhood and its contribution to the high quality of life enjoyed by its families cannot be
overstated. Fracturing its population would be a great disservice to the residents that you
have been elected to represent.
Chief among our concerns is the loss of a safe, walkable route to school for our children.
The 2.4km to King George PS would require crossing London Rd., Woolwich St., and
Eramosa Rd., in addition to the Speed River. The distance is such that we, as working
parents, would not be able to afford the time required to walk our children to school and
10 November 21st to November 30th would be forced to drop them off or rely on bus service. Our children would have one less
opportunity to partake in a healthy active lifestyle. Our opportunity to form relationships with
other parents in the schoolyard would be lost.
With respect to the responses provided by the Board thus far to questions raised by parents,
we are particularly disappointed with the Board’s position on the use of portables. While
portables do not provide a permanent solution to the capacity problems before us, the reality
is that they are currently available onsite at Victory PS and acknowledging their effect on its
true capacity would afford us the time needed to consider solutions for the longer term. And
although the Board and its staff have stated that portables shall not be considered when
looking at the capacity of Victory PS, their own projections have shown that they will be
necessary at King George PS within a few short years (with or without the inclusion of students
from Victory PS) and that this is “acceptable.” The Board must choose one set of rules by
which to play.
It is our understanding that in acknowledgement of the enrollment pressures brought on by
FDK, the Ministry of Education has provided funding to the Board to be directed towards
infrastructure improvements and that the Board has allocated $400,000 for renovations at
Victory PS. It is also our understanding that the proposed renovations would reduce the onthe-ground capacity of Victory PS from 317 students to 294. We feel that this is not in the
spirit of the funding provided by the MoE. We urge the Board to revisit this decision and
consider only renovations that would alleviate the enrollment pressures brought on by FDK,
not compound them.
In closing, we feel that the scenarios presented to date are not acceptable. We urge you to
act in accordance with the overwhelming feedback presented to you by the community and
remove Victory PS from the current boundary review.
November 30, 2012
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the King George Boundary Review, and
specifically the Scenarios involving Victory Public School. I currently have two children
enrolled at Victory, in French Immersion Grade 3 and French Immersion Grade 1, and one
younger child.
Scenario 1, which recommends moving all FI students in grades 4-6 from Victory to King
George in 2014, would fundamentally change Victory Public School. It would prevent the
small number of English track Grade 4-6 students from having a robust cohort in their age
range. As their numbers are quite small, I could foresee that the number of field trips, guest
speakers, and other extracurricular events aimed towards the students in Grades 4-6 would
also decrease. I also believe that moving the majority of Grade 4-6 students to King George
does a disservice to the JK-3 students in both the English and French Immersion tracks as it
greatly reduces the number of older students who serve as role models for them. As a parent,
I have serious concerns about the safety of the walk from the Exhibition Park neighbourhood
11 November 21st to November 30th to King George. The walk includes crossing two very busy streets (Woolwich and Eramosa)
and going up and down a steep hill on Eramosa. Although I support in theory the idea of
students walking to school, the reality is that I would not hesitate to drive my children to and
from King George due to safety concerns. Under Scenario 1, the community disadvantages
(a weaker program for Grades 4-6 at Victory, less contact at Victory between younger
students and older students) and the personal disadvantages, should my family choose to
keep our children in French Immersion (more driving, less contact with teachers, safety
concerns, siblings at different schools) are great, while the advantages (removal of portables
at Victory, though the use of portables at King George would be a strong possibility in a few
years) are small.
Scenario 2, which recommends adjusting the boundary for attending Victory, is even more
problematic than Scenario 1. It recommends moving children who currently live three to four
blocks away (north of Division Street) from Victory to King George, and it also reduces the
boundaries for Victory P.S. by more than 50%. By sending children who live so close to
Victory to another school, this scenario does not support the idea of community-based
schooling. Furthermore, while a smaller boundary might solve projected enrollment pressures
in the short-term, I believe that the smaller boundary might eventually lead to a too-small
school which would be in danger of closing. There are no projected areas of housing growth
within the boundary, and many families stay in the neighbourhood for many years. Although
we currently have many primary-school-aged children in our neighbourhood right now, I
would predict a drop in primary-school-aged children in our neighbourhood in the future. In
sum, I believe that Scenario 2 would lead to, at best, further boundary shifts in three or four
years, and, at worst, the closing of the school within ten to fifteen years.
Instead of choosing either Scenario 1 or 2, I urge you to:
First, grant more time to making a decision regarding Victory Public School in the King
George Boundary Review. I was shocked that the Boundary Review proposal (i.e., Scenarios
1 and 2) was not made public until mid-October, and that comments will be closed as of
November 30. This timeframe is not adequate for enabling the community to fully
understand and explore all options regarding school population changes.
Second, reconsider the projected population trends within the current Victory boundaries.
Although Report #2 (dated October 16, 2012) states on page 5 that Victory may be
“approximately 100 students over its 294 OTG Capacity,” the projected enrollment trends
are estimates, which could be much higher than actual numbers. The projected
overpopulation by 100 students also does not take into account the three portables currently
onsite at Victory. While having portables is not ideal, it is much more preferable to have and
use three portables during times of high enrollment than to dramatically shift the Victory
school population, either by age range (Scenario 1) or geographic area (Scenario 2).
Third, engage with the Victory community in considering long-term, viable plans for the
school. Neither Scenario 1 nor 2 will lead to a healthy, vibrant school in the long term. If
12 November 21st to November 30th Victory will truly be faced with serious enrollment pressures, I believe that more modest steps,
such as the temporary shifting of Grade 6 (and possibly Grade 5) for one or two years to
King George, would be an idea worth exploring. I would also welcome the opportunity to
consider renovations and an expansion at Victory to meet both long-term enrollment
pressures and accessibility guidelines.
In summary, I urge you to recommend neither proposed Scenario 1 nor 2, and to reconsider
the role of Victory Public School in the King George Boundary Review.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.
November 30, 2012
Parents are asking for long term planning and at the same time requesting to be a part of the
process. I believe the situation we are in is a direct result of the parent involvement during
the ARC. If the dual track model is not viable at schools across Guelph then no amount of
pressure should have kept a very small and declining regular track program at Victory. This
current boundary review proposes two very awkward scenarios where both the FI and regular
track students lose. Please remove us from the current boundary review and use a wider
scope when evaluating the capacity issues at Victory PS and the schools around us.
November 30, 2012
Scenario 1 has grade 4 children (as young as 8 years old) going to King George. Many
families, dozens of families, will have grade 4 children going to King George, and younger
children going to Victory. They will have no choice but to walk their young children to and
from Victory, and require their grade 4 children to independantly get themselves to and from
school, whether that means walking to school (across Eramosa) or getting on a bus. The
problem in either case is that 8 years old is much too young to expect children to be
independant. In the best case (ie children being bussed to King George), these children will
get off the bus and walk themselves home, let themselves in, and remain at home by
themselves, waiting for their parents to get home from picking up children at Victory. That
will be my situation in 2015, when my own son is in grade 4 and my daughter is in grade 2.
I know the board's official position is that parents are responsible for getting their own
childcare. That is a fine statement, on an individual level. But Scenario 1 forces dozens of
families into the same situation, in need of a small amount of childcare (approx 1/2 hour per
day, every day). As a system, as a community, there is not capacity for this. It will not
happen. Yes, a few families will have family members able and willing to cover the time.
This will come at a great sacrifice for them. (By the way, Full Day Kindergarten was meant to
give lower income families a greater opportunity for income, but Scenario 1 puts an
additional huge burden on these same families) A few others will be able to find a willing,
somewhat reliable teenager in their neighbourhood to babysit. But the majority will not be
able to resolve the situation, and will be forced to rely on their 8 and 9 year old children to
13 November 21st to November 30th be independant. If you don't believe me, ask your HR people how they would feel about
being required to hire 20-30 people to each work 1/2 hour each day.
I've been informed by staff that there is no legislation in Ontario mandating at what age a
child can be independant. Surely that doesn't mean they find it acceptable for children to be
independant at any age!! Family and Children's Services has declared that an appropriate
age for children to be home by themselves is 10 years old. Scenario 1 puts dozens of
families in conflict with Family and Children's Services. For families already in contact with
F&CS, this will result in some of them having their children taken away, since they do not
have the resources to comply with both F&CS policies and UGDSB's unrealistic demands
under Scenario 1. For other families, families that are too 'nice' to be already in contact with
F&CS, this will result in actual dangerous situations every single day for young children who
are very much too young and too immature to be able to handle themselves at home with no
supervision.
This is probably why grades k-6 have traditionally not been separated.
I've been informed that planning staff did not consult F&CS about this proposition. This is
abhorent! It feels to me that planning staff have failed to take child safety into account at all
in regards to this review, always passing the responsability to others (the bus consortium and
parents). But their proposal places demands on the system that the system can not tolerate.
UGDSB decisions should ALWAYS make it easier for the community to keep children safe, not
unreasonably harder.
Conclusion: Scenario 1 will result in children being removed from their homes by F&CS, and
other children being injured or developing unhealthy relationships while their parents pick up
their younger siblings.
Please rescind the proposal of Scenario 1. Please don't make boundary decisions that
systematically put children in danger. This should be obvious.
November 30, 2012
My wife and I and our 7y, 4y, and 2y children are new (3 months) to the exhibition park area
because we purposely moved from the edges of Guelph to live in this specific neighborhood.
One of the main reasons for moving into the Victory area was the quality of the school
offering french immersion, the commitment of the people in the neighborhood, the school's
use of exhibition park, and to eliminate the need to bus our 3 kids to a school. Victory has a
reputation which is very valued and sought after by the parents of Guelph. I should know, I
as born and raised in Guelph. After living in a new subdivision of Guelph where most of the
children are bused to several distant schools, I have learned that there is significant value in
having a community school that is fully supported by engaged, supportive and collaborative
parents. In my opinion this community engagement is hard to achieve in today's climate of
dual working parents and general fiscal restraint by government and families. Therefore it is
very important to foster it within our city and the UGDSB at large.
I have considerable experience in both industry and academia and very often poor decisions
are made by committees when they rigidly adhere to a set of perceived constraints which have
14 November 21st to November 30th not been adequately verified. This often results in making decisions within silos of
responsibility because to do otherwise disrupts the system and the decision makers are feeling
pressured to demonstrate progress as they fulfill their responsibilities. Accepting a quick fix
using short term solutions to systemic or long term problems does not improve the system or
benefit the people using the system. It only demonstrates a decision was made and
unfortunately the responsibility for proper execution quick fix is passed on to another team of
people. Complex problems require complex solutions. Simple solutions to complex problems
often result in the ineffective or out right wasted use of scare resources. As a former instructor
of total quality management in industry, I can tell you that there is always a price to pay for
choosing the quick fix over a good long term plan. It can be difficult to quantify that price but
sometimes leadership is shown when they follow their gut instincts.
My wife and I do not understand the downside of removing Victory from the King George
French Immersion boundary review since it does not BUMP or affect other children. We are
not asking for others to accept discomfort so we don't have to. We are asking that you
maximize the benefits of keeping a community together when that community is willing to
make large efforts to help the UGDSB reach a solution acceptable to all the stakeholders of
the entire Victory School area.
Delegates have presented several ideas to reduce or eliminate the disruption to the
children/parents of the the Victory School catchment area and I am sure your planning staff
have many more. My goal is to maximize the safety and educational development of all the
children attending Victory within the constraints of the community, the UGDSB and the local
economy.
Long term planning always takes more effort and there is always the risk that the plan cannot
be executed as desired but you will always maximize "buy-in" if the stakeholders can be fully
engaged in the process and sufficient time is provided to develop novel solutions. I think you
have engaged the community of Victory School. Now lets work together on a long term plan.
This is a tremendous opportunity for the UGDSB to use the energy, passion, and intellect of
the Victory School community to find a better long term solution to maintain Victory as a great
dual track, JK-6, stable community school. To do this, more time is needed than what is
currently proposed with 18 December deadline.
Please work with us on a long term plan to keep Victory School children together regardless
of the tracks offered at Victory.
November 30, 2012
Two of the three portables at Victory sit empty. Let's use those until we have a better idea of
what our numbers with be in 2014. Victory has a long history of an ebbing and flowing
15 November 21st to November 30th population. Please don't drastically cut the grades serviced until we know if it's even required.
Thanks.
November 30, 2012
I am writing to express my disapproval for the proposal to redistrict Victory Public School and
the proposal to limit the French program at the school to kindergarten through third grade. I
have two children in Victory now (ages 6 and 8), and another child too young for school.
Both my wife and I work.
From my understanding, the decision to close off Victory to some children is because the
school may be slightly over-crowded at some point in the future, and King James School is
temporarily undersubscribed. Closing a neighborhood school to neighborhood children will
likely improve student to space ratios in the short term, but this positive outcome is dwarfed by
the negative outcomes. Closing the school to students will harm the community, have a
significant, negative economic impact, place children’s safety at risk, reduce family
cohesiveness, and increase parental childcare burdens. I explain each of these below.
(1)
Harm the community
Victory is at the core of an exceptionally strong community. A good example is the Victory
community dessert party. It involves dozens of community participants and attracts hundreds.
A parent’s group has encouraged people in the neighborhood to put Victory posters in their
windows in support of the school. This poster is now throughout the neighborhood. Sending a
large proportion of the community’s children to a distant school will weaken the community
and the support for the school.
(2)
Have a significant, negative economic impact
Victory has increased the property values of homes within the catchment area. Realtors in
Guelph frequently list house listings with the note “in the desired victory catchment area.”
More quantitatively, a large amount of academic literature has shown the negative financial
effects of closing neighborhood schools to students. For example, Bogart and Cromwell
(Journal of Urban Economics 2000 vol 47 pp 280-305) identified a 9.9% reduction of house
values. The financial costs of these proposals are very large.
(3)
Place children at risk
As of now, the school board has not made a pledge to provide bussing. The route from our
neighborhood to King James School is completely unsuitable for small children. My children
are fit, enthusiastic walkers, but the distance is far and involves crossing busy streets. I walk
over 45 minutes a day, and I would hesitate to walk the proposed route. Bussing and
individual car trips are expensive and environmentally unfriendly means of transportation but
would largely solve the safety issue.
(4)
16 Reduce family cohesiveness
November 21st to November 30th Currently we have a third and first grade student at Victory. They know each other’s friends,
share a common set of social experiences, and help each other at school. They discuss events
and people at Victory that they each know. Separating brothers and sisters who are close in
age into separate schools will weaken family ties.
(5)
Increase parental childcare burdens
Every day, dozens of families such as ours, should we stay in the French immersion program,
will drop one or more child off at Victory and drop one or more child off at the new school.
The process will be repeated in the afternoon. This is a significant daily burden.
A neighborhood school better serves both the children of the neighborhood and the
community as a whole.
November 30, 2012
I am a Victory parent and a professor with expertise in Developmental Psychology and
Education (focusing on risk and resilience in youth). I am concerned that the
recommendations put forth by the Noard are not in the best interests of students in our
community and do not reflect a long-term vision for our schools. It seems to me that one of
the key goals of the Board should be to create strong and supportive learning communities
for all students. The recommendations put forth by the Board seem to introduce unnecessary
and potentially detrimental changes to a school community that is currently functioning
exceedingly well.
November 30, 2012
Please reconsider this review.
It's been identified that if Victory Children are sent to King George another boundary review
will be required in 2015 to address enrolment pressure. If we know we have to do this work
already why don't we do a Victory specific review at that time instead?
Let's use capacity we have at Victory using portables. New portables aren't required there are
3 on site, 2 are not in use. Numbers have suggested that Victory requires 16 classrooms to
address enrolment population out to 2018. This is the exact number that are available
including the existing portables. There's no requirement for additional hydro. So there is little
risk that the board will be left scrambling with too many children at Victory PS to accomodate
a Victory PS review in 2014 rather than 2015 as a result of King George over population.
There hasn't been a review of the existing footprint to determine if there is a cost effective way
of addressing enrolment pressure at Victory. With current proposals the board could be
spending close to 250K to move Victory children from 2014-2017. Let's avoid this cost and
do a complete review to understand all options.
17 November 21st to November 30th This will preserve King George space as well...a long term plan for that community with a
right-sized facility that will last 10 years. This is the kind of plan we've all said we want,
parents, planners and trustees alike.
Finally there has been concern about child play area. However, fully populated Victory has
more square meters per child than King George, not to mention one of the largest parks in
Guelph that is used regularly by the school. This move takes away play space.
For all these reasons please think of a Victory specific review and long term plan.
November 30, 2012
Dear Trustees.
I want to thank the planning committee for their timely response to my recent inquiry.
However, we as a parent community find the content quite concerning.
Based on the responses in the Nov. 22nd FAQ it is fairly clear that the parent community will
have little opportunity to really influence change to the proposals. On Oct. 30th we had
asked for a partnership to derive an optimal solution but at this stage it seems that this may
not occur. I beg that you reconsider this position and allow the committee to engage parents
into the review process and allow additional time for the expanded committee to identify
additional options. Currently Victory parents have had a great partnership with the board. I
beg that you enable the committee to allow parents to directly participate in the process to
preserve this relationship. Allowing our relationship to deteriorate based on lack of
involvement would not be in the best interests of anyone: children, board or parents.
As we identified in our Oct. 30th presentation we feel that the current proposals are not
aligned with our core values as a parent group: Community, Stability, Safety, Inclusion,
Academic Achievement, Involvement and Environment.
We feel very strongly about this lack of alignment. To us it is a voting issue. It is a financial
issue. It is an education issue. It is a child welfare issue. As illustrated in our Oct. 30th
proposal there were over 60 households representing over 100 current and future students
that do not support the proposals as-is. Eighty five percent of those households responded
that they would strongly consider moving their children to English with the current proposals.
Ninety five percent supported the use of portables to house their students if necessary. I hope
that this is taken very seriously as it jeopardizes the committee’s primary and secondary
objective. If this is ignored it may have adverse long term effects on both parents and school
as we may find ourselves back at the drawing board as early as 2014.
As part of our presentation we empathized with the current issue that is faced by the board
associated to Full Day Kindergarten. We have offered to help. We have not been taken up on
18 November 21st to November 30th that offer. Again, for the sake of our partnership I beg that you reconsider this. There are
many of us that are highly educated and skilled that can add value to the dialogue. It is not
worth jeopardizing a very positive relationship to achieve the current scope and timeline. It is
also worth noting that the Drummond report has recommended the retraction of FDK to
reduce the deficit. With the resignation of the Premier and a new government on the horizon
it would not be prudent to proceed without additional timeline to evaluate potential
implications of this risk as well. In the long run it may save the board, school and parents’
time, money and considerable effort.
I personally have been working in project management for over a decade. I understand that
the planning committee has both scope and timeline constraints that they are to operate
within. However, as a project professional I also know that when a key stakeholder group’s
support is in jeopardy it is often required to modify the scope and timeline to achieve their
buy-in. I feel that the parent community is a key stakeholder. I hope that you do as well.
As a result we are asking you, the trustees, to formally allow the planning committee to
change their scope, approach and timeline to achieve their objective. We agree with the
board that Education is a community responsibility that is characterized by empowered
administrators, effective communication and mutual compassionate respect. As per the
board’s policy, we also strive to maintain collaborative relationships with diverse communities
so that the perspectives and experiences of all students, families, and employees are
recognized and addressed. By allowing the committee to expand its scope and membership it
will put this policy into action.
I hope that you will empower the committee to engage parents and allow for additional time
to evaluate all options and derive a solution that will generate a mutually beneficial outcome.
I think our relationship is worth preserving. By allowing this to occur it will show that you do
too.
November 30, 2012
This boundary review was required due to board policy 320.
Based on Policy 320 Section 2: Any school where the FTE exceeds, or is projected to exceed
its maximum facility occupancy level, as determined by the On-The-Ground-Capacity (110%
utilization) will warrant triggering a boundary review. Therefore enrolment projections for the
boundary review recommendations should not exceed 110% at King George in the short
term.
Both proposals identify a creation of a population FTE at King George that exceeds 110%
utilization by 2017. As a result this proposal has not achieved the policy objectives, nor its
primary goal as neither recommendation can be considered long term
Victory has the 2nd highest % of students over capacity among the over capacity schools.
However, Victory PS’ actual number of students over capacity is less than both Paisley and
19 November 21st to November 30th John McCrae. Therefore, Victory PS has a smaller number of students that need to be
accommodated. Existing portables can meet this need for the short term.
Policy 320 sets out the following guiding principles as referenced in slide 3
1. Consideration of the impact on students and families of the Boards’ students within the
schools under review;
2. continued program delivery in the area under review;
3. the long-term and ongoing effective and efficient operation of the Boards’ schools, and
4. student transportation.
Decreases of Scenario 1 and 2 are not aligned with the principle of lessening the impact to
the families and communities within the school.
Negative impact to families:
The proposals suggest that the distance to King George is within walking range of students
grade 4 and above. However, the difference in distance has great impact. Currently most
working parents are able to walk children to school who are grade 4 aged to and from
school within 5 minutes. The proposed changes will result in up to a 40 minute walk in a
single direction.
In addition, for most families, the existing walk to Victory PS does not cross major streets. The
proposed changes would require numerous busy street crossings: Eramosa, Woolwhich,
Speedvale and Speed River. This increases the danger/risks associated to walking to school.
Finally, the walk to King George is much more inclined (on Eramosa). This results in more
physical strain on children and more time to complete. Parents cannot maintain a work
schedule and take an hour and 20 minutes to walk children to school.
As a result of the above, families will have to drive their children to school. Some families
within boundaries do not have use of a car, or multiple cars. This will require families to
make an additional investment in transportation. This will also result in an additional fuel cost
that is not currently required. This negatively impacts the cost of living for families.
There is also an impact to family logistics in either proposal. If children are in both French
and English, or siblings are in different grades, there are numerous adverse impacts as a
result. This is acknowledged in the Cons section of Report 2: “Potential difficulties with after
school minding by older siblings”.
Lastly, the proposed boundary division is not considerate of the social-economic constraints
of some of the impacted families. Proposals either outright remove or require children to
travel the furthest distance, that reside in low income and subsidized housing complexes, the
vast majority of rental homes, and nearly all apartment buildings from the catchment area for
Victory Public School. As mentioned above these families will face an impact to their cost of
20 November 21st to November 30th living. In addition, earlier starts impact sleep and feeding schedules as well as family quality
time that can be enjoyed when school is a short walking distance away. This adversely
impacts working families from a time/budget perspective that are already constrained.
Therefore, the proposals are not aligned with the guiding principle of Consideration of the
impact on students and families of the Boards’ students within the schools under review.
Decrease of Program Effectiveness
Proposals decrease the program effectiveness. This is acknowledged by the committee in the
Cons section of Report 2 “loss of connection with primary and junior grades, ie reading
buddies (related to proposal 1)” and “possible impact to school councils and fundraising”.
In addition, there are numerous studies that identify a negative impact on achievement
associated to moving schools. This is compounded by the data that children aged 7-8 are
most at risk of dropping out of FI. Moving children at grade 4 jeopardizes program
effectiveness and child learning when children are at their highest risk.
By making the proposed changes the value of a dual track system is degraded. With the dual
track system children that struggle in FI can remain in their home school while they transition
to English. Either proposal risks separation from age mates and school if moving to English is
required further compounding risk to achievement.
Finally the Search Institute developed a list of building blocks for healthy development based
on research conducted over several years with over 2.2 million children. The proposed
changes are not aligned with this research. This research shows that by depriving children of
these building blocks it increases the risk that children will potentially engage in a wide range
of high-risk behaviours.
Therefore, the proposals are not aligned with the guiding principle of continued program
delivery in the area under review.
Not effective use/operation of board schools/resources
As identified earlier the solutions proposed will result in greater than 110% population by
2017. King George can be supplemented by deploying 6 portables to address overruns. This
will require additional cost to deploy. There are already 3 portables deployed at Victory PS.
The OTGR of Victory PS is 294. Portables are not included in OTGR. Therefore, there is
capacity (est. 75 or 25 per portable) at Victory to manage overruns. Leveraging existing
portables instead of building new is more effective use of board resources.
The current proposals will trigger another boundary review by 2015 to address 2017 over
population. It is not an efficient use of board resources to continually revise boundaries and
perform studies.
Therefore, the proposals are not aligned with the guiding principle of the long-term and
ongoing effective and efficient operation of the Boards’ schools.
Negative impact to safety, carbon footprint and operational costs.
21 November 21st to November 30th The ‘walk’ to school has many more hazards impacting child safety.
As identified earlier, the additional distance will result in a necessity for car or bus
transportation. This which negatively impact traffic congestion and carbon footprint in our
city.
Additional bussing will result in additional operational costs for the board.
Proposals are not aligned with the walk to school objective of UGDSB.
Therefore, the proposals are not aligned with the guiding principle of transportation
considerations.
Victory PS population area does not fluctuate so drastically that such significant boundary cuts
are required
As the data shows, population growth in current FI boundary is stable. Therefore there is little
risk of exponential growth in current geography. This means that post FDK enrollment should
remain stable if Victory PS can reduce population to achieve the less than 110% capacity
target. As a result, once a solution is derived, children and families can enjoy school stability
and the board will not have to invest in continual boundary reviews.
The current
projections provided by the report are conservative and have sufficient buffer ‘planned in’.
Original projections of 2012 were 300, however actual enrolment is 284. This means that
additional contingency above projections provided should not be required.
Committee hasn’t considered the current population’s value of a community school. There
has been a survey of 57 households, representing 112 children, on the topic of each
proposal. Of the 57 households 46 have confirmed that they will strongly consider
transferring their children to English. This amounts to 89 children current and future. This will
reduce the actual number of children to King George significantly. As a result, the committee
will not have achieved its objective of populating King George PS*.
Parents have not been actively engaged in process:
Asking parents to respond via email is not a dialogue. It is a single direction communication
that does not qualify as a discussion. Parent delegates should be part of the committee
membership.
Without providing data in a timely manner there was really nothing for parents to respond to.
There aren’t many organizations that would not partner with their largest volunteer,
fundraising, voting and financial donors to achieve a mutually desired outcome. This is what
the parents represent to Victory school and we feel alienated.
22 November 21st to November 30th It is acknowledged that committee has met its obligations re: communications, timeline and
recommendations. However, as a parent community that exceeds its obligations to the school
regularly we would appreciate in-kind treatment.
*Note: Parents surveyed support 95% the notion of leveraging existing portables for
classrooms above displacement via boundary or grade reductions.
November 30, 2012
I was at the board meeting on November 27 and listened proudly among a sea of red to 5
presentations by 5 parents, not all of whom will be directly affected by either of the board's
proposed scenarios. It became clear to me that failure to see the commitment on the part of
the Victory community to retaining a dual track JK - 6 school would be impossible. So, too
would it be impossible to see the logic of the argument. The message, at this point, is so
effective because it's so simple and it makes so much sense. Remove us from the review. The
one and only response to suggest that it would be impossible to do this centred around the
inability to run a hydro line to a portable. Could it be possible that a school board (and one
that I work for, I might add) could displace this many students of families desperately and
vocally wishing them not to for the sake of running hydro lines to portables? Is that
fathomable? The reality is that this is 2012 (a year in which all UGDSB high schools run Wifi
and both teachers and students work in the cloud) and that is nothing but an excuse. It's the
equivalent of a student telling me they can't demonstrate thinking because they don't have a
pencil. Education, among other things, is about breaking down barriers and doing what's
best for kids. Excuses are intentional barriers and splitting our community is not best for kids.
You are in the business of education and making my 9 year old child leave his
neighbourhood school - one which I can both see and hear from my house - to ride a bus or
take a massive walk to go to a school we don't want him to go to, and he shouldn't have to
go to, is not best for kids. Please do the right thing and think hard before you vote. You're
staring straight down the barrel of another boundary review in 2017 if you go through with
this and my children should not suffer - nor should this community suffer - in the long term
due to the short-term thinking of the board.
November 30, 2012
Transportation Consortium- while I was disappointed that a communication wasn't delivered
on November 22, that is fine as long as the report is comprehensive and has satisfactory
projections. When can we expect their report and will it be posted on the website and/or sent
on the email list? Finally, since the comment deadline has passed, how are you planning to
address questions/concerns about this report to the public?
November 30, 2012
23 November 21st to November 30th I truly hope that the board members and trustees will be open minded and willing to work
with their stakeholders (I.e., the parents/taxpayers, children and community they serve) on the
Victory boundary review. Practical, fiscally responsible and reasonable solutions have been
put forth by the Victory community and deserve to be carefully considered and followed up
with, by the board & trustees. Unfortunately, when I read the question/answer page on the
board website, the impression I get is that a decision has already been made and that "we're
just going through the motions" of the boundary review process. I hope not. Frequent
boundary reviews due to lack of long-term planning is unnecessarily disruptive. Our children
just went through this 2 years ago, and don't deserve to go through it again.
November 30, 2012
According to the Boundary Review Procedures Manual:
"5. At a Board meeting where the Board considers the Final Boundary Review Report and
recommendation(s):
a) recommendation(s) may be accepted by the Board by resolution and the Boundary
change(s) implemented as set out in the Final Boundary Review Report ,or
b) recommendation(s) may be referred back to staff for additional action as directed by the
Board, or
c) a decision may be deferred for additional consideration by the Board."
The desire of the Victory Public School community is for the JK-6 portion of our population to
be removed from the Boundary Review and then for all alternatives (including renovation) to
be explored. According to the above, this is within the power of the Board to accomplish.
We respectfully request that the Board exercise this right and choose to investigate a solution
for Victory that is favourable for all while maintaining our current boundaries.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration of the challenges presented by this
particular Boundary Review.
November 30, 2012
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the current boundary review process and the
proposed solutions for Victory Public School. My son is currently in grade one in the French
immersion program. I am deeply concerned with the proposal to relocate children from their
local community school to a larger school that will be, in our case, at least a 35 minute walk
from our home, compared to a 3 or 4 minute walk to Victory. My primary concern is for
safety. As a December child, my son will be 8 years old when he enters grade four. The
thought of my son walking to school, crossing two major intersections and a river, when he is
8 or 9 years old raises significant safety concerns. It also seems counter-intuitive when we
have a local community school within safe walking distance. While some families may be
able to drive their children to school everyday, that would not be the case for us.
24 November 21st to November 30th While I understand the need to come up with a strategy to deal with projected enrollment
pressures at Victory, I ask that you remove Victory from the current boundary review process
at this time. The short timelines of the current boundary review have made it difficult to get
parents to fully engage in the process due to work/family life issues and commitments. By
removing Victory from the current boundary review process, parents in the community will be
given the opportunity to work together to explore, to dialogue and to ultimately come
up with options and solutions that have greater community buy-in.
Lastly, I ask that when you vote on this issue you place priority on the safety and well-being of
our children rather than filling spaces in another school.
I would like to thank you for your consideration and for the time and commitment you have
put into the process. I certainly recognize you have a difficult challenge before you.
November 30, 2012
At the November 27th School Board meeting, one of the parent delegations presented
information that if Victory PS made use of the existing portables, then the school would only
be overpopulated by 2 students in 2014 if no students were moved to King George. Trustee
Moziar questioned what to do if the board makes the decision to "do nothing" and wait and
see what the population of Victory does end up being higher.
Could Scenario One be changed to use the existing portables and then move only the Grade
6 FI students to King George? I think that is an option that most Victory parents could live
with and then there would be "wiggle room" if the student population in 2014 is higher than
expected. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
November 30, 2012
The proposed options are not appropriate for the viability of Victory School.
Victory is an important community school with a vibrant community and involved parents all
within walking distance. This is an important value that the Board does not seem to
recognize. Schools are more than numbers and buildings.
The projected numbers suggest that little change is really needed in the numbers of students
at Victory for some time.
The Vicotyr catchment boundaries should be left intact and a longer term solution to the
eventual Victory capacity issue.
Some other interim solution can be found that does not fundamentally weaken the school's
viability and undermine the important community. Some have been proposed by parents.
25