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