Comment Sheet Summary from the Centre Guelph Accommodation
Review Final Public Meeting, April 28, 2010.
11 Comment sheets were handed in.
U/10
Variation
NS-15
NS-12
Variation
NS-14
U/10 Staff
Variation
1st Preference
2nd Preference 3rd Preference Total
2
1
2
5
2
2
1
1
1
5
2
4
1
1
3
5
Comments
South U/North 10 Variation







I don’t really understand the FA Hamilton boundary in this scenario – but did like the
fact that Tytler kids stay at John McCrae.
Again walkability is large here (4.8km!). Split does not make for robust programming
for students. Do not understand why Victory PS is able to maintain RT program due to
pressure from a small set of parents, does not seem equitable.
This scenario is absolutely acceptable although the south end boundaries make more
sense in the U/10 staff variation.
Not having this scenario would impact my after school arrangements as other family
members go to this school and are not impacted by any of the scenarios. It is also
close to where I work and this allows me to volunteer my time in my children's classes.
This is not a scenario I would have chosen, but of all the options available it is my 2nd
choice. The staff comments suggest that the RT program at Victory will be too small.
Why would a viable FI program be split up to keep a RT program that has insufficient
numbers to provide a viable program? When funding for programs is low enough
already, why are the resources for FI being spread even thinner and a RT program that
is barely alive remain?
I support the JK-8. Bravo.
This scenario is my least preferred. I object to having the 7/8 FI North students
isolated in a JK-8 English school. I feel that the 7/8 students attending John McCrae
will have a much better situation as they will be within an FI centre and therefore will
be better supported than those attending Waverley. I also have strong concerns about
Victory under all scenarios currently being considered. Many FI parants from Victory
share my concerns. My greatest concern is the sustainability of the current Regular
Track program and the fate of the school should the program fold due to insufficient
enrolment. Would the Board close the school? Or, would the Board make the school
an FI centre and bring in FI students from elsewhere to bring the school population to
its capacity. I would like to have an answer to this question. My other concern with the
plans for Victory is that it will remove 135 students, or over 40%, of the FI students
currently attending Victory. This will leave a large hole in the program and will deeply
affect the ties that have formed between the students from the West End and those
from the surrounding neighbourhood. Furthermore, many of the parents of the West
End students are very involved in volunteering at the school. They make up a large
share of council members and contribute greatly to the events and programs run by
council. Without them we would not have sufficient volunteers to keep our programs
running. Our school would be greatly impacted. FI students stand to lose a great
deal under this scenario.
NS-15





Begins a small FI program at Waverley, while maintains this, is not currently supported
at PRPS – question the disconnect. Lack of Waverley community input. Changes
schools for some families in 2011 and 2017 – Waverley – then John McCrae.
We do not support any scenario that splits the EJ community at this time or in the near
future. It seems unnecessary as many Tytler parents want to stay at John McCrae and
many EJ parents are not in favour of a split. This split will uproot friendships and will
be a negative experience for the students involved.
This scenario involves too many moves.
Coming up with a final grade 7-8 location seems preferable than an interim solution.
Waverley looks like a reasonable location for the North End.
My preference is that the 7/8 students stay together until the new school opens in the
south end. However, if this is not possible then my preference is to make Waverley a
dual track school. I feel strongly that the FI 7/8 North not be isolated in an all English
school as proposed under scenario South U/North 10. I have noted from the
scenario data passed out at the March 24th meeting, that this scenario includes 145
7/8 FI students from King George plus 175 FI JK-6 students from Edward Johnson for
a total of 320 FI students attending Waverley. This, I believe, is sufficient for a strong
FI program. I have concerns about Victory as discussed under Scenario U10.
NS-12 Variation





Keeping 7/8 together seems to have appeal as a transition measure until # warrant
larger classes at John McCrae & Waverley. Really like keeping Tytler kids at John
McCrae. Have some concerns over impact of 100’s of 7/8 F.I. kids being introduced
at Waverley on existing community programming.
Limited displacement. Critical mass of students to engage a robust 7/8 program.
Concerns with walkability.
This is a terrific option for us from a personal level as our children would stay at
Edward Johnson – which we feel very strongly about. We question the benefit of
overloading Waverley Dr. (7/8) when a N/S 7/8 split seems inevitable. Why delay?
Not in favour of any scenario that moves Tytler FI students away from JMC.
I like the idea of having all of the 7/8 FI students stay together. See concerns about
Victory in comments under Scenario U10.
NS-14

Robust program for 7/8 FI. Projects growth in FI and considerations of impact.
Maintains reasonable % of 7/8 comparative to JK-6 population.





Once again, we cannot support this scenario as it (eventually) splits the EJ community.
Given that there are other feasible solutions for the future, a great deal of stress and
disappointment can be avoided.
There are too many moves for students with this scenario.
Not in favour of any scenario that moves Tytler FI students away from JMC. It is also
better to split the 7-8 to 2 schools as these are still large populations.
I like the idea of having all of the 7/8 FI students stay together. See concerns about
Victory in comments under Scenario U10.
We consider NS-14 as the best option because it enables the transfer of the entire
King George into one location, at least until 2017. We think it is important to
consolidate all FI students at Grade 7 & 8 into a "middle school" in substance if not in
name. We believe that such an arrangement is superior in enhancing both the
cognitive and psychological development of children of that age group and will equip
them better to meet both the challenge of high school education and adolescence.
Moreover, this scenario will allow an otherwise displaced cohort to be educated in
one of the best schools in the UGDSB.
U/10 Staff Variation





Really like staying at John McCrae – Tytler kids can stay rather than moving 5 times
before grade 9 – with such a low # if they are moved away from John McCrae, they
will likely be the only “new kid” in their class. Like the FA Hamilton boundaries –
seems to make sense to reduce potential moves of SE kids should another FI school
open in that end. Keeping our kids at John McCrae is starting to establish school as
more of a central Guelph centre and be consistent to commitment to CEP by having
our kids use the sustainable travel ways for grade 7/8.
This scenario seems to be most logical as it develops 7/8 FI programs at two locations
thereby establishing two programs early and not having to do so in x number of years.
This scenario is also our preferred scenario as it leaves our children’s current school
(EJ) intact for now. This proposal also seems to take into account South end boundary
concerns and allows for movement to a third FI or dual track school in 2017 (simpler
boundaries).
This scenario is not really my first preference, however, it is the best of the available
options. The least amount of moves for students makes more sense than the ARC
version of this scenario. I do not, however, support the splitting up of the FI program
at Victory.
I support the JK-gr 8 model in one school.
See comment on U/10 above(This scenario is my least preferred. I object to having
the 7/8 FI North students isolated in a JK-8 English school. I feel that the 7/8 students
attending John McCrae will have a much better situation as they will be within an FI
centre and therefore will be better supported than those attending Waverley. I also
have strong concerns about Victory under all scenarios currently being considered.
Many FI parants from Victory share my concerns. My greatest concern is the
sustainability of the current Regular Track program and the fate of the school should
the program fold due to insufficient enrolment. Would the Board close the school?
Or, would the Board make the school an FI centre and bring in FI students from
elsewhere to bring the school population to its capacity. I would like to have an
answer to this question.My other concern with the plans for Victory is that it will remove
135 students, or over 40%, of the FI students currently attending Victory. This will
leave a large hole in the program and will deeply affect the ties that have formed
between the students from the West End and those from the surrounding
neighbourhood. Furthermore, many of the parents of the West End students are very
involved in volunteering at the school. They make up a large share of council
members and contribute greatly to the events and programs run by council. Without
them we would not have sufficient volunteers to keep our programs running. Our
school would be greatly impacted. FI students stand to lose a great deal under this
scenario.).
Other Comments
 Excellent job tonight. I really appreciate the efforts of our ARC members and staff. I’m
feeling quite encouraged compared to one year ago!
 I believe that the committees have provided some great solutions with regards to the
South. My children do not attend any of those schools, however. We live west of the
Hanlon, which only provides one option for our children in all of the recommended
scenarios: a move to Paisley from Victory. It is disappointing that 1/3 of Victory's
population is being requested to move without any other viable options in order to
maintain a very small and dwindling RT program. Victory has a viable FI program
already. The board has chosen to go with FI centres in the past and this has been
shown to provide a wonderful solution and give students a program that is fully
immersed in French. FI centres also make the most use of resources that are needed
to support the program. Why are there no options for a FI at either Victory or Paisley
in the recommendations? Please consider these facts when making your decisions.
 In all scenarios gifted is moved to the complete opposite end of the city with little input
from these students (from all over Wellington County!). In addition, Waverley parents
and community are severely impacted by these changes again with no input.
Disappointing. Did no one, at any point, think that when you started creating
scenarios that impacted Waverley, that it might be wise/prudent to get input from that
community?
 You've accomplished a lot of work, thank you.
 The Board should develop an overarching “grandfathering” policy for children
displaced by the FI accommodation review. This would greatly ease the negative
impact on children and increase the public acceptance of whatever scenarios are
selected. For Victory School, such a grandfathering policy could allow say Grade 4, 5
and 6 students from the West End to complete their primary years at Victory if the
families choose to. This would appear to be feasible for the Victory and Paisley school
situations due to the particular bus routes and geography. A three year cutoff would
seem reasonable in the circumstances. Such a policy would ease in major changes to
the schools, rather than have the radical shifts that will occur with immediate
implementation. The minimization of disruption to children’s lives should be the
paramount principle underlying such a policy. The specifics of where a grandfathering
policy would be workable would have to be evaluated. It seems quite feasible for the
Victory-Paisley situation. Identifying workable situations for grandfathering does not
appear to be that difficult. Board staff, Principals or ARC members could be asked for
suggestions. Such policies have been implemented in other Boards. Given the depth
of controversy and division this accommodation review has generated, a
grandfathering policy to smooth the transition seems particularly appropriate.I hope
the Board will seriously consider such a grandfathering policy as it would benefit the
children, their families, the school communities and ultimately the Board.
 Build onto the school if needed, but keep John McCrae JK-Grade 8.