May 19th to October 20th
1
In order to protect the identity of all individuals who have submitted correspondence
with regard to the Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation 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.
May 19, 2009
The parents of the Priory Park community are opposed to including French Immersion as a
dual track at Priory Park. There are two reasons for this. A) It makes no sense providing a
second venue for French Immersion within the boundaries of the John McCrae (the current FI
Centre in South Guelph) catchment area. It is felt that a second FI service/venue should be
further south in Guelph where the local community need for such a service is much higher. B)
The parent community has a real fear that Priory Park will ultimately be turned into a French
Immersion centre, as has happened to many other English/FI dual track schools in Guelph,
with the subsequent loss of the English medium from Priory Park.
Below is a series of options/suggestions that can be reviewed to address the low enrolment at
Priory Park and to accommodate French Immersion in south Guelph. Obviously these
suggestions are flexible and do not necessarily need to be viewed exclusively in the sections
outlined below.
A) Increase the enrolment at Priory Park
1) Include the University of Guelph Student Housing (off College and at the
Edinburgh/Stone Road intersection) in the catchment area for Priory Park.
2) Move the Gifted Program, a movable program, from FA Hamilton to Priory Park.
3) Initiate an Arts program at Priory Park.
4) Use FA Hamilton, along with its six portable class rooms, as an English/FI dual track
school.
B) We recognize that the Board is looking at BOTH Priory Park and FA Hamilton as underutilized schools. To remedy this problem, it is proposed to generate a large English-only
school that serves both the FA Hamilton and Priory Park communities. Priory Park is the
larger school and can therefore accommodate such a move easier.
1) Move the Gifted program of FA Hamilton (elsewhere?) and have the remainder of FA
Hamilton attend Priory Park.
2) Use FA Hamilton as a FI Centre as this building would be able to support future
growth in French Immersion. Unfortunately this option (and point A4 above) still results
in a second FI venue being created close to John McCrae.
C) Generate a large English-only school at Priory Park and FI service further south in Guelph.
1) Use a south end school (such as Westminster Woods) as a dual track school to
accommodate English and FI. This would serve FI students in the south end, cut back
May 19th to October 20th
2
on bussing from that area and eliminate the need to generate a second FI school
(dual track or FI centre) in close proximity to the existing FI centre at John McRae.
2) Combine the populations of Priory Park and FA Hamilton at Priory Park and use FA
Hamilton as a Community Centre/Adult education centre/Health care centre.
October 1, 2009
Hello,
I am writing about the 7/8 french immersion students, and what to do with them. I personally
think the board is going about it all wrong, and there will not be many happy people with any
outcome I have read about. It's simple really. I know John F. Ross is a very crowded school,
what's going to happen when my child (who just started Jk in french) gets to high school? It
will be worse, even more so with the city growing! A new high school is needed! The 7/8's can
be blended with the high school. I went to an english school like this in Mississauga. It was
grade 7-12/OAC We got to have lockers, science labs, art rooms, shop class, etc, and get
used to changing rooms for classes in grades 7/8. Having gone to a school like this I think it's
the best result for Guelph. Another dual high school with middle school, I think would make
everyone happy. No elementary schools need to be uprooted with extreme change, they could
stay as is.
I hope you bring this idea to discussion, as myself and others I have spoke with agree that it is
a good idea.
Thank you for taking the time to read this
Response:
Thank you for your input into the Central Guelph Accommodation Review process.
Your message has been received by the Board’s Planning Department. We will ensure
that any confidential details (i.e. names, addresses, etc) are omitted prior to sharing
your feedback with the Accommodation Review Committee and posting it on the
Central Guelph web page.
If your feedback included a specific question requiring a response from Staff,
we will aim to provide you with a response in a week. Should we not be able
to respond within the week, we will notify you with an expected response date.
October 1, 2009
Hello ;
Sorry I could not get anything prepared prior to last evenings meeting, but I shall attach 2
items which I had previously prepared. One or both were sent to the UGDSB/ ARC and I
received no acknowledgement. I was pleased when the committee called a hiatus but feel
that we currently face a hurried agenda.
May 19th to October 20th
3
I would be curious to know if those advancing FI would agree to spend an equal amount of
money to introduce an extended program of French language study into the regular
curriculum, giving ALL students the opportunity to adequately learn a second language. Priory
Park School is currently well known for teaching ESL, which is desperately needed by many
children of new immigrants. Where will this fit in should FI be permitted to take over this
Community school?
As out trustee we are counting on a reasonable and sensible outcome to this divisive issue.
Regards
Attachments from previous letters:
Re: ARC hearings resunption.
As I have written on earlier submissions to the committee, making French Immersion a part of
the curriculum in schools outside of Quebec neither promotes nor enhances Bilingualism.
While I agree that as a bilingual country (by proclamation) we should be offering French as a
second language in all schools - ( provided that Quebec reciprocate and teach equal time in
the promotion of English ) - and it can be done within the current framework, The
“accomodation” of FI is therefore more of an appeasement, and has already done a great
deal of damage to the education system in this area, particularly by disrupting schools and
pitting communities against one another. It has been totally unnecessary, and very costly.
The education of our children, which is the aegis of the school boards through the ministry of
Education, has been overlooked in the thrust to cut costs and reorganize a system which was
not in peril of collapsing.
My question to those who feel that FI is an essential for obtaining both a higher education
and/or employment possibilities in the future should consider the cost to the taxpayer of
bilingualism to the overall economy. They will find the numbers staggering. For a country
already among the highest taxed citizens in the world it is hardly a priority in this day and age.
Commerce around the world is done in English, as is all Air Traffic Control. English as a
second language has been taught in schools around the civilized world for the past 100 years
and more. Perhaps it is time we awake from our dream world and re-establish some basic
priorities.
The following are my personal views regarding the Upper Grand District School Board's
French Immersion Accomodation Review Committee.
#1.
Acknowledging, as we must, that Canada, including Ontario, is officially a Bilingual
country, it must be clearly understood that
#2.
FRENCH IMMERSION, BY DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION, DOES NOT
PROMOTE NOR ATTEMPT TO ENHANCE BILINGUALISM.
Having said this one must beg the question, why was this study ever begun?
If it covers a political agenda would it not be nice to enlighten the taxpaying public as
to why we are being asked to support an agenda with little or no intrinsic value to either our
education system or to society at large?
Without any further delay I am suggesting an immediate hiatus on these proceedings
until and unless these questions are dealt with. Certainly enough damage has already been
done, and more than enough money spent on unilateral actions which continue to disrupt
those children within the current system seeking nothing more - and demanding no less - than
to be given what they must be allowed to continue: a well-rounded education in a community
school; where frienships are nurtured and maintained.
May 19th to October 20th
4
However, should the Committee feel justified in continuing the process please allow
me to ask that you give serious consideration to the Report of the Priory Park Task Force.
Dual-track, as has been stated many times, is certainly not the way to promote either system
effectively.
Priory Park School is currently accomodating Grades JK to 8, and with the addition of
a portable or two and an increased parking area can provide this to the community for the
next few years.
As declining enrollment, as predicted, becomes a reality the school could continue to
meet the needs of students and the community it serves. Future development of high-density
residential population sites within the boundaries are already being considered which could
ensure an adequate student count able to fill the void.
My thoughts are entirely based on what is best for the children, their teachers, and the
community this school represents.
Response:
Thank you for your input into the Central Guelph Accommodation Review process.
Your message has been received by the Board’s Planning Department. We will ensure
that any confidential details (i.e. names, addresses, etc) are omitted prior to sharing
your feedback with the Accommodation Review Committee and posting it on the
Central Guelph web page.
If your feedback included a specific question requiring a response from Staff, we will
aim to provide you with a response in a week. Should we not be able to respond
within the week, we will notify you with an expected response date.
October 9, 2009
Hello,
I am studying the accommodation review information and a question occurred to me. I am a
bit confused about the current rules for designing schools that incorporate grade 7/8. On
the one hand I understand that your mandate is to create schools that have K-8. But on the
other hand, I understand that you are trying to create the middle school atmosphere by having
enough kids at each school to allow for rotary for the 7/8 classes.
These goals seem to conflict with each other to the point where I think you are actually
creating middle schools inside the walls of the elementary schools.
If your true mandate is for K-8 schools then shouldn’t each school keep its grade 7s and
8s? Of course that would mean that the larger schools would have 7/8 programs that
would be perceived as better but the smaller schools would still have all of the benefits that a
smaller school can provide.
I don’t have a strong opinion for or against middle schools but if it is important to have class
rotation perhaps we should drop the K-8 idea and stop twisting our system into knots to try to
make it happen.
May 19th to October 20th
5
Anyway before submitting some scenarios, I wanted to try to better understand what you are
trying to do with the 7s and 8s.
Thanks,
Response:
The Board has supported the establishment of new JK-8 schools of about 500 students in the
past 10 years. Ideally, there would be 2 classes at each grade level to allow for team teaching
and the sharing of resources.
With 4 classes of grade 7 and 8 students (equalling about 100 students), each teacher can
have responsibility for core subjects plus take on an area of the curriculum eg history,
geography, science or the arts that they can teach to all classes. This model allows for some
rotary and works well in our JK-8 schools. There are a few schools with more than 4 classes of
grade 7 and 8 students. This has usually resulted from the consolidation of a JK-6 and a 7/8
school, often in a rural area, where there is no other school close enough for the "extra" grade
7 or 8's to attend (eg in Elora, Drayton, Harriston, Erin etc).
I can appreciate that new schools will be designed with the 500 student population in mind
and the desire for rotary at the grade 7/8 level. It seems that there are many schools within
Guelph where this rotary requirement becomes difficult because the school population is too
small (if they keep their 7/8s) or where the 7/8 population becomes too large for the school
because of combining the 7/8 kids from other nearby schools.
What is the plan for these situations?
Over time, are we ultimately aiming for 500 kids at every school and we will close down the
schools that can’t hold that many kids? If the answer is yes, is that a reasonable goal
considering existing school buildings that may have only been designed for 200-300 kids?
Response:
Although it is the usual practice, to some extent, it is not mandatory to have children
moving from teacher to teacher/class to class at the intermediate level.
The situations that are outlined will continue to happen in our schools regardless of
boundary or accommodation reviews. The plan to address them will need to be as it
is now - the school needs to look at their situation and make decisions as to how to
provide programming to address the curriculum expectations based on such things as
numbers of students, number of staff and expertise of staff.
There is no plan to close schools based on the fact that they cannot "hold" 500
students. The report that was prepared a number of years ago recommended an
"optimum" school size between 350 and 500. This accommodation review is not
about closing schools.
May 19th to October 20th
6
October 9, 2009
Hello again,
I would like to see more walking maps put up on the website. In particular I would like to see
it for all of the schools surrounding the study area(s).
Would it be possible to get that information?
By the way, the current enrollment maps are fantastic! What a great way to present that
information. Those maps are also quite useful for people looking to move to Guelph.
Response:
Could you please be more specific about the schools that you wish to see the walking web
maps for? We realize that we are missing the map for Edward Johnson. This is being
produced as we speak and will be up on the website shortly.
I can’t get onto your website right now to remind myself but, off the top of my head, I would
be interested in Kortright Hills, Rickson Ridge, Sir Isaac Brock, Westminster Woods.
Response:
Maps are now posted on the website, as requested.
October 8, 2009
I have a question: the capacity and current enrollment for the continuing ed. centre on Brock
Road are not included in the maps.
Is it possible to consider relocating continuing ed or is that not acceptable? What is the
capacity of that school?
I wonder (I know this isn't a scenario and will work to develop it further if it is within the realm
of possibility) if there is a possibility for creating a French Immersion Centre there.
Response:
Using the Brock Rd school as a potential 2nd JK-6 FI centre in South Guelph is a very good
thought. Unfortunately, the issue with including the Brock Rd school in any scenarios is that it
is closed and we are compelled to try and sell it.
At some point in time, if we are relocating the continuing ed program from Brock Rd to
another site - we would be required to circulate it first. In the highly unlikely event that no one
is interested in picking up this property, then we would be free to use this facility for our
purposes.
When Martha suggested that every school is "on the table" for discussion in this review,
unfortunately we would not include either Brock Rd or College Ave in this list as they are both
May 19th to October 20th
7
closed. This is likely a good point to be added to our Frequently Asked Questions page on
the website as I'm sure others have thought of College Ave as a potential spot for relocating
students.
October 9, 2009
Just had another quick question in terms of process. Once the ARC has come up with their
shortlist of scenarios will there be an opportunity for public feedback?
Thanks again,
Response:
There will be several opportunities for public feedback throughout the remainder of the
process. Once the ARC has shortlisted scenarios, this will be communicated in the ARC
minutes, in school newsletter updates and on the website. Should the public wish to provide
feedback about the shortlisted scenarios, people are able to come as delegations to either the
ARC meetings or to Board (the process is open to delegations throughout). In addition, there
are 2 public meetings (scheduled for March and April) where the public will be able to provide
input.
Thanks
October 14, 2009
I appreciate you getting back to my previous question. A group of us from Victory met this
evening and we have a few more questions that we were wondering about.
1) When a scenario we have developed has a few possible options would it be better to
separate these into individual scenarios or submit them as one and let the ARC work out the
details.
ie. If we have a few ideas on how to increase the English numbers at Victory should we input
them all into one scenario or separate them?
2) Is it important to include our arguments behind our ideas or do you just need the details of
what the scenario looks like.
3) Is the board submitting any new scenarios this year? Are the scenarios submitted by the
board from last year still on the table?
4) Can you give us the numbers for the small area that is part of area 93. The area is
bordered by Speedvale Ave, Highview Pl, Westmount Rd, and Edinburgh Rd. These students
currently go to June Ave PS.
5) We were confused by the numbers at Edward Johnson. It is currently under capacity but
has portables on the property. Can you explain this?
6) Our last question involves the situation at Victory. We would prefer it to stay dual track
and will submit scenarios accordingly. If this will not work and Victory becomes an FI centre
we would like to propose where the current English students would be moved to. However,
we are hesitant to submit this as a scenario because we do not want it to seem like we are
suggesting this. It would be a definite second choice only if the other options are not viable.
May 19th to October 20th
8
How would you recommend us handling this?
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to look into these.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Response:
October 15, 2009
In response to your email below, there are 2 questions (1& 6) that appear to be asking for an
opinion and according to the direction given by Trustees to Staff, we are required to act as
resource in this process through providing factual information only and are to refrain from
providing any opinions. As a result, I will only be able to provide answers to questions 2, 3, 4
& 5 - please see my responses italicized and bold below.
I appreciate you getting back to my previous question. A group of us from Victory met this
evening and we have a few more questions that we were wondering about.
1) When a scenario we have developed has a few possible options would it be better to
separate these into individual scenarios or submit them as one and let the ARC work out the
details.
ie. If we have a few ideas on how to increase the English numbers at Victory should we input
them all into one scenario or separate them?
2) Is it important to include our arguments behind our ideas or do you just need the details of
what the scenario looks like. Any background rationale that you wish to include with the
submission of your scenario will be posted with the scenario (Original submission link
on the templates) and shared with the ARC.
3) Is the board submitting any new scenarios this year? Are the scenarios submitted by the
board from last year still on the table? Staff will not be submitting any new scenarios for
consideration by the ARC. The original Staff Scenarios from Report 2 (Scenarios 1, 2,
A & B) are still under consideration by the ARC. Going forward, the ARC is going to be
receiving new scenarios from the public and ALL scenarios (new and existing) are
going to be considered and discussed by the ARC. Each scenario will be outlined on a
standardized Preliminary Scenario Data template. The ARC will be working to develop
a shortlist of scenarios to go to staff for a more detailed analysis and will be drafting a
final report that may or may not contain recommendations. At the same time that the
ARC is preparing a draft of their final report, staff will also be preparing a draft final
report with recommendations. These recommendations may contain modifications to
scenarios that were not considered by the ARC.
4) Can you give us the numbers for the small area that is part of area 93. The area is
bordered by Speedvale Ave, Highview Pl, Westmount Rd, and Edinburgh Rd. These students
currently go to June Ave PS. The Study Area Enrolment Data sheets are on the Board
website (located under Scenario Workshop tools) which provide the current and
projected enrolments grouped together by JK/SK, Gr 1-6 and Gr 7/8. There is a list
for English and a list for French Immersion. You will find all of the enrolment
May 19th to October 20th
9
information for each Study Area (SA) on those pages.
5) We were confused by the numbers at Edward Johnson. It is currently under capacity but
has portables on the property. Can you explain this? Thank you for pointing this out. The
actual current capacity at Edward Johnson is 236 pupil places. The school is slated to
receive a Primary Class Size addition which will in effect add 4 additional classes of
space to the school so the approved capital projects capacity is 328 pupil places. That
would explain why the school currently still has portables on site. The definition for
current capacity will be clarified in the glossary to make the public aware that it
includes both the actual on the ground capacity OR the approved capital projects
capacity. This would also be the case for King George - the 403 pupil places reported
on the template is the planned school size when it is rebuilt as a JK-8 English only
school.
6) Our last question involves the situation at Victory. We would prefer it to stay dual track
and will submit scenarios accordingly. If this will not work and Victory becomes an FI centre
we would like to propose where the current English students would be moved to. However,
we are hesitant to submit this as a scenario because we do not want it to seem like we are
suggesting this. It would be a definite second choice only if the other options are not viable.
How would you recommend us handling this?
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to look into these.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
October 16, 2009
In response to question 4, I was wondering if it possible to break the study areas down
further. Study Area 93 is much larger than the small portion I was asking about. Is that
information available anywhere?
4) Can you give us the numbers for the small area that is part of area93. The area is
bordered by Speedvale Ave, Highview Pl, Westmount Rd,and Edinburgh Rd. These students
currently go to June Ave PS. TheStudy Area Enrolment Data sheets are on the Board
website (locatedunder Scenario Workshop tools) which provide the current and
projectedenrolments grouped together by JK/SK, Gr 1-6 and Gr 7/8. There is alist for
English and alist for French Immersion. You will find all of the enrolmentinformation
for each Study Area (SA) on those pages.
Response:
We have taken a quick look at the area you are inquiring about and the 2008 data indicates
that there are 3 English students in the area you have specified below. There are no FI
students in this area. There is no growth projected, therefore there would be 2 students in this
area in 2011 and 2018.
October 18, 2009
Other than in the "Summary of Concepts from 2008-2009" I don't see a scenario for FI in
North Guelph that has kids in an intermediate school. Is seperating all the FI kids in grades
May 19th to October 20th
10
7-8 (or 6-8) into an intermediate school being considered (with or without accompanying
English students of the same ages)? I also don't see a scenario where kids currently attending
Edward J get moved other than those 25 projected ones from North of Guelph. Are other
boundary changes for EJ being considered or just North of Guelph? I'd also like to know if
access to after-school care programs in the Paisley School area is being considered in the
scope of this assessment (ie similar to Kensington YMCA program for EJ students).
Response:
At present, there are no scenarios developed that have either the North Guelph FI students in
an intermediate school or a scenario that includes boundary changes for Edward Johnson
(other then the group north of Guelph that you referred to). For these scenarios to be
considered by the ARC, they need to be submitted as a scenario by an individual or group
outside of Board staff. Currently, there are schools and individuals submitting scenarios
through the Central Guelph web page: www.guelpharc.ca. As well, we have 2 Public
Scenario Brainstorming Workshops being held this evening and on November 5 for the public
to come and develop new scenarios to be considered by the ARC.
Also, issues such as boundary changes impacting access to after school programs are the
kinds of concerns that need to be considered by the ARC when they are reviewing all the
scenarios. It is necessary that issues such as this be raised by parents to their ARC reps to
ensure that it is a consideration in scenario discussions. Individuals or groups may also send
in emails, letters through the Central Guelph address to raise concerns about any particular
scenario that has been developed. All feedback received from the public is shared with the
ARC. The Central Guelph email address is: centralguelph.comments@ugdsb.on.ca.