Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation Review
Minutes from the November 19, 2008
Public Meeting #2
College Heights SS 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM
7:00 Welcome and Review of Protocol for the Meeting – B. Borden
7:10 Introduction of DRAFT “Customized Individual School Valuation Template” and
Comparative Analysis Instrument – D. Steplock
7:20 Where Are We Now? – ARC members B. Schuller and E. Perozzo
Next Steps – December 10th ARC meeting will compare the north and south
Scenarios
7:40 Presentations from Formal Delegations – Copies of delegation presentations attached
at end of minutes.
1)
Victory PS Delegation – Dan Puddephat
Some of the points made by this delegation include:
-keep Victory PS a dual track school
-unanimously support Scenario 1 with modification that allow FI students west of the
Hanlon to finish to Grade 6, all new students from this area would be reassigned to
Paisley Rd PS
-sent out a survey, had 150 respondents, 300 signatures on a petition
-5 key components were outlined which included:
• School as hub of a healthy neighbourhood
• Benefits of dual track
• Quality of the school
• Enrolment
• Economic impact
-Victory is a school that is working – this should be emulated and not torn apart – high
parental involvement, test scores high, safe, well-disciplined environment, high morale
-survey respondents purchased their homes due to close proximity to Victory PS
-feel best option for sustaining a school is keeping it in the centre of a large enough
catchment area. Scenario 2 buses 2/3 of students from outside catchment area
-Victory is suitable as a dual track
Following presentation, no questions were asked of the delegation by the ARC members
2)
FA Hamilton – Mike Armbruster
Some of the points made by this delegation include:
-advocating for the Breakfast Program at FA Hamilton
-serves up to 30 students daily
-this is a necessary program for these students
-therefore, against Scenario A – only Priory Park has a breakfast program amongst the 3
receiving schools under this scenario
2
-probability of children getting to this breakfast program on time is low
-if FA Hamilton becomes an FI Centre – puts these 30 needy kids further at risk
-leave FA Hamilton alone
-following presentation, no questions were asked of the delegation by the ARC members
3)
Hanlon Creek Neighbourhood Group
Speakers: Cathy Cargoe-Tonner and Maria Merez
Some of the points made by this delegation include:
-covers areas of both FA Hamilton and Jean Little PS
-outreach to UG students
-FA Hamilton functions as a community building
-discussed several events that are held and coordinated through school for this
neighbourhood
-use school for their events (signs etc)
-significant # of students from social housing at FA Hamilton
-splitting FA Hamilton children to 3 other schools will make it difficult for the
neighbourhood group to reach all the children
-feel the neighbourhood group and the school support each other to enrich the lives of
the families in the area
Following presentation, no questions were asked of the delegation by the ARC members
4)
FA Hamilton – Ilka Boecker
Some of the points made by this delegation include:
-FA Hamilton is the heart of the community – brings the community together and holds it
together
-list of things community would lose if RT program was relocated (ie. sense of community,
outdoor ice rink, university student connection to school, small school, etc)
-school has a diverse and stable population
-will be at or above capacity for the foreseeable future
-all children walk to school
-no need to change = keep FA Hamilton as it is
Following presentation, no questions were asked of the delegation by the ARC members
5)
Paisley Rd PS/ KEIP (Keep Enriched Intermediate Programming)– Michaela Milde
Some of the points made by this delegation include:
-speaking about quality of intermediate programming in general
-first points made were with regards to the history of the Central Guelph Accommodation
Review process
-indicated that King George consolidation decision was made without any planning to
maintain current programming provided at King George and without addressing where
and how these students would be educated in the future
-like the 7/8 program at King George
-Gr 7/8 FI students losing their school and the quality of their current program
-task of this review is not focused on Gr 7/8 programming
3
-16 classes of 7/8 at current King George (Dual track), therefore rich offering of
programs
-intermediate facilities, specialist teachers, lockers, timetables
-specialist teachers
-Board’s $8-9 million should be spent on ensuring that FI 7/8 program is maintained
-Process is flawed due to a lack of: representation & information
Closure of King George was “improper” – didn’t present the valuation template to the
King George community before decision was made
-FI 7/8 parent reps are missing from the Committee
-severe program disruptions are being soft peddled by the ARC
-expect that proposed 7/8 locations will not have sci-tech labs
-parking lot concept is not acceptable to KEIP
-fate of 7/8 program is greater in importance than any other school relocation proposed
in the review
Recommendations:
-FI 7/8 must take priority
-“will not settle for anything less than that available at King George now”
-request the strengths and benefits of King George be acknowledged
-decide to maintain the same programming
-conduct review to locate a 7/8 program for FI
-K-8 schools should have same facilities and programs available at King George
Following presentation, no questions were asked of the delegation by the ARC members
Question and Answers:
1) Edward Johnson parent: Has the Board considered another scenario with another 7/8
school for Guelph?
Not in the current scenarios. This may come back through the parking lot process.
2) John McCrae parent: There are 150 students in FI at Priory, critical mass is 200, why
support a boundary change? What is the Boards commitment to teachers?
No scenarios are ‘supported’ at present, all of them are under consideration. The
board cannot make a commitment for staffing until after the review is done.
3) Kids at John McCrae are going through a rebuild, move from old school to College
Ave, then back to new building – there are stress levels from moving – what is being
done to accommodate those kids?
No decision has been made yet, the ARC will work on it and come up with a
recommendation. If you look at the analysis instrument, it has been brought up and
looked at, once the ARC has come up with the best scenario, then they will also come
up with recommendations to make the transition easier.
4) Priory Park Parent – 140 students (FI) live in the Priory area – they go to John McCrae.
4
English students in the John McCrae area go to Priory – look at it on both sides –
where do students live, the two areas overlap.
5) The gifted program at FA Hamilton will go to Kortright Hills, what if Kortright is
overcapacity?
This will be taken into consideration.
6) Paisley Rd parent: Why is the review not looking at the ability of a school to
accommodate program?
This is the first part of the analysis tool.
Where did the 4 scenarios come from?
These scenarios were brought forward by Planning Staff in Report #2. These were
meant to be example scenarios as a starting point for the committee’s discussions.
7) Victory parent: Stated the importance of maintaining schools in their catchment areas
(ie. walkable).
Asked, will the facilities at the proposed receiving schools (for 7/8) be considered?
The ARC can recommend the need for facility modifications to accommodate a
proposed solution.
What are the Board’s projections re: Gifted program and is the overcapacity issue at
Kortright Hills being accounted for?
In projections, Gifted program was held at approx. 50 students based on an increase
in the number of Grade 4 students that occurred this year.
Kortright Hills will also be losing some Sir Issac Brock students therefore, project that
there will be room for the Gifted Program at the school
What was the reason for the doubling of the Gr 4 Gifted numbers this year – why not
projected to double each year out?
This appeared to be due to an increase in this cohort. Also, parents choice whether to
put their children into Gifted therefore, very difficult to project.
Is putting the whole Gifted program into 1 school being looked at in any scenarios?
No this hadn’t been considered in any of the scenarios
8) Victory parent: Asked that all Victory parents stand up so that could see the number of
people present from this community.
Atleast half the audience was from Victory PS.
9) King George parent – spoke to the benefits of 7/8 experiences that her children had a
King George
-doesn’t believe that K-8 libraries will be as good for 7/8 as King George. The library
at her K-6 school is full, no room for 7/8 books
-no science lab
Meeting Conclusion: Approx. 8:30pm
"DISCLAIMER
This material has been submitted by a delegation that presented to the Public
Meeting held by the Central Guelph Accommodation Review Committee (ARC)
on November 19, 2008. The opinions and views expressed in this material do
not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the ARC or the Upper Grand
District School Board, nor has the information presented been vetted for
accuracy."
Victory Written Presentation
Our position
We believe that Victory Public School should remain a dual-track community school and therefore
unanimously support Scenario #1. In addition, we propose a modification to allow the existing
members of the Victory community currently bussed from the West End to continue until they finish
grade 6. In this written submission we set forth the reasons why Scenario #1 should be
recommended to the board and why Scenario #2 should be rejected.
Background: Who we represent and how we came to support Scenario #1
This submission reflects the unanimous position of 150 respondents to a community survey and 300
signatories to a petition that Victory should remain a dual-track community school . The group has
representation from the entire catchment area of Victory, including families of regular track and
French Immersion students, homeowners without children at Victory, and residents with young
children yet to enter the school system. We have read the material provided by the Board and
attended the first public meeting held to explain the process. We have participated in the
development of our school profile and familiarized ourselves with the guidelines the ARC must use
to determine its recommendation to the board. In five open public meetings held at Victory Public
School and through discussion over the internet over 100 residents have actively participated in the
process.
This presentation represents the consensus that has emerged on the issues facing our community and
the school board. The guideline has been helpful in directing our discussions and has helped to focus
the disparate considerations that are to be taken into account in reaching a recommendation. We
also recognize that the overriding objective of all is to provide an education in the best way for
students and the community. The civic participation in the process implemented by the board is
appreciated, because it brings out the difficult to quantify elements such as the social impact of the
various proposals.
The key components that have emerged from our discussions.
Victory Public School has been the hub of its neighbourhood since 1919 and continues to anchor a
vibrant, healthy, downtown community within a city that is recognized as a great place to live, work
and raise a family. School is a child’s first exposure to the broader community and the beginning of
the realization of her presence within a larger community beyond family. Our goal in supporting
Scenario #1 is maintaining schools that facilitate this important transition in an environment in
which the child can feel safe and secure, and begin to strengthen his ties to the community. We
believe, and the survey responses and open public meetings overwhelmingly state, that this can best
be done within the child’s geographic reality.
This presentation will outline five key components we wish to draw the committee’s attention to:
1.
the school as the hub of a healthy neighbourhood
2.
benefits of dual track
3.
quality of the school
4.
enrolment
5.
economic impact
These topics have emerged from our meetings, surveys, and petitions and have led us to the
conclusion that scenario #1 is the best solution for the students, the community, the ARC committee
and the Board.
1. The School as the hub of a healthy neighbourhood
Scenario #1 would enable each school to be situated in the centre of its walkable catchment area,
(show overhead) whereas scenario #2 does not (show overhead). Although neither scenario closes
Victory Public School, scenario #2 closes the school as a community institution and transforms it
into a facility in which French Immersion is delivered to a student body of which two-thirds are
bused in. The displacement of regular track students divides a cohesive neighbourhood, and the
requirement to attend Willow Road means that most of the current regular track students will no
longer be able to walk to school. The walking routes from Victory’s catchment area to Willow will
double or triple the one way walking time for students making it less likely that parents will walk
their children to school. The need to walk through walkways that border a high school and ultimately
to cross Edinburgh Road and the railway track, render the trip unsafe for unescorted grade 4, 5 and 6
students (who may have otherwise walked to Victory). The result will be a huge increase in bus or
car trips. This in turn decreases the interaction between parents, and parents and teachers, and
impedes development of community and social cohesion.
Walking to school should be encouraged as it promotes a physically active lifestyle which has direct
health benefits that will last a lifetime. Childhood obesity rates have tripled in Canada in the past
twenty-five years in part because we are engineering activity right out of children’s lives. Walking
to school does not pollute and encourages interaction with the environment and people within the
neighbourhood. A school within walking distance results in higher participation in the extracurricular activities that enrich the educational experience. Further, walkable and bikeable schools
are consistent with our city's progressive sustainability strategies, including the Walk to School Pilot
Project, the Bicycle-Friendly Guelph Initiative, and the Guelph Environmental Leadership Group,
just to name a few. The mission and policy statements will be included in Tab 1. Scenario #2 will
create a situation where two-thirds of Victory students are bused in, and 110 regular track students
are bused or driven to a school outside the catchment area.
Busing is bad and should be avoided through planning wherever possible. Diesel burning buses
spew pollutants into the air as they idle for extended periods on the edges of the school yards where
children play. The bus ride lengthens a child’s school day considerably -- even if the trip is relatively
short.
Safety concerns include the manoeuvring of the buses on narrow streets with children
making their way to school and the fact that the bus itself is largely unsupervised. Busing is also
expensive and drains scarce resources from more important priorities, namely the children’s
education. Scenario #1 will not eliminate busing, but it will minimize it in the short term and in the
long-term will eliminate the need for students to be bused to Victory Public School.
2. Enrolment
Scenario #1 achieves the necessary enrolment numbers by drawing regular track and French
Immersion students from the catchment area. The need to ensure a rational utilization of physical
assets of the board and to have sufficient enrolment to deliver programs is obvious. All
neighbourhoods go through natural demographic cycles in which school enrolment fluctuates. This
can create challenges as schools are not mobile. We believe that the best way to plan to weather the
fluctuations is to have a school in the centre of a catchment area large enough to sustain the school.
If adjustments are needed, these can be achieved easily by adjusting with the borders of the
catchment area. Scenario #2 achieves the necessary numbers by busing in two-thirds of the students
from outside the catchment area. Once the regular track program is closed at Victory it would be
difficult to resurrect in the event that the number of regular track students in the catchment area
increases in the future.
3.
Quality of Victory Public School
Victory is an excellent school. Any objective assessment establishes the school as an
example to be emulated, not torn apart. Parental involvement in the school is demonstrated at all
levels -- from parents council to volunteering in the classroom and extra-curricular activities. The
EQAO results are outstanding. The school is a safe, well-disciplined environment with high staff
and student morale. The principal knows every student by name and every student is told and
comes to believe that they are an important member and contributor to the Victory “family”. This
message is a trust that ought not be broken. Scenario #2 would tell every regular track student that
they were not an important member. Unless Scenario #1 is modified to allow French Immersion
students from the West End to finish up to Grade 6, it would tell them the same thing -- and would
be equally unacceptable. Disruption does occur in individual families and sometimes is unavoidable,
but the comfort that comes from continuity is important to instil in our children and the implied
promise attached to the message that each individual student is an important part of the fabric of
Victory should not be broken.
4.
Benefits of Dual Track Schools
Victory is ideally suited to house a dual-track school. Having the choice of either track is a
definite benefit for residents of the neighbourhood. While city-wide the split between regular track
and French Immersion is 85/15, within the Victory catchment area the split is very near 50/50.
French Immersion is not suitable for all children. A dual-track school enables siblings in different
tracks to attend the same school. It also eases the transition between tracks. If a child is not
experiencing success in the French Immersion stream it is a less difficult decision to make if one can
choose the regular track within the same school. This enables parents to make the best decision for
their child .
5.
Economic Impacts
In an attempt to assess the neighbourhood’s position on the issue, a questionnaire was sent to every
home within the catchment area. The response rate was impressive. Over 150 residents responded
to the survey (Tab 2). A recurring theme was that families had made their biggest investment (their
home) in the neighbourhood because of Victory Public School and the desire to send their children
there. (Tab 3) Many people have expressed concern that closing Victory as a community school
will adversely affect the resale value of their homes. Clearly, parents of primary aged children in the
regular track would have no reason to purchase a home in our neighbourhood if their school was
Willow Road.
The bigger picture concerns the viability of Guelph’s downtown core as a residential centre. Places
to Grow has advocated policies of increasing population density in the core. Jobs downtown do not
produce the same economic multipliers as residences downtown. A viable downtown business
community requires residents. There are already plans to close two downtown primary schools by
2010 (Tytler and Laurine Ave). Closing the regular track at Victory would weaken the social fabric
in our downtown neighbourhood at a time when the civic leadership is trying to strengthen it for
environmentally responsible development.
Conclusion
The best option before the ARC committee is Scenario #1. It achieves everything the board wants,
and needs to achieve. It keeps all the schools impacted by these changes at the geographic centre of
their catchment area, and it maintains Victory Public School as the safe and successful community
hub that it has been since 1919. There is strong support from involved parents and concerned
community members to maintain Victory as a dual-track school which the vast majority of students
can walk to. We also strongly believe that students who are currently being bused in should be able
to continue at the school until they complete Grade 6.
We believe that the ARC committee will draw the same conclusion as the hundreds of people who
stand behind this presentation have, and look forward to a recommendation of scenario # 1 to the
board.
Breakfast Club – Michael Armbruster
We at FA Hamilton request that you do not close down our school and turn it into a
French Immersion Centre. It would cause considerable hardship to many children living
in our neighbourhood.
We have a Breakfast Club that feeds about 30 students a day. What does the
Breakfast club do for these kids? Primarily it gives them a meal so they can start their
day with full bellies and brains ready to learn. Some of these children have not had
supper the night before, and without our program would only be getting one meal a
day.
In addition, the woman who runs our program, community member Sharon Sowden,
teaches the children about nutrition. There are posters up on the wall, there are
featured food groups of the week, and lots of discussion about healthy food choices.
All the breakfast offerings conform to Canada’s food guide.
Breakfast Club also teaches children social skills. Some of the children are very needy
and just being able to sit still and get along with the person next to them is something
they haven’t learned. The volunteers are strong role models who give them a
consistent, happy face to start their day. The daily rituals involved in choosing a meal
and helping to clean up are teaching life skills, and also enhance the children’s sense
of belonging, being cared for, and boosts self-esteem.
If this group recommend SA and turns FA Hamilton into a French Immersion Centre, the
students at our school would be divided up and sent to Jean Little, Kortright Hills and
Priory Park. Do these other schools have a breakfast program? As far as we
understand, Jean Little and Kortright Hills do not.
Priory Park does, but according to the scenarios and transportation maps, all students
from our neighbourhood who would attend Priory Park would take a bus to Priory. What
choice does that leave for those children? They either miss breakfast and get on the
bus at the regular time, or they get up and hit the pavement at 7:30 or earlier, cross the
very dangerous intersection at Stone Road and Scottsdale (by the mall and the liquor
store). We’re talking about high risk, needy children in rent-geared-to-income housing.
The current community, through donations and parent council, is already taking care of
them – it seems a shame to destroy this.
There are gritty realities at play here that everyone needs to recognize. Vulnerable
children in our neighbourhood will be put even further at risk if FAH becomes an FI
centre, and that’s just not fair or socially responsible, especially when there are kinder,
gentler alternatives. The solution is so simple – leave FA Hamilton as is.
Hanlon Creek Neighbourhood Group – Cathy Cargoe-Tonner
The HCNG was formed in 2005. Our boundaries reflect the catchment area of FA
Hamilton and Jean Little Schools. We are apart of the City of Guelphs’ Neighbourhood
Support Coalition. Our primary goals are to bring the community together, and to help
residents deal with student renters, who sometimes make community building difficult.
Over the past 3.5 years we’ve been working with FA Hamilton School and as a result a
wonderful synergy has developed between the school and the Hanlon Creek
Neighbourhood Group. Every member of the planning committee for the Hanlon Creek
Neighbourhood Group lives in the FA Hamilton neighbourhood and is whole-heartedly
committed to making the lives of the residents in our area better.
We have almost all of our meetings at the school, and it is where we host our community
building events, which include:
• Information nights- about student renters, which run in conjunction with the
city, police and the U of G.
• Harvest Happening- drew over 100 residents, and community members enjoyed
free cider, pie and the children were involved in crafts and indoor/outdoor games
• Cones in the Park- where we give out free ice cream cones at 5 different
locations throughout the summer, our biggest draw is always at FA Hamilton.
This past summer we had 140 people attend the event at FA Hamilton compared
to an average of 30 at other sites.
All of our events are free to community residents. We know we can count on the
children, parents and residents surrounding FA Hamilton School to make our events a
success. We are able to announce our events and programs to the school community
through the schools newsletters, calendars, plus the schools sidewalk sign.
In addition, the neighbourhood group tries to help out as many local residents as we can.
We organize Christmas hampers for those in need. We regularly have opportunities for
at-risk students and families, such as – subsidized spaces in programs, chances to go to
summer camp, or free bicycles. In order to find the children who need these opportunities
the most, we need the help of the teachers, office staff and especially the principal.
Without fail the staff at FA Hamilton has identified those in need and have taken care of
contacting the families and even doing paperwork around including these children.
It is important to note that we have a significant population at our school that live in
social housing and rent-geared-to-income housing that benefit from the collaboration
between the school and the Neighbourhood Group.
It would be nearly impossible for us to carry out our work without the neighbourhood
school. IF FA Hamilton were turned into a French Immersion Centre, the students would
be sent to three different schools, two of which are not in our catchment area. Unless we
went door-to door for every event we would have no way of reaching all those children
and their families, and those at risk and eligible for free programs would miss out.
The Hanlon Creek Neighbourhood Group and FA Hamilton Public School support each
other to enrich the lives of families in this area. They are inextricably linked together.
The City of Guelph is working very hard to keep Neighbourhood Groups strong, because
strong Neighbourhood Groups are known to improve the quality of life in a city,
increasing citizen involvement and a vast array of other benefits. Hanlon Creek
Neighbourhood Group urgently requests that you maintain FA Hamilton as a
neighbourhood school rather than a French Immersion center.
Representation: Hanlon Creek Neighbourhood group (HCNG) Date: November 19,
2008
Speakers: Cathy Cargoe-Tonner and Maria Merez
What HCNG gives to the
Neighbourhood
Why HCNG needs FA Hamilton to
remain a neighbourhood school
HCNG planning meetings (all members of
the group live in the neighbourhood)
Community building events (information
nights about student renters)
Winterfest
* Meetings held at the school (all members
are able to walk to the meetings)
* Hosted at the school
Harvest Happening (free cider, pie, crafts,
indoor/outdoor games)
Cones in the park (free ice cream cones,
games, 5 different locations over summer)
Craft Club
Free Bicycle
Free trip to Tim Horton’s Camp
Free swimming Lessens through the City
Attendance at St. James Christmas Party
(free gift, lunch, craft, 20 children)
* Hosted at the school
* Parents make a fabulous rink that this site
has the highest number of participants
* Event was advertised in school
newsletter, sidewalk sign
* Held at school
* Drew over 100 residents
* Event was advertised in school
newsletter, sidewalk sign
* Largest number of participants was at FA
Hamilton – 140 compared to an average of
30 at other sites
* Event was advertised in school
newsletter, sidewalk sign
* Held at school after hours
* Principal linked us to children who we
were able to subsidize the cost
* Event was advertised in school
newsletter, sidewalk sign
* Registration took place at the school
* These are all cases where the staff and
principal have helped us locate which
children need us most because of limitation
in the Privacy Protection Act
We can always count on the children, parents, and residents surrounding FA Hamilton
School to make our events a success. It would be nearly impossible for us to carry out our
work without the neighbourhood school. The Hanlon Creek Neighbourhood Group and
FA Hamilton support each other to enrich the lives of families in this area. They are
inextricably linked together.
FAH is the Heart of our Community – Ilka Boecker
In our neighbourhood, FA Hamilton School is so much more than just a place where our
children go to learn each day. Over the last eighteen years since the school opened its
doors, it has become the focus of the entire neighbourhood, bringing us all together
and in turn holding the community together. If FA Hamilton became a French
Immersion Centre, these are the kinds of things that would be lost to us:
1. The sense of community we gain from simply being at the school with our children.
Unlike a school where children ride the bus, at our school the entire community gathers
at 8:30 and 3:10 as parents bring drop off and pick up their children. After school in
particular you’ll find several families using the play equipment in warmer weather, or
sledding down the great hill at the back of the school during the winter. This is the way
a neighbourhood should work – building connections through impromptu play.
2. Our outdoor ice rink. This rink is made by parents of FAH students who call
themselves the Hamilton Hosers. This dedicated group of parents will often stay out until
2:00 am flooding the rink for students at the school and the neighbourhood in general.
It’s such a great rink that it won best outdoor community rink two years ago. Children
skate on the rink during lunch, and parent volunteers come in at lunch to tie the
younger students’ skates. This is evidence of the entire ethic of involvement and activity
that the school brings to the neighbourhood. If children are split up between three
schools and put onto buses out of our neighbourhood, parents aren’t going to sacrifice
all that time for the rink.
3. We have many university students living in the neighbourhood, which brings with it a
number of rather serious problems. However, many of those university students
volunteer at our school, with the breakfast club, with reading programs, or doing their
child studies practicums. Being connected to the school makes the university students
better and more responsible residents of the neighbourhood, not to mention all the
benefits to the children at the school.
4. Because of the type of housing in our neighbourhood, our school has many new
Canadians in it. The small size of the school allows the whole community to welcome
these new families and support them through their transition right in their own
neighbourhood. The same can be said of our gifted program. Many of the gifted
students have had trouble fitting in at their home school. In a small school such as ours,
the gifted children are integrated right into a school community where diversity is
valued and celebrated. If FA Hamilton becomes a French Immersion Centre, the gifted
students are slated to go to Kortright Hills, a much larger and less diverse school than
ours, and many parents of gifted students feel that it would be much more difficult for
their children to fit in there.
5. FA Hamilton students have always been connected to the physical green spaces
that surround our school. The students are official stewards of Sanctuary Woods, a
woodlot adjacent to the school that was scheduled to be razed and developed.
Student protest helped to turn woods into a conservation area. There is a plaque in the
woods to commemorate and thank our student community.
6. Finally, and this is most important, FA Hamilton is not just a building into which you
place children because it’s convenient. FA Hamilton belongs to the neighbourhood.
The school has a diverse and stable population. We are projected to be at or slightly
above capacity for the next ten years. All our students walk. There is absolutely no
need to close our school to the neighbourhood children. As much as French Immersion
was a choice that other parents chose, FAH is a choice – a first choice – for the parents
in our neighbourhood. People bought in the area because of the small school, the
short walking distance, and the notion of a community school. When making a
decision, please do not dismantle an entire school population and the entire
neighbourhood surrounding it. Please do not convert FA Hamilton to a French
Immersion centre.
KEEP ENRICHED INTERMEDIATE PROGRAMS (KEIP)
Our Delegation, Parents interested in Keeping Enriched Intermediate Programs, has come
to speak not on behalf of a specific school but for all parents who are concerned about the
quality of education at the grade 7/8 level. We represent FI parents, however the issue is
not restricted to FI, but rather relates to the quality of Intermediate programming in
general. We are here to raise a critical issue that we believe is being lost in this
Accommodation Review.
History
The current Central Guelph French Immersion Elementary Accommodation Review
process was set in motion when King George P.S. (KG) became designated as
“Prohibitive to Repair” and funds in the order of 8.8 million dollars became available to
build a new school. The current Central Guelph Accommodation Review is the sequel to
the East Guelph AR, which concluded in the spring of 2008, and resulted in the decision to
close King George P.S., and build a new English-only JK-8 school on the King George
site. As a result, grade 7/8 French Immersion students, are losing their school and the
Intermediate programs it currently provides. It is important to point out, that the decision to
close King George to the FI Grade 7/8 students was made without any planning to
maintain the quality of programming currently provided at King George and without
addressing where and how these students would be educated in the future.
The current AR process is intended to address several French immersion issues at once,
including
•
a new site(s) for the grade 7 and 8 FI program
•
accommodating the growing number of FI students in the South Guelph area through a
second location for the JK to grade 6 FI program
•
balancing enrolments in the short and long term among other Guelph schools: John
McCrae, Edward Johnson, Paisley Road, Victory, FA Hamilton and Priory Park
•
a review of the programs and grade organizations in the schools.
The review committee consists of two parent representatives from each of the schools
listed above. It is important to point out that since none of the schools included in the
review include the current FI Grade 7/8 school, there is NO parent representation for the
intermediate Grades.
It is our contention that the Central Guelph FI ARC process is currently and will continue to
focus the majority of its effort on the difficult and at times divisive issues of the school
designations, boundaries and student numbers. As a result, the Grade 7/8 programming
considerations will be lost in the search to find space for 200+ Grade 7/8 students.
Currently at King George
Approximately 400 students attend King George, roughly evenly divided between English
and FI, which allows for approximately 8 classes of each grade (4 French, 4 English).
Keep Enriched Intermediate Programs Delegation
November 19, 2008 Public Meeting Presentation
1 of 4
Because of the high concentration of similar age students, the school has a rich offering of
programs and resources, such as
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
an age-appropriate library
a Math Science Technology lab with qualified teacher
an instrumental music program with music room and qualified teacher
an art room with a qualified teacher
a vast array of extra-curricular activities ranging from sports to band with clubs such as
a science club and a social action club
Note that in Grade 7/8 only about 50 % of the curriculum is taught in French and currently
the qualified Math Science Technology Laboratory, Instrumental Music and Art teachers
are all English teachers.
Students have the benefit of subject rotations with specialist teachers. They learn in a
community of peers how to manage lockers and time-tables. As a professional community,
teachers and administrators have the resources to support each other and focus on an
age group that is making the transition to high school.
As a result of the current accommodation review process, there is a very real and serious
risk that the French Immersion Community will lose most, if not all, of the wonderful
programs currently enjoyed by all of the students at King George. It cannot be repeated
enough that we are losing a program under the proposed Accommodation review
scenarios. It is not merely a question of relocating the Grade 7/8 students to different
buildings. The dispersal of approximately 200 FI students to two different schools in North
and South Guelph entails 3-5 7/8 classes in each school, which while in keeping with the
Board’s preferred configurations of “3-5 Grade 7/8 classes” is not a critical mass to sustain
the programs and facilities described above.
We do not accept that the Board is receiving 8.8 million dollars for new school construction
in East Guelph while cutting a thriving, high quality program for all of Guelph’s FI students
that is universally supported by parents, students, teachers and alumni.
Flawed Public Consultation Process
As we have tried to make clear, grade 7/8 students constitute a specific group that stands
to lose a great deal more than the other schools under AR, because actual educational
content is at stake.
Nevertheless, advocates for this group have had no voice and no forum for input.
1. The decision to close KG under the “Prohibitive to repair” provision was made before
the school valuation template was ever presented to the KG community as part of the
East Guelph AR last spring. This constitutes an impropriety in terms of due process.
Likewise, there is not adequate representation and consideration of the Grade 7/8 FI
community in the current Accommodation Review.
2. ARC has identified the technicalities of boundaries, school designations, and balanced
numbers as the key issues. It has not disclosed or clarified at any stage of the
proceedings that severe program disruptions to 7/8 will ensue from the proposed
Keep Enriched Intermediate Programs Delegation
November 19, 2008 Public Meeting Presentation
2 of 4
scenarios. Consequently, participants in the process do not have a complete picture of
all the implications of the decisions that are being made.
As an example, we asked the Board to respond to the following question related to the
Board’s guidelines for 3-5 Grade 7/8 classes: ”do 3-5 classes provide the critical mass
of students needed to provide instrumental music programs, trained art teachers and
science and technology labs?”
Their response may surprise many of the parents and ARC members here tonight: “3-5
classes make it more likely that specialty teachers are available on staff. Science and
Technology labs are determined by the facility that was built in the school.” (13
November, 2008 e-mail from Centralguelph.comments@ugdsb.on.ca)
Our interpretation of this response is that moving the Grade 7/8 students to a new
location is absolutely no guarantee that the existing program facilities and teachers will
move with them. In fact, it is unlikely that the currently proposed scenarios will result in
anywhere near the same level of program offering to the Grade 7/8 students unless
this is a stated goal in the review process and efforts are made to ensure the goal is
met. Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but if having a Science and Technology
Laboratory is determined by the facility that was built in the school, since neither John
McCrae nor Paisley Road have these facilities now, moving the Grade 7/8 students to
those schools will deny then access to such facilities unless programming is
considered as part of this review.
3. Individuals concerned about 7/8 programming are not on the same page as their
individual school committees and ARC reps, each of whom is grappling with issues
specific to JK-6 and their own community such as single vs. dual track, walk-ability and
over-capacity.
4. At the previous public meeting, the Chair of the committee stated that the 4 scenarios
proposed by the Board staff were only a starting point in the accommodation review
and that other options that are identified by the committee and the public would also be
considered. However, the recently circulated November Update stated “we decided
how we’ll deal with additional ideas and scenarios you have asked us to consider that
are beyond our mandate (emphasis added).” How did the 4 initial scenarios become
the committees “mandate” and other options and ideas get put into the Parking Lot?
This is a serious breach of due process and even if the wording was a mistake, it
clearly shows the bias in the process to move ahead within the limited time provided to
the committee to focus the majority of their efforts on the initial scenarios which do not
address programming at all.
5. The fate of 7/8 is an issue greater than any specific school. In fact, this entire
accommodation review has the potential to foster the continued strengthening and
growth of the FI program in Guelph or to mark the beginning of the end. As stated
before, a program is at stake, and eventually all FI students will be in affected,
regardless of where they go to school now. It is an unconscionable omission from the
process so far that educational content does not have a central place in the discussion.
It is part of our intent tonight to raise awareness in the general community of this layer
of complexity in the AR process.
Keep Enriched Intermediate Programs Delegation
November 19, 2008 Public Meeting Presentation
3 of 4
Recommendations
As parents who are first and foremost concerned about the quality of education for our
children, we want to highlight that we do not accept that the future of FI 7/8 is something
that “comes out in the wash” after all the competing issues of the current AR are settled.
We want programming in the context of the proposed changes addressed as a central
issue in its own right, and we will not settle for anything less than what is available to
Grade 7/8 students at KG now.
We respectfully submit that the AR needs to adequately address the issue of grades 7/8
accommodation by placing program delivery as a central and critical element of the review
process. Therefore, we are requesting that the Board
1. Acknowledge the strengths and benefits of the Intermediate program at King George
2. Commit to preserving the programs and program delivery that now exists at King
George, and
3. Only with those criteria firmly established, commit to the principle of finding the best
location to deliver a high quality middle school program. Specifically, alternative
scenarios must be considered for the Grade 7/8 FI students including
a. At least one scenario that keeps all Guelph FI students together in a single
school with adequate facilities for the intermediate grades, and
b. Scenarios that combines the FI 7/8 students with existing English 7/8 students
for adequate numbers of students and facilities to continue the enriched
programming currently offered at King George. This is a natural combination
since 50% of the curriculum at this level is in English and apart from language
instruction, the educational needs of English and French students are the
same.
The guiding principle must be sufficient numbers and adequate facilities to ensure subject
rotation, specialist teachers, science labs, art programs, a broad range of extra-curricular
programs, and give grade 7/8 students the space they need away from younger students
as they develop toward independence and high school. Please note that we are not
specifically opposed to K-8 schools but want to ensure that the future Grade 7/8 students
receive the equivalent programs and opportunities that the current Grade 7/8 students
enjoy.
For Further Information
If you would like additional information or would like to join the Keep Enriched Intermediate
Programs (KEIP) Parent Group, please contact either:
Michael Milde
mmilde@golden.net
Sarah Fogler
sp.fogler@sympatico.ca
Keep Enriched Intermediate Programs Delegation
November 19, 2008 Public Meeting Presentation
4 of 4