Good Evening.
Thank you for allowing me to speak to you this evening.
My name is Eva Julien. I am a parent at John McCrae School and although I don’t think I will be
affected by Scenario B because my youngest daughter will be starting grade 6 in the fall of 2010,
I think can say that I speak for many of the parents of the 140 - 160 children that may be
displaced to Priory Park if Scenario B goes ahead.
Last night I attended a presentation put on by Priory Parent George van der Merwe. I believe
many of you saw his presentation on February 10th. I was surprised to learn that Priory Park has
a very special and vulnerable English-as-a-second language community. For these students, it is
very critical that they attend an English intensive environment at school as many of their parents
do not speak English at home. All the signs and announcements in the school are in English to
support their English learning. This English intensity is critical for not only their success but the
success of their parents in mastering the English language.
Sending up to 160 FI students and their boisterous parents (I should know I am one of those
parents) to Priory Park will only disrupt this English Intensive environment. As an FI parent I want
French Intensity….especially in the early grades. I think I can speak for many of my fellow
parents from John McCrae when I say that they want the same. These 160 students will be
coming from a Single Track FI Centre with French Language intensity. As the majority in this new
school I’m certain the FI parents will demand the same from the Principal at Priory Park. Which
prompts the question, will this Principal speak French? I hope so.
FI is more costly to deliver than English. The books and learning are more expensive to acquire.
Quite frankly good FI teachers are harder to acquire. You also need the principal, teaching staff,
library staff and resource staff with the specialized skills to understand the needs of the French
Immersion students and their families. How can you deliver this in school of less than 300
students that also has an English Track program, and ESL program and a Special Education
Program? I just don’t think you’ll be able to make this work.
How many other schools in the UGDSB have English Track, ESL, and French Immersion in
them…never mind a Special Education Program?
How many other schools in the UGDSB are known as Schools-on-the-Move?
To me this is a big Experiment….how sure are YOU, the Trustees of the Upper Grand District
School Board, that this will work?
How can you be sure when, there is no other school like Priory Park in our system?
Over the last few weeks I have had the chance to meet some Priory Park parents. Some also
have children at John McCrae so they understand what FI parents are like. Many of these
families are also concerned about having an FI program in school with a vulnerable student
population like Priory Park. They want and welcome additional students at their school. They just
don’t believe the French Immersion students are the right fit. Priory Park has made some
academic progress in the last two years. Let’s not jeopardize those gains.
The Education of ALL our Children is too important.
I’d ask my colleagues in the audience that are also concerned about the Quality of Education of
ALL our students to stand and be recognized.
We believe there is a better Scenario out there and we look forward to working with Trustees to
find that solution once the ARC has completed its report.
Thank you for your attention.
Maintaining Dual Track
at Victory Public School
Presentation to the UGDSB Trustees
March 10, 2009
on behalf of the Victory Parents’
Parents’ Group
by Rebecca Sutherns, PhD
519519-766766-1977
rebecca.sutherns@sagerebecca.sutherns@sage-solutions.org
Brief introduction:
•I am a parent of four children in three of the schools involved in the Central Guelph
accommodation review, including 2 in FI at VPS
•I am here representing VPS parents – 300 signatures on a petition, 150 community
surveys, roughly 100 who have attended public meetings, dozens who have
attended parent meetings and contacted the ARC directly – and those that are here
•On a personal level, my own children may stand to benefit from improved FI
programming – yet I am still in favour of maintaining dual track because of the
importance of VPS as a hub of our healthy community
•We appreciate the ARC’s difficult task and we have presented to them directly at
an earlier time in the process – we continue to make our opinions known to them as
their deliberations continue and the scenarios evolve
1
Our Position
If the Board approves Victory Public School
becoming an FI Centre, you will be doing so
against the clear wishes of the majority of
residents in that community.
There are values more important than planning
numbers that should drive these decisions.
Not all viable alternatives have been considered.
Based on the most recent ARC deliberations, the scenario to keep VPS as a dual
track school is no longer under consideration. This was not a unanimous
decision.
If you approve a recommendation to make VPS a FI Centre, please be aware that
you will clearly be doing so against the wishes of the majority of the residents in
that community – not just RT parents, not a few parents – not even only parents
of current students, but former students, parents with children not yet in the
school, other local residents – many of whom you have heard from -- even
roughly 25% of the members of the ARC
Values:
Community health, physical and environmental health, history, social and family
ties, parents’ ability to make the best choice for each of their children – these are
as/more important than just planning numbers
Alternatives:
The parameters placed on the ARC process have precluded discussion of
reasonable alternatives – i.e. trying to do too much at once (i.e. North and
South) while not taking the whole of the affected areas into account ((e.g.
excluding Central, Gateway and June Ave)
2
WHY not an FI Centre?
Our neighbourhood wants a walkable
community school
Other reasons include:
► Community unity and
equity
► Benefits of dual track
► Quality of the school is
high and should not be
ruined
► Enrollment will balance
over time
► Economic impact,
especially on real estate
values
► Concerns about busing
►
►
►
►
►
►
This is more than a
numbers game
Our community walks
already
We need long term,
sustainable solutions
Both tracks of parents
want this
Need for better data to
underpin decisions
Should not rush a decision
this important
Like the members of the ARC, we have spent a lot of time thinking through the pros
and cons of various scenarios. In order to abide by the time constraints we have
been given, we will respect your busy agenda and will not take time to go into the
details of our rationale for supporting VPS as dual track or the alternative solutions
we would propose. We have elaborated on that in a previous presentation, which
you each should have; we have submitted recommendations to the ARC; and we
are happy to answer any questions following this presentation.
Let me just summarize by saying this:
RT students should be able to walk to a neighbourhood school – the City of Guelph
has committed to becoming a walkable community – the benefits of walkability to
physical health, environmental sustainability and community building are well
documented – the ARC has Guiding Principles regarding split grades, enrollment
balance etc. that may be important, but are not held as highly as community and
walkability in our neighbourhood-- VPS as an FI Centre is a decision that takes us in
a long term direction contrary to our values – one in which we do not want to go.
3
What to do about the numbers?
► Widen
the parameters so that schools
currently outside of the ARC process can be
properly included
► Plan for Victory in conjunction with a West
End process
► Maintain a sense of history
► Value community health over filling spaces
I realize that there is a concern about enrollment numbers and balancing French and English
programs in this community. I would encourage you to consider this in several ways:
1. The artificial parameters of the ARC process have made it impossible to consider all viable
alternatives. Schools such as Gateway, Central, June Ave and Willow Rd could have been included
in order to provide options for increasing Victory’s English enrollment. Planning must occur with the
bigger picture in mind.
2. There is a risk that the option being proposed will result in Victory’s numbers being out of balance
in the opposite way before long (ie too many rather than too few), as students are bussed in from the
[growing] West End. Planning for Victory should be happening in conjunction with West End FI
planning, not in isolation – surely the King George experience should have taught us much in this
regard.
3. Remember that neighbourhoods fluctuate over time. Once Regular Track programming is removed
from a school, it is very difficult to put it back. Even as an FI parent, I strongly support the notion that
children should be able to go to school in English in their own neighbourhood – an enrichment
program should not push them out of doing so.
4. While enrollment numbers and program balance may be important, other values may be more
important. In this case, even as a FI parent whose children may stand to benefit from this decision on
the programming side, I value community coherence and walkability far more highly than filling
classrooms. There are times when upholding the values we deem important requires additional
investment – as the custodians of the Board’s values, I urge you to take a stand in this direction.
5. The Board has expressed its desire to balance programs and to avoid split classes. My children
have almost always been in split classes, and it is my observation that although Victory has had
many split grades over the years, they are clearly not adversely affecting its students’ EQAO results
or the support of the community for its school.
4
Flaws in the Process
► The
ARC has only given serious consideration to
one feasible scenario
► Reasonable solutions have been excluded based
on the policy, geographic and timing parameters
placed on the Review
► What was to have been an FI Review has grown
beyond its original mandate
► We were told that public input would be taken
very seriously, but it now seems that only planning
numbers are driving decisions
Two original scenarios were developed by Board staff and became part of Report
#2 of this Accommodation Review as "starting points". However, an aspect of one of
the scenarios was eventually discounted, thereby leaving only one real option for
the ARC to consider. (This relates to Central's inability to accept buses.) Not all
options have been reasonably assessed – e.g. redrawing boundaries for Paisley,
Central, VPS
Due to neighbouring schools of Regular Track students not being included in this
review, there was no other school from which to draw Regular track students to
boost VPS enrollment. Other scenarios that were proposed involved boundary
changes that the ARC was not interested in considering, as it would mean restarting
the process with the affected schools at the table.
Despite this being in large part a FI review, the issue of enrollment imbalance
seems to be taking precedence. However, how can enrollment balance really be
tackled without all the schools included?
All you have to do is count the number of communications from the Victory
community to know that public opinion hasn't been considered to be important. We
have provided countless reasons for maintaining Victory dual track, yet short term
enrollment projections seem to be more important than the needs of the student
population.
5
Our Request
Our preference is for Victory to remain dual
track – a walkable community school in the
centre of its catchment area
Barring that, we are asking that any
decision regarding Victory students be
deferred, perhaps until a review of the West
End is conducted
We are willing to provide details of a proposal to bolster the RT numbers at Victory.
The ARC has been reluctant to include in any of its solutions schools that have not
been part of the Review – Central is the prime example of that – yet the scenario
that it is currently working on involves students outside of the Review from the West
End
The Board has learned from its experience with the East end review and the
decision to close King George without a solid future plan that it is preferable not to
consider parts of the city in isolation
Victory would clearly be part of a West End review, as roughly 1/3 of VPS students
currently come from the West End
We do not want our children to be disrupted twice
Enrollment at VPS is sustainable until then
6
In Summary
We are appealing to you
► to
listen to your constituents
► to make decisions consistent with the longer term
values this city is committed to pursuing
► to integrate planning processes across the city to
minimize disruption to students and to take longer
term considerations into account
Do all you can to keep Victory a dual track school
We realize that there will be supporters and detractors from any decision you make,
and the ARC process is requiring you to make difficult decisions in the face of
various competing values. It is the job of Trustees to shape, prioritize and affirm the
values this Board wants to pursue.
If the Board approves an ARC recommendation to make Victory Public School an FI
Centre, you will be doing so against the clear opinion of the majority of residents in
that area. You will also be moving this City in a direction contrary to its stated values
– placing numbers above public opinion, community development and
environmental stewardship
In light of this strong opposition, please defer moving any RT students from Victory,
at least until a West End review occurs
We appreciate your consideration of this matter
7
Promoting Walkable Community Schools
Did you know…
• Each year, the average Canadian makes 2,000 car trips of under 3
km in length
• More than half of all car trips in Canada are under 5 km
• From 1969 to 2001, the percentage of children who walked or
bicycled to school fell from 42 to 16, according to the National
Center for Safe Routes to School in the US
Personal health benefits
• Walking or cycling to school contribute to a more physically active
lifestyle, which is known to have lasting health benefits such as a
reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes and
osteoporosis. Exercise also increases people’s energy and stamina,
and improves their sleep.
• Childhood obesity rates have tripled in Canada in the past 25 years,
in part because we are engineering activity right out of children’s
lives
• People who live in places with a strong sense of community have
improved mental health and a stronger sense of well-being.
Environmental health benefits
• More students walking or biking to school reduces air and noise
pollution from cars and buses
Social benefits
• Students attending neighbourhood schools are far more likely to
make friends in their own neighbourhood, which contributes to
stronger social ties and a higher quality of life.
• Walkable schools offer opportunities to build social cohesion and
enthusiasm. Many proven models exist, including mileage clubs,
walk-to-school days etc.
• Safe neighbourhoods promote more spontaneous play for children.
Educational benefits
• Walkable schools report better parent-teacher communication
because of the increased opportunities to interact at the school.
• At walkable schools, it is easier for students to take advantage of
before and after school activities including sports teams, music
lessons and tutoring.
•
Transportation habits and perceptions are shaped in childhood.
Those who walk or bike to school are more likely to do so for other
short distance trips.
Community benefits
• Ensuring walkable schools is an integral part of supporting walkable
communities. Walkable communities are known to be desirable
places to live. They are fun, lively and full of human energy.
• In the Victory school district, having a walkable local school is part
of why people have chosen to live in this neighbourhood.
• Walkable schools have been shown to contribute positively to
neighbourhood safety.
• Neighbourhoods centred around a walkable school have a
demonstrably stronger sense of community and are reported to be
friendlier places to live
• Local schools help knit communities together by providing
accessible, safe gathering places for local residents
• Fewer buses means less traffic congestion
• Walkable school districts boast more kid-friendly neighbourhood
streets that are well-connected and safe.
Economic benefits
• Walking or biking are clearly less expensive than busing students to
school.
• Walkable communities are sought after for real estate.
• Better trail systems stimulate local economies by providing jobs,
better access to stores and services, and increased tourism
Political benefits
• Guelph has made forged partnerships and made public
commitments to support active transportation. For example, Guelph
participates in the Active and Safe Routes to School program
supported by Green Communities Canada, as well as the walkON
partnership of Central West Ontario which is seeking to make
walkable communities the norm. The city should therefore embrace
opportunities to make decisions consistent with these commitments.
“the trend [toward cars and buses] reflects a cultural shift to a motorized
society that has lost some of its interpersonal glue” – City of Edmonton,
Walkable Edmonton
Resources
Canadian Organizations promoting Healthy Schools and Walkable
Communities
http://www.simcoemuskokahealth.org/Topics/environment/communities/
WalkableCommunities.asp -- an Ontario site related to the benefits of
developing a walkable community
http://www.simcoemuskokahealth.org/Topics/environment/communities/
pdf/goforgreenFACTSHEETS_June2004.pdf -- Canadian fact sheets
explaining the benefits of active transportation
www.safehealthyschools.org – a gateway to numerous issues relating to
healthy schools
http://www.saferoutestoschool.ca -- active and safe routes to school
supported by Green Communities Canada
www.walkON.ca – a coalition in Central West Ontario promoting walkable
communities
http://sst.safercity.ca/Schools_Info/newsc/index.php?menuid=1 – A British
Columbia site devoted to promoting safer school travel
American Programs Devoted to Walkable Schools
www.saferoutesinfo.org – Safe Routes to School (SR2S) -- provides
educational materials, case studies, and guidance to encourage and
enable more children to safely walk and bicycle to school.
http://www.walkingschoolbus.org/ -- how to organize a “walking school
bus” program in your neighbourhood
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/kidswalk/ -- Kids Walk to School
program of the Centers for Disease Control
Interactive Online Tools for Adults and Kids
www.walkscore.com – rates communities in terms of their walkability – our
neighbourhood scores 58/100!
http://www.travelbuster.org.uk/ -- takes students through simple steps to
assess the impact of their school journey on health, air pollution and noise
pollution
http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/walkabilitychecklist.pdf -- a
checklist for parents and children to assess the walkability of their
community