March 13th to September 1, 2009
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.
Dear Mr. Borden et al.,
In reading many of the comments on the feedback pages I feel compelled to say a few things
that I believe need saying. First and foremost, this is Canada that we live in and what makes
our country such a desirable place in which to live is that our society is based on the principles
of fairness and compassion. In Ontario, every single child has the right to education,
regardless of income level, race, or gender. We believe that diversity enriches society, that
without the contributions of people from many cultures, Canada would not even exist, let only
be thriving. We believe in multiculturalism, not assimilation, and that each and every child
deserves equal opportunities to succeed. Children in Ontario have the right to English
language education, and also have the option of enrolling in French Immersion should their
parents so choose. Making education equal for everyone does not mean
that we treat everyone equally - we may need to put more time, effort and resources towards
those children who are most vulnerable - I certainly believe that this is a notion firmly
entrenched in our "Canadian-ness".
However, to say that ESL students may be disadvantaged by having the French as well as the
English language in their schools seems grasping, at best (children who are already speaking
more than one language often have a greater facility with new languages.) Children who
speak one language at home and are learning English at school are still going to be receiving
all their instruction in English - whether they hear French over the announcements or see it in
the halls seems inconsequential. I think we need to know what the research says about this
issue; however, being an ESL student should not be confused with being intellectually
challenged.
This review process has been very divisive for everyone concerned. It has, perhaps unwittingly,
pitted neighbour against neighbour, French against English. No matter how the issue is
solved now - and certainly a great number of people will be affected, disappointed, and
angered, by whatever solutions are decided upon - these reviews will come up again and
again, every five years or so, until there is a realization that permanent solutions need to be
put in place to lessen the upheaval and pain these review processes engender. Once again, I
must state that English language instruction is a right in this province, but French Immersion is
an option. This is a fact, as unpopular as it may be to say so. And with that in mind, I think it
entirely reasonable and necessary that this school board place caps on the FI program. It is
the only way to make sure these problems stop disrupting our communities. I understand that
for FI parents, the concept of caps is abhorrent, but it is equally abhorrent to the majority of
parents whose children are in the non-optional school system that their children would be
displaced and dispersed by an optional program. It is simply wrong that this should happen.
Again, we are speaking of the principles of equality, fairness and compassion, and they must
be considered above all else. There seems to be a real absence of long-term thinking and
planning in education, and this is certainly not just a problem at the board level, it goes far
beyond that. But really, long-term thinking is essential - I think the whole world is learning this
hard lesson right now in the midst of the global economic crisis. I urge the school board to
look to the future while taking care of the concerns of the present.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
2
I believe as Canadians it is our duty to look out not only for our own children, but the children
in our communities, and those of future generations as well. To do less is just not acceptable.
Sincerely,
(Fred A. Hamilton)
Thank you so much for the most recent update you sent home about the North Guelph
scenarios and for reaching out to parents of the Tytler Catchment area. I understand that our
group has been fairly quiet on this issue but I believe that there are some parents now
speaking out. I'm hoping to make a few comments here about why our family is hoping that
the Tytler students can remain at JMC, and I have had an opportunity to speak with some
other parents as well.
As you are likely aware, although we currently have bus service in the Tytler area, which at
present is a terrific convenience because I have small children, JMC is in fact a very
reasonable walk (when using trail system, approximately 15-20 minutes) for many families in
the area. I understand that in the report, (page 63/64) there is an indication for a
preference towards minimizing bussing time and maximizing walkers - keeping our children
at John McCrae rather than Edward Johnson could potentially help you in fulfilling the spirit
of this commitment. We feel strongly enough about this issue that we would give up the
convenience of the bus service if it meant that our children could stay at JMC As your are
likely aware, Edward Johnson is considerably further from the Tytler catchment area, which
would not afford our students the health and emotional benefits of walking to school either
parents now or independently as they get older.
I understand that your report also emphasizes minimizing the number of schools children are
required to attend. My daughter is in SK and has already attended 2 schools (the two John
McCraes) and the scenarios proposed would have her attend 2 more before she reaches
Grade 8. Keeping our children at John McCrae would eliminate the need for our children to
switch schools 4 times over their JK-8 experience. I understand that in all of the scenarios,
whether our children remain at JMC or move to Edward Johnson, within 2-3 years each
school will be at or over capacity. Since it seems that our children will be at a full school in
either case, I strongly prefer that my children have the stability of not changing schools, and
enjoying the opportunity to walk and/or ride their bike to school as they get older and more
independent.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue, and I would be happy to speak further about
this with either of you, including if you have any input on what else parents can do to voice
our concerns about the proposed scenarios. My phone number is ________ in case you
prefer to reach me the "old fashioned" way.
Dear Mr. Borden.
It seems as if Scenario B will be recommend to the Board (re: Priory Park). I think every Priory
Park parent's number one concern is how long will the Board keep English at Priory Park after
March 13th to September 1, 2009
3
it becomes a dual track school? In other words: when will you remove the english program
and make it a full French centre???
I would like some assurances (and promises!) from you and your staff and the trustees that if
Priory becomes a dual track school then the English program will not be removed in the
future- even if there is another accommodation review in the next 5
or 10 years.
Can you do that? If so, please do so at the next ARC public meeting.
thank you
Priory Park parent
Dear members of the ARC comittee,
The ARC committee has to do a very difficult job that also involves a lot of working hours. We
should appreciate this, but instead some of the letters they received were so offensive that I
could not resist to write a few words.
I am a parent of two former ESL students at F.A.Hamilton PS. We moved here from Germany
3.5years ago. Our kids, at that time 7,5,3 years old, could not speak a single word of
English, and we kept talking German to them at home and whenever we were talking to them.
They started school in Grade 2 and SK and had some wonderful teachers; and they also had
some ESL instruction once a week for an hour. Our daughters did not even finish the whole
school year of extra ESL instruction because their English was too good before they reached
the end of the school year. Their report cards and talks with their teachers proved that they
had absolutely no problem with the language any longer. We also talked to the ESL resource
teacher at Jean Little PS, and she told us, that it is vital for a child to keep its mother tongue.
She said that if we would switch to English and therefore take their mother tongue away, it
would be like pulling the carpet underneath their feet, and they would be “hanging in the air”,
not knowing which language they are actually capable of speaking/understanding.
I wanted to let you know this because of all the concerns of the parents from John MacCrae
PS and Priory Park PS. If the children already speak, read and write one language it is not so
difficult for them to learn a second language or even a third. Just because they learn English
as a second language does not mean that they have any learning problems. And it will
certainly not disrupt them if they hear the announcements over the speakers in French. Maybe
some of the ESL students have already been in contact with the French language in their home
country?
And I am also very appalled to read that a DD class in the school could cause any concerns
for a parent to send their child to this school. Unfortunately our DD class is no longer at FA
Hamilton which was a big loss for the school community, we still miss all of those kids very
much.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
4
Dear ARC Members,
I feel compelled to send in some final thoughts as the review process draws to a close and
final recommendations are presented in the French Accommodation Review. I am still deeply
concerned that my children's community school (within walking distance to all and with
accompanying Y Childcare Centre, a huge benefit to two working and commuting parents)
may still close and be converted to a French Immersion Centre which would disrupt well over
200 families...
As I understand it, there is no definitive research supporting French Immersion Centres as
being superior to the dual track model. While a French Immersion Centre may be somewhat
more desirable as having announcements, bulletin boards and some playground talk in
French, the overall academic results are comparable. I also understand that the Board is
open to ideas from other school boards and how they deliver French Immersion Programs. I
also know that many parents welcome a community school whether it be for a regular English
track student or a student receiving French Immersion instruction. Parents love for their
children to go to a school near their home and in the surrounding community. It builds
community cohesiveness. Walking to school is also seen as a major benefit physically,
socially and emotionally. Lastly, I think all parents want a more stable long-term plan to
address the needs of the students of the Upper Grand District School Board whether it be at a
regular English track community school or a school that offers the French Immersion Program.
With these points in mind, I believe the Upper Grand District School Board needs to question
the concept of the French Immersion Centre as a way to deliver the French Immersion
Program. The research is definitely not conclusive in its favour. This model appears to be
creating more problems than creating solutions... (i.e. excessive bussing, fracturing school
communities). Reinvestigating the overall benefits of the dual track model of French
Immersion delivery versus the French Immersion Centre seems necessary when so many
children may potentially be bussed away to a school out of their neighbourhood whether it be
for the English or French track. As an educator who has worked in a dual track system I have
seen first hand how dual track systems can work very well. Many Boards have been
implementing this model for years with excellent results. I have been reading some of the
concerns of parents questioning the proposed dual track scenario at Priory Park P. S. and
wish to point out that some English Language Learners or ESL students do quite well in a
French Immersion Program. Many already know one or more languages and have the carryover skills to pick up a second or third one. (Several of my former students excelled in the
French Immersion program.) The dual track system works.
The proposed scenario accommodating the French Immersion overflow at Priory Park seems
to be the most appropriate option based on all the information presented. However, with
decisions yet to be made, it is still quite unsettling for many parents who have chosen French
Immersion for their children and who may experience several school changes as well as those
English track students that may lose their community school within walking distance (i.e. Fred
A. Hamilton P.S.) As a result, I believe it is time to look at a cap on French Immersion
enrolment in order to effectively manage its growth and to develop a more stable long-term
plan. Without it French Accommodation Reviews will occur again and again. I am certainly
not alone in my thinking. Many parents in my school community have voiced this concern
(i.e. benefits of a FI dual track model and a FI cap on enrolment) to me on many occasions.
It is a growing concern that is gaining momentum.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
5
Other neighbouring boards have caps on French Immersion enrolment. The cap is an
effective way to manage the growth of an optional program. It allows a board to use its
buildings and resources to work with what it has, rather than trying to plan for the unknown. It
also allows for more stable long-term planning. The UGDSB is promising FI when it is
running out of room and appropriate locations. I hope parents new to the school system are
informed of the French Immersion space constraints when registering their Kindergarten
children and the fact that there could potentially be school changes due to overpopulation at
some schools in the future.
Furthermore, I think the numbers of graduating students from the Grade 8 and Grade 12
French Immersion programs needs some analysis. From what I understand, the numbers of
French Immersion students entering grade 9 drops off significantly from primary enrolment
numbers (especially the high numbers of students enrolling in Kindergarten). Graduation rates
from Grade 12 are even lower. If this is the end result of French Immersion instruction (which
is optional and not mandated as part of the Education Act of Ontario), is it appropriate to be
displacing potentially hundreds of children from their community schools in the process? It
seems logical to me that the dual track model would meet more needs of more students AND
preserve the beloved community school.
Finally, as a parent who has strived to stay current with the details on this review from early
2008, I would like to strongly and respectfully submit the following reccomendations to the
ARC so that they may be forwarded to the Board and its Trustees for future investigation and
consideration:
• a study of the graduating rates of French Immersion students in grade 8 and grade 12 (how
many actual numbers of students are continuing on in their journey of French language
instruction? This may impact decisions to convert community schools into FI centres)
• further study about the dual track model (many Boards are implementing dual track models
with excellent results even where English Language Learners are in the school population)
• an investigation into limiting enrolment (a cap) for French Immersion Programs until
appropriate spaces/locations can be found (without a cap, FI Reviews will keep coming up
every 5 years or so, which community school will go next?)
• earmarking locations for future growth
• educating parents of FI Kindergarten students that French Immersion is an optional
program and may need to be made portable (i.e. their child may be moved to another school
before they finish their elementary school years due to high enrolment and a lack of space)
Not all parties involved in this review will be happy with any end result, but compromise and
planning for the long term are essential. Thank-you for your time and consideration of these
matters.
Dear ARC members,
I am writing to express my support of ARC’s decision to recommend Scenario B for South
Guelph. It must have been a difficult decision but I trust that the members studied and
debated all the proposed scenarios.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
6
I know that not all parents will be pleased with the decision. Personally, I believe Scenario B
will disrupt the smallest number of students. Neighborhood schools, Priory Park and Fred A.
Hamilton, will remain as such and will not displace their student populations. The desire of
Priory Park parents to have their grade seven and eight students moved to Jean Little will be
met. Over-crowding at John McCrae will be addressed by moving students, who already are
bussed and do not attend a neighborhood school, to Priory Park which will help increase and
stabilize that school's student population. Through the ARC representatives from my kids’
school, I am aware that ARC members are committed to finding the best solution for South
Guelph and I hope that the school board trustees will also recognize and acknowledge this by
accepting ARC’s recommendation of Scenario B as the preferred scenario.
Dear ARC members, school board staff, and school trustees,
Arguments have been made as to why Scenario B should be rejected, one prominent reason
being that it would be detrimental for ESL students at Priory Park to be exposed to the French
language. It is argued that the learning of English would be hindered if French were to be
heard at school. I find this argument condescending. It seems to imply that ESL students do
not possess the capacity to distinguish between the language of instruction in school and
another language that will co-inhabit the airspace and hall space. On the contrary, a student
in Canada whose first language is not English is familiar with living in a multi-linguistic
environment. They will probably be more likely to accept that languages can co-exist and
since they can already distinguish between their native tongue and English, having French
taught to other students in the school would not be an issue to them. Also, as a former grade
1 ESL student myself, I can assure ARC members, school board staff and school trustees that it
is not necessarily true that ESL students need a pure English school environment to become
proficient in English. I was actually taught my native language at school, owing to studies
which indicated that children who are literate in their first language will have less problems
learning another. I was also never discouraged from speaking my first language with other
students whether during free time inside the classroom or in the playground. Half way through
my first year in the ESL program, I was placed with the “regular” class and never received any
extra help with the English language. My daughter was also an ESL student during primary
school. She attended Priory Park School and I was friends with many of the new immigrants
who had children in that ESL program. I can vouch that these children would have been
successful in mastering the English language even if French had been played over the
announcements. These ESL students came from stable, two-parent families, the parents had
post-secondary degrees and the majority spoke English, albeit with an accent. I had no
trouble carrying on lengthy conversations with them as we waited outside the school for the
morning and afternoon bells to ring or over coffee at one another’s house. All of us instilled in
our children the value of learning and receiving an education. Our children strived to be in
the top of their classes. I find it highly unlikely that ESL students and their immigrant parents
now at Priory Park would be so different than four years ago.I do not wish to diminish the
value of ESL programs. I can personally attest that they are indeed helpful. It is misguided,
though, to assume that ESL students are the most vulnerable in the school community.
Educators often state that the level at which students perform in school depends on parent
involvement, not so much on whether they live in multi-residential rental housing or speak a
language other than English at home. The struggle to master the English language is not
limited to students in ESL programs or even to students at Priory Park School. In fact, exposure
to multiple languages helps a child understand the very concept of language. Scenario B may
March 13th to September 1, 2009
7
not be what some parents want for their children and they may have valid reasons to oppose
it, but to use the argument that the ESL program would be ineffective if French is allowed in
the school is insulting to this ESL family. Wouldn’t it be great for our kids--English, French
Immersion and ESL--to go to a school where 15 different languages can be heard at recess
time?
Hello,
I am a parent of a child that attends Fred A. Hamilton. If our school was to become a french
immersion centre the majority of our school population that currently walks would now be put
on buses to go to school. I don’t understand this possible change at all.
Please see below: info from IWALK program in 2004: As you will see below FAH is a walking
community, even winning the Golden Shoe award that year. French Immersion families realize
when they enter the program their children will be bussed. Try and accommodate these FI
children at a new yet to be built school so no existing children will be displaced. Less turmoil
for everyone.
Thanks for listening.
--------------------------Here in Ontario 1,023 schools participated in International Walk to School Week (IWALK)
2004. Again this year we gave schools the option of celebrating IWALK for an entire week or
just one day. Feedback from schools and communities indicated that an awesome one-third of
Ontario schools held week-long celebrations!
“Every day students were encouraged to walk at recess wearing pedometers for
Steps Across Canada. Bused students involved too.” Rippleton Public School,
Toronto.
Participation was up around the world too – 36 countries spanning all six continents held
IWALK events. Visit http://www.iwalktoschoo.org to learn more about the participating
countries.
GUELPH schools were invited to join a little friendly IWALK competition this year, and
the two participating schools with the highest participation, Willow Road Public School
and Fred. A. Hamilton Public School, were awarded with a Golden Shoe trophy and a
school concert by a local native musician. Fred A. Hamilton Public School was visited by
the Mayor of Guelph as well as four members of the Guelph Storm hockey team. Guelph
now has adult crossing guards located on the routes to six schools and they are monitoring
pedestrian activity to determine if more families will choose to walk to school.
I would like to suggest that the Accommodation Review Committee please consider moving
the Grade 7 & 8 program from Priory Park School to Jean Little School as of September 2009
instead of September 2010.
I have two children who currently attend Priory Park, one in grade 8 and one in grade 7. I
can say that our experience with the grade 7 & 8 program at Priory Park has been very
March 13th to September 1, 2009
8
disappointing and lacking in many aspects of a senior elementary school. My children have
experienced the bare minimum of extra curricular programming such as music (no
instruments), art, physical fitness, and no science labs or tech programming as a result of a
less than viable number of students attending this school. I feel that my children are less than
prepared for the expectations of high school.
We feel that compared to other grade 7 & 8 programs, Priory Park has not been able to
provide a program that meets the standards of other schools, such as Jean Little or Kortright
Hills.
The grade 8 school trip was organized by a small group of families and in addition to
organizing the trip, all fundraising was organized and financially supported by the same small
group of parents. This unfortunate situation occurs when the number of students in grade 8
are so small (~30 students) that they cannot support the fundraising and organization that is
required to provide a school trip and a grade 8 graduation celebration.
Please convert Priory Park back to a K-6 school in September 2009.
I am writing to express my deep concern about Scenario B; the only option presently on the
table for consideration. Rather than reiterating the many excellent points made so often on
this forum over the last few months, I would simply say that I am totally and unequivocally
against adopting this option.
Please reject this scenario and send it back to board.
Dear Board of Trustees, Planning Committee and ARC members:
This letter is to state that moving students from John McCrae French Immersion to Dual Track
French and English at Priory Park jeopardizes the quality of both programs.
French Immersion at a school where all the children are in the same program and where the
children have bonded with their peers and their teachers and feel like John McCrae is their
school is a better program than at a Dual Track System of French and ESL at Priory Park
School.
The Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty, known as the Education Premier and the Minister of
Education Kathleen Wynne have invested in public education, improving public education in
Ontario.
My child's education will be disrupted and jeopardized as she is separated from her beloved
friends and teachers and supporting staff to be dispalced to a school with an inferior Dual
Track French Program as opposed to French Immersion in an all French Immersion School.
My older child attended SK to grade six at John McCrae, grades 7 and 8 at King George and
grades 9 through 12 at John F. Ross where she is graduating this year with honours and a
French Certificate. Ten years later my younger child deserves just as good of an education if
not better.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
9
To: Bob Borden, Chair of the Upper Grand District School Board and Central Guelph (FI)
Accommodation Review Committee; Members of the Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation
Review Committee; and, Trustees of the Upper Grand District School Board
It is my understanding that, at this point in the Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation Review,
the only course of action for parents is to provide feedback to the Accommodation Review
Committee regarding Scenario B (South Guelph) and how it would be implemented and it is
unlikely that ARC will change their decision regarding preferred scenarios. It is evident in the
minutes of the committee that the ARC is just tired and wants this process to end and is not
willing to do much further discussion on this matter.
Minutes - February 25, 2009 ARC Meeting
What’s next? - Deb indicated that if we work very hard and come prepared at the next meeting
(March 25th) – we may not need the additional April 1st meeting date. To try to assist with this
– Deb will try to complete as much as possible of the draft of the Final Report over the next few
weeks and email copies to members for their preview – prior to the next meeting. Agreed.
I believe that there has been considerable and in-depth discussion regarding the various
options for this accommodation review and wonder if maybe the committee has lost sight of
the big picture while poring over the details. The parents remain in a very difficult situation.
We are being told by ARC that there is not much that can be done, that ARC is moving
forward with their recommendation regardless, and that now we should focus on speaking to
the Trustees. When parents delegated at the last board meeting they were berated for not
understanding how this process works because they were delegating to the Trustees regarding
the various proposed scenarios before ARC had submitted their report. It was not parental
ignorance that led them to delegate, and it was unfair for them to be treated as such.
In my e-mail of March 8 to yourselves, I proposed a 'Scenario A-Tweaked'; Fred A. Hamilton
and Priory Park have a great deal in common. They are very close geographically, they have
similar student needs and demographics, they run similar programs, and indeed one is being
run more successfully than the other and could serve as an example. Fred A. Hamilton's
population would fit well into Priory Park's building if special programs were relocated. (You
can ask board staff about this, but I believe the intention is to re-integrate the developmentally
disabled class into classrooms in the next year or two regardless of the outcome of this
review.) Both schools have food programs for the underprivileged, they have a need for
considerable ELL support. A collaboration of efforts would suit both schools well. Further, this
opens up Fred A. Hamilton for a French Immersion centre. If a new portapac were installed
from the $1.7 million capital funding surplus for the displaced 7/8's this would create another
K-8 FI centre in South Guelph. This leaves capacity available at John McCrae and at Fred A
Hamilton (as an FI centre) for future growth of the FI program. This would negate the need for
more accommodation reviews in the near future as well. Priory Park would be viable, and the
FI centres would be able to accommodate growth and the programs would be most beneficial
for everyone involved. I would suggest that Fred A. Hamilton can still be used for the
community, for an ice rink, etc. etc. There is no reason why this community facility would not
remain a community facility.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
10
I would like to clearly state that the provincial guidelines for school valuation are not being
met by Scenario B. The guidelines state that, of value to the student, community, school board
and local economy "(t)he assessment is to weigh the value of the school(s) to the student
above the other considerations." I believe that this valuation applies not only the schools as
they are before the accommodation review, but to the proposed school being developed. If a
valuation were to be done for the new proposed composition of the Priory Park dual stream
there is a strong argument to be made that the value of the school to the student is not being
taken into consideration above all. There are no Schools-on-the-Move that are dual stream
schools. This proposed scenario implicates a removal of Priory Park's School-on-the-Move
designation, as they will no longer meet the criteria. This would certainly not be a positive
reflection on the school board.
The scope of the accommodation review has also been inadequate and, arguably, does not
meet provincial guidelines. The guidelines state that "wherever possible, accommodation
review should focus on a group of schools within a school board's planning area rather than
examine a single school. These schools would be reviewed together because they are located
close enough to the other schools within a planning area to facilitate the development of viable
and practical solutions for students accommodation." I cannot find anywhere in the minutes
why Fred A. Hamilton was removed from the table and put in the parking lot, and would
appreciate an explanation pertaining to this. Community is not to be taken into consideration
at the cost of program delivery and student success. Once Fred A. Hamilton was removed and
put in the parking lot there were no options, there was only, for better or worse, taking the
"surplus" of kids and putting them into Priory Park. This is not a viable solution. After all of this
deliberation, effort, and cost, John McCrae will still be well over capacity, Priory Park will be
overcapacity with two incompatible programs, and Fred A. Hamilton will remain under
capacity (without consideration of the gifted program) with a struggling program.
Where provincial guidelines and best practices are not met in an accommodation review, the
public does have the route of requesting from the Ministry an Administrative Review of the
Accommodation Review Process. Should the applicant be successful, and a facilitator's
investigation of the process has determined that the minimum guidelines were not met, the
process would begin again in an attempt to rectify the guidelines that were not followed. If
Fred A. Hamilton was parked in consideration of its community value, the guidelines are not
being met regarding student valuation. If Fred A. Hamilton was parked because it was actually
a viable population once the consideration of the portapac was removed, the guidelines for
scope are not being met.
There is nothing that can be done to 'tweak' Scenario B to make it OK. It is a poor choice on
too many levels. If the ARC committee insists on moving forward with Scenario B, I would
propose that, at that the very least, the wording be chosen to reflect the lack of scope which
inevitably led to the "Recommendation" of Scenario B. Further, I would ask that the word
"Recommendation" not be used in this submission, as it would be misguiding Trustees that this
is a viable and preferred option. Recommendation implicates a favorable statement with an
"indication of commendation or approval".
I again, thank you for your time and consideration. I hope that you are able to respect and
understand the passion that parents are demonstrating for their children's education.
Sincerely,
March 13th to September 1, 2009
11
Hello,
I believe my biggest concern with the review, is that children are not removed from
neighbourhood schools. I among with my neighbours moved into this neighbourhood so our
children could walk to school with family and friends. French immersion is not a viable option
for my two children. The key word being option. FI is an option, an option that should not
push children that are in a mandatory program out.
Please look at the benefits of having children educated in their community. This is vital.
A concerned parent
Hi All,
I am writing to express my concern that the ARC review process has been limited in terms of
the scenarios that were considered. I believe the current proposed scenarios are at best bandaid solutions, quick fixes, or short term options that do not address long-term planning issues.
The recent Toronto Star article (see link below) provides a good summary of these issues:
namely that French Immersion results in a 2-tired education system and that the French
immersion program ends up pushing the English stream out of community schools, as we
have seen with John MacCrae, Edward Johnson, and now likely Victory, resulting in the
placement of English track students in schools outside of their neighbourhood. I believe that
these issues have only become apparent in recent months, after the ARC process was already
in the works. I call on the Board to take the time to address these issues prior to fast-tracking
scenarios that may not be suitable in the long run. Options that could be considered in
include centralizing French Immersion or implementing capping on the number of French
Immersion students in dual-track schools. The status quo is not working and is unfair to those
that choose the English track program.
http://www.thestar.com/article/610307
Response :
At the March 31st Board Meeting, the trustees of the Upper Grand District School Board
approved a motion to suspend the timelines of the Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation
Review, pending a review of the ARC process by staff, trustees and the members of the ARC.
The Board heard very clearly from the community that the process was not responding to
community issues and input.
Therefore, rather than moving forward and approving a set of recommendations that would
not resolve the issues in the best interests of our students, the trustees have decided to take
time to reflect on what has happened and move to correct it.
Citizens are always welcome to delegate the Board. However, as everything is frozen at this
point, you may wish to wait until the Board determines what will happen to the CG(FI)ARC.
Any further decisions by the Board surrounding the CG(FI)ARC will not occur before the April
28th Board Meeting.
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
Trustee, Town of Orangeville and Chair, Upper Grand District School Board
March 13th to September 1, 2009
12
Dear Sirs/Madams,
I am a concerned John McCrae parent who lives in the Tytler Catchment area, or locally
known as "the Ward".
I am extremely upset about the recommendation that my JK daughter, along with her 39 other
neighbours will be bussed to Edward Johnson in the North end of the city.
Firstly, we live a beautiful 10 minute walk from John McCrae, literally going over the Covered
Bridge and crossing Royal City park directly to the schoolyard of the Water Street School.
I seriously object to the fact that the plan is to bus my child and her neighbours 15-20 minutes
away from our community. The Two Rivers Neighbourhood is pretty special and we chose to
live here for a reason. We attend Paisley Memorial United Church in our neighbourhood, my
husband runs along the trails bordering the Speed and the Eramosa Rivers, we buy ice cream
at the Boathouse and Cone Shoppe, we go to McCrae House for cultural activities, we swim
at Lyons Pool, we shop at the Farmer's Market, we go to shows at the River Run, etc. etc.
Do you realize that children living across the 401 (Morriston), as well as children living in
areas bordering Milton (Nassagaweya Line) and Puslinch are unaffected and will still get to go
to McCrae?
But based on your plan for the catchment area, 40 families living within walking distance have
to utilise Edward Johnson, a school to which they have no connection. It makes no
environmental sense, it is unbelievably unfair, it does not make economical sense and does
nothing for our community.
I am also very alarmed about how many transitions you are subjecting our children to. Let me
put a human face to your scenario, if it comes to pass. My neighbour, also a John McCrae
parent, has a daughter who began school as a JK student last year at the "old" John McCrae.
As you know, JMC has been demolished and now she attends JMC at College Ave. When the
"new" JMC is completed, she moves back to Water Street. Come 2010, she will be bussed to
Edward Johnson until she finished Grade 6. She will have to attend Paisley Road P.S. for
Grades 7 and 8. Following which she will attend John F. Ross. Between JK and Grade 8 you
will have subjected my neighbour's daughter to 5 transtions. My daughter will only have to
suffer one less transition.
Ironically, if we lived in Morriston, Puslinch or along Nassawageya Line, or in the South end,
our daughters would be able to attend John McCrae from JK to Grade 8. Why us? Why the
Ward? Is it because it is assumed that we are low income and not political and will take this
lying down? Is it because it was assumed that there would be no resistance? Is it because it
was assumed that we are "inner-city"?
Where is the equity? Our children are going to be "transient" through no fault of their
parents. We have lived here since the nineties. We have been educationally and
environmentally and socially responsible choices. Our children are going to be "transient"
because of the ill-conceived plans that have been made by this board.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
13
Why doesn't the Board diagnose the real problem--the lack of an FI centre or dual track
schools closer to FI students in the South end--instead of trying to pass off band-aid solutions
that create domino effects and displace group after group of students? Whose interests are
you really serving?
Please do not proceed with the unjust recommendation to ship our 40 students away from
home. You are just creating a situation where you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. It creates a
situation where there are students who are haves and students who are have nots. It isn't right
and it is not in the best interests of our children.
Please scrap Scenario 2 for North Guelph.
Sincerely,
Hello.
I have been following the ARC review process with great interest. As a newer resident of our
area (Tytler catchment area), I observed, with increasing alarm, our children get assigned to
Edward Johnson school. I knew that there would be another opportunity to express my
concerns as the South scenarios also had our children implicated under the proposed
scenarios. I think that we are the only neighbourhood that has been affected by all the
scenarios proposed by the board. With only 40 - 45 children implicated, this places great
pressure on the few parents to advocate on their children's behalf.
As a resident of this neighbourhood, my child enjoys a very brief bus ride to John McCrae
school. In fact, we can walk there in under 15 minutes. It seemed impossible to me that our
child, and those in our neighbourhood, would be assigned to another school to
accommodate children living in the south end of the City - even outside of the city itself. I
expressed my concerns to our ARC representatives and felt that there was hope under the
South end scenarios that our children would be left at JMC - eliminating the need for my
child to change schools at least 4 times over the course of JK - 8, and acting in spirit of the
board's commitment to reduce time spent on buses.
Please reconsider the recommendation to move our children to a school that is farther away,
and projected to be over capacity by 2011. Please keep our children in their JMC school - a
school that is also projected to be over capacity, but one that offers our children the
experience of having a school as an integral part of their community.
Respectfully,
I apologize for my late comments, I picked up the two months review of the board as time to
respond. No, I have nothing good to say about Tytler district being kicked out of John
McCrae. I wished I've had more time to be involved with this whole process, but being a
single working mother doesn't leave alot of time for anything but doesn't excuse me from not
putting my two cents in when it concerns my daughter's future.
My concerns are pretty much the same as everyone else's but I find that the Central areas
concerns in regards to the small number of students being shipped out from 120 to 145 is
nothing compared to the (closer 20 not 40) small amount being shipped from Tytler area
March 13th to September 1, 2009
14
extremely disturbing. Why is it so acceptable to kick out kids out? My child is in SK now, that
means the first 4yrs of her school life she will have been shipped four times - this is
unacceptable. On the bus there are approximately 20 kids from Tytler (I'd like to know how
they came up with 40), there may be 1 other child in SK that goes on her bus - and 2 children
- maybe three per grade. How does this small amount really accommodate JMC?
My daughter had a stressful first have of the year adjusting to the new school and that's with
all the promoting JMC did with the changes and being with the same teacher and classmates.
She has been looking forward to her New School that she wants to drive by every week to see
how far they are on building. With this scenario, she will be displaced on her own to another
school with no plausible reason other than a district change. It's also funny how this is to
accommodate 7 & 8 for one school only. Only a select few will receive the full JK - 8 the rest
of the children will still be shipped elsewhere for 7&8 including my daughter if she's at EJ - so
where is the real benefit of this forced change from what we have now? Most of our children
have been geared to going to junior high - this is the next be step in growing up so why are
we forcing a change that is so disruptive and devastating to our youngest most vulnerable
children that require stability and routine in their lives?
Our friendships and relationships have revolved around JMC and La Garderie in the Central
area and we have no connections in the North with the schools or the community. I find that
expecting a young child to be forced out of her community on her own, after the constant
moves she's already made, is both unacceptable and will be devastating for her social and
educational development and health.
Dear Accommodation Review Committee:
I have been following the accommodation review for several months now, as I am one of
the families affected if scenario B is selected. I will not reiterate what my fellow neighbors
have expressed about adopting this solution. They have very valid reasons as to why this
choice is wrong and I agree with all of them. I also agree with what one of our delegates
mentioned, at the March 31st board meeting, about our French immersion centers in Guelph.
It is a great system and we want to continue to be a part of it. Scenario B does not offer the
affected families a comparable education for our children. It is just a temporary solution to
the steady growth and overcrowding issues at John McCrae.
I will not pretend to have a knowledgeable solution to this accommodation problem. I have
heard of other boards employing a cap on the enrolment into the French Immersion
program. Perhaps this would enable the board to better control and project French
Immersion populations. Has this ever been considered? The French Immersion population is
on the rise; however, the board can implement this cap and know what kind of numbers they
are working with, more accurately.
It is quite obvious that the review is a complicated, stressful, and frustrating process and
your hard work and dedication is much appreciated however the process is flawed and limited
in scope. We need to see the big picture in all of this in order to come up with creative
solutions to this accommodation problem. Consideration must be given to include other
options, not just the schools named in this review. I urge you to reject scenario B, stop the
review, and open up the scope to include all the schools in Guelph. This will lead us to a
solution that would benefit all the children involved.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
15
To Whom It May Concern,
I have read an article in the paper concerning the french immersion in Guelph. It has come
to my attention that Priory Park is still being considered as a dual track school. If the board is
still concerned with that school declining in numbers with students, then why is it that the
grades 7 and 8 are being sent to Jean Little School. Why is Priory Park even being considered
a dual track when this is the ONLY ENGLISH school on the north side of Stone Road? I have
a child going to Priory Park, who is currently in the special education class, what happens to
him when he is put in the regular classes and french will probably be the only language in
Priory Park. I have been living in Guelph for 4 years now, our main reason to move here from
Mississauga was population and a school close enough for our son to go too. I am a parent
that doesn't drive and I don't know alot of people in the community nor in the school. I am
not speaking for others but bringing in the dual track program to Priory Park will be a factor
for my family and I to consider moving out of Guelph.
Schools should be a place for children to get an education not a place for a language to
be brought in all because certain parents want it for their children. All the funding that will be
going into bringing in french immersion, consider using one of the schools on the south side
of Stone Road as a French School.
I've been meaning to document the history of where F.I. was located in Guelph. Please add
this to Central Guelph F.I. Comments.
Thanks,
----------------Year
Grade
School
H.R. Teacher
Principal
1974-75 * Kindergarte King Edward
n
School
Maureen Dunn
Bruce Munro
1975-76
Grade 1
Paisley Road
School
Murielle Lafreniere
1976-77
Grade 2
Mona Witte
Clarence Comfort
1977-78
Grade 3
Victory Public
School
Victory Public
School
Mme. Bryant
Clarence Comfort
19781979
Grade 4
Paisley Road
School
Moved to Nova Scotia in June 1979. Returned
August 1981. I am not sure where the F.I.
program was located between 1979 and 1981.
When we returned, there was a K-6 F.I. program
at Edward Johnson and 7&8 at Waverley Drive. At
the same time, I believe 7&8 F.I. was offered at
College Avenue.
Bruce Munro/
Norm McWilliams
* F.I. Program started in Guelph in September 1974 at King Edward School.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
16
To Whom it May Concern:
Before the timeline for the French Accommodation Review was suspended, I had emailed a
letter which I was hoping to make it to the web-site (it was sent on March 19, 2009). It did
not make it on the web-site and I was wondering if and when that will happen? I would like
the public to read these comments as I feel there are some very valid points raised as to this
whole dilemma of what to do about the French Immersion accommodation of students.
Please let me know what the status is.
Also, please find below a copy of that letter.
Thanks for your time,
_________________
Response:
Hi - the process used for the reading and considering of all email correspondance for the
ARC is as follows:
Each week just prior to an up- coming ARC meeting, the most recent 'collection' of email is
sent to all 35 of the committee members to read before attending the working meeting. At the
meeting, the emails are then discussed and considered as to whether we need to take action,
post, respond, etc. Following the meeting, all of those emails are posted along with the
minutes of the meeting.
Your email, along with about 60 others, was due to be reviewed at the March 25th
meeting...when the Review was suspended. When the ARC resumes - we will continue with
the process and review all of those emails and any more that have been collected since the
suspension of the ARC. I appologize for the delay - we hope to finish this 'pause' for
reflection of our process very soon and be back to work with some improved public input
opportunities.
Good afternoon
Please find attached a solution that the FA Hamilton PS Council has formulated for the ARC.
We are also sending this to Programming Dept.
Thank you
FA Hamilton Public School
Accommodation Review Committee
May 15, 2009
We, the members of School Council at FA Hamilton Public School, have many concerns about
the way in which French Immersion is offered in the UGDSB. The purpose of this letter is to
outline our concerns and provide a solution for the ARC, which we think would succeed from
both a programming and planning perspective.
Over the past several months it has become clear to us that programming and planning need
to be working together in order to have a successful ARC. It appears to us that the School
March 13th to September 1, 2009
17
Board continues to use methods with respect to planning that persist in creating disharmony
and upheaval in neighbourhood schools. Decisions that may have worked 25 years ago are
no longer appropriate in the current climate academically, socially, and environmentally.
We feel that before any solid, long-term decisions can be made in the current ARC, the
following questions should be addressed:
1. Attrition rates Attrition rates are very high in French Immersion. As many as 30% of children
who start do not make it to grade six. The drop-off is even more pronounced after that. Why is
the board pouring so much money into a program that does not lead a significant body of
students to graduation from high school? Why is French Immersion so valued in elementary
school but not in high school? And more importantly, what is the definition of success in French
Immersion? i.e. Is two years of French Immersion for 4-5 year olds worth throwing the entire
regular track system into chaos by forcing accommodation reviews every five years? Is
providing
French until grade 3 or 6 for approximately 13% of the population worth disrupting the other
87%, as well as entire neighbourhoods?
2. Caps Nearly every other board in the province has a cap on French Immersion to allow for
better planning. This issue must be discussed, again taking into consideration the disruption to
87% of
students for the sake of 13%. It appears that the Board wants French Immersion to be
accessible to everyone and so caps would appear to be unfair, yet how fair is it to create a
barrier to enrolment if a child is not enrolled in the program by the time they are five years of
age?
3. Entry Points There are many, many different models of FI in this province. Only a very few
have children entering FI in JK. We would like to elaborate on this last point, which would help
to solve the ongoing predicament of moving students from school to school. In our board,
French Immersion is an all-or-nothing program that parents must choose for children who are
only three or four years old. If French Immersion began in grade one, parents and
kindergarten teachers would have two full years to determine whether they think French
Immersion is the best option for a child.
Socially and academically, starting FI in grade one makes sense. Some will argue that
immersion programs are best when started young, but there are so many other factors that
outweigh marginal improvement in French language acquisition. All-day, every other day
kindergarten makes language retention very difficult, so these two years do not bring children
to fluency two years earlier. At the JK entry level, children’s language abilities are so vastly
different it is nearly impossible to determine
whether immersion is the best option. Kindergarten in this province is mainly about school
readiness, preparing for literacy, and learning vitally important social skills. Children should be
allowed to experience this at their home school, within their own neighbourhoods. Most other
school boards in this province have realized this, and they start their programs in grade one
(viz. Halton, Waterloo, et al.). There are boards (HPEDSB [Belleville], DSBN [Niagara]) where
entry points are even later (grade 5),
and these children are still experiencing considerable success in second language acquisition.
We are in the middle of a grand-scale accommodation review trying to find space for grade 78 FI students. No matter what choices are made, regular track students will be forced out of
their neighbourhood schools and at least one, possibly two regular track programs will close
entirely. These RT children will be displaced from fully viable, walkable community schools, put
onto buses and moved into other neighbourhoods. In addition, some French Immersion
students will be displaced from their current school community.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
18
If FI started in grade one, this review could end right now without displacing a single student in
JK – 6
– neither in the regular track nor in French Immersion. The number of grade 7-8 students that
need to be accommodated in Guelph (223 by the 2007 statistics) is roughly equal to the
number of students in JK-SK FI (213.5 FTE by the 2007 statistics). If those JK-SK students simply
stayed at their local schools for the first two years, all the numbers problems would be solved.
It would also keep the youngest students
within their own communities, and off school buses. No one would have to be displaced;
considerably fewer children would end up on a bus; no regular track programs will close. What
does that mean for the FI program in general? Based on other boards, starting in grade one
does not spell disaster for FI. Instead
FI becomes an informed choice. You won’t have to worry about encouraging students to drop
out, and you may pick up others who wouldn’t have chosen it in the first place. A slight decline
in numbers would actually help resolve the current problem of increasing numbers with no
physical space to place them.
We feel this solution, when examined and tweaked in finer detail by the Planning and
Programming Departments makes sense and is both workable and a fair compromise for all
parties involved. We will also be sending this letter to Dennis Cuomo, Planning Manager and
Heather Boswell, Superintendent of Program so that they are aware of our concerns and our
suggestion to the ARC.
We are also requesting a response from the ARC regarding this proposal.
Respectfully Submitted,
Members of F.A. Hamilton Public School Council
Response:
Thankyou for your letter outlining a 'possible solution from FA Hamilton PS Council'. This
letter will be included in the next collection of communications that the ARC members receive
from the public once the ARC is re-convened by the Board. We appreciate your concerns
and your attempts to assist the ARC in resolving this very difficult review.
Dear Trustees,
We are writing to express concerns with the renewal of the ARC process.
According to the Chair of the ARC, the process was suspended because it went sour. When
something has gone sour, it is prudent to discover the means of the breakdown. An
assessment of the cause with a focus on improving the conditions is necessary to ensure a
different outcome.
While we are grateful that the process for suggesting scenarios will be changed, we remain
deeply concerned that other aspects of the AR process remain the same, and that these
aspects have not been identified in the report being presented tonight. The facilitators and
ARC members are unchanged. The lack of transparency regarding the ways guiding
principles and valuation reports are reconciled and considered in the analysis of scenarios
stand unchanged.
We hope to see discernible changes in the aim and purpose of the ARC – a shift from
maintaining program “viability” to ensuring program quality is essential.
Thank-you for your consideration.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
19
Hello,
This note is just to ask a simple question. Why is the alternative to convert FA Hamilton to an
FI centre still being considered so prominently? This was an alternative that was originally
created for discussion purposes. It is an alternative that supposedly met with strong resistance
before the review was stopped and it is also an alternative that was pretty much ruled out
before the review was stopped.
If this alternative is still on the table, I would like someone to write me back or publish
something to explain why an alternative that suggests replacing 200 English regular track
students (that live in the school’s neighborhood) by 200 French Immersion students is even
being considered?
Is the French Immersion (optional) program more important than the regular track program?
How can you let an optional, portable program destroy a viable school and the neighborhood
that it is in? The destruction has already begun – simply by having the school closure as an
alternative in this review.
Dear Ms. Waterston,
I am a parent of two children currently attending Paisley Road Public School (PRS) in the FI
program. Our oldest son will be attending King George in the fall. I am writing this letter to
provide my thoughts on the current Central Guelph (FI Accommodation Review (herein FI
review) and to provide recommendations for the future of the process. I would like to preface
my comments by stating that I have been a very active participant in the process attending all
of the public meetings, communicating with the PRS ARC representatives at school council
meetings, and actively working with interested parents to present our ideas to the ARC. I
believe the PRS ARC representatives have worked hard to represent both the school and all of
the students in Guelph and I respect their efforts and dedication.
With that background, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND that you STOP the current
accommodation review process and start a new process. My reasons for this recommendation
are briefly presented below:
1.
At the beginning of the FI review, parents were repeatedly informed that the 4
initial scenarios presented in Report 2 (Scenarios 1, 2 A, and B) would only be the starting
point in the review and that other options would be considered by the committee. Clearly, a
major issue that the public has with the process was that other scenarios were never
considered and in fact, the committee’s hands were tied because other viable options that
impact students in other schools are precluded from consideration. A better process (outlined
below) would be to obtain public input on the scenarios up-front and then form the
committee(s) to include those schools from the beginning.
2.
It is extremely important that the affected students/families are adequately
represented in the process. King George students/families (all Grade 7/8 FI students) were
never properly included in the process with only one representative who does not currently
have children at the school. Likewise, three weeks from now, one of the PRS ARC
representatives will no longer have children at Paisley Road and should be replaced in any
March 13th to September 1, 2009
20
future effort. This situation may be similar for other ARC members. Starting with a new group
of people is the only proper course to follow.
My recommendations for improving the accommodation review are briefly outlined below.
1.
The Board has detailed guidelines for its schools including the total number of
students, minimum number of Grade 7/8 classes and the percentage of Grade 7/8 students.
However, its guiding principles with regard to dual track vs. single track FI schools are
inadequate.
a.
One guiding principle states that “dual track schools should offer a reasonable balance
in the number of French and English students (minimum 200 per stream) and should
congregate sufficient enrolment of grade 7 and 8 students to allow viable programming and
staffing.” This guideline is simply not clear. Is this 200 JK-6 or JK – 8 students? What is
sufficient enrolment of grade 7 and 8 students in a dual track JK- 8 school?
b.
A second guiding principle states “Program Department to provide a statement which
addresses the dual stream vs. single stream benefits/drawbacks.” Since the program
department has not and does not plan to provide any statement, this guiding principle is
useless.
Now that the Board has significant public interest in the accommodation review AND
experience with both single track and dual track K-6 FI schools, I believe the Board should
actively solicit public input and approve new guiding principles for FI schools based on public
input. I would like the input process to address K-6 and 7/8 separately. For example, perhaps
the majority of staff and parents would recommend single track k-6 schools and dual track
7/8 programs. Or both single track K-6 and K-8 FI schools. Or, perhaps the process would
recommend a stronger guiding principle that clearly states that both single track and dual
track options for K-8 are equally viable as long as both programs have a minimum of 200 JKgrade 6 students and a minimum of 125 7/8 students in each stream). Whatever the
outcome, it would set a stronger framework for both developing scenarios for consideration
and the evaluation of those scenarios.
2.
Once that process is complete, then the Board should actively solicit input into
scenarios that are consistent with the single-track/dual-track guiding principle discussed
above.
3.
Finally, once scenarios are developed with public input, I would recommend
setting up perhaps one or more ARCs based on the scenarios developed.
I am sorry this is a long e-mail message. I could actually present much more information but I
have tried to be as brief as possible.
Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions or discuss this process in
more detail at a future time.
Warmest regards,
March 13th to September 1, 2009
21
To Trustees of the Upper Grand District School Board:
It is with sincere gratitude that we would like to thank you for deferring the motion to
recommence the Central Guelph FI Accommodation Review. You have provided not just a
pause to ensure that all aspects of the Accommodation Review Process are given their proper
consideration, but you have also demonstrated to the public that you are listening. We are
grateful for your dedication and expressed intention to keep what is best for students and
programs at the forefront.
Some recommendations were put forward at the last Board meeting that would propose the
terms under which the Central Guelph French Immersion Accommodation Review would
recommence. We would like to provide you with some further considerations for this report to
ensure a positive outcome moving forward.
The report presented on May 26 by Mr. Borden and Ms. Steplock outlined some positive
recommendations; in particular, dividing the ARC into two working subgroups and
broadening the scope of the schools under consideration. These changes will ensure an
increased functionality for the committee to develop and consider solutions while taking long
term planning into consideration. However, there are key exclusions that pertain to process
that should be considered to ensure a defendable outcome. As well, time constraints,
although acknowledged as a concern, continue to be evident in the proposed
recommendations and timeline.
When the objective of a task is to get to the end result as quickly as possible, the quality of the
work will frequently suffer. For any task, the best solution is to have a solid foundation with
which to work. Properly addressing process, guidelines, and vision will create an end result
that will address accommodation needs into the future. Balancing program and capital
considerations in the guiding principles, providing detailed population projections for scenario
development and submission, developing a method for evaluating and scoring the scenarios,
reviewing the role of the valuation templates and the ARC roles and responsibilities, modifying
policy pertaining to consensus decision making, transparency with communication, and
reasonable timelines are still missing from the recommendations. Expanded explanations of
these additional considerations for the re-commencement of the Central Guelph (FI)
Accommodation Review are included in an Appendix to this letter.
Rushing the end result will compromise the quality of the outcome and in the end will not save
time. The proposed recommendations may well ensure that King George will get built by
2011, which appears to be the driving force of this review and, indeed this report. However, it
will have compromised many programs, students and relationships in its wake.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
22
If this review recommences without a strong foundation and proper alignment with the
Ministry’s guidance, it is likely that this review could end up taking far more time and effort
than having done the job properly in the first place.
Thank you for your dedication to our children’s education.
Sincerely,
Appendix A
Additional Considerations for Re-commencement of the Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation
Review
Guiding Principles
It has been stated numerous times throughout this review that the guiding principles should
have balanced consideration of capital and program considerations. Given the scoring of the
principles as currently written, capital considerations could override program considerations.
While it is understood that students’ needs are reflected in more principles than just
programming, the main focus should remain on educational program delivery. The focus on
the student is reflected in the valuation templates, however, the guiding principles are the
foundation used by staff to evaluate scenarios. There appears to be a misalignment between
the guiding principles and the valuation templates.
Prior to the suspension of this process, the preferred scenario for South Guelph that was to be
recommended to this Board clearly demonstrated that the current tools and processes being
used for accommodation reviews could lead to a recommendation that would sacrifice
programming.
Submission of Scenarios
The public is being encouraged to submit “further ideas and suggestions to the CG (FI) ARC
for consideration and analysis”. However, there remains skepticism about whether the ideas
will be given due consideration. The original process was also meant to be a public process
which encouraged input for consideration and analysis. However, the frustration from the lack
of acknowledgement, response, and transparency from the initial review remains fresh. There
is no reason for the public to feel it would be any different this time with the same participants.
It will take considerably more than a restatement of what should have occurred the first time to
make the public feel their voices will be heard.
Population Projections
The school population projections are frustrating to use without background information. For
example, there is a projected difference in 2015 of 248 students at Priory Park between the
current planned projections in the Proposed Long Term Accommodation Plan and status quo
March 13th to September 1, 2009
23
projections in staff report #2. The considerations for these variations are difficult to identify. It
is frustrating to attempt to brainstorm scenarios that are feasible and realistic when the data at
hand is not user-friendly. It would be most ideal if the core population of the school is
identified as a baseline, with portable, optional and interim accommodation review
populations identified separately.
Scenario Evaluation
There is an Accommodation Review Scenario Scoring sheet identified in the Clarification Report
for the Central Guelph Accommodation Review Report #1. This scoring sheet appears to be a
staff tool that is based on the guiding principles and is used to score scenarios after the
committee has submitted them. The Guiding Principles state that “expert staff in each criteria
category will evaluate scenarios and score them based on the guiding principles and their
experience”.
In the minutes of the September 17, 2008 Accommodation Review Committee meeting, Deb
Steplock identified that there was a need for an evaluation tool for the committee when she
stated that she was “hoping to have an ‘analysis tool’ available to assist with evaluating the
merits of these plans, as well as any others that may evolve”. It would seem this was not
developed because the committee has identified that not having an analysis tool was a
constraint to the process. This evaluation tool is crucial for the committee to transparently and
objectively brainstorm.
Valuation Templates
The role of valuation templates are unclear for schools that are not under consideration for
closure. Nor is it clear how the valuation templates are to be reconciled for populations that
are being considered for reorganization. When one population is to be integrated with another
population, and the two have completely different valuations, how are these values reconciled?
In the Trustee and Staff feedback in Appendix A of the subject report, it is suggested that the
Accommodation Review Committee may have spent too much time on the school valuation
reports for schools that were not closing.
ARC Roles and Responsibilities
The Ministry’s overview of the committee’s roles, included in the Ministry’s New Pupil
Accommodation Review Guidelines presentation, January 31, 2007, suggests that the
valuation templates are one of the key roles for the committee. In fact, nowhere in the outline
do the roles and responsibilities of the committee identify that the committee is to make a
singular scenario recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The role of the committee appears
to be, primarily, to communicate with and collect information from the community, hold public
meetings, and develop valuation templates.
"The ARC is to submit the School Valuation report to the school board administration. The
School Valuation report is to be accessible to trustees and the public. School board staff should
March 13th to September 1, 2009
24
review and analyze the School Valuation report. School board staff will present the findings
and recommendations of the valuation report along with their proposals and recommendations
to the trustees, who will make the final decision regarding the future of the school(s)." Pupil
Accommodation Review Guidelines
Having a committee of public representatives that are not elected, have no expertise, and no
method of properly evaluating information in a position to make a singular recommendation to
the Trustees is flawed. This approach could place this Board in a position where Trustees could
be forced to choose between going against what would appear to be the public’s wishes or
making a poor planning choice for the Board. It seems that the mandate of the
Accommodation Review, and the mandate of the Accommodation Review Committee have
blurred together and need to be redefined.
Consensus?
The Accommodation Review Committee has been identified as a committee of consensus. In
the ARC minutes of meeting dated May 15, 2008 it was identified by Deb Steplock that “if
(consensus) were not possible, the recommendation of the ARC to Board could be made on
the basis of a majority vote of fifty percent plus one vote.” Fifty percent plus one is a far cry
from consensus. The idea that the Accommodation Review Committee is to make a singular
recommendation to the Board of Trustees, without tools for evaluation, with a possible majority
vote of fifty percent plus one is not ideal, and will not be publicly defensible. At the very least,
multiple scenarios identified and submitted by the Accommodation Review Committee should
be made with a 2/3 majority recommendation.
Transparency
The ARC update report states that the reports to school communities will provide messages that
are “uniform, consistent and prompt”. There was never a question pertaining to the uniformity,
consistency or promptness of the public messages being sent out from the Accommodation
Review Committee. The public is looking for transparency, and this has not been addressed in
this report. Given the wording of the communication approach in Mr. Borden’s report, it is
expected that the messages will continue to be as uniform, consistent, prompt, vague, and
opaque as they were the last time.
Time
Throughout the Trustee, staff and ARC feedback on review constraints in Appendices A and B,
it is identified that more time is required to properly complete this accommodation review. The
fact that the timeline extends to June 2010 appears that this has been addressed, however, the
timeline is very front heavy, and does not appear to provide any relief from the difficult time
constraints.
When this process was halted, there was the implication that the Ministry’s stringent timelines
were partially the culprit for why the process had gone sour. In a memo on October 31, 2006
from Nancy Naylor, Assistant Deputy Minister, Business and Finance Division, Ministry of
Education, the timelines outlined by the Ministry are minimums.
March 13th to September 1, 2009
25
Hello,
In reviewing the revised recommendations I have a question about #9 specifically. It states,
“Location of the grade 7 & 8 French Immersion students, displaced by the reorganization of
King George P.S., in one or more existing JK to 8 schools effective September 2010.”
Does this mean that schools which are currently JK-6 (such as Paisley Road, Victory etc.) will
not be considered as an option for the grade 7 & 8 French Immersion students for September
2010?
Thank you,
Why Middle School?
February 2nd, 2009
There seems to be a lot of talk recently about the pending closure of King George Public
School. Isn’t this school falling apart? We’ve been told for years that it is, no wonder the
School Board has decided to tear this school down and build a new one! Kids should be in
an environment that meets their needs. Right? Well, maybe King George already meets their
needs, possibly even exceeds them. I’ll agree that the school is in need of repairs, maybe it
should be torn down and rebuilt, but as a Middle School, not another English only K-8!
It’s a real shame when I read in the paper, “What will we do with the French Immersion
Students”, “Where will we put the French Immersion Students”. Are the French immersion
students second class citizens or maybe an afterthought. Funny, the school board collects my
tax dollars just as quickly as it collects them from the English parents. So, where is the
problem?
Let’s remember that King George School is attended by both French Immersion students and
English only students. The problem is not the building, new or old; the problem is that these
kids, French and English will be dispersed to a variety of elementary schools throughout the
city where the enriched program will no longer be offered or available. Nothing personal
against the elementary school system, but middle school offers so much more for this age
group.
•
First, specialized teachers, whether its art or shop, french or english,
science or geography, these teachers are experts in their fields. Let’s not
forget to mention the support available to students, a Child and Youth
Counselor, and Educational Assistant, a Psychological Consultant and a
Special Education Consultant.
•
Second, outstanding extra curricular activities. From ballroom dancing,
to football, photography club, or drawing club, there’s something for
everyone. At this school, on one is left behind!
March 13th to September 1, 2009
•
26
Third, age appropriate material. Whether it’s written material, like the
stimulating books in the library, or the weight room, or maybe the shop
room where my daughter now knows the names of more tools than my
husband (and knows how to operate them!), middle schools offers new
challenges and opportunities.
Without this middle school, hundreds of Guelph students will miss this enriching opportunity.
It’s so much more than lockers and class rotation; it’s preparing them for high school! I never
realized what a positive impact the right school, with the right teachers, could have on a child.
In the not so far future, my daughter will be entering John F. Ross prepared to high school!
Well done KG!
How dare The School Board rob future grade 7 and 8 students the opportunity of becoming a
King George Public School graduate! Shame on the school board for not taking into account
the importance of Middle schools and the enriching impact it has on these young minds! The
School Board is supposed to do the right thing for the students. If this school does not remain
a middle school, the school board has, one again failed us all.
Concerned Parent