March 6 to March 13th
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,
I would like to voice my concern over scenario B and its intention of splitting up the current FI
7/8 cohort into two groups. I believe this is going to have repercussions on the quality of
programming these students will receive. Their new locations at John McCrae and some other
school (such as Priory) will mean inadquate facilities, a small pool of teachers with limited
variety, and not enough of a critical mass of students for enrichment clubs and sports. The 7/8
experience should open up a new horizon for kids (both academically and socially) instead of
being more of the same narrow elementary school experience. I think you need to go back
to the drawing board and look for other solutions more city-wide, for example turning Edward
Johnson into a 7/8 FI centre. I'm not whining about my own situation here: we live a stone's
throw from the new John McCrae, yet I prefer my kids to go to whatever location it takes to
get a decent French immersion 7/8 experience. I know you will counter that the board's
current philosophy is the K-8 model (not that any of us parents were ever asked about this).
But I believe the FI context is different, because we just don't have the numbers at the 7/8
level. Willow Road, for instance, has ten 7/8 classes, so they have the critical numer to make
it work in a K-8 setting.
I further believe that a French immersion centre is by far the preferable option for both 7/8
and K-6 kids. The dual-track Priory Park scenario is therefore unacceptable, especially since it
currently houses a very successful ESL program.
Finally, I take exception to your omission in your recent "ARC Update" of the KEIP group and
its concerns over 7/8 programming quality. Their concerns should have been included in your
list of parents' concerns over scenario B. One wonders why this was done.
I urge you to reconsider scenario B in light of the overwhelming rejection it faces from parents
on all sides.
Sincerely,
_______ forwarded your letter to me, as we were talking yesterday and today about the
scenario to be discussed tonight.
I wanted to put forward my thoughts in case I cannot attend the meeting tonight. I apologize
in advance for things I have missed throughout the long process. There are some things, like
how the various scenarios originated, which I don't have knowledge of. Anyway here goes:
In looking at the large picture, I see the scenario B as inefficient and short-sighted, creating
disruption and a sub-standard quality of education in too many schools and neighbourhoods
without a satisfying result. This cannot be the best solution the board can come up with. It
seems clear that the best scenario is one which minimizes the numbers of students, schools
and communities affected by change and by on-going change or instability. The best
scenario will also have as a goal, delivering the best education to all of the subgroups- FI K-
March 6 to March 13th
2
6, FI 7&8, as well as the existing English-only programs which each have their own valued
priorities.
The concerns and discussions I have been hearing fall mostly under one of these topics:
The strengths of French Immersion Centred Education.
Maintaining or Creating A Specific and separarate physical setting and course programme
for grades 7&8.
Maintaining Neighbourhood schools.
How can Guelph try to meet all of the above priorities?
Could there be several (2-3) FI centres in Guelph to accommadate the numbers of K-Grade
6 students, current, and anticipated in the following years, which would provide some sense
of stable "neighbourhood" schools.
Could all FI grades 7&8 go to one school? Are there, and will there be, enough students or
too many for one school?
Could all FI grades 7&8 join all English grades 7&8 students at one school, like a mini
J.F.Ross?
Or would several grade 7&8 schools, accommodating FI and English, and again reflecting
the several "neighbourhoods", be the way to go?
Inevitably there are going to be some students and families facing some kind of change in
the next couple of years. Perhaps if the reason for that change is principled, and understood,
and for a longer term reward of a strong FI program all the way to high school, the change
wouldn't seem so negative. Currently, the future looks like change and then probably more
change, for too many groups and neighbourhoods.
Right now, the largest peak in numbers of french immersion students moving toward grade
7&8 are still to come. There will be increasing numbes of students flowing toward Priory
Park or any other school chosen to accommadate the FI students who won't "fit" at John
McCrae. Those numbers will increase until the peak, whenever that occurs, hits grade eight.
Will John McCrae school itself, even be able to accommodate the peak numbers of grade
7&8 students in those years?
Parents have spent a lot of time trying fit their interests into a couple of inadequate scenarios.
Why have these been the only scenarios? Why are they so myopic?What is the Board's
agenda and why?
Someone has suggested to me that the idea of re-integrating grades 7&8 into a K-grade 8
system is the Board's response to the provincial funding formula. Does the Board
need help lobbying the provincial government to change this bias?
What can we do to put different scenarios on the table?
John McCrae School Parent
March 6 to March 13th
3
To Board and ARC Members:
I have two children in the French Immersion program at Victory School within walking distance
of the school. I am very disturbed about the proposed recommendation by the ARC
committee to convert Victory School from its current dual-track status to a French Immersion
centre. In addition, I have some concerns about maintaining the quality of education of the
current Grade 7/8 program in a K to 8 school.
I have a high regard for the members of the ARC and feel they are doing an excellent job. My
comments are not directed at them. I have attended all the public meetings of the
Accommodation Review. I have also obtained regular updates from members of the ARC,
read ARC meeting minutes and spoken with various members of the Victory community. I
have found the Accommodation Review Process for the North End to be rigid, short-sighted,
and narrow in scope. I feel the review process has not sufficiently considered the broader
picture. I am displeased, that Central and Gateway were not included in the review of the
North End schools. After reading the minutes, I am distraught that members of the ARC
committee may have been pressured by Board representatives to come to a decision, and I
have noted that the consensus on Scenario 2 was not unanimous.
I urge you not to rush into a decision about the regular track program at Victory. Myself and
others in the community feel that not all options have been brought to the table and effectively
assessed, including:
·
Bussing Regular Track (RT) students from Victory to Central;
·
Bussing a portion of the RT students from Paisley to Victory with the remaining students
attending Willow;
·
Redrawing boundaries for the RT for Victory, Paisley, Central, and Willow; and
·
Others.
Although this is a French Immersion Accommodation Review it does significantly affect the
regular track program in the North End of Guelph and therefore should include schools such
as Central and Gateway.
I understand that the Grade 7/8 French Immersion program at King George is highly
regarded by the parental community. I am concerned that the quality of education may suffer
in a K to 8 situation. I would like to call on the Board to outline some steps that they will take
to ensure that a Grade 7/8 French Immersion program within a K to 8 school achieves a
level of programming that is similar to what the French Immersion Grade 7/8 students
currently enjoy at King George. My understanding is that there has been little planning in that
area.
Thank you in advance for considering my proposals and concerns.
March 6 to March 13th
4
To: The Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation Review Committee and the Upper Grand District
School Board Trustees
We are the parents of three children who attend John McCrae in grades JK, 1, and 3. Our
children moved to John McCrae last year from Victory, as a result of our family relocating
within Guelph, and have been very happy. While they enjoyed the program at Victory
considerably, they have really blossomed at John McCrae. The fantastic and dedicated staff at
McCrae have been exemplary at welcoming our children and helping them with their
transition. The staff have been equally amazing at helping the children through the transition
and move into College Avenue.
We would like to start by thanking the Review Committee and the Trustees for the opportunity
to comment and for their hard work. We do not doubt that it is, at times, disheartening and
frustrating to do your best to find optimal solutions and receive only negative feedback from
each direction. That said, we are sure it would be more worrisome if parents were not
impassioned about their children's future.
Like many, we are frustrated because we are unsure as to what effect our comments can have.
We are frustrated by the narrow scope of the review, and are convinced that our children will
be subjected to change after change for a solution that is not long term. The parents of
French Immersion in south Guelph have no voice. We have chosen an optional program and
we are essentially in a 'take what you are given' situation. As stated in the Board Minutes
August 31, 2004, the Board added under Criteria 6 "Optional programs (such as French
Immersion) are considered to be portable programs and that there is the flexibility to move the
optional programs to another school within the same group of schools should this be necessary
from an accommodation standpoint." We cannot comment on either scenario without seeming
to be taking a school away from others. We cannot offer solutions, but only voice our
frustration. No school wishes to receive the french students for fear of being pushed out. A
process that pits parents against each other is detrimental to all involved. All parents choose
what they feel is best for their children, and it is not our intent that our choice be at the cost to
others, nor should it have to be that way. However, we feel we would be doing a disservice to
our children to not put our comments and observations forward.
Making decisions within such a narrow terms of reference is not productive. Addressing only
the schools that are over or under utilized seems to be a reactive planning approach. A
proactive planning approach would take in a larger scope and would provide long term
solutions for the school board. Once Fred A. Hamilton was removed from the equation for the
South Guelph scenarios, the ARC Committee had no choice but to recommend putting the
displaced John McCrae students at Priory Park. Not because this is a good choice, but
because it is the only choice.
FI Centres vs. Dual Stream
There has been much discussion and feedback regarding French Immersion centres and dual
stream programs. We have had some first hand experience with both. While Victory is a
wonderful school with an excellent FI program, our children's french has developed
exponentially at John McCrae. We believe there is a data gap in the limited research that has
been done studying French Immersion centres versus dual stream. Children were assessed
based on class performance; children's reading and writing (classroom) skills were identified
March 6 to March 13th
5
as equally developed in both scenarios. We can find no indication in any research that the
French Immersion students were assessed on their conversational abilities. Since our children
have been at John McCrae, we have seen them begin to speak french when playing at home,
they prefer to have some conversations in french, and note that they think of certain words in
french before they think of them in english. A true sign of fluency developing. We agree that
children can learn to conjugate french verbs equally well in dual stream program as in a
French Immersion centre. It is the next level of non-classroom immersion that promotes the
conversational fluency that we believe is more limited in a dual stream scenario.
Accommodation Review and Guiding Principles
These principles are to be "evaluated in terms of how they meet each of the following criteria
elements now, in 5 years and in 10 years". The criteria include:
i) Program (15)
ii) Operating Cost (10)
iii) Capital Cost (10)
iv) Facility Status (7)
v) Site Layout/Size (7)
vi) Attendance Areas (7)
vii) Community Impact (7)
viii) Transportation Criteria (5)
While we will not even attempt to question or presume to know how senior staff are evaluating
and scoring the above-listed criteria, we have observed that out of a total of 68 possible
points, only 28 of these points address "people" issues (Program, Community Impact, 1/2 of
Transportation - student time on bus, and 1/2 of Attendance Areas - student disruption). The
rest of the criteria addresses logistics and cost. We would suggest that there is something
inherently flawed with guiding principles for children's education that puts so little
consideration towards the children. Under these guiding principles, children will continue to
get shuffled like little pins on a map to their detriment, but to the benefit of the funding
formula and school optimization.
Scenario A - tweaked
While we do not want to appear to promote the displacement of a community school, it
appears as though Fred. A. Hamilton and Priory Park have very similar population profiles,
with very similar needs. Both have breakfast programs, Priory Park also has a fresh fruit and a
lunch program. Both have numerous volunteers in the community from parents, the University
of Guelph and others and, both are culturally diverse and require ELL support. It would seem
their programming could be strengthened through a larger critical mass and collaboration of
resources. The schools are a four minute drive apart, and although this requires the crossing
of Stone Road, they are still within a fairly small community area. If the gifted population were
moved from Fred A. Hamilton to Kortright Hills, and when the Westminster Woods children
move to their new school and grades 7/8 are removed from Priory Park, these two schools,
with their projected declining population, would be only slightly over capacity at the Priory
Park site. If the EQAO scores are any indication, Fred A. Hamilton is operating a program
that is clearly struggling; it seems they could benefit from being paired with a "School on the
Move" that is operating with the same difficulties but achieving impressive EQAO scores given
March 6 to March 13th
6
their circumstances. It seems as though this would address logistical, cost, and program
difficulties. However, Scenario A has been parked because the Fred A. Hamilton parents have
expressed their opposition to losing their school in their immediate community. This opposition
is clearly understandable, and at the other side of fence, we are certain we would feel the
same way.
Scenario B
Scenario B is not feasible from an operations standpoint or a program standpoint. The
inclusion of a French Immersion program would hinder the diverse, successful and Provincially
recognized programs (School on the Move) which are currently offered and at Priory Park (ELL
and Developmentally Disabled). Furthermore, the physical building is not conducive to
operating multiple programs concurrently, there are simply not enough classrooms. The only
problem that appears to be solved by this scenario is the under capacity/funding formula.
Preferred Option
The preferred option for all parents is to fold this reactive planning review and open a new
proactive review with a broader scope that will provide a clearer view and more feasible
solutions for future planning. We are certain that all parents involved would have more of an
acceptance for any changes if they felt they were more permanent and not just until the next
planning review is opened to apply the next band-aid solution. This would also go a long way
towards healing the relations between french and english parents, instead of continuing to
foster a negative relationship.
If Scenario B remains the preferred scenario at the end of this review, our children will stand to
move schools five times by the time they finish their elementary years, they will be in a dual
stream program in a four stream school, where the streams are neither equal nor compatible,
and they will continually be in split grades. We have summarized that these circumstances will
sufficiently negate the benefits of French Immersion, and we will remove our children from the
program. I have been advised that the ARC Committee has taken into consideration the
possibility of the 145 becoming a less critical mass if parents pull their children from French
Immersion. It was suggested to me that this is a non-issue, because the majority would have
no alternative option because they are in the Priory english catchment area. I would question
the accuracy of this assumption and suggest that ARC do some research as to how many
children have alternative options. There are at least two bus loads of students coming from
Puslinch and the west side of the Hanlon.
As previously acknowledged, we can understand the dismay that the ARC and the Board are
experiencing from the negative feedback they have been receiving. However, we cannot
express how frustrating it is to see two programs operating well and thriving being sacrificed
for the sake of number crunching. From a public perspective this speaks to the focus of the
Upper Grand District School board and does not instill confidence in our educational leaders.
It appears that the focus of the school board is not aligned with their constituents. Children
need security and consistency. For us, our decision will be made based on trying to provide
the best possible program for our children while trying to get them as far away as possible
from the negative effects of the continual shuffling that seems symptomatic of this school
board.
Sincerely,
March 6 to March 13th
7
I am writing in response to the AR committee's decision to support turning Victory Public
School into a French Immersion Centre. I believe that this is the wrong decision for our
community and our city.
A French Immersion Centre that requires children to transfer after grade 6 to a dual track
school for grades 7&8 is illogical. A French Immersion Centre whose population will be made
up of children that require busing into an inner city school with inadequate parking is
unsatisfactory. Boundaries that require children who do not need special programing and live
across the street from one school to be bused to another in this day and age is poorly
planned. What could lead to these kind of decision? Numbers. Decisions based on
numbers dictated by arbitrary boundaries don't necessarily serve children and communities'
best needs.
I accept that we need to look at proposals that try to fix the underlying problem of Victory
Public School's English program's under-populated enrolment. Victory Public School has one
of the smallest English program catchment areas in the city. Expanding the catchment for the
English program is a solution. At the public meeting in Oct. 2008 the need to include Central
in ARC proceeding was introduced by parents from Victory but the idea was parked by the
facilitator. When the possibility of including Central was finally before the committee after the
last public meeting it was too late in the process to consider the new options without starting
over.
As a result the ARC, as constituted, was faced with an enrolment imbalance at Victory without
the tools and options to address it unless the English track was closed. The over-population
of the French Immersion program could be addressed by placing the West End bused-in
children in the West End of the city. Gateway school currently has 2 empty classrooms and no
portables and could accommodate the French Immersion children from the that community.
However V.P.S. would still have an imbalance between it's two language tracks.
The configuration of the ARC prevented any available options for addressing the English track
deficiency from being considered. The boundaries of the catchment area could not be
expanded because Central and June Ave. were not included. June Ave.'s catchment area
includes a pocket from south of Speedvale that ought to be Victory's. The Central catchment
area includes areas that were traditionally and geographically within Victory's area. There is
a population of students from the former Marden P.S. catchment area that are bused in and
could be directed to Victory but this has not been explored. The difficulty with the process is
that the ARC has been tasked with resolving an enrolment imbalance created by busing in
students from the West End for FI without enabling the committee to look beyond the included
schools. As a result, the ARC was comprised of 2 schools in the North end (Victory and
Paisely Rd.) from which to take English students when any solution (other than closing Victory)
would require that Victory, Paisely Rd., Willow Rd., Central and June Ave. be included.
I urge the Trustees to step back and see the big picture for our city in your decision. More
planning options need to be explored to preserve our community schools and to keep our
communities intact. Please defer a decision on the North End scenarios until further viable
options have been developed. It is my understanding that another review is planned for West
End of Guelph. Please consider widening it's scope and including more options so that we can
March 6 to March 13th
8
address what is best for our children, our communities, and our city. When numbers are
derived from catchment areas that are arbitrarily created they are subject to change. The
Victory imbalance is created by a combination of bused in students from the West End and the
compromised catchment area for the English track. The West End review may effect the
bused in FI students at Victory. The compromised catchment area for Victory's English track
was by design excluded from consideration in the current review. The result is an
unsatisfactory process and an unsatisfactory recommendation.
Thank you for your consideration and care for the sustainablitity of our communities
Yours truly;
> To Whom It May Concern,
>
> I am the father of two children, soon to be three, enrolled in French Immersion at Victory
Public School. I have been watching the progress of the Central Guelph FI Accommodation
Review Committee with great interest.
>
> My observation is this: the ARC are in an awkward position. They have been asked to
make a recommendation about the future of French Immersion in the north end of Guelph,
but have been distracted by attempting to balance english enrollments at the same time.
> Furthermore, they are trying to do so without including all schools in the area.
>
> By defining the problem so narrowly, the ARC and the Board have severely limited their
ability to deal constructively with the issue. One cannot optimize an entire system by only
tuning one small part of it. The result will almost certainly be another problem created by
whatever solution is proposed.
>
> The ARC recommendation that appears most likely would eliminate english from a
community school (Victory). It would require busing students out of the community for english,
and continuing to bus them into the community for french. This seems absurd.
>
> Despite having children in the French Immersion program, I feel strongly that every
neighbourhood in our city should have an english public school that is within walking
distance. I believe that most parents would agree that this ought to be the single most
important principle when designing the public school system. There are countless reasons to
support this, ranging from environmental impact to student safety to community involvement.
French Immersion is defined as the portable program, and should be placed wherever there
> is capacity.
>
> What began as a French Immersion study has become more about how to balance english
enrollments. Unfortunately for children and parents in the north end, the parameters of the
study do not permit this to be handled effectively.
>
> I urge you to defer any decision about balancing JK-6 english enrollments in the north end
until the entire issue can be studied properly.
>
> Regards,
March 6 to March 13th
9
Mr. Bob Borden,
I am writing this letter due to the proposed Scenario B plan for John McCrae French
Immersion. I would like to go on record -- I do not support this option. This scenario is
inappropriate for the reasons out lined below.
1. Anxiety over yet another move. It is at least 2 years until this proposed move would happen
and yet my children aged 8 & 6 are worried about what it means for them. Not only are they
concerned about moving schools into yet another strange building. They are concerned about
leaving their friends, most of which they have known & played with since Junior Kindergarten.
Yes, children are resilient, but this many moves in a short amount of time will cause undue
anxiety. My children right now are still unsure of their surroundings and have not yet gotten
used to this new building. They will have to face this same insecurity when transferred back to
the original John McCrae site. Then another proposed move is planned for the next year.
There is no consistency, unless you take into account the consistent moving.
2. We put our children in a French immersion Centre for a reason -- complete French
immersion. I feel a dual track school will not provide a total French Immersion experience. As
is my understanding, Priory Park School is an English school -- an English as a second
language school at that. There are many children going to this school for whom English is not
their native language. The school is set up to enhance the learning of English - not only for
the students but for the parents/caregivers too. This means that everything from morning
announcements to bulletin boards to assemblies etc are conducted only in English. This would
be disruptive to a French Immersion program. It would also be disruptive for the English
program at Priory. The students/parents would be introduced to another language which
would detract from the English learning. There is also a possibility that the Priory Park parents
would come to resent the intrusion of the John McCrae students for this very reason.
3. Resources. What guarantee would the parents of the displaced John McCrae students have
that the education their children will receive will not be diluted due to lack of resources. Is the
board prepared to furnish the library with French books? Or will the children need to be
bussed to a facility that has French books on “library days”? Or will it become dependant on
the parents to ensure their children use the public library instead? Are there enough French
Immersion teachers to go around? Will the new French program at Priory Park take years to
build due to lack of teachers? Will our children miss out due to lack of foresight on the part of
the board? What about outside play resources? French plays and entertainment that happens
regularly now?
4. The disruption of the current population of Priory Park school. Not only with respect to a
new language being introduced but also the designation of a school on the move. Priory Park
has adapted to the needs of it’s community. There is a track record of the UGDSB claiming a
school for dual track only to a few years later turn the school into a French Immersion
program (this is what the board is on record saying it prefers - FI centres). Will this strong
community of Priory Park be displaced? Will they be shipped off to another school that will
then have to adapt to the special circumstance and needs of it’s new students?
5. Safety. The Priory Park parking lot currently is not large enough to accommodate the
teachers there now. If approximately 150 new students are suddenly placed at the school, as
March 6 to March 13th
10
well as new teachers (French language) and the parents that will come to volunteer with this
influx of students -- how over crowded will the drop off area become? How many more busses
will be needed to bring these children in? How much more busy will the road in front of the
school become? What this will mean for the walkers is an increased danger due to increased
traffic and congestion.
I hesitate to sound like a demanding, whiny parent but I just do not understand the reasoning
behind Scenario B. Not only is it unfair to the few children of John McCrae that will be faced
with yet another move, but is also unfair to the students of Priory Park who will have their hard
work and program disrupted. I understand there are procedures in place that limit the schools
that can be involved in the discussion under the current Accommodation Review. But we need
to come to a better solution which may indeed need to involve another school(s).
It is my understanding that Priory Park needs to fill the empty seats is has right now - a
reasonable option would seem to be to fill those seats with English students. Could
those English students be taken from the gifted program at Fred A. Hamilton? This would fill
the seats of Priory Park with little disruption to English students. The empty seats this may
create at F. A. H. could be filled by English students at Rickson Ridge. Thus leaving the
Rickson Ridge school empty for a new French Immersion centre. It has also been brought up
in discussions that teh Westminster Woods school is not yet completed - why not adjust its
blueprint to accomodate either more students or an FI centre? Could the new build of John
McCrae be made into a 3 storey building with rom for all?
Another idea is to keep the grade 7 & 8 intermediate schools intact. If the grade 7 & 8
students are not added to each school but kept in a separate environment as they are now the
trickle down would not take effect and all schools could continue as they are now. The
school/program that grade 7 & 8 students have now is an instrumental tool in transitioning
these adolescents to high school. They enhance their independence through class rotation,
use of lockers etc. They are also afforded a wonderful opportunity for extra curricular
programs and enrichment that a centralized school just for them offers. Again I go the point of
a diluted education if the 7&8 students are placed in a K-8 school. Will the board still provide
all the classes as well as extra curricular programs? This would mean not 1 or 2 teachers at
one school teaching a specific program but many teachers at many schools. Is this mandate
for all school to go from K -8 a job creating program by the board - if we have more classes
then we’ll need more teachers then we can justify more money from the government?
The end result for my family, as well as many other families I have talked with is this: Scenario
B is not a viable option for us. If it comes right down to it there are a number of us (families,
some with 3, 4 even 5 children all enrolled in the FI program or will be when old enough) that
will either move into the boundary that allows our children to stay within the FI centre, or they
will simply take their children out of the FI schools and go to an English school. It is not a
decision we are making flippantly, or without cause. I would rather my children attend an
English school than receive a diluted, disrupted, and fragmented French education - which I
have no doubt it would be if Scenario B goes into effect. While this would mean a move that
the children would need to adjust to it would only be ONE move.
Please take our thoughts, opinions, and concerns seriously. We are looking out for our
children, we have their best interests at heart.
Thank you
March 6 to March 13th
11
Please find below a copy of a message sent to all Trustees today – I would appreciate it being
forwarded to other members of the ARC.
To the UGDSB Trustees,
I have been asked to make a presentation to you tomorrow evening on behalf of the parents
of Victory Public School. I appreciate the opportunity to do so as a representative of the
literally hundreds of families who have participated in the ARC process.
Today, I am contacting you personally, as a parent with four children attending three of the
schools currently involved in the North and South Accommodation Reviews. Three are in
French Immersion, at King George and Victory, and one is in the congregated gifted program
at FA Hamilton.
Our family moved to Guelph 18 months ago from Erin, where our children were all bussed to
Brisbane PS. We selected our new home specifically in order to live in the Victory catchment
area. Having now experienced the benefits of a walkable, neighbourhood school, I wish to
communicate my strong disappointment at the ARC’s decision to eliminate Regular Track
students from Victory PS.
The physical and environmental benefits of walking are clear. What may be less clear are the
historical, community and social benefits of having a 90-year-old school as the hub of our
neighbourhood. My children’s friends all live within walking distance of our home, I have built
relationships with far more parents in my short time here than I did in 12 years in Erin because
of seeing them each day in the playground, I find it much easier to be involved in school life
as a volunteer, and I see my children’s teachers on a far more regular basis.
In my opinion it is deeply regrettable that if you ratify this ARC recommendation, people who
live right across the street from Victory will need to go to school outside of this
neighbourhood. I have already spoken to parents who are choosing to put their child into
French Immersion not because they feel it will be a good fit for their child, but because it is
more important to them to be able to send their child to school locally. I have spoken to
others who are grieving the fact that this decision is likely to divide their family, and/or to
cause them to keep their child in FI even if it is not going well, simply because they do not
want her/him to have to change schools. In addition, this ARC recommendation threatens to
divide a community and a school that should be held up as examples, not torn apart.
The City of Guelph has publicly committed to doing all it can to become a walkable
community. The School Board has an opportunity to choose to uphold that commitment, but
unfortunately the ARC is choosing to undermine it in our neighbourhood.
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.
March 6 to March 13th
12
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.
Like many others, I also continue to be very concerned about the effects of the ARC process
on the quality of grade 7/8 FI programming. I have seen from my experience in Erin what a
small, diluted program means for the quality of education, and I have experienced the benefits
of having a large, dedicated 7/8 program at King George. I would urge you to do whatever it
takes to ensure that planning considerations do not take precedence over program quality for
our middle school students.
So in summary, I am respectfully requesting the following as you shortly review the ARC’s
recommendations:
a) That Victory Public School remain a dual track, walkable community school. Approving
anything else will be done against the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of residents in
that neighbourhood.
b) If this does not appear to be possible in the short term, I would ask you to defer making a
decision about Victory until all reasonable options can be thoroughly considered, including a
West End accommodation review.
c) That the quality of grade 7/8 FI programming not be diluted as a result of short-sighted
planning and policy. Either the 7/8s need to be kept together, or additional investments will
be required to ensure that the quality of their education is not undermined.
In closing, I wish to express my sincere thanks to those involved in the ARC process,
particularly the volunteers who have given countless hours to this process.
I look forward to meeting with you tomorrow evening,
March 6 to March 13th
13
Hello,
My name is -----------. I have two children (JK and SK) in the English stream at Victory Public
School.
I must admit that I am outraged at the Arc’s decision to “Park” scenario one.
At the beginning of this process, during the first public meeting, Mr. Borden went to great
lengths to alleviate our fears. (Our, being concerned parents in general.) In his opening
speech, Mr. Borden assured us that they, (the ARC members) valued our input. He even went
so far as to say that solutions often came from the very communities involved in the ARC
reviews.
No community involved in the North Guelph review has had a greater voice than the Victory
community. No community has come together (both English and French affiliated families,) in
a greater show of solidarity than the Victory community.
And yet, our concerns and fears for our community and our children’s futures have,
apparently fallen on deaf ears.
I have nothing personal against Willow Road Public School (Where my children will be forced
to attend under Scenario #2). I’m sure it’s a good school. In fact, I have heard from reliable
sources that it is a good school. This is not my concern.
My wife and I waited ten years to buy a house in the Victory community because we deemed it
the ideal area to raise a family.
All of our planning, our hard work and our sacrifices that have brought us to this point in our
lives have been summarily turned upside down in one single, contentious vote.
Please listen to our community.
WE DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.
Sincerely,
Hello,
My name is ----------- and I have two very young children in the English stream (JK and SK)
at Victory Public School. I feel I must write to express my deep concern over the recent ARC
decision to make Victory Public School a French centre and move the English stream children
out of the area. While I acknowledge the hard work of the ARC and their thankless job of
having to make these types of potentially unpopular decisions, I think that the decisions were
made lacking all the pertinent information. While I understand that the imbalance between
the Victory French and English programs must be addressed to maintain the quality of the
programming on both languages, I think that all the appropriate information and possibilities
to address the imbalance have not been put on the table. The imbalance can be addressed
by having different catchment areas and possibly a French catchment area that is different
than an English catchment area. For these types of decisions, Victory, June Ave and Central
must be considered together. Why have other options not been considered, especially as the
Victory community has spoken unanimously against Scenario 2?
March 6 to March 13th
14
Part of the imbalance at Victory is brought on by bussing in French students from the west
end. The west end is ready to embark on its own review, it would seem premature to disrupt
the Victory environment before the west end undergoes its own review, the schools are linked,
shouldn’t their reviews be linked? The west end review may result in a decision not to bus
west end children to Victory, thereby decreasing the number of French students at Victory,
which in turn would facilitate changing the French and English catchment areas for Victory to
effect a more balanced enrollment. The west end review directly affects Victory so it would
seem premature to change Victory in light of the upcoming west end review. Wouldn’t it be
more appropriate to review the west end and Victory together? Do these decisions regarding
Victory have to be made now? Is it imperative that the decisions regarding Victory be made
before a review of the west end has looked at its needs/wants? The decisions regarding
Victory seem particularly hasty given that it clearly goes against the needs/wants of the Victory
area community as a whole. It would seem prudent to take a step back and look at the larger
picture, consider a wider range of options, include the appropriate schools in making these
types of decisions and better balance the needs of the school board with the needs of the
community. We are all just trying to take care of our children and our communities, certainly
we can do better than the simple adoption of Scenario 2, can’t we?
Sincerely,
Both Scenario A& B have the Regular Track Priory Park 7/8 program reassigned to Jean Little.
I was under the impression this was a programming decision independent of the
Accommodation Review.
Is this decision independent of the present Accommodation Review? Will the PP 7/8s go
to Jean Little even if some other Scenario is approved that would not have any new students
going to Priory Park?
Some Priory Parents are under the impression that they need to vote in support of Scenario B
if they want access to the 7/8 program at Jean Little.
Can you clarify this?
Is this decision still pending the outcome of the Accommodation Review?
Thanks,
The decision whether to move the 7/8 students from Priory Park to Jean Little
is not independent of this Accommodation Review as it was included in Report 1
as one of the issues requiring resolution through this process. However, that
does not imply that the move of these 7/8 students could only occur in
Scenario B. Both Scenario A and B included moving this group of students and
it was included in some of the other scenario variations that were considered
by the ARC.
March 6 to March 13th
15
To the Board of Trustees of the Upper Grand District School Board,
I am shocked and dismayed about the proposed recommendation by the Central Guelph AR
committee to convert Victory Public School from its current dual-track status to a French
Immersion centre. I strongly disapprove of this proposal.
I, along with many others in the community, feel that not all options have been brought to the
table and effectively assessed, including:
1. Bussing a portion of the RT students from Paisley to Victory with the remaining students
attending Willow;
2. Redrawing boundaries for the RT for Victory, Paisley, Central, June Ave. and Willow Road
schools; and
3. Others.
I am extremely concerned that the Accommodation Review Process has become substantially
more focused on numbers at the expense of programming priorities and values. As elected
representatives, you are tasked with the responsibility to uphold the values of your
constituency.
I call on you to defer any decisions on Victory School until all options are identified and
appropriately assessed.
Sincerely,
To the Board of Trustees of the UGDSB,
I am offended by the proposed recommendation by ARC to convert Victory Public School from
its current dual-track status to a French Immersion centre. I strongly disapprove of this
proposal. My understanding is that French Immersion is an optional program, considered to
be portable and placed in schools that are otherwise underpopulated. Victory P.S. needs to
first serve its community. Currently, Victory is overcapacity and approximately 100 students
need to be relocated. It is clear that the students being bussed in from the West End for FI at
Victory deserve a French Immersion program closer to their homes. This idea would be
welcomed by the entire Victory community. There have been countless emails, letters, surveys
etc. since this Accommodation Review began last spring. It is your job to listen to your
constituents. Victory Public School must remain dual track. Do not ignore the voices of this
community.
Sincerely,
To the Board of Trustees of the Upper Grand District School Board,
I am concerned about the proposed recommendation by the Central Guelph AR committee to
convert Victory Public School from its current dual-track status to a French Immersion centre. I
disapprove of this proposal.
My main concerns are, that:
Victory become a community school
no new busses are introduced to serve Victory school
March 6 to March 13th
16
On a related note, I feel strongly that the procedures around entry into French Immersion be
addressed. It is next to impossible for a parent to be able to judge if their child will flourish in
an FI environment when they are as young as 3 1/2. I feel that FI should not be introduced
until Grade 1, and that there be some kind of evaluation done of the child's competencies
before they enter FI.
I am concerned that the Accommodation Review Process has become substantially more
focused on numbers at the expense of programming priorities and values. As elected
representatives, you are tasked with the responsibility to uphold the values of your
constituency. I call on you to defer any decisions on Victory School until all options are
identified and appropriately assessed.
Sincerely,
Parent of FI student, Victory Public School
I am quite dismayed about the proposed recommendation regarding Victory Public School to
be converted to a strictly French Immersion school. I have a two year old boy and intended
to send him to Victory School regular track. We live a short walk from the school. I chose to
stay in my home and renovate, rather than move, largely because I would like my son to
attend a good neighbourhood school where he can walk there himself, meet other kids from
the neighbourhood, and have the kind of safe, familiar community school environment that I
grew up with. Now it is looking more and more like he will have to be bused way out of his
own neighbourhood. And in large part, I understand, to accommodate French immersion
students who are being bused in from other parts of town.
I have friends who have their children bused to Victory for French Immersion. They do this
because Victory has a reputation as a good school, not because they particularly want their
children to learn French. I’m sure they are not the only ones who do this.
There are a number of young families with children under 5 years of age who have moved
into my neighbourhood in the past two years. My street has many seniors living on it, and the
turnover to young families will continue I’m sure. How are your statistics compiled which state
how many French and how many English track children will be attending Victory school in
future years? I certainly have not provided that information to anyone regarding my child.
Perhaps there are more Regular Track children approaching school age than you realize.
I would ask you to please defer any decisions on Victory School. I understand that there will
be representatives from my neighbourhood at your meeting this evening. I urge you to listen
to what they have to say. My child’s future depends upon it. I won’t have him put on a bus at
5 years old. I can’t afford private school. I don’t speak French. What option will you give
him?
Sincerely,
March 6 to March 13th
17
To the Board of Trustees of the Upper Grand District School Board,
I have recently been made aware of the proposed changes to the curriculum at Victory School
in Guelph. If I understand the situation correctly, we are busing in too many students from
outside of the neighbourhood. Your solution to this problem would therefore be to take the
neighbourhood children and bus them elsewhere. I don’t know about you, but this seems
somewhat inefficient to me.
Why do we need extra buses on the streets, belching smoke, and putting our children at
increased risk, when there is absolutely no good reason for it? Aren’t we supposed to be
moving to a more neighbourhood centric community? Doesn’t this fly in the face of that? I
personally know someone who lives just outside Cambridge (but within Wellington County)
that has their child bused to Victory. Can we find no other destination for the children that are
already transit riders?
I have until this point not concerned myself at all with municipal, or school board level politics.
Rest assures, that if this decision stands, I will become very involved.
Sincerely
March 10, 2009
Dear Members of the ARC:
We are writing with regard to theproposed change to make Victory Public School a single
track FrenchImmersion (FI) school.
We have two children and ideally wouldlike them both to attend French Immersion, as we
believe FrenchImmersion is beneficial for most children. However, our oldest sonhas Cerebral
Palsy and has some language delays, which may meanFrench Immersion is not appropriate
for him. Victory school’swonderful reputation was one of the reasons we moved to
ourneighbourhood. It saddens us to think that because of his disabilityhe may be prevented
from attending this outstanding school. Should wedivide our family by sending our children to
different schools, orshould we send them to the same school thereby denying our daughterthe
chance at French Immersion?
We live about 3 blocks from Victory andbelieve that the idea of having a walk-able school is
very importantfor many reasons.
Environmental reasons – it makes sense to have people not be bussed and transported
far away. Having walk-able schools also encourages people in the future to transport
themselves around in this way.
Building community ties – knowing the people that live in your neighborhood has
many important benefits to building community. A school is a place where students
and parents can get to know neighbors and build ties in their community. When
people know their neighbors it makes communities safer and also encourages people
to become more involved and to help each other out.
March 6 to March 13th
18
Volunteerism – having a walk-able makes it easier for parents to be involved on a
regular basis, thus improving the quality and vibrancy of the school.
Health and well being- having a community school allows people to walk to school.
This promotes walking as a part of everyday life, an important part of healthy lifestyle.
The proposed change to make Victory aFrench Immersion only school will have a very
negative impact on ourfamily, as we know it will on many others. We are aware that thereare
many complicated factors that go into making this decision.However, we do not think that
taking away a community school that isthriving is the answer. This decision is too important to
makewithout having all of the information about possible impacts to theschool. For this reason
please consider delaying any final decisionsuntil the West End review has occurred as it will
likely have a greatimpact on the make up of Victory school. Please do not let thestructure of
this review process prevent you from finding creativesolutions that may meet everyone’s needs.
A community school is the heart of avibrant community and taking it away will have many
lasting impactsfor a long time to come. Please don’t take the heart of ourcommunity away.
.
Sincerely,
Having just returned from making a presentation to the Trustees, I want to thank you for giving
me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Victory Public School parents. I also want to
clarify two things:
1. I was publicly corrected tonight for referring to the process as a “French Immersion
Review,” yet the first sentence of the Accommodation Review homepage on the UGDSB
website refers to it as the “Central Guelph Elementary French Immersion Review.” Elsewhere it
is commonly called the Central Guelph (FI) Review. While I do not wish to debate semantics, I
also do not want the substance of my point to be lost. An early ARC report explains that the
schools included in the review were “scoped down” to ones with enrollment issues and/or
capacity to accommodate FI students. While this is understandable to keep the process
manageable, my assertion is that in doing so, some schools were excluded from the review
(e.g. Central) whose Regular Track student numbers could have been considered to help
bolster the Victory RT numbers, yet we were told that they were outside of the ARC’s
consideration. Yet at the same time, other schools not originally listed in the ARC Terms of
Reference (e.g. June Ave, Willow Rd) have been included in new scenarios being considered - hence one of our concerns with the process.
2. Please bear in mind that the speaking notes that I was asked to provide to you tonight,
unlike the slides, were not originally intended for public distribution. In re-reading them now, I
would perhaps have edited them a bit more carefully, but I trust that their intent remains
clear.
Again, I am sincerely appreciative of the difficult and time consuming work that the ARC
members are undertaking and I appreciate the opportunity to reinforce our community’s
desire for Victory to remain a dual track, walkable school.
With thanks,
March 6 to March 13th
Message
From:
Subject:
19
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 10:52:16 AM
Bob Borden
Re: FW: Following up from tonight's meeting
Thank you for your clarification.
If you wish to provide us with a clean copy of your notes that we could share
with the ARC, I'd be pleased to pass them on.
Re: my comments of an "FI" review. I refer you to page 3 of the Report #1
(March 2008), where it clearly states the 3 goals of this review:
1. new locations for FI in Guelph
2. optimize provisions for the regular track, and
3. ensure efficient and effective use of school facilities and capital funds.
It is clearly, in the eyes of the Board and the ARC, more than just an FI
review.
Thank you.
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
Hello.
Thank-you for the opportunity to provide comment into the accommodation review activities
affecting my family. I can appreciate that this is a challenging activity in the face of a growing
City and growing interest in French Immersion.
My family lives in the area called the Tytler catchment area, also identified as an area of the
City where there is expected density increase in the form of housing over the next 20 years. I
have been keeping a close eye on the Growth Management Planning process and am very
optimistic about the changes that are planned for our community in the coming years. We
currently go to John McCrae, and school that is approximately 15 minute walk along a trail
system. We currently do use a bus service from the Tytler school, and see this as a
convenience as the school is easily walkable from where we live. There are at least 8 families
within our block who also go to John McCrae and either walk, take personal transportation or
the school bus each day. As the density of this neighbourhood increases, so too will the
number of children within walking distance to John McCrae.
I would hope that our children could remain at John McCrae school for the following reasons:
- in your 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 would help you in fulfilling the spirit of this commitment
- in your report (page 66) there is a preference towards limiting the # of schools that a child
is required to go to. My daughter 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
March 6 to March 13th
20
our children at John McCrae would eliminate the need for our children to switch schools 4
times over their JK-8 experience.
In the proposed Scenarios 1 & 2 (North Guelph) with our children being assigned to Edward
Johnson, the school would be at its capacity by 2010.
In the proposed Scenarios A & B (South Guelph) has John McCrae under capacity in 2010,
and over in 2011.
It would seem that my children will be at a "full school" either way....and being this as it may, I
would 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.
-----------------Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:07:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Sharon Lapkin Research
From: CentralGuelph.Comments@ugdsb.on.ca
In the January 28, 2009 Central Guelph ARC Meeting Minutes #9, it states that in response
to a question about whether single or dual track is a better program, that Superintendent
Benallick and Trustee Moziar researched the issue and came to the conclusion that "both
programs can be equally effective" is the most common belief. A reference is made to the
Sharon Lapkin Research.
Please be clear that Superintentent Benallick and Trustee Moziar have
consulted the research available, not done their own research.
1. What is meant by "is the most common belief"? Is it the conclusion of the Board that a
single and dual track FI program is equivalent in quality based on research, or is it not?
The statement appears to be the most common belief was not a direct quote
but rather an observation of the ARC and facilitator following the discussion on
this research. The research consulted by Superintentent Benallick and
Trustee Moziar has been used to confirm the viability of each of these
programs. Both single track and dual track programs can be viable.
2. If it is the conclusion of the Board, can you please forward me the research conducted by
the Board that supports this view.
As stated above, the Board has referred to the research on this topic that is
available. The Board staff has not done its own research but has referred to
this research.
3. Can you please send me the scan of the Sharon Lapkin Research and indicate the role it
played in the views of the Board on this issue.
March 6 to March 13th
21
The Sharon Lapkin research was one piece of information that was consulted to
consider if one program is more viable than the other. As a Board we also
have to consider space and numbers of students. The Board developed (and
has recently reviewed) a list of guiding principles for the purpose of
accommodation and boundary reviews that are still supported by our Trustees.
The link to this research is available under the Feb 4 ARC minutes. The link is:
http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/bitstream/1892/5342/1/b1425590x.pdf
Thank-you for your reply. It appears I may not have communicated my request clearly. I was
and am asking for a complete list of the research which Superintentent Benallick and Trustee
Moziar consulted that confirms the viability of both the single track and dual track system.
Please also provide the specific Sharon Lapkin research which Superintentent Benallick and
Trustee Moziar consulted.
Please also clarify the role that the 1992 master's thesis on teacher beliefs about the role of
the dual-track french immersion program in British Columbia played in allowing
Superintentent Benallick and Trustee Moziar to confirm the viability of each of these programs.
Please clarify what is meant by stating that a dual track program "can be viable".
Please advise on whether or not a study was consulted that studied the viability of a french
immersion program on a school that is a "school on the move" (Priory Park). In addition,
please comment about any research consulted on the impact of a FI program on a school
with a strong ESL emphasis.
Thank-you,
The French Immersion program in this Board has evolved since 1974 starting
with the former Wellington Board of Education. The success of this program is
apparent through its sustainability and increasing enrolments. The FI program
has operated mostly as a dual track model and at times has been delivered in
multiple schools K-8. French Immersion has and continues to be offered in
several schools where there are Special Education programs and where there
are English Language Learners. Currently, this Board also operates two French
Immersion centres in Guelph. It is important to recognize that the evolution of
these FI centres was due in a large part to circumstance (ie. declining English
numbers in local community and a significant number of French Immersion
students to be able to congregate them at one location). Should you have
research that would support an alternative way for the Board to deliver the
French Immersion program or research that disputes the way in which it is
March 6 to March 13th
22
currently being delivered in this Board, we would be happy to pass this
information onto the Trustees for consideration.
Dear Trustees,
If I wanted my children to go to school in a crack infested neighbourhood, where a dead body
was found in an adjacent park to the school, and mentally unstable individuals wander the
streets surrounding the school, I would have moved to one. I know this firsthand as I work in
this neighbourhood, and have done so for the past six years. The reason I moved to the
Exhibition Park neighbourhood, was to avoid that scenario.
I would be curious to know if any of you would put your children on a bus, to be sent to a
school in a less than desirable part of the city (and that is being polite), when there is a
perfectly good school two blocks from their home, which would in turn be the school of
children from other parts of the city being bussed in.
I would urge you to consider the absurdity of that entire scenario when you do make your
decision.
To the Board of Trustees of the Upper Grand District School Board, m shocked and dismayed
about the proposed recommendation by the Central Guelph AR committee to convert Victory
Public School from its current dual-track status to a French Immersion centre. strongly
disapprove of this proposal., along with many others in the community, feel that not all opt
ions have been brought to the table and effectively assessed, including: 1. Bussing a portion
of the RT students from Paisley to Victory with the remaining students attending Willow;
Redrawing boundaries for the RT for Victory, Paisley, Central, June Ave. and Willow Road
schools; and 3. Others. I am extremely concerned that the Accommodation Review Process
has become substantially more focused on numbers at the expense of programming priorities
and values. As elected representatives, you are tasked with the responsibility to uphold the
values of your constituency. I call on you to defer any decisions on Victory School until all
options are identified and appropriately assessed.
Sincerely, Victory parents
(not duplicates – same e-mail was sent in by 4 different parents)
To the Board of Trustees of the Upper Grand District School Board,
I am shocked and dismayed about the proposed recommendation by the Central Guelph AR
committee to convert Victory Public School from its current dual-track status to a French
Immersion centre. I strongly disapprove of this proposal.
I, along with many others in the community, feel that not all options have been brought to the
table and effectively assessed, including:
1. Bussing a portion of the RT students from Paisley to Victory with the remaining students
attending Willow;
March 6 to March 13th
23
2. Redrawing boundaries for the RT for Victory, Paisley, Central, June Ave. and Willow Road
schools; and
3. Others.
I am extremely concerned that the Accommodation Review Process has become substantially
more focused on numbers at the expense of programming priorities and values. As elected
representatives, you are tasked with the responsibility to uphold the values of your
constituency.
I call on you to defer any decisions on Victory School until all options are identified and
appropriately assessed.
Sincerely,
Hello,
French Immersion is an optional program. I don’t understand why children that our in the
regular program have to suffer due to the increase in numbers of French Immersion. At one
time in Guelph enrolling your child in the Catholic system was a huge attraction due to the
reduced daycare costs offered by the JK program that the Public Board did not offer. Now
that both the Catholic and Public board now offer JK we are seeing an increase in numbers of
French Immersion enrollment.
How many children actually end up graduating from the French Immersion program in Grade
12? Is it worth it to disrupt healthy neighbourhoods, healthy schools, and healthy children due
to a program that only ends up with a few graduates.
Please consider capping the French Immersion numbers. Or perhaps introduce French
Immersion at a later age when the parent is ready to decide if the French Immersion program
is really right for that child. The vast majority leave the program due to difficulties in the
program as is evident with the low graduation rates, so why disrupt all schools in the city for a
few children.
Again, French Immersion is an optional program. Can you imagine Canada's school system if
we offered only one option? By providing so many options, we are diluting the system and the
resources.
Please reconsider capping enrollment or delaying enrollment, to reduce unnecessary
movement of all children.
Thank you,
Fred A. Hamilton - all main stream children currently walk to school [Gifted children are
bussed in]
If it becomes a French Immersion centre, 90% of it current population would be bussed.
March 6 to March 13th
24
In a world with heavy pollution, high diabetes, and overweight children why would we even
suggest this.
Walking is healthy. Walking with friends is fun. Walking costs nothing.
Bussing kids costs money. Money that could be used for books, teachers, and resources. No
exercise causes obesity.
Please let our children continue to walk to school daily.
Please see the info below. Walking to school is healthy. Walking saves money! Walking saves
money on bussing costs, and more importantly health costs later.
Please let the children continue to walk to school daily!
-----------------------Free, convenient, enjoyable and does not require special equipment or training: Walking is a
great way for adults and kids to be active. Lack of physical activity is a major cause of chronic
illness and death for our country’s adults. Being overweight can cause health problems like
diabetes during childhood and research shows that physically inactive kids are more likely to
grow up to be physically inactive adults – and are therefore at high risk for obesity and related
illnesses.
There are plenty of great reasons to walk to school – less traffic, safer streets, cleaner air – but
one of the best is that children and parents will be healthier. With obesity rates skyrocketing
and only one-quarter of American's able to get the Surgeon General's recommended daily
dose of exercise (just 30 minutes), it's an ideal time to encourage people to walk to school for
their own health and well-being.
recommendations for children suggest that they need a variety of activities each day-some
intense, some less-so, some informal, some structured. Walking or cycling to and from school
is an ideal way to get some of that activity at no extra cost to the child or family.
Parents who walk or bike to school with their kids get to be sociable. Nearly nine out ten
parents who walk their children to school see it as an ideal way to meet new people,
according to a survey in the UK. Many said that the school gate was a better place to meet
new people than pubs, clubs, evening classes or the supermarket.
We live in the Tytler catchment area and my daughter has attended John McCrae since
kindergarten. Next year she will be going into grade 6. Has the committee considered
"grand-parenting" students in this situation? My daughter has already been in tears at the
thought of being forced to leave her friends and her school for grade 6. I strongly urge the
committee to consider this option and to immediately assure parents in this situation that
senior students will not be moved in their final year. There can only be a few of them if the
total number of students in this area attending JMC is 40.
March 6 to March 13th
25
Please let me know,
Thank you,
The history of this Board is that in a situation where a student is entering
their final grade in the same year when boundaries are shifting, they are
typically grandfathered. It is important to note though, that this would need
to be included as one of the final recommendations to be considered by
Trustees and would not be a given.
It is also important to note that the earliest date that an approved plan could
be implemented is for the 2010/11 school year and not for the 2009/10 school
year. It would not be possible to to effectively implement these changes in
such a short period of time (ie. staffing for the 2009/10 school year is
currently underway and almost complete).
Until the Trustees have made their final decision about whether to approve any
of these boundary changes and the timing of these changes, it impossible to
comment on what Trustees will also decide about the grandfathering of
students from the Tytler area who are in Grade 6 or 7.
At this time, please stay informed about the process through either your ARC
representatives or through the Board website.
Interesting article..FYI
----------------------------------Report recommends elimination of early French immersion in N.B.
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 | 1:23 PM AT
CBC News
A government-commissioned review of French second-language education in New Brunswick
has recommended the province do away with its early immersion program.
Commissioners Dr. James Croll and Patricia Lee released their review of the programs,
including 18 recommendations, to the public on Wednesday.
In their 101-page report, the commissioners state the early French immersion program, which
currently begins in Grade 1, is not meeting its objectives and should be grandfathered out of
the provincial education system. The program is also not sustainable because of dwindling
enrolment and a high dropout rate, said the report.
March 6 to March 13th
26
The review examined French-language instruction between 1995 and 2006.
Currently, the core French curriculum is a non-immersion program that makes French a
mandatory subject for students in Grade 1 to 10 and an elective subject in their upper high
school years.
About 75 per cent of all New Brunswick students participate in that program.
But of the 4,063 children who enrolled in it when they started school in 1995, approximately
187 continued through to their high school graduation in 2006 and only 28, or 0.68 per
cent, met the provincial objectives of intermediate oral proficiency.
The program costs New Brunswick about $10.3 million annually.
"Clearly, the core program isn't doing very well," Croll told reporters at a press conference in
Fredericton on Wednesday.
Few remain in immersion to Grade 12
For the early French immersion program, the commissioners found that of the 1,469 students
enrolled at the start of their elementary school education, only 554 continued through to
Grade 12, and 15.93 per cent obtained the provincial target of advanced oral proficiency.
The program costs $4.6 million more a year than the standard annual cost of educating
students.
New Brunswick's late-immersion program, which begins in Grade 6, was found to have
about 1,535 students enrolled initially. By the time the students graduated high school, the
number had dropped to 602 students, with 45.6 per cent meeting the provincial target of
intermediate proficiency. It means 17.92 per cent of the original number of students met the
objective at an annual operating cost of $7,000 per student.
The study also found that students enrolled in the core program in elementary school achieved
better results in literary achievement testing than the students participating in the early
immersion program.
New French program would begin in Grade 5
The report suggests adopting a new French-language system, which would begin in Grade 5
and offer a more intense focus on French.
It would be similar to the province's current intensive French pilot project, which is an
alternative approach to second-language instruction that provides students in Grade 5 with
the opportunity to have intensive language instruction for a five-month period.
March 6 to March 13th
27
The pilot project has shown that most students who enter the five-month program with a
novice level of French have advanced to a basic understanding of the language and a
conversational ability.
Under the new system, students would take 315 hours of their class time in French during
Grade 5, covering all subjects with the exception of math.
The children would then have the choice of enrolling in a more extensive core French program
or continuing with a late-immersion program beginning in Grade 6.
The new programs would continue until Grade 12. Students would have the option of taking
math and science in either official language.
Later immersion appeals to more students and appears to be more effective, Croll said.
"Our sole direction is to increase the proficiency of our kids," Croll said.
The goal remains to ensure that 70 per cent of New Brunswick high school graduates are able
to speak effectively in both official languages.
Croll said the commissioners don't believe they are recommending anything that would lessen
New Brunswick's status as the only officially bilingual province in Canada.
The recommendations are not binding on the government.
Hello,
Our son is one of the students at John McRae who will be assigned to a new school if the
current Scenario B recommendation is approved. I cannot find a date to indicate when this
change will be implemented. Is it for the 2009/2010 school year? If it is, will a decision in
June 2009 provide enough time for a completely new JK - 6 dual track program to be staffed,
and implemented effectively?!
Thanks,
The timing of the approved plan would not be finalized until Trustees have
passed a full implementation plan at the end of this process. Please note that
the earliest date that an approved plan could be implemented is for the
2010/11 school year. As you've pointed out, it would not be possible to to
effectively implement these changes in such a short period of time (ie. staffing
for the 2009/10 school year is currently underway and almost complete).
Hello,
March 6 to March 13th
28
The purpose of this email is to note my objection to the possible relocation of our daughter
_______ to Edward Johnson P.S. from John McCrae P.S.
We object to this relocation for the following reasons;
We consider consistency to be an encouragement for children building school and
community spirit. This plan would result in our daughter attending 4 different schools
in 8 years
Edward Johnson P.S. is not within walking distance from our home – important to my
wife as she does not drive
Both my wife and I have consistently made volunteer contributions to John McCrae,
including major contributions to the end of year picnic and the provision of sports
supplies to students during recess. We consider John McCrae to be “our” school, and
would like to continue to contribute.
We are pleased with the quality and character of the staff at John McCrae.
Thank you for considering this email,
Thank you for your response.
So will the PP 7/8s go to Jean Little in 2010 no matter what happens with the Accommodation
Review? No this is not a given since the Trustees have determined through the
approval of Report 1 that this is an issue that would be resolved as part of
this Accommodation Review process.
For instance if there was a decision to delay implementation until Sep 2011, would the PP
7/8s stay at Priory Park until Sep 2011? It is possible that if the decision to
implement changes was postponed until 2011, then the Trustees may decide to
delay the timing of the 7/8 move also or they may not. Decisions about the
various pieces of the implementation plan are difficult for me to comment on
since Staff will bring an implementation plan to Trustees however, they make
the final decisions.
I was under the impression that the PP 7/8s move to Jean Little would happen no matter what
Scenario was adopted? I understand the need to move the PP 7/8s was motivated by an
a educational quality (Program) reason and not related to seats in classrooms which is more
of a Planning thing. You are correct, this is more of a Program related issue than
a Planning issue, however, Trustees approved this accommodation review
process as the mechanism for looking into and possibly resolving this
Programming concern. Should the Trustees decide to NOT go forward with any
of the recommendations from either Staff or the ARC, then the 7/8 program
will remain at Priory Park until something else triggers it.
Can you clarify?