February 26 to March 6, 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.
Bob, School Trustees, ACR members
We are months into the school review and there are a few things than STILL hang in my mind.
1
Last year my son would get on the bus that brought students from the "deep" south
end. Our bus stop is on Gordon close to Water Street. This bus would continue on it's way to
John McCrae. After dropping off the McCrae Children, it would pick up the rest of the
Priory Children. Some of the McCrae Children had been on that bus for almost an hour and
it showed in their little faces.
My point/question is. Why are we bussing Children so far? Having Priory as the other bus to
FI school would not solve hour long bus rides.
AND/OR........ as these Children will still have to be bussed, FA Hamilton has a great drive
through, driveway. Which would take the bus loading area off of our city streets. Perhaps a
bit safer for our children and less disruptive to the morning drivers (that are often are in a
hurry and distracted)
2
If we look past five years... FA Hamilton school is very expandable. The port-a-pack
is under utilized now and as the school ground are quite large. This facility could support the
future needs of FI without drastically displacing families. I feel that planning further the future
would be less disruptive
3
Having been a part of the John McCrae dual track to FI only disruption. It is my
greatest concern that my family will again be effected by this if Priory becomes dual track. It
was very disruptive to my family. As the Priory and McCrae bounders overlap, I still don't
understand why Priory is being considered.
Finally, I would like to thank the ACR members for Volunteering their Family time to be part of
this review. And I would like to remind everyone that this is about our Children, our future
and our Families.
Thank-you
Dear Mr. Borden,
My husband and I were wondering why the Westminster Woods school can't be used for the FI
students. The school hasn't started up yet, so there wouldn't need to be a lot of adjustments in
school culture. It would also be farther south in Guelph and would seem (to us) to be a
better location for French Immersion.
Priory park has a very high population of ESL students. I am worried that adding a FI program
to Priory Park would be unnecessarily disruptive.
Sincerely,
February 26 to March 6, 2009
2
Thank you for your question about Westminster Woods. My understanding,
from conversations with staff around this issue, is that WW will be at or
beyond capacity when it open and so will not be considered as a viable
alternative. One of the goals of this review is to fill underused spaces in our
schools.
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
Hi Bob,
I'm sorry to send two e-mails in a row - I forgot to add something to my first e-mail.
I learned from a parent attending a school council meeting at Priory Park that FA Hamilton is
"parked" (??) and is no longer a consideration for FI students. Why is this? It would seem that
FA Hamilton has a far greater ability to expand than Priory Park. It could easily accommodate
FI students now AND in the future. Don't they already have a number of attached classrooms
that aren't being used? (Porta Packs?). I heard a suggestion that the gifted program at FA
Hamilton could be moved to Priory Park. If the FI students went to FA Hamilton and the gifted
program was moved to Priory Park, than we could solve both the need for a FI school in south
Guelph as well as keep Priory Parks numbers up.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Borden,
As a parent in the Priory Park School community I'd like to take this time to address some of
the concerns I have with the proposed Scenario B which would make Priory Park a dual track
school. I have listed my concerns below.
1) An English/FI dual track school will have a negative impact on our community.
(a) Priory Park and John McCrae have already gone through an extensive reorganization a
few years ago and disrupting this community again would be unfair. This opinion is shared by
both John McCrae and Priory Park parents.
(b) Priory Park and John McCrae already serve all the needs for English and FI in this
community (same boundary areas) - further accommodation of FI should be considered
further south in Guelph where there are needs for both English and FI in those communities. FI
students are bussed for 30 minutes or more from south Guelph to come to our community.
This can be overcome by having an FI centre in further south in Guelph.
2) Schools in south Guelph considered for this can be:
a) FA Hamilton as this school can accommodate more than the current need for FI students.
The reasons for this Scenario being "in the parking lot" is not based on finding a logical
solution to the existing FI problem. ARC has to seriously reconsider this option - specifically as
FA Hamilton can support further expansion (post 2017) to support further needs for FI
accommodation.
February 26 to March 6, 2009
3
b) Westminister Woods can be considered as a dual track school. It will accommodate the FI
need in south Guelph and there will not be any pre-existing culture within the school. There is
a need for BOTH FI and English in this community.
3) Priory Park has an extensive ESL program that is specifically geared to the community it
serves. By bringing FI into this school environment, you would SEVERELY jeopardize this
program. Also, the incoming FI students would not have the same quality program as in John
McCrae. A significant program equity problem would exist within Scenario B.
4) Bringing FI into Priory Park contravenes SEVERAL of the Board's guiding principles. These
include uneven numbers in both streams, loss of equity in BOTH programs, and the list goes
on.
4) Priory Park has been adjusting to the enforced changes by the Board and review committee
suggestions for years. We are finally at a stage where the school is showing signs of real
educational progress and now we have to face YET ANOTHER disruption. I must admit this
"bump-the-problem-at-Priory Park" attitude is EXTREMELY FRUSTRATION for people in this
community. I suspect the reason why Priory Park has been picked on in past reviews must be
because of low enrollment numbers. This issue can be addressed by including the University
Student Housing (off College and off Stone) within the catchment area for Priory Park. Many of
these families eventually move into Sifton's rental properties and their children would then
come to Priory Park. This move would also alleviate some of the enrollment pressures at Jean
Little.
5) The Board has a history of turning dual track schools into FI Centres. Having two FI centres
in this community would be ludicrous. Priory Park has a robust ESL program and this has been
developed to serve the local community. We have a HIGH DEMAND for ESL in this
community and having FI in the school would significantly disrupt this program. Bringing FI
into Priory Park is in essence a band-aid solution to a MUCH BIGGER problem in the future.
Does ARC really think this option would solve the long-term issues with FI in South Guelph?
The resounding answer is NO. Unless the Board really have the plan in mind to turn Priory
Park into yet another FI centre in this community. The logic of this decision escapes me.
Sincerely,
As part of the Central Guelph Accommodation Review, I have been inquiring about the Board
guidelines for evaluating proposed scenarios. Specifically I have been inquiring about the
rationale for limiting the number of 7/8 classes to 3-5 and 35% of the school population. I
understand from Bob Borden that a report in 2004 regarding this issue was based on research
by a Board consultant, Grant Evans, and that this report is available from the Planning and
Program Department.
I would appreciate getting to read a copy of this study by Grant Evans. Please let me know
where this document is available and how I might obtain it. Thank you for your assistance.
regards
Dear Trustees,Chair of the Board and Parent Representatives for ARC:
February 26 to March 6, 2009
4
I am writing in concern over the ARC Review Update for Parents notice I received this
afternoon in my SK child’s ‘sac en plastic’. I thought that more time was being given to visit a
variety of options and provide opportunity for parent/family input from all affected children,
over the decision to relocate a portion of the south-end children to a different school. It is thus
surprising to find that the decision has been made, when we were lead to believe our voices
were actually being heard. As a result, my family feels quite jaded and disenfranchised over
this process. In response to the parent concerns and the ARC comments found on the back
cover of this sheet, I have the following further comments to add.
1) Scenario A and B were originally proposed, recognizing that scenario A (FI centre at FA
Hamilton) was the best option upholding the principles of John McCrae and French
Immersion. Unfortunately, this scenario was too pinned to a school place, rather than the
concept of a new immersion centre on the south-end. As FA Hamilton families made
engaging and persuasive arguments against scenario A, this option was removed from the
table. Unfortunately, this left only the ‘band-aid’ scenario B. I view scenario B as a band-aid
for many reasons, but foremost is that that south-end is growing and currently only one piece
of the south-College students are being moved out of the JMC family. As the south-end
grows (and based on my understanding the estimates of growth for FI have been
underestimates to date), more FI students will end up at JMC and you will be in this situation
again in 3-5 years. Thus it is a band-aid solution to a significant problem of FI education in
Guelph.
My second concern is that the research is being cited inaccurately. Yes-- the literature does
state that a dual track school when attention is paid to FI principles is equivalent to an FI
centre (as a colleague of mine at the University has confirmed). However, what is being
proposed in scenario B is not dual track, but potentially 3 or 4 track. Secondly the research
does not support two specialized programs (FI and ESL) in the same site, but rather one or the
other with a regular school program. You are essentially setting up two or more ‘special
needs’ programs of disenfranchised families that you don’t know how to deal with.
2) Thank you for clarifying that it is 145 and not 120 students that are being affected. This
provides further credence to my comment 1) that FI is growing and a south-end centre is the
more appropriate and well-thought out option here, rather than the band-aid.
3) If kept within the FI family, my child will not only have started a different school 4 times in 4
years, but she is also going to be exposed to split classes. The literature also indicates that
spilt classes, dependent on the teacher, can be a benefit to students. However, you can’t
guarantee that these superlative teachers will be at Priory Park for the six years of my child’s
primary school education, or that she will not be in a spilt grade for each year.
4) It seems that the band-aid of scenario B is a result of poor decisions from the beginning,
which include only reviewing 7 schools in this current ARC.
5) Loss of community and family- this is the crux of the problem isn’t it? How much of your FI
“family” are you willing to sacrifice for what you believe to be the greater good of JMC? Is
one child’s early experience and formative education enough for the Trustees and board to
say we must uphold our principles-- or is it 50, 145, 250? In my view, ‘no one should be left
behind’.
As a university professor who knows the challenges of teaching and attempting to
accommodate all, I know that you are working hard to find the best solution. However, for
me it always comes back to the principles—what am I trying to teach here? I am disappointed
to find that the FI principles have been so readily abandoned, as have these students.
Because of all of these concerns and the decisions made to date, I will be removing my
daughter from FI and sending her to a private or separate school this fall.
February 26 to March 6, 2009
5
Greetings Bob,
I was encouraged to send my opinion about the school review process.
Teacher agree with it as well, that Priory Park should have never been converted into a K-8
format. Simply put it: The school is not big enough to run a program for the 7-8's.
Please represent our opinion, to convert it back to K-6 model, as soon as the coming
September 2009 school year.
Thank you
Upper Grand District School Board
I am a parent who has a child at Priory Park. I am concerned with the possibility of P.P. being
designated as a dual track school. I believe if FI students are brought in to the school, it will
eventually become a one track FI school. If there is that much of a demand for the FI system,
then either a new school should be constructed, the FI school that is beside P.P. could be
expanded, when the new John McCrae school opens, build a new school on the College Ave.
site for FI. If the new John Mcrae school does not have the capacity for the demand - then that
was poor planning on someone's part, Priory or any other school should not required to take
on FI students. I have nothing against the FI system. I strongly believe the one track english
speaking schools should not have to be disrupted for this system. Westminster Woods is in a
great area, a newer school, for FI accomodations. Having two FI centres right next door to
one another is ridiculous. There are very good programs at Priory Park for ESL, which IS
required in our community, bringing FI into this school would significantly disrupt this
program.
Stop disrupting our children in their schools for the needs of others. There is definitely enough
land at the attached FI school for expansion. There are much better suited areas for a FI
school than Priory Park. The closing, changing, and disruption of schools in this province, and
across the country, is damaging our education system. In most cases it makes no sense
whatsoever, and would like to know for who all these changes are benefiting. It is definitely
not our children.
Dear Bob,
I am disappointed that the ARC committee is recommending that Priory Park become a dual
track FI/English school. I do not believe that this small community school can handle both
tracks. This is clearly not sustainable, and it won't be long before the English program is
squeezed out, and the families will have to undergo yet another change. Priory Park's base of
lower income/single parent families/ESL/immigrants need a stable environment in which to
learn. Where are you going to put the FI students? There are not enough classrooms within
the school building. Does this mean portables? If so, why not put the portables on the John
McCrae site? Doing this will mean no English schools between the river and Stone Road - that
is a huge family area.
February 26 to March 6, 2009
6
As the records show, it is impossible to predict student registrations at Priory Park since the
population is so transitory. It is essential to have this kind of a stable, one language school to
cater to the needs of the area.
It is unfortunate that the committee is listening to the loudest voices rather than taking into
account the fact that the majority of Priory Park families are unable to speak up for
themselves. They are being put at a disadvantage yet again.
If this plan goes through, I think you will find in the long run that it was a mistake.
There are so many more options. Not all of them have been explored fully.
Sincerely,
(parent of 2 children at Priory Park School)
Hello,
I would like to comment on the ARC Update that I just received via email from our school
reps. In your summary of parent concerns you have left out the fact that many of us object to
the diminished programming options for FI 7/8 in all of your scenarios, including scenario B.
We even have a parent group (KEIP) that was formed specifically to address the issue of
quality programming that would be on par with what we have at King George. Yet this is not
mentioned anywhere in your summary of parent concerns.
Would you please consider updating your update and including this important aspect in your
future communications with parents.
I was wondering if I could obtain assurances from Mark Bailey that this aspect will not be
forgotten!
Thanks kindly,
Hello Committee;
I understand that ‘Scenario B’ moving approx. 145 students to a dual track school at Priory
Park is the current choice of the Accommodation Review. I would like to point out that in one
of the first surveys where we, as parents and as a school were asked to put forth the current
‘values’ of our school. I know that, in general, there were many responses, particularly in
making the new school a JK – 6 or JK – 8 school, but the ONE thing that was consistent; the
ONE thing that we valued most as a school was that we are a French Immersion Centre. I
believe that taking 145 out of that environment is not in the best interest of our kids, the
school, or the parents.
Taking only 145 students will not make a dual track school. To be a dual track school, the
French immersion population should program should make up for half the school. One of the
worst scenarios as I see it, is making several split grades from grades 1-6. There will not be
enough of a population to do anything at a school level. Think about the day to day things
that the kids are involved with. Will there be enough students to make assemblies in French?
Will the announcements be in French? There are many many ways that we value our
IMMERSION experience.
I understand that the review committee has identified this as the best choice and I understand
how difficult a decision this is when so many are involved. My suggestion if this scenario is
chosen is to move MORE students so that there won’t be so many split grades and that the
French immersion part of the school would indeed represent half the students. I would also
suggest that moving kids to a dual track school from only ONE neighbourhood is wrong. As
February 26 to March 6, 2009
7
all French immersion students are bussed, there is not reason to single out one
neighbourhood.
I will keep informed on the issues as the upcoming meetings happen. Thank you;
Hello
I am writing to express my deep concern and disappointment with this entire review process. I
moved home so my daughter would start school (JK) in the same school I thought she would
be in for all of grade school. Studies have shown this is much better for social development
and I am supportive of John McCrae becoming a JK-8 school. We intentionally wanted to get
her into FI. Unfortunately much of the near to school capture zone for John McCrae is far too
expensive for the average family, so we ended up in the busing area.
Then I learned about the AR. I was immediately upset however to discover that all the options
displace my daughter to another school. They just rebuilt John McCrae - if we have known for
so long that the preferred schooling option is JK-8, why wasn't it built big enough to become a
JK-8 school without altering its capture zone? So now the boards(?) lack of foresight has
caused us to regret our home purchase and has my husband thinking of withdrawing her from
the FI program altogether since we do not want, nor is there any way we can afford to move
again.
For quite some time during this review I felt that the information being communicated was
inadequate but I had to trust the ARC to do a good job since my work commitments keep me
unavailable to get involved. Then I got the email below.
Now I am furious. 4 tracks at priory park? All announcements in english? How could that
possibly do anything to achieve a goof education or build the valuable french language skills I
put her in FI for? PP's EQAO results are terrible - they are completely unacceptable.
My daughter is very smart. English is her first language. She needs to be challenged, not held
back by special needs and ESL programs draining resources from her classroom. She deserves
to stay with the same group of kids she has come to be friends with at JM, and not be forced
to some other school where she might not know anyone.
Also, so far none of the options are good for any of the students (aside from those who aren't
changing from JM) - so if Westminster Woods is an option - then it should be considered.
Regardless of whether it was thought of later on in the process. Being confined to original
limitations without adaptability is poor governance. If it has to be dual track - which is by far
the worse option - Rickson Ridge should also be considered. It is brand new, only been open
1 year and the time is good for making changes there.
And what about my son? By the time he is ready to start school would he be in a different
one? Hoe much stress can you add to a families morning and end of day routines?
No one seems to answer any of these questions adequately, and trying to weed through the
information on the website is cumbersome and difficult. I can't even find when and why FA
Hamilton was parked.
February 26 to March 6, 2009
8
This situation is unfair, this process is unfair, and the idea that working parents should have to
fight so hard to get a quality education in Ontario is extremely unfair.
If JM despite just being rebuilt can't take all the FI kids from south guelph, then you need to
establish another FI single track program in south guelph.
I look forward to your reply.
________________________________
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 6:47:19 AM
> Subject: John McCrae ARC Update Feb 24
>
> You are receiving this e-mail because you expressed an
> interest in receiving updates about the Central Guelph
> Accommodation Review. If you want to be removed from the
> list please reply to this e-mail with UNSUBCRIBE in the
> Subject Line. This e-mail will be of special interest to
> families of the 145 children that could be displaced out of
> John McCrae if either of the two staff Scenarios (A & B)
> goes ahead.
>
> After numerous efforts to persuade the Accommodation Review
> Committee (ARC) to consider other options, we have been told
> that Scenario B is still the favoured option. With Scenario
> B approximately 145 John McCrae children will attend JK to
> Grade 5 in September 2010 at Priory Park . Grade 6 will be
> added in September 2011.
>
> At their last meeting, the ARC looked at putting the South
> Guelph 7/8s FI students at Priory Park instead of the JK > 6s. They rejected this Scenario because they felt that the
> FI 7/8s would be over 50% of the population and in the
> opinion of the Educators (Principals / Superintendents)
> present at meeting that would not make a good school
> environment for the JK-6s.
>
> At the School Board's Business Operations meeting on
> February 10th, we proposed that the ARC investigate adding a
> few classrooms on the yet to be constructed Westminster
> Woods school in the South End and place the Dual Track FI
> program there. We have been asked by a number of families in
> the South End why the School Board does not build FI
> capacity in South Guelph so we decided to propose this
> option. By building additional classrooms at Westminster
> Woods, no English Track students are displaced. Since the
> school has not been built yet, the cost to add these
> classrooms is quite low since it will be done as part of the
> entire design and construction package. Since Westminster
> Woods in not included in the Accommodation Review, the ARC
> Facilitator says they are not allowed to study it. >
February 26 to March 6, 2009
>
> During the same Business Operations meeting, a group of
> parents from Priory Park made a presentation about Scenario
> B. They raised some of the same concerns that we did about
> the breach of so many of the Guiding Principles with
> Scenario B. The speaker from Priory also provided some very
> interesting information about their vibrant and diverse
> school community. Priory families are very concerned about
> maintaining the quality of their English as a Second
> Language (ESL) program. At Priory, they want to have all the
> announcements, all the books, all their signs and posters in
> English. They want English intensity and we want French
> intensity.
>
> We also learned that Scenario B is actually a Quad Track
> proposal, not a Dual Track. Besides ESL, Priory also has a
> Regular Track English program and a Special Education
> program. Adding FI makes it four programs not two. We are
> very concerned that a school with 300 students can deliver a
> quality program to all four areas and this concern is also
> shared by the Priory Park parents.
>
> At this stage we do not believe that Accommodation Review
> Committee has the mandate to look at any other schools other
> than Priory Park and John McCrae. FA Hamilton (Scenario A)
> is in the Parking Lot. Other Scenarios that could be
> proposed involving these two schools could include:
>
>*
Make Priory a Single Track FI and return JMC to a
> Dual Track school (not sure the Priory families would
> support this but at least you would have the numbers to have
> a viable FI program at both)
>
>*
Changing the boundaries so that another part of
> South Guelph attends Priory Park (since our ARC reps do not
> seem to be very concerned about Scenario B perhaps there is
> a cohort in South Guelph that is not concerned about the
> Dual Track option. Maybe it is just us?)
>*
Expanding the boundaries so that more FI students
> attend Priory (again I don't think the Priory families
> would like this)
>
> If none of these Scenarios seem viable, then we need to
> convince the Accommodation Review Committee not to recommend
> either Scenario (A or B) and send it back to the School
> Board for consideration. The hope there is that the Board
> has enough vision to consider the South Guelph (Westminster
> Woods) option. We would need to do this quickly so that
9
February 26 to March 6, 2009
> School Board has enough time to act. [They don't do
> anything quickly.] >
> In order to get the ARC to send it back to the School Board
> for consideration, we need to convince the ARC that Scenario
> B does not deliver a quality education to these students as
> measured against other schools in the Upper Grand District
> School Board (UGDSB). This is our challenge. The view of
> the "Educators" (Principals / Superintendents) is
> that Scenario B does not threaten the education quality to
> these four programs. I suspect they will shift the Special
> Education program to FA Hamilton so the focus of our efforts
> should be on the ability to have English Track, English as a
> Second Language, and French Immersion in one school with a
> population of 300 students.
>
> Can someone do some research into the following:
>
>*
Is there any research that talks about the educational
> success / problems with running these three programs
> (English Track, ESL, FI) together?
>
>*
What is required to deliver a good ESL program?
>*
Is there advocacy group out there that represents the ESL
> community that can write a letter or speak to these issues
> at a Board meeting? This would be powerful to have a
> position like this promoted from a group other than the
> parents.
>
>*
Is there another government or non-government agency that
> would be concerned about the potential damage to the
> delivery of the ESL program?
>
> Please try to make sure that your bus stop is aware of
> these issues. Our estimates suggest that with Scenario B
> your child will be in Split Grades about 50% of the time (3
> years) from Grade 1 - Grade 6. Right now at John McCrae your
> child will probably only experience a class with Split
> Grades for one year. Then there is the issues of quality
> staffing, FI resources, French materials in the library
> etc. with Scenario B.
>
> If we don't do something soon, the ARC will recommend
> Scenario B. We need to convince the ARC with solid research
> and opinions from outside our school communities that this
> is not a quality program for the English Track, ESL and FI
> students.
>
> Thank You
10
February 26 to March 6, 2009
11
>
> Parent - John McCrae
Dear Parents and Members of the Board,
I am writing to add my voice to those adamantly opposed to ‘Scenario B’ – making Priory Park
a dual track school. As I introduce my own arguments, I also want to reiterate some of the
important points that McCrae parents Katrina McLaughlin and Jennifer Bistolas have raised.
Research Supporting FI Centres:
According to a study by Michael Parkin it was concluded that, "...in the teachers' minds
there is little question that the immersion center is the more advantageous
environment".
According to Lapkin et al. (1981), introducing French immersion students to a dual
track English school has been shown to not only provide a lower level of French
education, but also lowers the French student's English skills.
According to the Centre for Research and Consultation, Winnipeg (Manitoba), 1983,
‘…the early total immersion program in an immersion setting produces the best
results…obtaining higher scores than those in an English setting or in a partial
immersion program."
And interestingly enough, the South of Guelph Review of 2000 outlined the need for
FI centres as opposed to dual track schools.
Disadvantages for McCrae Students:
The number of students does not reach the critical mass of 200 students needed to make a
viable French program in a dual track school.
This small number of students will not create a program that teachers are attracted to and that
it will be difficult to entice experienced teachers to teach at this new location.
This would be the FOURTH projected move for our children. My daughter (grade one) is
already struggling with feelings of uncertainty due to this year’s move. Next year will introduce
a move to the new school (one that she is greatly anticipating) only to be moved again the
following year.
Friendships with teachers, custodians, office staff and peers will be lost – which may greatly
affect students’ ability to adjust and find success in the new school. I KNOW that my daughter
will have a difficult time leaving her friends and teachers – she still visits her Kindergarten
teacher on a regular basis and this provides in her, a feeling of security and confidence.
Disadvantages for Priory Park Students (from Priory Park Task Force Presentation – February
10, 2009):
Majority of students come from lone parent families and are new Canadians – their
unique needs are best met with cohesive and supportive school community.
Large number of new Canadian families created a specific need for English
proficiency thus Priory Park has a robust ESL program.
Priory Park was selected as a School on the Move, an honour bestowed to only 43
schools in Ontario in 2008. Extraordinary achievement underlines need for Board to
bolster and nurture English program, not jeopardize it by turning it into a dual track
school.
February 26 to March 6, 2009
12
Having a fully integrated FI program operational at Priory Park would be extremely
confusing to students already struggling with English as a second language.
Inclusion of FI in school would detract from several of the mechanisms used by the
school to further English literacy and writing skills – thereby again jeopardizing the
delivery of the English program.
I truly believe that Scenario B is the wrong option for ALL students. It puts the ESL program at
risk and undermines the hard work that has been done at Priory Park to achieve such a
prestigious status as a School on the Move. Students at John McCrae are familiar and
comfortable with the single track, FI centre – so much so that it is now one of our school
values. It would be confusing and a real step backward to suddenly introduce these students
to a dual track system where: half of the teachers would not speak French, announcements
would often be spoken in English, school assemblies and concerts would be presented in
English, and the entire environment would not conducive to their optimal learning. The biggest
problem I have is that the Board has already indicated in 2000 that it prefers FI Centres, and
our research illustrates the extreme advantages of this system. Why then, would we put our
McCrae students at a disadvantage, when they will have already been through many years of
disruption and uncertainty? To add this new system to their load would only add to their sense
of disharmony. An FI Centre allows the school to consolidate its resources and integrate the FI
program into every aspect of its school life. A dual track FI program at Priory Park would be
contrary to this directive.
Please take the time to consider our arguments and think of our children – we all want what is
best for them and providing a system that the Board has previously indicated to be inferior,
would not be prudent.
Many thanks,
Hi Bob
Just a comment on priory going to a dual track school. This is the thing you guys wanted to
get rid of. You can change the borders to make a school look low or high. We have lived
through this process, and I think when you build the school in the south end you will justify why
you should close Priory and move all kids to another school any way. Why don't you make
one of the south end schools French and save on busing. You cant tell me that all the kids that
are going to French, live around Priory, because they would be going to John McCrea on
Water Street. So where are they all coming from??? On top of that you will then have both
French schools with in 2kms of each other. And you are busing in from Clair road and farther.
For the board to say it does not affect kids from being moved from one school to another, I
think you need to talk with some of these kids,or parents because it does affect them.
The only thing that I am happy about is you are not making this move till Sept. 2010. My kids
will be out of this shuffle. But I pity the parents that move in to a subdivision and think there
kids are going to one school and find out they are being bused to who knows where.
Parents of Priory Park
February 26 to March 6, 2009
13
Hello,
I have not received neither a reply nor acknowledgement of my email request. Can you
please provide me this information tomorrow morning. Thank-you. If you need to fax
anything, you can fax it to xxx-xxx-xxxx.
----- Original Message ----To: centralguelph.comments@ugdsb.on.ca
Subject: Sharon Lapkin Research
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.
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?
2. If it is the conclusion of the Board, can you please forward me the research conducted by
the Board that supports this view.
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.
Thank-you,
Thank you for your inquiry. We have received your email and are answering
requests for information in the order that they are received. We anticipate
being able to provide you with a reply by next week.
Jackie Hope
Administrative Assistant, Planning
Thank-you.
I would appreciate receiving the information today or at the latest on Monday March 9th, as I
plan to attend the John McCrae parent council meeting Monday night, and this information
will be of interest and importance to the other parents attending as well. Therefore, in the
interests of maintaining the integrity of this process, it would be best if you could respond to
the attached request made to you on February 26 in a timely manner.
Parent, John McCrae School
February 26 to March 6, 2009
14
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 Superintendent 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 Superintendent
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. 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,
Dear Mr. Borden,
It is with great concern that I am writing to you regarding the proposed scenario to make
Priory Park a dual track school.
I am a resident of the old university area and a parent of a children both attending John Mc
Crae and Priory Park schools. I see no sense in putting two french immersion programs so
close.
February 26 to March 6, 2009
15
We as a neighbourhood have lost our english school at John McCrae. Our son has relocated
to Priory Park which serves him well. What happens to Priory Park in the future as the French
Immersion Program swells? Will Priory Park school then become a French Immersion Centre
just like John McCrae? Leaving the Sifton Property area and the Old University area void of a
local english track school? What will the future bring for Priory Park? Neighbourhoods schools
should meet the needs of their student population. We know where the population of FI
students are mainly comming from; south Guelph. I see no sense in putting two french
immersion programs so close, please consider adding a FI program further south in Guelph.
Sincerely,
To whom it may concern,
I was forwarded this address from another concerned Victory parent and wanted to take a
moment to let you know my thoughts on the proposals put forth concerning the future of
Victory Public School. I am a future parent of Victory school, as I will be enrolling my eldest
child for the upcoming school year and another child two years after that. Two of my
nieces have attended (one is still attending and will be affected by the possible change to FI as
she is in the English track) and in the upcoming school year will be adding another nephew
and niece to Victory JK as well. Thus the future of Victory is near and dear to my families
hearts.
As a family, I had planned to (and looked forward to) walk the 5 minutes to school to each
day and my partner and I purposely choose this neighbourhood to reside in based on the
proximity to Victory and its dual-track nature. Its important to my family that the school we will
be sending our children to is accessible to all who live near us, despite the track they are
enrolled in. It is important to my family the children that we will see and play with in the
neighbourhood outside of school hours are the same students we will see and play with at
school. It is that sense of community and companionship that is essential to building healthy
families and neighbourhoods. It is also gives me a sense of pride that we can be kind to the
environment by walking and not bussing to a school farther away. And in the upcoming
years, it will important to me to feel some comfort that when my children are old enough to
walk to school on their own, that they will do that following the same short route, by the same
homes of our neighbours and friends.
I am extremely disappointed and concerned by the proposals put forth to change Victory
School to either a fully English track school or fully French track school. This is not what we
wanted for this community and is completely against the reasons why we chose this
neighbourhood in the first place. It makes no sense to me that a school board would decide
to make children, who live within minutes of one school, walk a long distance or be bussed to
another. I feel very strongly that this would take away from the community, and most
importantly, create segregation where there should be none.
I firmly believe Victory should remain a dual track school and I know that I am part of a large
number of parents who also feel very strongly about this issue. I sincerely hope that you will
listen to our concerns and take them into consideration when deciding the fate of Victory
Public School and ultimately our children who attend it or will be attending it in the near
future. I look forward to further opportunities to make our voices heard and I hope that all
communications about this issue are delivered in a more coherent fashion than the September
8th, 2008 letter. Let’s be clear about the issue, the proposals, and the huge impact that such
February 26 to March 6, 2009
16
changes would have on our children, our community and our neighbourhood. We bought
into this neighbourhood for a reason and am counting on it staying the true to those reasons.
Regards,
Hi Mr. Borden,
Unfortunately Edward Johnson has not been vocal through all of the ARC discussions and now
its proposal has been dismissed. My daughter is currently in grade 6 and my son in grade 3 at
Edward Johnson. My husband and I chose this school because it is a neighborhood school, it
is French immersion and it is within walking distance.
Edward Johnson's parent's are not all vocal but that does not mean that they do not care
about what decision the board will make. All parents want a good solid education for their
children whether it be in French or English in a safe, neighborhood school.
It is unfortunate that King George is being rebuilt as a English school and not as a 7 and 8
centre because it seems to me that a lot of this concern would be avoided otherwise. I
personally grew up in a system where highschool was from grade 7 to 12 and I was ready for
that change.
I think it is unfortunate that kids who are trying to mature will be faced with having to stay with
kindergarten children when a large percentage of them are dealing with teenage issues and
development. I certainly wouldn't want my child in grade 1 wondering what the dispenser on
the wall is for, or wondering why kids are getting familiar behind portables. Unfortunately
these things are a reality with this age group.
I am also concerned with my children's safety as they are expected to leave my home at 7:35
am, while it is still dark in the winter, alone and walk for just over in hour in the freezing cold
of winter, past a busy downtown, a highschool (that not too long ago had a lock down over a
gun issue) and on unplowed side walks. I can accept that my children may have to go across
town, but I can't accept the phone call or visit from the police when my child has been found
beaten, dead, raped or abducted. They need to be given safe transportation.
I want to know who I should contact then as I file my law suit against the board?
There are been many good choices presented, I do realize that it boils down to dollars, but
look at the Edward Johnson proposal, there are definite ways to accommodate that number of
children with out putting out whole communities. Paisley will be over capacity in only a couple
of years. Would Victory be interested in sending it's FI kids to Edward Johnson or Paisley. It is
clear that having only 2 French immersion school for 7 and 8 will not be enough to
accommodate the projected enrollment. What about having Edward Johnson as the north
alternative or adding 7 and 8 to John F Ross?
Edward Johnson does have 5 available acres, a perfectly good round about in the back of the
school for bus drop off, and is a FI centre currently. It is clear that 2 schools will not be
enough for all of the 7 and 8 enrollment what about having a north alternative?
February 26 to March 6, 2009
17
Please don't shut the door on the ideas presented by Edward Johnson, please consider them
and consider the safety of the kids foremost even when dollars are at play in the back ground.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Hello Bob,
There are several options. Perhaps some of these have been considered and disregarded.
Put a cap on the FI program.
Move the students from the U of G Married Student Residences (Wellington Woods) to
Priory to ease the situation at Jean Little and add to Priory's numbers.
Move the Gifted Program to Priory Park. We already have several identified groups at Priory.
Having the gifted program there would enrich the diversity of the population.
Move some students from Kortright Hills to Priory Park.
Since Westminster Woods school has not been built yet, make that school a dual track school.
There will be enough English and French students in that area to support both programs. The
school can be built to the specs required by the two programs, and it will reduce the time that
FI students coming from Aberfoyle will have to be on the bus.
I have recently learned (and perhaps I should have known before) about the constraints of
the CGARC in that only the seven schools mentioned in the review terms of reference were
considered. As a result, I realize why some of the above scenarios may not have been
considered. I am currently going over all the minutes and reports, and I will get back to
you with more comments. In the meantime, I would like to state that Scenario B only works for
FA Hamilton, and even then, possibly temporarily, as their numbers cannot sustain the school
in the long term.
Sincerely,
From: Bob Borden <Bob.Borden@ugdsb.on.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:55:29 PM
Subject: Re: ARC - Priory Park School
Thank you for your e-mail. I have forwarded it onto the members of the
CGARC for their information and consideration.
You referenced "not considering all the options". If you have others for us to
consider, please forward them
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
Trustee, Town of Orangeville and
Chair, Upper Grand District School Board
February 26 to March 6, 2009
18
To the members of the ARC and to the trustees of the UGDSB:
I have attached a document with more questions and concerns. Please let me know what you
think.
Thanks,
Concerns regarding small F.I program at Priory Park
¾ Who will teach there? Will they be less experienced teachers with low seniority? What is
the process for staffing this new F.I. program?
¾ French library resources? Will there be equitable resources as compared to John
McCrae?
¾ Split classes? What is the breakdown of students by grade in 2010?
JK/SK
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6 (if not ‘grand-fathered’)
Total?
¾ Difficult to assess real numbers when attrition rate (parents may opt to send their children
to their neighbourhood school instead) is unknown. Will this program be viable? At what
point is it determined to be unviable? How low can the number of F.I. students be before
it becomes unviable?
¾ Inevitable ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality/environment. It has become apparent that the F.I.
program is clearly not a good fit for Priory Park. The staff and community at Priory Park
have worked hard to develop strategies and a learning environment conducive to their
large ESL student population. Throwing a F.I. program in that same building will definitely
not benefit the Priory Park students.
¾ Direct conflict with many of the board’s guiding principles:
o Priory Park will no longer be a K-8 school. “Schools that offer Kindergarten to Grade
8 education are preferred”
o These F.I. students will have attended 4 schools as opposed to “limiting the number of
schools a given child is required to attend in the elementary years to two, thereby
avoiding unnecessary transitions.”
o “Dual track schools should offer a reasonable balance in the number of French and
English stream students (minimum of 200 per stream) and should congregate
sufficient enrolment of grade 7 & 8 students to allow for viable programming and
staffing.” This will not be the case at Priory Park.
o “Accommodation strategies that aim to provide the equitable program for all schools
should be encouraged.” How is this possible when remaining John McCrae students
February 26 to March 6, 2009
19
still enjoy all the opportunities of a F.I. centre that a dual track environment does not?
Ex/ Announcements and assemblies in French
¾ Is this truly a long-term solution? How much room is there at Priory Park? If French
Immersion continues to grow in the South end of Guelph at its current rate, how long will
it be before this new dual track program outgrows the Priory Park facility? Some say, that
eventually the English track students at Priory Park may be displaced/relocated in order to
convert Priory Park into a F.I. centre. This is definitely not a long-term solution. This
would mean that there would be no English track elementary school in the area located
between Wellington Road and Stone Road. How can ARC recommend Scenario B when it
only appears to be a band-aid solution, not a long-term solution?
¾ I feel it is important for ARC to communicate to the UGDSB that none of the scenarios
presented within the given parameters provide a long-term solution. It appears that this
process was set up to fail. Consideration must be given to include other options (not just
the schools named in this review).
In the summer of 2006 my family and I moved to Kathleen St. to our new home. One of the
great perks of the move was that my 3 children would be able to enjoy the great learning
environment provided by Victory Public School. The school is only a five minute walk across
the park from our residence. Recently, our property has undergone a tax reassesment in
which it has been valued at $48,000 more then previously assessed. I realize this increase in
value has to do with the perks of living in the neighbourhood; the primary perk being located
so close to Victory school.
The present proposal to make Victory an exclusive French Immersion school has made me feel
quite disheartened. I have a step-son in Senior Kindergarten, a step-daughter in Grade 3,
and a daughter who will be going to school in 2 years. This proposal will displace my 3
children, after working very hard to provide them with an environment condusive to their best
development.
A move to Willow Rd. Public School is one I find quite discerning. As I understand, the Willow
Rd. environment is a rough neighbourhood, in stark contrast to the setting at Victory. As well,
my kids will be forced to find other means to travel to and from school, a means different then
walking. With pressing concerns about the environment, I find it irresponsible to be burning
unnecessary fossil fuels, by displacing all of these children.
Lastly, I will conclude by asking the school board trustees in support of this proposal why they
feel my children should be treated as second class citizens, when the municipality is so quick
to make me reach into my pocket for services being taken away from my family?
Sincerely,
To: The Accommodation Review Committee,
I would like to congratulate the committee on reaching a decision on a recommended
scenario for the South End. I realize that this process has most likely been extremely difficult
and arduous for them, with no one scenario being best for everyone. I do believe that their
choice to set aside the F.A. Hamilton is the best choice. I thank the committee for not only
February 26 to March 6, 2009
20
taking the numbers into consideration, but the health and well being of the children, and the
surrounding community. They recognized the importance of the school as the hub of the
community, the need to support the Hanlon Creek Neighbourhood Group, the necessity of
providing children with breakfast and the fact that the concerns of F.A. Hamilton parents went
beyond programs, language and buildings. Thank you for hearing us!
Sincerely,
I have two daughters which currently go to Victory public school. I watched as they passed
through the doors going off to kindergarten and waving goodbye while outside I cried as my
babies were growing up. I have been fortunate enough to had the great opportunities to go
on almost every field trip with my daughters. I have volunteered on every floor of the
wonderful Victory building. I have been in the classrooms, library, office, I have collected
mega amounts of Zehrs tapes for the school library and new this year, I have added
fundraising for Medieval Times to my list. I have watched as great teachers have left and new
ones come in. I have watched as my daughters have made good friends to have them leave
and move on to other areas. I have seen a not so kid friendly principal leave and have had a
great kid friendly principal take her spot. My children have adored Victory and the many
teachers who have taught them. My older daughter is in grade 6 this year and will have to
leave Victory to move into grade 7 at Willow Road School. She will be able to graduate with
all her friends and teachers present that have seen her through many years of happiness. My
younger daughter is in grade 4 and will not have the opportunity to graduate among her
teachers nor among her friends she will be among strangers. Do you remember your grade 6
graduation party? Were you among strangers?
Can you even begin to tell me why I as an English speaking family and have English only
speaking children, are being discriminated against because I have my daughter's in the
English track? I am being pushed out of my once happy community into someone else's
community. Strangers are going to be able to enjoy all that Victory has done for me and my
girls and they do not live in my community. Victory is in my community and I should have the
right to send my girls to whatever school I feel safe and the school I feel will benefit my girls. I
have the right to do just that! But you are taking that away from me! You are taking my
freedom of choice away because I prefer my daughter's to speak and learn in the English track
pf Victory.
When we were deciding what track we were going to send our girl's, we had to decide on
the track we as parents could help them with. Had I known then where all this was heading I
would still have sent them to Victory in the English track. They have gained so much from the
English track, they have had wonderful teachers!
If and when you stop and think about your decisions, think about the ones you are harming.
It's not the parents, it is the great English speaking children K - 6. You can take away
our freedom of choice, my community, my free will, but you will never take away my great
memories of Victory Public School.
I hope you are thinking about the children!
Sincerely,
a Victory English track parent
February 26 to March 6, 2009
21
Hi Linda,
For what is worth, here is my letter. Maybe nothing new in there for you who have probably
heared mounds by now. But its my two cents worth.
I will attend the meeting on Monday.
I have had a bunch of ideas over the past week. I know I am not completely up to speed on
all this issues and past discussions and the people who have been involved through the whole
process may have raised many of these ideas.
I started out this time around, trying to think just about the idea of a small group of FI students
and teachers setting up a satellite program, alone, without considering the impact on the
situation at Priory Park. I thought that the idea is not neccessarily bad. It could be a special
experience with the right group of students and teachers.
I pondered several different ideas of what the make-up of that group of students might be and
what would make it a positive experience. Here are my thoughts.
What might make it appealing?
going to the same school as siblings
closer walking distance
a more flexible and dynamic learning program
promise of participation with JMcC school for larger french social events to stay
connected to the larger french 'community' and former peers.
exposure to a more diverse social-scape.
voluntary participation
instead of a boundary deciding who goes to the smaller program, perhaps the
decision should be based on things that would help a small program work.
For example: one might argue that it should be the higher grades 4,5,6 (depending on
numbers), who have already begun the integration of english classes in their program, leaving
the younger grades to the full immersion that they need to make the FI program work to its
fullest potential.
Or the decision might be based on the gathering of a group of students across several grades
who have similar learning styles, or independence and flexibility both academically and
socially.
confidence in the team of teachers recruited to the program; believing that there
would be some integrity in this plan, something more than just the crude convenience of filling
some classroom space.
However I came around again to the fact that to even begin to consider, never mind accept,
scenario B as positive, people would need to be convinced that it is not just the best option on
the table in this Accommodation Revue, but that it is the best option conceivable.(or “that it is
a good option”)
Because there are serious flaws with Scenario B:
We are not talking about simply moving some students to a join a different school. We
are talking about moving a handfull of FI students into a non-FI setting, and expecting parents
to believe that the program delivered will be the same as in other established FI programs in
Guelph.
February 26 to March 6, 2009
22
For all my thoughts on how a „satellite‟ FI program at Priory Park might be positive, it seems
more likely and it is definitely feared, that the program would not be of comparable quality to
the standard experienced in the rest of the FI programs in Guelph, a standard that parents
have a right to expect at this point in time. There would be a question of availability of
experienced FI teachers, there would be a severing of relationships with friends and teacher in
the only french community most FI students have. The program would be a work-in-progress,
with no time for it to progress. Because for how long would this scenario work?
I don‟t have the projected numbers at hand but I believe that we have yet to see the peak
numbers of enrollment in FI kindergarten, which means that the overall numbers will continue
to climb for the next 6-10 years. It seems obvious to many of us that moving a small group of
students from John McCrae to Prioy Park will only work for 1-2 years.
Such a temporay solution would only further fragment the education program across
Guelph. The policies of the Board need to be clarified and implemented, not changed every
couple of years to facilitate small changes in school populations. The Board has been moving
toward having FI Centres but is now proposing a step back in setting up a dual-track program
at Priory Park. It seems obvious that Guelph needs up to 4 FI Centres in Guelph. There is a
blatant lack in the south end. The new John McCrae School is beyond capacity even before its
construction is completed. The population is still growing as the large Kindergarten numbers
move up through the system. In addition, all the FI Centres may have to deal with the
accommodation of their Grade 7&8 students in the next few years if the Board maintains its
drive toward K-8 schools.
Guelph will need another FI Centre in the south end. This is clear.
The negative impact on the receiving school, Priory Park, will be considerable. First
disruption, then likely termination, when John McCrae FI has again, too many students just 1
or 2 years later. Either that or the small group of FI students will move on according to the
next short-sighted solution.
If the Accommodation Revue scenarios are rejected and the Board addresses the
larger Education challenges across the whole City of Guelph; if the legitimate need for an
additional FI Centre is addressed; and if the question of where to accomodate grades 7 & 8
across the city, is addressed; the numbers at Piory Park may look different by the time the
changes come into play. In the meantime the Board might consider using the vacant school
space to serve the community by leasing the space for a childcare program, an adult ESL
program, an after-school program, or for Continuing Education.
This is not the first time part of a school has been under-used. Let‟s do without some funding
in favour of making better, longer-term plans and choices for our communities‟ children.
The impact of a negative result from this Accommodation Review will be, for all parties,
irreversible.
We have to make a better decision.