January 24th to January 27th
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 Accommodation Review Committee and U.G.D.S.B. Members,
I have been following and commenting on the discussions about the accommodation review
and have listened and read about different points of view and varied suggestions on how to fix
this problem of the overflowing French Immersion program. I don't envy the job of the
Accommodation Review Committee, they have an incredibly difficult decision to make. I would
like the Committee and the Board to ensure that they take into consideration the long term
repercussions of each scenario before making their final recommendation and decision.
I believe that F.A. Hamilton has the most to lose out of any of the presentations I have
seen/read about. If you take into consideration all the presentations and points that
community members and parents have brought to light, the cost and repercussions to
the surrounding community and neighbourhoods are irreversible and unique to only
F.A. Hamilton. To move out the 200 neighbourhood children from F.A. Hamilton, and
fragment them among three different schools would destroy all the community has
built thus far.
Over THIRTY children would go to school hungry each day, as they would no longer
have access to a breakfast program.
The Hanlon Creek Neighbourhood Group would cease existence, as F.A. Hamilton
provides it's basis for participation. This results in the loss of many free activities for
families and children, the loss of the sense of community and belonging the group has
struggled to promote, as well as the loss of all that has gone into establishing good
working relations with the University of Guelph and student renters.
The Hamilton Hosers will cease to exist, resulting in no community skating rink,
limiting volunteer opportunities for students and discouraging their connection to the
city, as well as decreasing the availability of free recreation for children in the area.
Families would move, thereby increasing student rental properties.
With increased student renters and decreased parents walking to school each day,
trash, vomit, broken glass, vandalism and landlord neglect will not be kept in check as
the eyes and ears of the community are off the streets. The result is a student ghetto,
which no City wants.
TWO HUNDRED children will be sitting on buses, losing the chance to run and play
on the way to and from school, increasing pollution, childhood lethargy and
obesity and the cost of increased busing to the school board.
New Canadians will lose their connection and feeling of acceptance and belonging,
as they no longer have a community school to feel connected to, this will isolate them
and decrease chances for success and prosperity in their new country
When you compare the impact of closing F.A. Hamilton as our neighbourhood school to the
plethora of other valid arguments, points and scenarios involved in the review, I think it is
clear that the impact to the F.A. Hamilton community is more far reaching.
January 24th to January 27th
Dear ARC representative/Trustee,
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to Scenario B for south Guelph.
I am deeply concerned that scenario A is no longer being discussed as a viable and worthy
option. I understand that ARC representatives and trustees may be reticent to move an English
population out of a school as proposed under scenario A. I am dismayed, however, that the
ARC representatives and trustees would not find Scenario B anything other than offensive.
Priory Park is simply not a large enough school to house an effective dual track program. The
French immersion program offered at this facility would necessarily be inferior to the program
displaced students currently enjoy at John McCrae.
Over 30 years of research indicates that while it is not impossible to create a dual track school
that is as effective as a French Immersion centre, it is certainly more difficult.1 That difficulty is
egregiously overlooked in the proposal of Scenario B.
Indeed, Scenario B creates a French immersion program that not only fails to exceed that
offered by the French Immersion Centre at John McCrae, but that falls abysmally short of the
existing program.
Scenario B violates seven of the Board’s thirteen guiding principles. Why a scenario that goes
against more than half of the Board’s guiding principles has been given such prominent and
preferred status in this planning is baffling.
Scenario B violates the following principles:
• It does not “maximize the number of single classes.” A population of only
120-140 French Immersion students over 8 grades means that on average
each class will contain only 16 students. That means that almost all classes
will be split, and that the splits will be decided not by social and academic
needs but by funding.
• It does not offer a K-8 program, which is preferred by the Board
• It does not limit the schools that elementary students will attend from JK – 8 to
two. For these children, stress and transition don’t seem to be a concern to
the ARC or to the trustees. Their educational experience is being
compromised to achieve long term gains that will not help to mediate the
undue stress on the backs of the displaced students.
• It does not maintain the critical mass of 200 students suggested for each track
of a dual track school. Priory Park simply isn’t big enough to house a dual
track program, no matter how the John McCrae school council proposes to
“tweak” the scenario or to help with financing the transition for displaced
students.
• It does not aim to provide an equitable program for all schools. The dual
track French Immersion program will clearly be inferior to the program
available at John McCrae, which benefits from being a French Immersion
Centre, from established programs and a French culture within the school as
For more information on this research, please see Jennifer Bistolas’ delegation to the
ARC from January 21, 2009.
1
January 24th to January 27th
•
well as from a sparkling new facility that these same 120 displaced students
had to move to accommodate.
It does not deal with the difficulties that arise when creating a dual track
program. While the guiding principles suggest that there is no difference in
the quality of dual track versus French Immersion centres, it is imperative to
note that that can only be true where the programs are equally strong. This
new program can only fail in comparison to the superior program offered by
John McCrae.
The idea of sending 120 students to a school which cannot accommodate growth or a
sustainable and adequate French immersion program is offensive. There is no way to sugarcoat the inferior education students would receive under this scenario. There is no way to
house an effective dual track school in Priory Park School.
Priory Park has a capacity of 272 students. It is simply not a large enough school to house an
effective dual track program. There is no way to “tweak” that scenario so that it will be
workable. The numbers just don’t add up.
Moreover, Priory Park’s vibrant and effective English as a Second Language program, a key
component to their designation as a “School on the Move,” has needs that stand in stark
opposition to the needs of an effective FI program at a dual track school. Parents there
inform me that they will fight for hallway bulletin board space and to keep all announcements,
advertisements, assemblies, sports and clubs in English because they see constant out-ofclassroom exposure to English literacy initiatives as paramount to their ESL/ELL program’s
success. There are conflicting interests here, and the French Immersion program can only
suffer in these conditions.
Displaced students deserve to attend a school that provides a quality of education that is
equal to that offered at the French Immersion centre at John McCrae. For that reason, I
propose a number of scenarios that are superior to Scenario B.
Alternate Scenario #1: create a French Immersion Centre in South Guelph at a school large
enough to accommodate the critical mass of 200 students and to expand the boundary of
displaced students to ensure that the new FI school will be large enough and demographically
diverse enough to create a vibrant and effective new school. Scenario A accommodates this
possibility, but my understanding is that the ARC sees FAH as a viable school that ought not to
be converted to a FI centre. Is there another school that could handle this switch? Should the
board build one?
Alternate Scenario #2: create a dual track school in South Guelph large enough to house
the minimum of 200 students in each track, and again, expand the boundary of displaced
students. This scenario will likely be difficult as FI numbers are projected to grow. Creating a
small program in the interim in order to allow for this population increase later down the line
does not do justice to the education the children currently being displaced will receive. They
deserve to move to a school equal to the one they are leaving.
Alternate Scenario #3: keep all JK-6 students at John McCrae, and move the 7 & 8 program
to a different site in South Guelph. This scenario is superior to scenario B in that it allows for
the specialized intermediate programming that King George 7 & 8 students currently enjoy.
Moving two grades instead of eight ensures fewer split classes. The 7 & 8 students’ French,
being already grounded, will not suffer as much in a dual track setting as would the K-6
students forced into an inferior dual track program at Priory Park. Moreover, moving the 7 &
8 students contravenes only one instead of seven of the board’s guiding principles.
January 24th to January 27th
Alternate Scenario #4: grandfather these changes so that all students in French Immersion at
this board receive an equal quality of education. Let the students who started at John
McCrae, stay. Start a French Immersion Program at a new South end site (one large enough
to handle the FI program’s eventual size) for full time kindergarten students. The larger initial
numbers will reduce the number of split grades. Students will be able to foster friendships and
relationships with teachers instead of undergoing stressful change so many times in their
primary years. The school will be able to build resources as needed. The Board will be able
to take the time needed to hire French speaking teachers. Teachers will have a hand in
creating a vision and a program for the new site instead of forcing change to take place too
quickly with inadequate resources and program planning.
Sincerely,
To whom it may concern:
Although it is definately late in the process, and I do appologize for that, I am finally
beginning to get the big picture about how the French Immersion program in Guelph may
settle out. Unfortunately I am concerned.
Since my children have started in the French Immersion program (10 years ago, and which I
still believe is a fabulous opportunity for them) I have to say that the limited resources (such as
up to date and qood quality french texts and library books etc) available to them, the number
of split grade classes, and the great numbers of portables at the schools have always been a
serious downside of the immersion program. Further dividing up the k-6 french population in
the south end will only make these matters worse. I also feel that to have to divide up the k-6s
simply to make room for the 7-8s is a major planning error - for two reasons. First of all, for
my oldest son, the stand alone grade 7-8 was a fabulous experince and a great training
ground for high school. Secondly, if the new John McCrae building could have been
designed with a little more forethought then I can't help but think that all of the current
problems could have been avoided. Is it too late to add another wing to John McCrae? Can
the closing of King George not be postponed until another 7-8 can be built? I'm sure these
ideas have been looked at before, but perhaps they can be revisted.
Thanks for listening to my two cents worth.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Borden,
I am a parent of a child attending Priory Park Public School. I know that the school is under
review to possibly become a dual track FI/English school. Why would Priory Park become
partially FI when we have a FI school only a block away? I know that Priory Park has a
"capacity" beyond what is already used, but how many FI kids could the school fit? Do the FI
classes have to conform to the same "20 kids to a class" ratio that the English students do? If
so, how would this work with the limited number of classrooms available at Priory Park?
Or would the French and English students be grouped together? I would be concerned about
this option as a large number of our current students are English as a second language
students. I think it would be confusing enough for them to hear announcements and
assemblies in French!
I think it would make much more sense to have a school entirely dedicated to FI students.
Sincerely,
January 24th to January 27th
Comment Sheet from Public Meeting
Speaker #1, re: Grade 7/8 FI Program – what is his definition of success? Lockers and lots of
extracurricular activities are great, but why so few grade 7 & 8 FI kids go on to graduate high
school in French? A lot of resources ($) spent for very few graduating.
Speaker #3, re: South end FI & her concern that John McCrae has a lot of resources &
another centre would not. This speaks to the notion of “have” and “have not” schools. I
found her “birth date” and “hockey player” imagery confusing and has nothing to do with this
review. I think the thread woven between the arguments made by all speakers, as well as Deb
Steplock’s comments about Jean Little’s great grade 7 & 8 program has to do with socioeconomic concerns: schools abilities to raise adequate funds for the extras – clubs,
instruments, books, etc….There needs to be a level playing field, not a 2 tiered system, which
this reason seems to be becoming about.
FA Hamilton parent.
Dear French Immersion Accommodation Review Committee:
I was shocked to hear that a proposal involving Central Public School is being considered at
this late date in the review process. As you know, Central was not listed as an affected school
in notices about this review, while the other involved schools have had time to become
informed and inform their communities. I assume that if this proposal were to be seriously
considered, the time period for the review would have to be extended by several months to
allow the Central community comparable time.
Also, there are some serious concerns with the proposal, mainly around the safety issues of
trying to load and unload students from buses at Central:
- If buses pulled over on Dublin, walking children who cross Dublin at
Cambridge would cross behind buses with dangerous visibility issues
- Vehicles trying to pass stopped buses on Dublin would be passing on a hill
- If buses turned off Paisley onto Dublin they would be turning through an intersection that is
full of children
- Parents are already concerned about the danger to their children from traffic turning at
Paisley and Dublin
- Vehicles already have difficulty getting up the hill in front of Central in winter causing traffic
congestion: buses would make this worse.
- Other nearby streets are narrow residential streets completely lined with parked cars during
the day and could not accommodate buses.
- The portion of Cork by the tennis courts is fairly quiet but the very steep hill makes it
unworkable for safety and visibility issues.
Meanwhile, the Central school population is stable and is projected to remain stable. (If it aint
broke, don't fix it.)
It would seem that if this proposal were to be considered, the obvious alternative would be to
bus the English children from Paisley directly to Victory as Victory is already set up to
January 24th to January 27th
accommodate buses. This would also avoid bringing in a school that has not been involved in
the process.
Thank you for your consideration.
On the topic of alternatives to the overpopulation issue at JohnMacrae...
Why not just have the under filled school-Priory Park- move their students to another location
and make that school into a french middle school?
-Priory Park has a population who are in higher need of English skill exposure as many are
just learning to speak english. They have a strong ESL program. This would be great for the
children of Priory Park in that they would benefit from being immersed into another English
school with other English speaking children in other well established schools
-This would benefit John Macrae in that we would take out grage 7, and 8 and possibly have
room for grade 6, thus making room for the younger students, and they wouldn't have to
move to other schools
-We would not have to mix french with english and fight over what language will dominate the
school's PA systems(obviously english would win as most everyone speaks english as their base
language), and the french children will not suffer from the lack of immersion in this way due to
the mainly english speaking populations of enlish schools.
-There could be room at Fred A Hamilton for all of priory park, or because it is such a small
population, could be distributed evenly throughout that city.
-The number of teachers we would have to hire is reduced significantly. There will also be a
lot less disruption in our community.
Thanks for hearing my suggestion,
Dear ARC Members and Trustees,
After having read the Minutes of Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation Review ARC #8,
Wednesday January 14th, 2009, it is my understanding that Scenario B is being favoured by
the committee at this point in time. I am writing to suggest placing the South Guelph French
Immersion grade 7 and 8 students at Priory Park Public School would be better than
displacing some JK to grade 6 students from Ecole John McCrae to Priory Park. (My first
choice would be to build a second French Immersion centre in the South End to reduce busing
time and distance for students in the South End and to accommodate the potential residential
intensification in this area, but that isn’t even being considered in this review.) I believe
placing the 7/8 students at Priory Park is a better solution than the proposed Scenario B put
forward in the Central Guelph (FI) Elementary Accommodation Review Report #2
(Accommodation Review Report #2) and will spell out the reasons for this below.
Transportation
With regard to transportation the Accommodation Review Report #2 states “Accommodation
scenarios where student walking is maximized and bus transportation is minimized should be
encouraged.” (page 61). This seems especially important for Priory Park as they indicated in
their draft valuation that they have very limited space for large school buses due to signage
January 24th to January 27th
on Scottsdale Avenue in front of the school. Moving FI students from John McCrae to Priory
Park would increase the number of buses visiting the school. The Hanlon Expressway, Stone
Rd. W., College Ave. W. and Edinburgh Rd. S. are all deemed safety hazards for grades JK to
6. These hazards would necessitate the transportation by bus of the majority of the FI students
shifted to Priory Park under Scenario B and would thus increase the number of buses at Priory
Park and do very little to maximize student walking. On the other hand, Stone Rd. W.,
College Ave. W., and Edinburgh Rd. S. are not considered hazards to students in grades 7
and 8 and their acceptable walking distance is greater, so the majority of these students would
be able to walk to Priory Park. For students who did not wish to walk, public transportation is
readily available with a convenient hub located about 500 metres from Priory Park at the
Stone Road Mall.
Reuniting of a Community
Placing South Guelph grade 7 and 8 students at Priory Park would reunite members of an
entire neighbourhood community. The Priory Park regular track JK-8 attendance area overlaps with the John McCrae French immersion JK-6 attendance area. (This area of overlap is
greatly reduced under Scenario B where only students who live within the border of the Hanlon
Expressway, College Ave. W., Edinburgh Rd. S., and Stone Rd. W. will be moved to Priory
Park.) What this means is that students who currently attend Priory Park are already friends
and neighbours with some of the students who attend John McCrae. Thus when the 7 and 8
FI students to go to Priory Park, bridges would already be in place to connect the student
bodies of the two schools to create a greater sense of belonging and responsibility to the
community.
Benefits to Priory Park Community
Placing the South Guelph FI grade 7 and 8 students at Priory Park would allow the regular
track grade 7 and 8 students to remain in their neighbourhood school. Once the students
from the Westminster East Designated Area are able to attend the new Westminster Woods
School, the numbers of grade 7 and 8 students at Priory Park will be too low to maintain a
grade 7 and 8 program at Priory Park. As much of the 7/8 FI curriculum is taught in English,
the presence of the FI grade 7 and 8 students, would give the school sufficient enrollment to
allow 7 and 8 regular track students to remain at Priory Park. There has been much said
about the importance of community throughout the accommodation review process. This
move would provide continuity for the Priory Park community and maintain the JK to 6
community at John McCrae.
Student Numbers and Concentration of Resources
One of the guiding principals of the Accommodation Review Report #2 states “Dual track
schools should offer a reasonable balance in the number of French and English stream
students (minimum of 200 per stream)...” (page 65). During the course of the
accommodation review it has been proposed that between 120 to 145 FI students be moved
to Priory Park to create a dual track school. At no point in the projected growth of this dual
track school does the number of FI students reach the minimum recommended number. (If
both the regular track and FI track did reach minimum numbers, the school would be at
approximately 150% capacity.)
Another guiding principle states “Maximize the number of single grade classes, and whenever
possible avoid cross division splits” (page 65). At this time, the only way to maximize the
January 24th to January 27th
number of single grade classes in FI in South Guelph is to allow all the FI JK to 6 students
remain at John McCrae. Moving the proposed number of students to a dual track program at
Priory Park almost guarantees that the number of single grade classes will be minimized. FI
students moved to Priory Park will essentially be sentenced to split level classes regardless of
their preparedness or ability to participate successfully in such classes. This would hardly be
the “equitable program for all schools” which is one of the guiding principles of the review
(page 66).
South Guelph currently makes up about 42% of the French Immersion population in Guelph,
the remaining 58% of FI students are in North Guelph. The 2007 student enrollment in the FI
program at King George Public School was 225, which means approximately 95 of those
students were from South Guelph. The capacity of Priory Park is 272 students. Placing the
grade 7/8 students at Priory Park is actually a better fit for the school than attempting to
shoehorn in displaced younger students spread over seven grades. At current enrollment
levels that also means the number of grade 7 and 8 students at the school would be very
close to 35% of the total school population.
If Priory Park becomes a dual track JK to 6 school, French resources will need to be acquired
for all eight grade levels at the school. This is a substantial requirement that must be met. If
Priory Park were to have the grade 7 and 8 FI students become part of their school
population, resources would be coming, at least in part, from the program closing at King
George.
Other Concerns
At least one Priory Park parent has expressed concern regarding the effect on the ESL program
at their school should it become a dual track school (see Guelph Mercury article of 15
November 2008 “Redrawing Guelph’s School Boundaries”). The concern is that ESL students
hear as much English as possible while at school since they do not hear it at home. As a
parent of young FI students, one of my concerns is that my children hear as much French as
possible at school since they do not hear it at home. These are certainly conflicting interests.
In fact, the dual track setting is in direct conflict with one of the three top values at John
McCrae that came through on the Individual School Values Exercise: a school that is a
dedicated French Immersion centre. The fact that John McCrae is a dedicated French
Immersion centre was certainly an important factor in the decision of many parents to choose
FI at John McCrae for their children.
Placing grade 7 and 8 FI students at Priory Park would be less disruptive for the ESL students.
The curriculum for FI students at this level is only required to be in French for 40% of
instructional time, which would be less French overall in the school than if JK to 6 students
were in the school (JK to grade 2 instructional time must be 100% French, grades 3 and 4,
80% French, grade 5, 75% French, and grade 6, 70% French). Also, even in neighbourhood
schools which are JK to 8, the grade 7 and 8 students tend to be more self-contained and
their use of resources doesn’t overlap as much in general with the lower grades in the school
as the needs and focus of these students are different. Library resources would need to be
built up at Priory Park for grade 7 and 8 FI students, but these resources would also benefit
the regular track 7 and 8 students.
January 24th to January 27th
I did not address regular track program concerns as any change in numbers of regular track
students would not be a result of FI students being placed at Priory Park, but rather changes
occurring naturally in the Priory Park attendance area.
In summary, placing the South Guelph FI grade 7 and 8 students at Priory Park Public School
would:
-minimize the need for bus transportation
-reunite members of a neighbourhood community
-maximize the number of single grade classes for all South Guelph FI students
-allow Priory Park regular track grade 7 and 8 students to remain at their neighbourhood
school
-be the least disruptive of all the scenarios
-better fit the available space at Priory Park
-maintain the current organizations at both Priory Park (JK to 8) and at John McCrae (JK to 6)
-provide an equitable program for all FI students
Thank you for your time and effort in considering these matters.
Mr. Bob Borden
Chair of Review and Board
Upper Grand District School Board
500 Victoria Road N.
Guelph, ON N1E 6K2
January 26, 2009
Dear Mr. Borden
I would like to first acknowledge the difficult and arduous task the ARC, planning
department and all the Board trustees have, regarding the implementation and
completion of the Central Guelph FI Review. Thank you all for your
commitment.
Secondly, I would like you to know that this review does not affect where my
children attend school. My daughter will be graduating from F.A. Hamilton
Public School this year, but I feel very compelled to write this letter, as I was
involved in the South Guelph Review a few years ago and regard this current
review and the East Guelph Review as only band-aid solutions to a problem that
appears to be not going away.
What has occurred to me with all of these reviews is that they have
unintentionally caused derision between English and French parents and even
after last night’s public meeting, there was heated argument whether dual track
January 24th to January 27th
versus single track French Immersion is “the best program.” Parents, trustees and
staff of the UGDSB need to have a vision for the future with respect to both the
English and French Stream (dual track or single track immersion) and with
respect to both school populations and neighbourhoods. Parents need to realize
that neither stream is better than the other. The choice of English or French
Immersion is a choice that needs to be made within the parameters of what the
school board can offer in terms of school space and community needs.
This is a French Immersion Accommodation Review. Thus, not only should the
Board be looking at where to educate these students, it needs to look at the whole
system of organizing how they are educated. The planning department, in its
introduction to Report 2, clearly states that FI shows no indication that growth
will slow down. Without some long-term planning, these reviews will have to be
performed again and again and again. By the end of the projections there is an
overcapacity problem of 600 students at the seven schools included in the
scenarios, and most of that is due to the growth of FI. The point here is that
unbridled FI growth is a far bigger obstacle than the number of FI students itself.
In addition to accommodating the current students, the rate of growth must be
addressed in this review.
I believe the rate of growth needs to be discussed and a solution found for the
following reasons:
•
One guiding principle is to not have students move more than once
between JK and grade 8, but doing these reviews and moving students
causes unnecessary moves in addition to the one standard move allowed.
•
French Immersion is an option, but this option, if allowed to grow
unchecked, is infringing on the education of other students. After
attending public meetings and reading the minutes of your meetings, I feel
the public may perceive the School Board’s primary concern is to find the
best place to host FI students and figuring out where to put the “leftover”
regular track students. This is unfair. The choice to put your child in FI is
no more important than a family’s choice to attend English track, or to live
in a neighbourhood where their children can walk to school. I believe
some of the FI delegations have lost sight of the very real needs of their
neighbours.
•
Being a parent in the English stream, I have no understanding of the
markers of success for French Immersion. We are spending huge amounts
of time and money on a system that graduates so few French Immersion
high school students. There appears to be no discussion about this.
School does not end after grade 8. Perhaps there needs to be some clarity
on why French Immersion is so valued in elementary school, but not in
high school.
January 24th to January 27th
•
Accommodating students in the buildings the school board owns is like
having a budget. Currently the board is living beyond its means in terms
of being able to accommodate FI students without disrupting so many
lives. Mr. Cuomo made a comment at the Jan.21/09 public meeting that
this review is unlike other reviews across the province because the board
is not closing any schools, when in fact, F.A. Hamilton would be closedevery student would be displaced. Yes, he’s correct that the building
would remain open for an entirely different set of students but F.A.
Hamilton Public School serving the students in its community would
indeed be closed. I believe the School Board needs to make this review
not only about finding the right size “containers” to accommodate
students, but keeping in mind that these “containers” play a large part in
neighbourhood communities.
•
Previous reviews have displaced English students. I realize the Board
looks at numbers and projections and does its best to accommodate French
and English students equally, but the majority of the public do not follow
the reviews closely and hear only snippets like “English school closing”,
or “FI displacing English students”. Why would you put your child in the
English stream if the English schools are becoming dual track, and then
somewhere down the road a FI centre? Perhaps this public perception is
one of the reasons that FI is growing (and for the wrong reason).
•
Many other school boards have a limit or cap the enrolment in French
Immersion. In Waterloo for example, families sign up by computer on a
first come, first served basis. If they cannot get into their local FI school,
they can apply at another FI school if there is available space. A cap
would encourage those who are really dedicated to sign up early, limit the
number of families who are choosing FI for convenience (especially at the
kindergarten level, where students can attend a full day program instead of
half-day, and can be bused). The separate school system in Guelph has a
very similar policy with respect to kindergarten signup. The system works.
Ours doesn’t.
I’m sure some FI advocates would argue that this system is not fair and FI should
be open to everyone. This point is very easily countered by how unfair it is to
regular track students, who are in a non-portable program (unlike FI) to be
shuffled around every five years because of other parents’ choices. If there was a
set number of places for FI in a set number of community schools, children would
not be shuffled around in either stream.
Not having a cap is throwing thousands of students and their families into
emotional and academic chaos because of the uncertainty of where they will
attend school. There have been several letters published on your website from
parents who have spent a lot of time researching the neighbourhood in which they
wanted to live. People are choosing lifestyle, based on environmental factors,
January 24th to January 27th
social factors, academic choices, and program choices. It is not unreasonable to
expect to go to the school that’s across the street from where you live.
Please take some time to discuss a cap on French Immersion enrolment in Guelph.
It is a contentious and volatile debate. I believe the UGDSB needs to make some
tough choices with respect to programming needs and maintaining stable
communities, but in the long run these choices will be seen as reasonable,
intelligent, forward-thinking and most important, equitable.
Sincerely
Dear Bob
At the January 21st public meeting I asked a question regarding the Guidelines that the Board
is applying to evaluate proposed scenarios under the Central Guelph Accommodation
Review. Specifically, I wanted to know:
1. WHY was the Guideline limiting the number of 7/8 classes in a JK-8 school to 35% or 3-5
classes adopted?
2. WHAT was the nature, scope, and context of the "public input" regarding this?
I was referred to the website to look up the 2004 report which addresses this issue. I have not
been able to find this report on the website, or any data relating to my two questions above.
So I would like to repeat my questions, and I would appreciate further directions for finding
the relevant information.
Thank you for your assistance