January 14th to January 23, 2009
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.
Hi:
I am a concerned parent wishing that FA Hamilton does not become FI. Why should our
children have to leave their school?
To have them divided up and bused to 3 different schools, and then how long would it be
before you cancel the buses and they have to get to school on their own, as costs need to be
cut.
Why isn't there a cap put on FI students?
Why do FI get more money per student than we do or so it seems?
The way it is going we will need 2 separate boards, one for the public school and one for the
FI. Just like there is a separate board for the Catholic.
You are dividing the people, you are making us a minority and I do not like to use the word
but it is like we are being discriminated against because we still want English as our language.
I do not have a problem with French being taught in school, but you seem to be putting them
first.
I always thought school was for the welfare of all the children, but it does not seem that way.
FA Hamilton is a good community school and I would not like to see it go.
Sorry for the way I feel.
Yours truly,
I am a parent of a child that attends Central Public School, a school which is outside of the
current review. There has been a significant amount of press (news articles and letters to the
editors of local papers) about the accomodation review and the direct impact on those
students, their families and the community that they are located in. The Accomodation Review
process has allowed for the identified schools to prepare a "school valuation" that will be
formally presented as part of the review. As a school that is technically outside of the review,
there has been little/no opportunity to contribute or provide input into the process. However,
I am unclear as to how a school that is not part of the review will not be affected by any
changes to their neighbour schools (Victory & Paisley). I have not seen anything on the
website to highlight the direct involvement of Central Public School.
I understand that an accomodation review process is a significant undertaking and one that is
full of conflicting emotions. It would seem that the priority has been given to the schools that
will be the most directly affected in terms of number of children. However in a small school,
January 14th to January 23, 2009
such as Central, any potential impact will have an equal or greater effect as a percentage of
the school population.
We did receive a formal notice of a public meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 21st at
College Heights Secondary School and noted other similar meetings for schools included in
the review. The agendas seem to provide the individual schools identified as part of the
Accomodation Review an opportunity to make a presentation and field questions. At what
point will the schools like Central Public School be included? Should they not be a scheduled
participant, particularly for meetings that include Victory and Paisley? I would hope that any
schools indirectly affected by the Accomodation Review would be given the same opportunity
and consideration as those directly affected.
Hello,
I understand that you are representing the concerns of parents with the proposed scenarios for
John McCrae. I am the parent of a child who will be potentially affected by Scenario B. I am
very concerned about this proposed scenario and am counting on you to bring my concerns
forward.
I am somewhat flabbergasted that the Board is prepared to toss 145 students to the wind in
order to stick to its guiding principle that K to 8 schools are preferred. Preferred by whom?
The Board from a cost view point most likely! Certainly not to the parents who prefer to place
the quality and enjoyment of their children's education as the preferred principle.
I have already written in the past in support of maintaining junior high for french immersion
students (please see attachments), and so I will not repeat the reasons why I believe this is the
preferred scenario. It sounds like the Board has already decided that it will not even consider
this option, regardless of any recommendation put forward in its favour by parents/ARC.
I'd also like to mention that I am very much flabbergasted that the Board built a school
(knowingly?) too small to meet its needs, considering it approved the K to 8 approach in
2004! With this example of decision-making prowess, I am hoping that the ARC uses all of its
influence to (positively) impact on the Board's decisions in this FI review.
In respect to the proposed scenarios, my main concern is this - scenario A is a better
proposal than scenario B, from the point of view of quality of education. Scenario A will
provide FI students with a FI school. We all heard the benefits of why a FI Centre offers a
better quality of education for FI students when John McCrae converted to a FI Centre.
Scenario B on the other hand, proposes to provide the 145 displaced students (and those who
will come after) with a lower quality FI education. How can this scenario be justified when an
alternative option exists?
I'd also like to mention that Scenario B looks like a piece meal attempt at coming up with
boundaries to displace the 145 students. The boundaries in Scenario A appear a lot more
cleaner and logically set out. They look more sustainable. I am concerned that school
boundaries especially under Scenario B will flip flop from one year to the next as the Board
attempts to "manage" its student FI numbers to school size. (Not too mention the impact on
Priory Park if there is an influx of English speaking students to that neighbourhood.)
January 14th to January 23, 2009
Finally, I'd appreciate some clarification on when the proposed scenario is scheduled to take
effect. My son is currently in grade 4 at John McCrae. He has attended the school since
Kindergarten. All of his friends attend the school (and based on where they live, it looks like
the majority of them will be lucky enough to continue to do so). He strongly identifies with
John McCrae. He is terribly excited about his new school being built. He is frightened about
this new proposal, and I am appalled by it.
I truly hope that you will speak out on behalf of the 145 students being tossed to the wind. I
am stunned that it is even being proposed that they pay the price for the Board's lack of
planning foresight.
For your consideration,
(E-mail from same parent as above)
This email is further to the one I sent to you yesterday. A few other things have occurred to
me, including a few questions that I would appreciate you answer for me or, if you cannot,
you ask the Board on my behalf.
Can you please confirm the following, and fill in the blanks if you can?
- The Board prefers schools that offer a K to 8 education. The reasons for this preference are
?????
- The Board does not prefer or is even prepared to consider a FI centre grade 7 to 8 option.
The reasons for this are ?????
- In order to realize its K to 8 school preference for John McCrae, the Board is prepared to
shunt 145 students off to a K to 6 school education. The Board's explanation on why this K to
6 school education is preferred or appropriate for these 145 students in light of its K to 8 bias,
I mean preference, is ????
- The Board is then prepared to shunt these same 145 students back to John McCrae for
grades 7 and 8. This is different from the concept of sending these or any students off to a 7
to 8 FI centre because a) even though these students are going to a different school for
grades 7 and 8, we are not calling John McCrae a FI 7 and 8 centre, which is why its different
(and ok to do this to them and their families), b) it is a superior educational experience for
these students to go back and forth between John McCrae because ????, c) it is an inferior
educational experience for these students to go back and forth between John McCrae but
that's ok because the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few, or d) who
cares?
- Has the Board considered the negative impact that students attending the K to 6 school will
experience when they are thrust at a crucial period of their social development (grade 7 and
8) into another school with a pre-existing school population (I'm referring here to the feeling of
being an outsider, the feeling of not really belonging to John McCrae like the students who
attended from K belong). If yes, what is the Board's response to this? If no, then ask the
Board what its response is.
January 14th to January 23, 2009
- In respect to the students who will get shunted to Priory Park, can the Board guarantee that
there are adequate numbers of students per each grade to make straight classes, i.e., grade
4, grade 5, grade 6, rather than split classes, such as a grade 2,3,4,5, for example? If not,
what is the Board's explanation on why it is ok to offer these students to an inferior dual track
split grade educational experience?
- What accommodation/guarantee is the Board going to provide to the families of students
entering John McCrae in grade 7 so that they have equal access to the after school program
operating at John McCrae? Perhaps they should have the right to a spot even if this results in
bumping a pre-existing attendee out. Sound more than fair consider what the Board is willing
to do them!
- What is the Board's explanation for building John McCrae too small to accommodate the
southend demand for FI education?
- Is it because it did not anticipate the population explosion of young families living in
the southernmost end of Guelph, e.g., Clairfields subdivision, etc who would choose a FI
education for their children? If John McCrae is bursting at its seams because of the demand
from this part of Guelph, why isn't there a scenario on the table to displace children from this
area?
- Is it because it did not anticipate that with the addition of junior kindergarten to public
school in the region, and a FI option at that, that this would draw the children to the public
school system who would otherwise have entered the Catholic school system on account of
their pre-existing junior kindergarten program? As this seems to be a no brainer to me,
surely this could not be the reason John McCrae is bursting its seams!. But still, the school is
half kindergarten, is it not! So, in consideration that the John McCrae school population
seems to be half kindergarten, and there is the likilhood that the trend of children entering the
FI public school system may continue, such that in a year or two, the school may comprise
grades JK, SK and 7 and 8, (with everyone in between shunted off somewhere else), has
anyone considered the scenario of creating a JK/SK FI immersion centre at Priory Park? Here
are some apparent benefits of this scenario:
- it would allow the Board to better manage its student numbers (and the Board appears to
be in need of any help it can get), as it may be better able to plan for JK/SK class sizes and
numbers based on the pre-registration process, as opposed to having to move the school
boundary lines street by street to shunt kid number 146, 147 and 148 to the K to 6 school as
would seem to be the likely case in the other two scenarios because, say, a family or two
moved into the Clairfields subdivision or there was a new family member arrival;
- it would allow Priory Park to focus on its FI JK/SK program, perhaps even offering an
enhanced educational experience tailored to the needs of this group (whose needs, we should
all be able to agree to, are separate and different from those of students in the higher
grades). (What a concept! Offering an enhanced education experience instead of an inferior
one!)
- it would provide families with certainty of knowing which school their children will be
attending, without the threat of future school boundary changes;
January 14th to January 23, 2009
- all students would enter JK/SK at the same time, and progress through school together,
eliminating the negative impact that will occur to students entering John McCrae for grade 7
and 8 (see comments above on this). It will also mean that existing school friendships built
since Kindergarten do not have to be sacrificed as would be the case for scenarios A and B;
and, last but not least,
- it would be a MORE FAIR scenario compared to the ones currently being proposed
(including to the student population of Fred E. Hamilton).
I have another scenario to propose and am wondering whether or not it was considered? If it
is not preferred for some reason, to send JK/SK to Priory Park, then why not send grades 7
and 8? We just won't call it a Grade 7 / 8 FI Centre. So, it should be ok. Same kind of
benefits as the JK/SK immersion centre concept listed above.
- I read in ARC minutes, that the support for a 7/8 FI Centre was split 50:50 by the parents of
John McCrae students. I have a proposal that will guarantee the support of the 50% who
currently support a K to 8 school. Tell them it is their kid who is going to go to a K to 6 school
elsewhere, to be shunted to John McCrae for grades 7&8. I think this should guarantee
100% support for one or both of my additional two scenarios!
I look forward to any answers you can provide to my questions above, or for your bringing
them forward during the upcoming public meeting on my behalf. I will also appreciate serious
consideration of the additional two scenario proposals.
Sincerely,
Hi,
I was disturbed upon reading the front page of the Guelph Tribune last week as it stated that
the ARC committee was now only considering two scenarios…. can you advise when all other
scenarios were disregarded including those in the “parking lot”?
As well, the last minutes noted were from October- I had hoped to read the minutes prior to
Thursday’s meeting but they have not yet been attached.
Regards,
I know that the review isn't over yet and the final decision has yet to me made but as a parent,
why does Guelph need so many French Immersion schools? I feel that the french that is
being taught from grade 4 and up should be sufficient. Canada is not only a french speaking
country, there are many cultures here and everyone speaks their own languages. Why should
all the kids learn only French?
I have a child going to Priory Park Public School, who is in the Special Education Program.
If I wanted my child to learn french, I would have put him in a french speaking school starting
from kindergarten. We have enough french schools close to us, John Mcrea, for example,
isn't that far away from Priory Park. Some parents have their children at John Mcrea because
that is what they want for their children. Priory Park should remain an english speaking
school.
January 14th to January 23, 2009
Priory Park is a convenience for my child because it is within walking distance. I don't want
my child having to be bussed or we have to walk further just for him to go to school, It's a
school surrounded by apartments, townhouses and houses. There are students at the school
that speak different languages, let them learn english first before introducing them to french.
In my mind, French is a hard language to learn.
Children should have the right to make up their own choices instead of being pressured into
learning something that they might never need down the road.
To whom it may concern,
I am a former Montreal resident who now resides in Guelph. I have a daughter, who is in
grade two, enrolled in John McCrae. After perusing all the information available on your
website regarding this accommodation review, I am left quite perplexed. It seems to me that
there is a lot of shifting around of children and boundaries, and programs, without a clear
plan for the future of our children’s education. I find it very disrupting to have the children in
the younger grades moved from one school to another and then back again. This fragmented
system cannot be conducive to scholastic success. In Quebec, we have K-6 in the elementary
system and 7-11 in the high school system. Simple, easy, cut and dry. There is a nature flow
from elementary to high school. Everyone knows what to expect, and consequently can
concentrate on the task at hand….learning.
If there is a need to eliminate the stand alone 7-8 schools, then why not have the grade 7s
stay in the elementary system (K-7) and have the grade 8s progress to the high school
system? These older children are already in a transition period, heading towards high
school. Why subject the younger children to undo stress of changing schools?
Why should a child enrolled in a FI school now be forced to transfer to a dual track school
because now boundaries have been arbitrarily shifted, after the fact? This dual track school
solution further dilutes the FI experience and in my opinion, is not as beneficial as a stand
alone FI school, for obvious reasons.
My family chose to purchase a home in the south end so that one day our children could
attend John McCrae. It is quite upsetting that my daughter’s education is now jeopardized
because of these changes.
Thank you,
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 14th to January 23, 2009
January 18, 2009
To the members of the Central Guelph Accommodation Review Committee:
As parents of two students attending John McCrae Public School, we have many concerns
regarding the two scenarios presented for the Central Guelph French Immersion
Accommodation Review.
Under both scenarios, many students will have to change schools. These students have
attended the previous John McCrae P.S. located on Water Street. They then were required to
change schools and attend John McCrae P. S. on College Ave. This fall, they will be very
excited to return to their brand new John McCrae P. S. on Water Street. Under both scenarios
proposed, you are then expecting a large group of John McCrae students to switch schools
again the following year? This adds up to four different schools during their elementary
years. We find both scenarios to be unacceptable and definitely not in the best interests of our
grades K-6 students.
Scenario B requires approximately 145 John McCrae students to attend a dual track program
at Priory Park. The fact that John McCrae is a full French Immersion centre is what makes it
so special. These students are truly immersed in French. The Priory Park French Immersion
students are not going to have the same French Immersion experience and opportunities as
the remaining group of students will have at John McCrae. We are also very concerned that
the number of French Immersion students at Priory Park may require more split level classes.
On a social level, some students may no longer attend the same school that many of their
school friends attend. They have developed strong friendships with their John McCrae
classmates and teachers over the past few years. These new boundaries will cause unneeded
stress and anxiety to students that have already been flexible during the demolition of their old
school and construction of their new school.
All John McCrae students look forward to the grade 6 camping trip. Will the grade 6 students
that are required to attend Priory Park miss out on this opportunity as well? It is these types of
experiences and opportunities that students remember about their school years.
Is there any pedagogical or academic reason as to why schools that offer grades K-8 are
preferred by the UGDSB? Is there any data to support this guideline? We believe that
students in grades 7 & 8 are more prepared to change schools than any of the students in
grades K-6.
We strongly believe that a separate grade 7/8 French Immersion program should exist and
allow all present John McCrae students to remain at John McCrae. We understand that
boundaries may need to be adjusted for the future but they should not affect current John
McCrae students.
January 14th to January 23, 2009
Dear Mr. Borden. I'm a parent with 2 children at Priory Park school and I have some
concerns with the proposed scenarios in the ARC review. I feel that if Priory Park becomes a
dual track school it will very soon be converted into an FI centre.
This is what seems to be happening in the city of Guelph with all of the other dual track
schools eg. John McCrae, King George, Victory, Paisley etc. If this occurs at Priory there will
not be an English elementary school in the area between the Speed River and Stone Road and you can't tell me that you won't let it happen - especially if the French numbers continue
to increase! Any comments?
Sincerely
Public Meeting January 21/09 Comment Sheet
My son is in JK at Priory Park. I feel it is so important for him to have peers in his
neighbourhood – a sense of community! Our community on Pacific is already quite divided
as children go to Catholic, Christian, FI, etc…schools. He is so happy to have consistent
friends he sees at school! My concern is that if Priory becomes dual track, the FI will continue
to increase in numbers, the English stream will be forced to move elsewhere and his new
community of friends will be disbanded – this is devastating! The FI children who would
attend Priory Park (given dual track) are not from our neighbourhood so this is not a benefit.
What assurance is there that FI will not “bump” English stream from Priory? I feel moving FA
Hamilton enrichment to Priory Park is a better long term option….more predictable enrollment
and very compatible with current conditions (re: parking, class space, funding, resources,
etc…)
Thank you for your time – I truly feel that Priory Park has a community that must be protected
and preserved!
Sincerely,
p.s. when is the forecasted date of implementation for the approved scenario?
p.p.s Is it not a recommendation/guideline that Gr. 7 & 8 schools be avoided? Why is this
scenario even being considered?
Public Meeting January 21/09 Comment Sheet
The 120± students do not want to be split from John McCrae. Please let my children stay.
John McCrae should stay K-6 (at least) for all of it citizens. The 7/8 is 50% English anyway.
120 students seems too small and the kids will be lost if it’s dual track and will be at an even
greater disadvantage when they move back to the ‘real John McCrae’. Also, I’m concerned
about the boundary. It’s a dwindling neighbourhood anyway and it seems strange that it’s so
fixed with students further south going to John McCrae. How will the school with 120 really
grow? It’s too fixed for future growth and numbers could continue to decline (like families like
ours questioning where our kids will go if this continues). Why not keep John McCrae whole
(K-6) and have a different scenario for 7/8 or why not use a new south end school that’s less
disruptive and has more opportunity for the future?
(Scenario Y from delegation 3??) Our kids don’t want to leave!
January 14th to January 23, 2009
Dear Mr. Borden,
Thank you for your ongoing effort with this arduous task! My son attends Priory Park.
Following tonight's meeting I have a few concerns. Please forward them to the ARC. I would
appreciate your feedback.
Several presenters tonight had very emotional stories and anecdotals. I am wondering how
these are used and what weight they are given in evaluating the scenarios. I am under the
impression that the scenarios are being evalutated on what is best for the children, the school
community and meeting the given guidelines. Is there a place for these emotional stories or
is the process being driven by analysis of facts? I was very discouraged tonight to hear
dramatic personal sagas in what I thought was a very factual , analytical process. It is also
so unfortunate that the Priory Park community has a very high number of parents who are
unable to attend the meetings or make such presentations due to jobs, being single parents,
language barriers etc. Is this being taken into consideration? These unique needs are even
more reason to protect the community and keep Priory as a English school. The families
need a cohesive, supportive, stable school- an anchor in the community. particularly for the
children!
Thank you for you assistance,
Dear ARC members,
It seems there was a time not very long ago in Guelph when French Immersion was truly an
optional program that ran in smaller numbers with split classes as the norm within dual track
schools. Parents understood the shortcomings of this reality. These smaller programs were not
seen as "second rate" but seen as an opportunity. At the beginning of the process I felt quite
positive about our school (Victory) becoming a French Immersion centre and saw the unique
benefits, but now I feel that as a French Immersion parent I must also consider the community
impact my decision has made.
Clearly, Victory is a walking school. The vast majority of students are within walking distance.
Only 26% are bused and the assumption is that almost all are enrolled in French immersion,
approximately 60 children. That means over 170 children enrolled in French live within
walking distance of Victory. I chose French immersion because it was convenient and offered
at my home school. I have to now ask myself if I would have made the same choice if my
children had to be bused or if I had to make other special arrangements. If we use the west
end enrollment as an indicator, does that mean only 44 children (26% of 170) would have
chosen to enroll in French outside our neighborhood? While there is seemingly a large
demand for French Immersion in our neighborhood, I'd suggest that this demand is soft.
The question I have for the ARC is whether a capping system for French Immersion
enrollment at Victory was considered ? I also wonder how many parents would be open to
capping French enrollment at Victory and/or switching their children to ensure we remain a
dual track. It seems a lottery system was suggested or implemented at John McCrae and is
perhaps one solution to the issue of low enrollment in the English stream.
January 14th to January 23, 2009
It is clear that French immersion as an optional program can cannibalize either core
programming such as the recommendation for Victory or other specialized programs such as
F.A. Hamilton that offer a variety of programs that would not be available if French Immersion
was introduced. To potentially disrupt such a fragile ecosystem as F.A. Hamilton to
accommodate another optional program doesn't seem balanced. Listening to the delegations
from F.A Hamilton, it is easy to realize what a truly unique environment it is and so important
to the community it serves. At the same time it is so clear that French Immersion is highly
valued in Guelph, which is also inspiring.
I can only imagine how difficult this process is for the ARC. Since attending the first meeting
and listening and learning, my initial sense of what I value as a parent and community
member has expanded through the process.
Thank you,
To: Central Guelph Accommodation Review Committee (ARC)
From: Central Public School Parent Council
Date: January 23, 2009
We have recently been contacted by representatives of ARC to inform us that there is a
potential new scenario that came through public input that would include our school in the
review process.
We understand that one of the issues ARC is attempting address with this new proposal
(Scenario 3) is the declining enrollment in the English track at Victory P.S.
We would like to submit our own proposal that could address this issue in the proposed
Scenario 1.
We would like the ARC to consider relocating the displaced English track students from Paisley
Road P.S. destined for Central P.S. and instead bus those students to Victory P.S. which
already has the facility to receive buses.
This should address the low enrollment for English track at Victory P.S. and this area is
expected to provide a longer term, sustainable population of students.
This will also address the issue of Central P.S. being classified as a poor facility for receiving
buses due to safety concerns.
Thank you for your time.
Central Public School Parent Council