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.
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a parent of a student who currently attends Priory Park Public School. I understand that Priory is being
considered for changing into a French school.
He is not capable of walking from our residence to another relevant school in the area. When Priory is
considered for this change, please also consider that transportation will have to be provided for special
needs kids who are capable of getting to Priory Park Public School without assistance. The financial
requirements may influence your decision.
Thank you very much.
Information received. Thankyou
Dear: Mr. Borden, Ms. Waterston, Ms. Moziar, Mr. Bailey, and Ms. Busuttil,
I am a parent of two children, currently attending the English program at Victory public school. My husband and I spent
a lot of time researching the schools and communities in Guelph when we purchased our home, and being in the
Victory public school district was foremost on our list. After much debate, we chose to put our children in the English
track, to ensure that our kids would benefit from the social aspect of having all of their classmates within walking
distance of our home, as we knew that a lot of students are bused in from the west end. We wanted to ensure that our
kids fully benefited from the Exhibition Park neighbourhood, and all that this close knit community provides. How
disappointing then to find out that it is the English track students who are being displaced by this French immersion
review. We are very concerned about losing our walkable community, as it is not feasible to walk young children the
distance it would require through unsafe intersections to get to Willow Road public school each day. I am also extremely
uncomfortable with busing my kids out of their neighbourhood to attend school, when there is one located two blocks
from my home.
I hope that after the public meeting on October 1st (time and location have yet to be revealed to parents) we can solve
this unfortunate situation as a community, and ensure that the English track students at Victory public school are not
marginalized in this process.
Sincerely,
Dear,
Thank you for your note about the ongoing Central Guelph Accommodation Review.
Please be assured that the Committee is a long way from making any recommendation to the Board. There will be 4
public meetings between October 1st and early 2009. The notice for these meetings will be sent home shortly after the
Committee's meeting on Wednesday.
Your school is represented by two members of your school council. It is the role of the parent members of the
Committee to arrive at a recommendation to the Board that best meets the needs of all the students in the 7 schools
involved in the review. You need to speak to your representatives and make your feelings known to them. Your school
principal can tell you who are your representatives.
Stay in touch with your representatives as they will be able to keep you informed about the Committee's deliberations.
Thank you.
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
1
Hello – I am an interested parent of two children currently in the FI program at Paisley Road. I have reviewed the
September 2008 Report #2 and have some serious concerns with the basic approach being taken to address the
long-term needs of the central Guelph students. (regular track and FI)... My 2 main concerns are outlined below:
1.
The entire report seems to avoid the central issue in the review which is the fundamental fact that the total
capacity of the current central Guelph schools is inadequate to meet the projected student population
growth over the next 10 years.
2.
Status Quo Numbers:
School
Capacity
2007 enrollment
2017 Projection
Central
213
174
175
Ed Johnson
328
452
440
King George
403
218
465
Guelph 7/8 FI
0
223
415
Paisley Rd
490
354
405
Victory
317
359
450
Willow
547
510
450
Fred Hamilton
363
216
200
Jean Little
326
434
380
John McCrae
463
453
630
Kortright Hills
466
666
490
Priory Park
272
221
195
Total
4188
4280
4695
Under capacity
507
Each scenario seems to be nothing more than a re-distribution of these extra 500 students between the existing
schools resulting in more schools being over capacity and more students being taught in portable rooms. Surely this
can’t be the only option? Should we not be considering new infrastructure to accommodate this growth?
2.
Following from my point above, I am worried about splitting the Grade 7/8 FI students (North and South)
and blending them into existing K-6 schools. Both North Guelph scenarios propose placing the North 7/8 FI
students at Paisley Road resulting over-capacity of between 130 – 170 students in 9 years time. My concern is that
this approach will result in the installation of a series of portable rooms to accommodate the FI (especially Grades
7/8) student numbers but not educational programs resulting in a loss of many of the existing benefits of the current
Grade 7/8 FI program. This loss will come from the lack of facilities/programs currently available to the Grade 7/8
FI students such as music, science labs, age-appropriate French library books, even personal lockers. I believe the
option of keeping all of the Central Guelph Grade 7/8 students together in a facility with adequate capacity and
facilities to meet their needs should be considered. This facility could either be one of the existing schools or a new
addition to a school such as Paisley road that has the Real Estate to accommodate growth.
2
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to this accommodation process. Please contact me if you have any
Dear ,
Thank you for your note about the ongoing Central Guelph Accommodation Review.
Please be assured that the Committee is a long way from making any recommendation to the Board. There will
be 4 public meetings between October 1st and early 2009. The notice for these
meetings will be sent home shortly after the Committee's meeting on Wednesday.
Your school is represented by two members of your school council. It is the role of the parent members of the
Committee to arrive at a recommendation to the Board that best meets the needs of all the students in the 7
schools involved in the review. You need to speak to your
representatives and make your feelings known to them. Your school principal can tell you who are your
representatives.
Stay in touch with your representatives as they will be able to keep you informed about the Committee's
deliberations.
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
Trustee, Town of Orangeville and
Chair, Upper Grand District School Board
bob.borden@ugdsb.on.ca
Guelph Office: (519) 822-4420, ext. 735
We would like to register our strong preference that Victory PS remain a French Immersion school. We have
children who walk to school and others who take the bus – walking is far better and that school is central to our
neighbourhood. The vast majority of its current students are in French Immersion and we would like it to stay that
way so that our whole family can benefit from the experience of walking to their local school.
With thanks,
Recommended Response: Information received. Thankyou
To the Board Trustees,
Please consider this letter of appeal. There are countless reasons why we strongly oppose the proposal to change
Victory Public School from a dual track to a full French school. The City of Guelph is currently promoting a "greener"
Guelph - how could busing students out of their neighbourhoods be environmentally pleasing to anyone? We need
to keep children walking to their local schools and keep the buses to a minimum. Victory is the heart of our
community. To force its own children out would be very detrimental to the well being of the school and the students
involved. My children are the third generation to attend Victory Public School - not only did their father grow up two
doors down from the school, we now live in their great-grandparent's home. Their grandfather was a student at
Victory in the late 1940's to mid 1950's. We specifically moved into this neighbourhood to send our children to
Victory and to carry on the family tradition. It would be very upsetting to us if the board decides to make our school
an all French school. This school is a part of our family history and not being able to maintain that would be very
disappointing, to say the least. I am also a very active volunteer in the school and can't imagine not being able to
continue to be involved in my own community school. I am positive the trustees will find a beneficial solution to this
problem.
Sincerely,
COMMENT SHEET FROM OCT. 1ST PUBLIC MEETING:
- Well presented information
- It was good that presenters reiterated that these are scenarios NOT decisions
- Thank you Bob for your honesty when you didn’t know the answer
Victory Parent
Information Received - Thankyou
3
To The Guelph Trustees, Victory School Representative
The following letter is voicing concerns regarding the proposal to change Victory Public School from having
a choice of an English/French School Program to an inclusive French School only.
As parents with two children, who live within walking distance of the school, we bought our home within this
area (after much research) because of Victory School being an English/French School, the Exhibition area,
and the sense of community we felt within the area.
My first concern however, is how the information was given to the parents from the Upper Grand District
School Board, through the school on an 8.5 x 11 paper. The subject matter was incredibly shaded and
glossed over. The letter was a wonderful display of beaurocratic "gibberish". It had many thoughts but didn't
say anything about the true concept or proposal of what the Board was proposing. The only thing it did
state was a meeting on Oct 1st but with no location. Feeling concerned, that I didn't understand the letter, I
inquired with many other parents who also didn't understand its true meaning. It wasn't until a parent
phoned the Board & an article in the Tribune came out did the proposal of changing Victory come to light.
Parents want to be informed without the hassles of trying to decipher the information. Please be direct and to
the point with key information. Also, the UBDSB web site is not a user friendly site. To find information can
be very difficult to weave your way through its site. i.e. the location of the first public meeting for this
proposal.
In regards to the school and its community. This area is a wonderful, caring, close knit community. Victory
school bonds many of us together. One main reason why we bought in this area is because of the school,
its heritage, and that it does offer English and French programs. To change the school to an inclusive
French program raises concerns:
1) The property value of homes in this area will decrease. There will be monetary loss to the home owners.
Parents who want choice of English will not buy in this area knowing that their children will have to walk to
the Willow Road Public School, potentially past three main streets: Woolwich, Westmount, and Edinburgh
Road. Especially in the winter. Ask yourself that question: "Would you?" and be honest with yourself.
What's the safety factor involved for walking this distance, especially for the younger children.
2) The concept of having a home in this area, and having our children now walk past the school they once
played at while the west end children are bused to this school doesn't make sense.
3) The congestion of buses traveling to the school and knowing our the streets are narrow brings up
the concerns of noise pollution, exhaust pollution, and parking issues. The environmental impact will have
both pollutions increase and how will the parking of buses be arranged so the congestion of other vehicles
i.e. home, doesn't become problematic.
4) What are my tax dollars paying for anyway? On my tax forms it asks if I pay to the Catholic School
System or the Public. Currently it's the public system and hopefully supporting Victory Public School and its
choice of English/French programs.
Finally, I realize that looking at changing Victory school to a French only program is "only a proposal" - and
a very scary one in our eyes. We would like to stress the importance of keeping Victory Public School a
school of choice for both English and French. A reply would be wonderful & we look forward to the public
discussion at College Heights Oct 1st at 7pm.
Signed
4
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the ongoing Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation Review.
Due to the number and timing of messages that I am receiving, my response will likely appear as
generic. However, I wish to ensure that a consistent message is being sent to the community.
Please be assured, though, that your message will be sent to our Planning Department and will be part
of the Board’s records. All trustees will receive a copy of it.
The Central Guelph Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) met for the third time on September 17th.
The Committee is comprised of 2 parent representatives from each of the 7 schools involved in the
review. Board staff and school principals are there to act as a resource to the ARC. Trustees are there to
observe and listen to the issues and debate.
The ARC (that is the parent representatives) will make the final recommendations to the Board in the
spring of 2009, for a final decision in June.
Therefore, you need to ensure that you are in direct contact with your parent representatives on the
ARC. Your school Principal can give you their names and contact information. Parent representatives
not only need to listen to their own communities, but to be aware of the Board’s constraints and the
needs of the other school communities. It is within these contexts that their recommendations will be
made.
The first of four public meetings for the ARC will be held at College Heights S.S. on Wed. Oct. 1st at 7:00
p.m. At this meeting we will outline the process for the review, the information contained in Report #2,
and the manner and timing of which the public can delegate the ARC and/or the Board.
Finally, I wish to stress that ARC Report #2 is simply an outline of the background data and future
projections regarding enrolment growth in the Guelph area. Any scenarios outlined by staff in the
report are simply serving as starting points for discussion by the ARC; they have never been presented
to the Board as solutions to the issues before the ARC.
Again, thank you for your note. I hope my response has clarified some of your issues.
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
Trustee, Town of Orangeville and
Chair, Upper Grand District School Board
bob.borden@ugdsb.on.ca
Guelph Office: (519) 822-4420, ext. 735
Home: (519) 940-0279
Dear Jennifer Waterston,
>
> Re: the proposal that would see the removal of all English courses from Victory Public School.
>
> Although this proposal is still in its preliminary phase we feel that it is important to voice our opinions and concerns
sooner rather later. We waited 5 years to move into the Exhibition Park area specifically. We chose the area carefully
as it is a safe, close knit community with a good school within walking distance. Because of our proximity and
because our little ones enjoy all that Victory has to offer we, in turn, help out by volunteering at the school. We have
found that the local school offers a centre where our children get to meet other neighborhood children and where we
get to meet other neighborhood parents. We have witnessed first hand how the local school creates connections. The
proposed changes would see our small children bussed out of our chosen community and into a different community
not of our choosing and, logistically, take us out of being as involved in our children’s educational experience. The
connections are lost. Likewise, bussing children into this community will have the same results in the communities from
which they come. There are many reasons why segregating children based on their language choice is not
appropriate and not in our childrens best interests, but fundamental to these for us is what it will do to our local
community. Removing our children from the local school is not how we build communities, its how they are taken
apart. We would be terribly saddened and discouraged to be involuntarily taken out of our community in this manner.
>
Information Received – Thankyou
> Sincerely,
5
Dear Mr. Borden,
I was dismayed to learn that the Upper Grand District School Board is exploring the idea of turning Victory
Public School into a French Immersion Centre. As a parent of students in both the English and French
Immersion programs, I would like to express some concerns re the proposed plan:
Did you know that the obesity rate in our school district (Guelph-Wellington-Dufferin) is higher than the
provincial average and has been rising steadily over the past 5 years (Canadian Community Health Survey,
2003, 2005, 2007)? Our education system can play a pivotal role in reversing this trend by facilitating policies
that encourage walking and cycling to/from school. The proposed plan will not only increase the number of
students relying on buses, but may also contribute to the growing obesity trend.
Gas prices are rising and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. TIME Magazine (August 14, 2008)
recently reported that more than 100 school districts in 17 states are holding classes only four days a week. The
reason? To save gas money. Could this happen in our district? Has the Board taken into consideration what the
operating costs of running more buses would be if the price of gas increases, say to $3 a litre?
In addition to being healthy and inexpensive, biking and walking to/from school is non-polluting. An increased
reliance on busing will increase our carbon footprint. What message does this send to our children about our
commitment to combating climate change?
As a parent of students in both the English and French programs, my children would attend two different
elementary schools under the proposed plan. As a working parent, this would cause much hardship in our
family with respect to managing school schedules.
1 in 5 students in my son’s class have transferred from the French Immersion to the English program. Such a
decision to transfer a child is not an easy one to make. However, it is eased by the fact that one’s child will be
able to maintain his/her friendships on the playground and through intramurals and school-wide activities. By
making Victory Public School French-only, you might encourage people to keep their children in the French
Immersion stream when it may not be in the best interest of the child.
The school is the hub of a neighbourhood. It’s a place where children, parents and neighbours congregate and
where friendships are formed. Removing half of the neighbourhood children from the local school will
negatively impact neighbourhood relations.
In summary, neighbourhood-based schools are central to the quality of life of our community. I urge you to reconsider the proposed plan.
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the ongoing Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation Review.
Due to the number and timing of messages that I am receiving, my response will likely appear as generic.
However, I wish to ensure that a consistent message is being sent to the community.
Please be assured, though, that your message will be sent to our Planning Department and will be part of
the Board’s records. All trustees will receive a copy of it.
The Central Guelph Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) met for the third time on September 17th.
The Committee is comprised of 2 parent representatives from each of the 7 schools involved in the review.
Board staff and school principals are there to act as a resource to the ARC. Trustees are there to observe
and listen to the issues and debate.
The ARC (that is the parent representatives) will make the final recommendations to the Board in the
spring of 2009, for a final decision in June.
Therefore, you need to ensure that you are in direct contact with your parent representatives on the ARC.
Your school Principal can give you their names and contact information. Parent representatives not only
need to listen to their own communities, but to be aware of the Board’s constraints and the needs of the
other school communities. It is within these contexts that their recommendations will be made.
The first of four public meetings for the ARC will be held at College Heights S.S. on Wed. Oct. 1st at 7:00
p.m. At this meeting we will outline the process for the review, the information contained in Report #2,
and the manner and timing of which the public can delegate the ARC and/or the Board.
Finally, I wish to stress that ARC Report #2 is simply an outline of the background data and future
projections regarding enrolment growth in the Guelph area. Any scenarios outlined by staff in the report
are simply serving as starting points for discussion by the ARC; they have never been presented to the
Board as solutions to the issues before the ARC.
Again, thank you for your note. I hope my response has clarified some of your issues.
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
Trustee, Town of Orangeville and
6
Dear Ms. Moziar, Ms. Waterson, Mr. Bailey, Ms. Busuttil and Mr. Borden,
As a parent whose child currently attends Victory Public School, I was distressed to learn the Upper Grand School
Board is considering closing the English arm of our school.
One of the most important decisions a parent makes in their child's education is to decide which elementary
school they will attend. My husband and I researched neighbourhoods in our community and decided to remain
in the Exhibition Park area primarily because it afforded our daughter the opportunity be in walking distance to
Victory School. In 2005, before my daughter enrolled in Jr. Kindergarten, we made an appointment to meet with
the principle to discuss whether the English or French track would most suit her needs and abilities. At the time, we
were concerned about the large enrolment in the French program. We were assured that the English Program was
an equal, valued aspect of the school and would not be jeopardized. After much deliberation, we chose to place
our daughter in English.
Now I am faced with the prospect of my daughter having to get on a bus every morning instead of walking to
school just one block away because we chose the English program. The diversity of the English/French
programming is one of Victory Public School's greatest strengths. My daughter has many neighbourhood friends in
the French program. This scenario takes her out of her own community and away from her social networks.
I understand that there is a cost factor to be considered here. However, how do we justify the costs of buses and
gas prices, not to mention the environment? How do we place a cost on our children's ability to walk to school
everyday and be greeted along the way by friends in the neighbourhood? How do I explain to my daughter that
she is getting on a bus every morning while she watches her friends walk past our house to the school she has
come to love?
And what about the parents who have children in both programs? Is the suggestion being made that the children
in English will now get on a bus every morning to go to a school away from not only their friends but their own
brothers and sisters? What about the all the children who transfer into English part way through the elementary
years? Are we going to fully disrupt their lives by sending them to an entirely new school? Will that not just create
an atmosphere where parents may feel pressured to keep their children in French because the consequences of the
alternative are too great?
I respectfully ask you to please consider the human element of this scenario and implore you to keep the English
arm of our school open. Closing it would be a huge loss to many families who take great care and pride in our
neighbourhood and Victory Public School.
I will eagerly await your response.
Sincerely,
Thank you for your recent e-mail regarding the ongoing Central Guelph (FI) Accommodation Review.
Due to the number and timing of messages that I am receiving, my response will likely appear as generic.
However, I wish to ensure that a consistent message is being sent to the community.
Please be assured, though, that your message will be sent to our Planning Department and will be part of the
Board’s records. All trustees will receive a copy of it.
The Central Guelph Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) met for the third time on September 17th. The
Committee is comprised of 2 parent representatives from each of the 7 schools involved in the review. Board staff
and school principals are there to act as a resource to the ARC. Trustees are there to observe and listen to the
issues and debate.
The ARC (that is the parent representatives) will make the final recommendations to the Board in the spring of
2009, for a final decision in June.
Therefore, you need to ensure that you are in direct contact with your parent representatives on the ARC. Your
school Principal can give you their names and contact information. Parent representatives not only need to listen
to their own communities, but to be aware of the Board’s constraints and the needs of the other school
communities. It is within these contexts that their recommendations will be made.
The first of four public meetings for the ARC will be held at College Heights S.S. on Wed. Oct. 1st at 7:00 p.m. At
this meeting we will outline the process for the review, the information contained in Report #2, and the manner
and timing of which the public can delegate the ARC and/or the Board.
Finally, I wish to stress that ARC Report #2 is simply an outline of the background data and future projections
regarding enrolment growth in the Guelph area. Any scenarios outlined by staff in the report are simply serving as
starting points for discussion by the ARC; they have never been presented to the Board as solutions to the issues
before the ARC.
Again, thank you for your note. I hope my response has clarified some of your issues.
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
7
Dear Jennifer,
I wanted to take a moment before tonight’s ARC meeting to let you know my thoughts on the proposals put forth concerning
the future of Victory Public School. I am a member of the Victory school community and a parent of 3 children, 2 of whom
currently attend Victory and are enrolled in the French Immersion program. I will be enrolling my third child next year.
As a family, we walk to school to each day and I take pride in the fact that I chose this neighbourhood to reside in based on the
proximity to Victory school and the dual-track nature of the school. It makes me happy to know that our school is accessible
to all who live near us, despite the track they are enrolled in. The children that we see and play with in the neighbourhood
outside of school hours are the same students we see at the school…and that is very important to us. It gives me 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 became very disappointed and concerned when I was made aware of 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 “bought into” as a community nor what we
want for its future. It does not make any 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.
Victory should remain a dual track school. I know that I am only one of a large number of parents who 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 all the children who attend it. We look forward to attending the first public meeting
about this review on October 1st and 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 impact that such changes would have
on our children and our community.
Regards,
Information Received
Hi Jennifer,
I am a long-standing parent at Victory Public School and my children are in the English stream. I am very aware of the ARC
review process as I attended the meeting last June that required extra parental input. I am concerned about the publicized
possible scenario of making Victory a single track French school. I believe that Victory Public School should be a
"neighbourhood" school. It should support English and French students from all over the neighbourhood and from what I
had heard from others involved, I believed the scenario of keeping it dual track but changing boundaries so it would be more
of a "walking school" would definitely keep it a "neighbourhood" school. It is important for my neighbourhood, my
children's activity level and the general sense of community that I bought into when I purchased a home in the Exhibition
Park area.
I would appreciate it if you would put my concerns forward at the meeting this evening. I would also appreciate it if you can
let me know that you received this email and provide any information that you have about my concerns.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Information Received
Hello,
I was very happy with the additional detail and the overall improvements in Report #2. It clarified many things for me and I
think the report itself was very well written.
The report reminded me of a question that I had regarding portables, porta-paks etc. The report alludes to Fred A Hamilton
without a porta pak and I was hoping to clarify why the porta pak needs to be removed. It is my understanding that these
structures have a finite and short lifespan and need to be taken down or rebuilt after that life is over. Is this why the Fred A
Hamilton portapak is being taken down or is it simply that we don’t have enough students to justify its existence any longer?
If the decision is building age based, I was wondering what the threshold age is for removing these buildings? Also, how
does the age of the Fred A Hamilton portapak compare to other very old portables in the area (eg. Jean Little portables which
are at least 15 yrs old or Centennial’s rather ancient looking portables)?
Thanks,
8
Dear Trustees,
Since reading the article in the Tribune last Friday, I have been very concerned about the possibility of my
neighbourhood and my children losing their community school. Being part of the community I live in has been very
important to me. We try our best to walk, take public transit, shop locally and interact with our neighbours. Our
children's friends live in the area and can stop by when they are out for a bike ride. The School Board's proposal to
limit my childrens access to their community school because they are in the regular track English program feels
wrong. Wrong, not just for the effect on my children but for our neighbourhood. It would effect all home owners.
This proposal would decrease the property values in the Victory district as no family with school-age children in an
English program would want move here and bus their children to another school. It would also increase traffic on the
roads around the school and in winter make the streets dangerous for children walking to school as their is not
adequate parking at Victory now. It would certainly change the feel of the neighbourhood for me. I know that this is
just a proposal but because it would have such a significant impact on my children and our community that I feel the
need to be proactive and be heard.
Thank you for the consideration of my concerns.
Thank you for your note about the ongoing Central Guelph Accommodation Review.
Please be assured that the Committee is a long way from making any recommendation to the
Board. There will be 4 public meetings between October 1st and early 2009. The notice for these
meetings will be sent home shortly after the Committee's meeting on Wednesday.
Your school is represented by two members of your school council. It is the role of the parent
members of the Committee to arrive at a recommendation to the Board that best meets the needs
of all the students in the 7 schools involved in the review. You need to speak to your
representatives and make your feelings known to them. Your school principal can tell you who are
your representatives.
Stay in touch with your representatives as they will be able to keep you informed about the
Committee's deliberations.
R.J. (Bob) Borden,
Trustee, Town of Orangeville and
Chair, Upper Grand District School Board
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding the ARC process.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the process as I understand it, involves the 4 paid trustee members on the ARC currently
as observers, the experienced principals as facilitators and the 14 parent volunteers. The 14 parents are the ones to make the
final proposal to all the trustees in 6 months who in turn will accept or reject this proposal or modify it so that they can
come to a decision come June 2009. This would then need to be implemented by Sept 2010. The parent volunteers are
supposed to take the information provided by the planning department and essentially come up with proposal # 3. The
planning department is staffed with experienced professionals who certainly have more experience researching the numbers
and costs than these volunteers or any other parent delegation. Could they not come up with a third option for these 14
parent volunteers to explore that did not deny any child access to a public English education in his or her community
school? The initial purpose of this committee was to address the issue of housing the grade 7&8 French Immersion
students. Right now the two proposal on the table suggest that these volunteers must decide to
sacrifice one school/community for another. Paisley against Victory. The chair and the Trustees have also directed all the
understandably upset residents of these communities to address their comments and concerns to these 14 volunteers. This is
a very unenviable unpaid position.
I have been repeatedly told that this is an early working document and that the final proposal is 6 months away. I have been
told not to panic. We have 14 parents with other full time jobs who are supposed to manage their own lives, deal with the
angry community fall-out and come up with a proposal that is in the best interest of all the children involved. To do this, I
feel they would need to evaluate the not only the proposed numbers for the French schools but for all the school in the city
and the current and possible boundary changes that could support providing education in community schools. Six months is
not a lot of time. I am gravely concerned and continue to feel that now is the time for us to panic and ensure that this process
is thorough enough to have the children educated in English in both Paisley and Victory schools' needs addressed.
Thank you again for your consideration of my concerns, Information Received - Thankyou
9
To the Board Trustees,
Please consider this letter of appeal. There are countless reasons why we strongly oppose the proposal to change Victory
Public School from a dual track to a full French school. The City of Guelph is currently promoting a "greener" Guelph how could busing students out of their neighbourhoods be environmentally pleasing to anyone? We need to keep children
walking to their local schools and keep the buses to a minimum. Victory is the heart of our community. To force its own
children out would be very detrimental to the well being of the school and the students involved. My children are the third
generation of to attend Victory Public School - not only did their father grow up two doors down from the school, we now
live in their great-grandparent's home. Their grandfather was a student at Victory in the late 1940's to mid 1950's. We
specifically moved into this neighbourhood to send our children to Victory and to carry on the family tradition. It would be
very upsetting to us if the board decides to make our school an all French school. This school is a part of our family history
and not being able to maintain that would be very disappointing, to say the least. I am also a very active volunteer in the
school and can't imagine not being able to continue to be involved in my own community school. I am positive the trustees
will find a beneficial solution to this problem. You need to look at where the French students reside and the schools in
their immediate area instead of disrupting the current dual track system at Victory. Busing children out of their
neighbourhoods when there is a school available within walking distance is absolutely unsuitable in this day and age where
we are constantly being told to conserve!
Sincerely, Information Received - Thankyou
Hello,
I am a parent of three children in the FI immersion programme with my first child now in G8 at King George originally
at John McCrae since before it was full FI (i.e. French and English), my second child is in G4 and third is SKG. I am
involved in the school as a volunteer and as a parent on school council and have experienced different aspects and stages
of FI and John McCrae.
Based on my experience with my own children and involvement with the school, I would like to put forth a couple
important points that I believe the board and the committee need to consider:
A full FI programme, i.e. one that is not mixed with English works much better, as it allows full immersion into
the language. Since John McCrae was turned into a full FI programme, teachers were able to implement French
conversation throughout the school day; in the halls and at the playground, and announcements etc. This speeds the
children learning process, allows them more opportunities to practice, giving them a full school day of French, allowing
their minds to focus on the language within social and day-to-day activities as well as the academic and rather than
limiting it to the classroom.
Whatever you decide, do not go back to a mixed French/English school.
Separation of KG-6 from middle school 7-8 has numerous advantages to all involved. Having gone through the
experience myself, I am aware firsthand, of the benefits moving from elementary to middle school has on children’s
character and level of responsibility by allowing them the sense of growing and moving on to larger school society with
an atmosphere that is tailored to their stage of development. At the age of 12-14 children need more rules a stricter
structure as well as more guidance, inspiration and incentives. All this requires different strategy from management and
different minds set from teachers. Combining KG to 8 puts more pressure on managers and teachers to be everything for
all, and depriving the children of their focused attention that is appropriate to their level of development.
French Immersion to be what it is, it has to be full, throughout the school, where children know and expect French
language education that is not restricted to the classroom with only the teacher conversing with them in French.
Anything else is hardly ‘immersion’.
Allow children and older children: tweens and young teens the opportunity to express themselves and fulfill the
expectation of an education that is appropriate to each phase and level of development delivered by experts at each age
group. There is enough lumping- together and standardization of our education system as it is. Let’s not add more onefits-all recipes.
Thank you for your consideration of my opinions and experience. Information Received - Thankyou
10
Dear Bob and members of ARC
This is to follow up my concern at the Oct. 1st Public Meeting. I am also forwarding these comments in writing to the
Planning Department.
OUTLINING THE PROBLEM
It needs to be recognized that Grade 7/8 students who attend King George are affected in a specific way that does not
apply to the other schools covered by the AR. Namely, they are the ones who actually stand to lose a program under the
proposed changes.
It is understood that 7/8 is an elementary program, and that the Ministry does not mandate specialist teachers or music,
shop, and art programs with dedicated facilities at this level. Nevertheless, King George has a tradition of offering an
excellent program which includes the above, as well as a specialized library and numerous extra-curricular activities
thanks to the concentration of 7/8 students in one school. There have been no calls to alter the program. It is strongly
supported by all teachers, principals, parents, and students who have had the good fortune to be acquainted with it.
In the process of deciding to build a new school at the King George site, it appears to be a given that this valuable
program is to be cancelled. At the Oct. 1st meeting, several casual remarks were made to the effect that "appropriate"
program numbers would be maintained, but there would not be "a specialist art teacher". This is not good enough. There
ought to be at least as much examination of the excellence of educational programs as of balancing numbers, and
maximizing walkers. There ought to be a discussion of how FI can be kept together and accommodated in a suitable
location, with the best possible program preservation.
(Note: the issue extends beyond FI, seeing as the same number of English-stream students at King George are losing the
benefits of a consolidated 7/8 program - in the interest of a different set of students acquiring a new school building.)
A FLAWED PROCESS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION
1. King George has participated in the school valuation process that has been requested of all seven schools affected by
the AR. This valuation input clearly carries no weight because the fate of that school has been decided at an earlier stage.
Furthermore, the current King George community occupies the school for only two years, and represents a changing
group. They will have moved out of 7/8 by the time the proposed changes take effect, so again input from this source has
doubtful impact.
2. Parent councils at the other schools are looking at school-specific issues such as designation, boundaries and
enrollment, issues that concern the character and continuity of these schools. The integrity of the 7/8 program is nowhere
on the horizon. Consequently the parents of current 5/6 students who will be immediately and significantly affected by
the closure of King George have no forum for their input. This is a constituency that spans beyond any one school, who
have effectively been excluded from the consultation process.
3. The ARC has not disclosed or explained the implications of closing the consolidated 7/8 program at King George and
dispersing the FI students to two different schools under the two proposed scenarios. School communities may now be
making recommendations about matters such as boundaries from the perspective of students who may be in Grade 2 or
3, not understanding the consequences down the road in 7/8. This is an issue that will eventually affect everyone, even
though not all may realize it at this stage. They may be forming opinions based on insufficient information. In order to
have a legitimate process of public consultation, it is the responsibility of ARC to properly explain the changes in
Grade7/8 programming entailed by the scenarios.
Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for your insightful comments. I am pleased to see that you have forwarded them to the
ARC Planning Team as well.
Please be assured that Deb and I will work diligently to ensure that the issues you raised, specifically
a meaningful voice for the King George community, will be discussed at the Steering and ARC
committees.
Please stay involved.
11
Victory Parent
I have a son attending Priory Park Public School. I have a few questions concerning the school regarding the dual tract
system.
1. How many English schools are currently on the North side of Stone Road? Why should the kids be bused elsewhere
and spend tax dollars?
My child walks to school as well as so many other children. Priory Park is located in a community surrounded by
townhouses, townhouses rented ( Sifton Properties) as well as many apartment buildings.
2. Why put a French program in Priory Park Public School when there are so many who are having problems speaking
English? Many of the families that move to Guelph from other countries enroll their children in an English speaking
school. From the last school meeting, I heard that there were 30 children in the ESL program. I do not speak French, and
from what I learned in school, will not help my child out. French is a language that should be spoken constantly, home
and school. In my opinion, French should be left as it is in the school, the children will still learn it and understand it.
Thanks,
Information Received - Thankyou
Dear Sirs and Madams
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute my input to your difficult task. As the current scenarios were based
primarily on numbers, the process appears to be weighed heavily in favour of the numbers approach. It will be very
difficult to demonstrate that other factors have been considered on equal footing at future public meetings.
In no particular order I would like to make the following contributions and ask the following questions:
I would like to suggest that the priority of K-8 schools be weighed against the priority of having grade seven and eight FI
students taught by specialist teachers, in a setting with a broad scope of programs with a rotation type setting. There are
a number of arguments in terms of quality of programs / materials / facilities etc. that would suggest not splitting the
small number of students at this level into two smaller groups. Will the board invest in creating two library collections
equal to the existing collection? Will other necessary resources such as sports equipment, technology, science labs and
musical instruments be doubled or will FI students have only half of the existing resources. Will FI students be bused to
a location for specialty programs such wood shop and family studies as I was in the 70’s?
My choice of the FI program was based on giving my children a broader educational opportunity. If the resources and
programs are not available in the same way as English track students, enrollment in the FI program may decrease as
parents make difficult choices for the best for their children. A way perhaps to examine this is to look at the number of
students leaving the FI stream for the gifted English program against the number of students invited to the gifted English
program, but opting to remain in FI. Perhaps the numbers would warrant a gifted FI program being created as well.
Most of the parents that are involved in this process may not be aware of this issue, as our children are younger and we
haven’t found out what happens in five to seven years. It is critical that this unorganized constituency be equally
represented in this process. This process should also not have the result of reducing the quality of the program currently
being offered.
As the province will not build a new school with more than two kindergarten rooms and John McCrae is currently
requiring five rooms, how does the ARC weigh the need for purpose built facilities against the actual facilities available
when determining housing allocations?
A high priority has to be the quality of the learning environment – the noise and light levels in the classrooms, the ability
to clean the facility, an adequate HVAC system and the play opportunity of the outdoor space ….etc so that our children
has a pleasant place where they spend a great deal of their time.
My children are currently housed at the College Avenue Site. This building is habitable and functions well as a learning
environment. Would it be possible to consider it as a site for 7/8 FI students?
Once again, thank you for this opportunity.
Information Received - Thankyou
12
Friday, September 19, 2008 9:59:31 AM
Message
From:
Subject:
To:
Bob Borden – Responses from Bob are shown embedded in the email as bolded text
Re(2): Victory Public School
Thank you for your response.
Reading your email, has raised further issues that need to be clarified.
The ARC (parent representatives) are just that - parent volunteers - with potentially no background in
planning with this type of magnitude and they've been thrown into a very volatile situation. My
understanding is that Proposal #1(involving Paisley) & Proposal #2 (involving Victory) which were
provided by the School Board; the parent volunteer's (ARC) now have their involvement at a level where
their responsibility is to potentially come up with proposal #3 or as many possibilities as they can
devise. They have only information regarding the French numbers and no information regarding the
English numbers not correct, they will have all enrollment and projection numbers, they do have a
criteria however, it doesn't state why those particular numbers are given in the criteria. This is also about
the English children, in this neighbourhood, and why isn't it being addressed as to how can we increase
those English numbers all possibilities will be examined by the ARC. These volunteers are "sacrificial
lambs" who are not getting paid, to come up with a solution, to take the heat and the fall out. That's nasty
towards the volunteers and not professional on behalf of the Board The Board will be the ones that will
make the final decision based on what we hear from the ARC and communities.
Also, regarding the public meeting - it's only a question and answer period isn't it? That's correct, for the
first public meeting as it's purpose is to outline how the ARC will function and when and where
communities & schools can speak in the future Our representative cannot speak on our behalf. Do
we need to elect another individual who can speak for us? that's up to you; we won't stipulate who
can speak Is that at another future meeting where our elected person can speak for only 10mins? there
will be 3 more public meetings and at least 18 Board and Business/Operations meeting in the
months ahead where people can delegate Please elaborate.
Thank you for response
13
Dear Jennifer,
I was forwarded your name from another concerned Victory parent and wanted to take a moment to let
you
know
thoughts
onIthe
proposals
puttoforth
concerning
futureofofa Victory
Public
School.
I am a
I have
fewmy
questions
that
wish
to forward
the ARC
. I am athe
parent
grade one
student
at f.a.
future member
hamilton
p.s. of Victory school, as I will be enrolling my eldest child for the upcoming school year and
another
child
after1.
that.
currently
two nieces
attending
in theindependently?
upcoming school
year
my questions two
are years
as follows
AreI the
north have
and south
scenarios
being and
decided
is there
will be
adding
nephew and niece to Victory as well. Thus the future of Victory is near and dear
any
overlap
in another
the solutions?
to my family’s hearts.
2. Are all questions directed toward the ARC treated equally, regardless of
how they are delivered? eg. is an email to the ARC given as much weight as a delegation at a public
As a family, I plan to walk to school to each day and my partner and I purposely choose this
meeting?
neighbourhood
to reside
based
on the proximity to Victory and its dual-track nature. It’s important to
thank
you in advance
for in
your
response.
my
family
that
the
school
we
will
be
sending our children to is accessible to all who live near us, despite
Sincerely,
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 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,
Information Received – Thankyou.
14
Hello,
I would like to know about the programming implications, should 7/8 FI students become absorbed in K-8
elementary schools. Will they have a proper rotation system, a separate wing, specialized subject teachers, labs,
their own lockers and so on? They currently have these things at King George.
It seems to me that it is not up to an accommodation review to change the program quality for a segment of the
student population.
Please advise on how a K-8 scenario would play out in terms of programming if John McCrae school adopted it.
Thanks kindly,
15