EAST CREDIT ARC WORKING GROUP MEETING #4 APPR0VED MINUTES February 11, 2016 ‐ 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Location: Blessed Trinity Catholic Centre for Learning (2nd Floor ‐ Library) Chair: ARC Members: Principals: Resource Staff: Regrets: Call to Order: David Amaral, Superintendent, Mississauga South Leslie Aziz, Our Lady of Good Voyage Ewelina Kostuch, St. Bernadette Sandra Pozzobon, St. Bernadette Julia Belmonte, St. Dunstan Ian Moore, St. Dunstan Shelley Bonello, St. Gertrude Colleen Klein, Our Lady of Good Voyage David Clifford, St. Raymond Linus O’Neill, St. Dunstan Chris Helme, St. Gertrude Erin Ljubanovic, St. Gregory Jennifer Greenman, St. Gregory Natasha De Menna, St. Herbert Zarah von Schober, St. Valentine Janine Krolewicz, St. Gregory Walter Matos, St. Herbert Daniel Del Bianco, Superintendent, Planning & Operations Stephanie Cox, Manager, Planning Department Joanne Rogers, Senior Planner, Planning Department Krystina Koops, Planner, Planning Department Kathy Russell‐Kwan, Researcher, Research Department Lucy Papaloni, Superintendent, Mississauga Brampton Central Bruce Campbell, General Manager, Communications & Community Relations Pat Pierre, Recorder Maria Parker, Principal, St. Bernadette Bidemi Olawale, St. Herbert Brenda LeClair, Principal, St. Valentine Cara Szczepanik, St. Raymond Tina De Vellis‐Carino, Principal, St. Gertrude James Zammit, St. Raymond Terri Lavery, Our Lady of Good Voyage Karen Canlas, St. Valentine D. Amaral, Chair of the East Credit ARC Working Group Committee, called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 1.
Prayer The Chair led the group in prayer, followed by a reflection of Lent video. 2. Approval of Agenda for ARC Working Group Meeting #4 Approval of the agenda was moved by: J. Greenman, seconded by: S. Pozzobon. CARRIED 3. Approval of February 3, 2016 Meeting Minutes from ARC Working Group Meeting #3 ARC member requested an amendment to page 6 correspondence item WG3‐66 to clarify that JK‐5 will be bussed across Mavis Road. ARC member requested an amendment to page 6 correspondence item WG3‐67 to include a comment that another ARC member disagreed with the suggestion that a school should be closed based on the school’s utilization and all relevant factors must be considered – we need to consider the long‐term viability of our schools as a whole so that we are not faced with more school closures in five years from now. February 11, 2016 Minutes ‐ East Credit ARC Working Group Meeting #4 ARC member requested an amendment to page 7 correspondence item WG3‐68 to indicate that St. Bernadette was offended by the correspondence, not St. Gertrude. Approval of the amended February 3, 2016 meeting minutes was moved by: E. Kostuch, seconded by: J. Belmonte. CARRIED 4. Survey Results – Research Department Researcher, Kathy Russell‐Kwan provided an overview of the survey results, through a PowerPoint presentation entitled East Credit Pupil Accommodation Review Survey. ARC member asked if the presentation will be made available. Response: Yes, the presentation will be provided on the Board’s website. ARC member asked for the percentage of respondents that indicated ‘no preference’ for the options. Response: 9.4% indicated ‘no preference’. The Chair reinforced earlier comments that staff don’t rely on that data due to the number of people who chose to abandon the survey after that particular question. The Chair clarified to the group that feedback will be needed in order to start developing another survey for the March 30th open house. A discussion on March 2 could allow for a survey to be shared with the group for March 9. ARC member asked if a survey was necessary. ARC member suggested asking what is most important to community and rank the criteria. The Chair thanked Researcher Russell‐Kwan for her presentation. 5. St. Dunstan Presentation #2 – ARC Representatives Refer to St Dunstan Option #5 Presentation‐ Proposed by the Families of the St. Dunstan Community. ARC member asked for clarification on the numbers shown for the Extended French program. Response: When a program is introduced to a new location, we start with 1 class of grade 5 with 27 students. Each year we would add another grade, for a total of 98 students at full program implementation. There would also have to be a minimum of 23 students for a class, and 4 classrooms would be required. ARC member clarified that St. Herbert can also accommodate St. Bernadette. Response: The rationale was to have Catholic representation south of Eglinton Avenue. There would also be a cost to retrofit kindergarten classrooms. ARC member asked who would pay for the kindergarten retrofits. Response: The Board would have to put in a business case to the Ministry or find alternate funding. ARC member asked how the Board determines where French Immersion and Extended French programs are located. Response: The Chair explained that the Program Department will be presenting at the February 24th meeting, however there is a set process that typically involves a survey of the community and takes approximately 3 years. The Chair also reminded the group that the Board does not provide bussing for FI program, however bussing is provided for EF. Decisions regarding bussing are subject to review annually as part of the budget process. ARC member asked how many students are bussed to St. Joseph Streetsville Elementary that live north of Britannia Road as they could be bussed to St. Gregory. P a g e | 2 February 11, 2016 Minutes ‐ East Credit ARC Working Group Meeting #4 Response: Most likely students would still be bussed as they would need to cross the Credit River. This would also reduce enrolment from St. Joseph Streetsville Elementary ARC member asked how boundaries are set to undertake a review. Response: The Ministry requires that Boards look at a grouping of schools. Those schools do not have to correlate to specific maps. The Education Service Area map was shown as well as the City of Mississauga Neighbourhood Character Areas, and the two are not consistent with each other. The grouping of schools could include all school listed in a service area, it could be less or it could even be more and all situations are unique. ARC member asked why St. Joseph Streetsville Elementary was not included as part of the East Credit Review Area. Response: St. Joseph Streetsville underwent a review in 2008. Schools were considered based on enrollment, capacity and proximity to each other. A line had to be drawn. Including St. Joseph would potentially make the situation worse by adding additional capacity that would have to be reduced. ARC member requested capacity and enrolment information for St. Julia. Response: Enrolment reports and the Board’s Long Term Accommodation Plan are available online. ARC member asked if public school locations were considered as St. Herbert is located in close proximity to 3 public schools and parents can send their children from JK‐12 to school in their own neighbourhood. Response: The distribution of public schools in the review area was identified however was not a major factor in the development of the proposed options. Staff’s intent was to try to have a Catholic school presence south of Eglinton and to avoid costs for new kindergarten rooms where possible. ARC member asked clarification for the relocation of the child care at St. Bernadette. Response: St. Bernadette has a child care centre that is separate from the school and there is also an Ontario Early Years Centre currently utilizing a kindergarten room. The child care centre would not be relocated to accommodate additional students from a closing school. There could be the potential to relocate the Ontario Early Years Centre if space was required in the school to accommodate additional students. ARC member asked clarification of costs for new FDK classroom. Response: The costs identified in the initial staff report are for a NEW classroom. A retrofit project could cost upward of approximately $250,000. A onetime cost to retrofit a room would still be less than the Board continuing to operate eight under‐utilized schools. The Chair thanked Ian and Julia for their presentation. 6. Follow‐up Items ARC Requested Information from Working Group Meeting #3 was provided to ARC members either through Planning staff, Research or Finance Departments. Staff informed the committee that kindergarten registration numbers should be taken with caution as people can still register for school up until September. 7. BREAK The Chair called the break at 7:58 p.m. to reconvene at 8:12 p.m. 8. Parking Lot Questions Questions from ARC members ‐What is considered minimal student loss, how many students left Catholic system to public during the last ARC? Response: Following the Central Erin Mills ARC, there was a loss between 5‐10 students from Dufferin‐Peel, but not necessarily to the public system. P a g e | 3 February 11, 2016 Minutes ‐ East Credit ARC Working Group Meeting #4 ARC member commented that sacraments have moved to the church and a bigger loss might be observed this time. – Was St. Gertrude targeted as a result of the FI program being a program of choice that can be moved? If the program was not there, would it still close? Response: Rationale for St. Gertrude being included in the review has already been clarified. It is not possible to confirm whether St. Gertrude would still close if the program was not there, as it would depend on the numbers. 9. Correspondence Items The ARC Members moved receipt on all correspondence items for review at this meeting (WG4‐97 to WG3‐110). Moved by J. Belmonte and seconded by J. Greenman. CARRIED No comments or discussion took place on the following pieces of correspondence: WG4‐99 – St. Dunstan, WG4‐110 – St. Gregory WG4‐97 – St. Gertrude ARC member asked about waitlists, that people can apply to each FI school individually and if there is potential to add another FI class. Resource staff responded that duplicates have been cleaned up and the correct waitlist information can be found with the January 27, 2016 ARC requested information. If another class of FI was added to St. Gertrude, it would require an additional 8 classrooms. Grade 8 FI will be introduced in September 2016 which will require an additional 2 classrooms. WG4‐98 – St Gertrude Resource staff provided the requested Education Service Area map. The City of Mississauga zoning maps, do not match up with their own Character area maps. The Ministry requires that Boards look at a grouping of schools. Those schools do not have to correlate to specific maps. The grouping of schools could include all schools listed in an ESA, it could be less or it could even be more and all situations are unique. The waitlist information can be found with the January 27, 2016 ARC requested information. WG4‐100 – St. Gertrude It was clarified that other schools in the review area also have public schools nearby, St. Herbert has 3, St. Gregory 1, Our Lady of Good Voyage 2, St. Raymond 1 and St. Bernadette 1. The Chair asked that the personal information outlined in the email be redacted prior to publication in the minutes. ACTION: Redact references as indicated above. WG4‐101 – Our Lady of Good Voyage Resource staff noted that there would be no schools represented south of Bristol Rd if St. Dunstan, St. Herbert and St. Bernadette were closed. WG4‐102 – General Resource staff clarified detailed costs can be found on page 8 of the initial staff report and that the report also shows the accurate utilization rates. With respect to the FI locations, St. Gertrude is not the closest Catholic FI school to the southeast area of Mississauga, St. Pio of Pietrelcina is closer to Canadian Martyrs. ARC member expressed concern for another parent leaving the system. WG4‐103 – St. Gertrude Resource staff previously addressed the reasons for option #3 not being the preferred option. ARC member requested clarification on how the group was going to address all alternative options. It was decided that this item will be reviewed in detail at a later date. P a g e | 4 February 11, 2016 Minutes ‐ East Credit ARC Working Group Meeting #4 WG4‐104 – General Resource staff advised that a reply has already been provided. All emails are posted directly to the Board’s website. WG4‐105 – General Resource staff advised once a school is closed the Board has a process for disposition. WG4‐106 – General Resource staff responded that teachers are privy to the same information as the public. The Board will work closely with the teacher’s union to relocate any teachers displaced due to a school closure. WG4‐107 – St. Gregory Resource staff indicated that approximately 2% of Syrians are Catholics and the Board is more likely to have impacts at the Secondary level. WG4‐108 – St. Gregory Resource staff provided a map showing the location and boundary of St. Alphonsa in relation to the East Credit Review area. It is not realistic to bus students such a distance. WG4‐109 – General Resource staff answered the following questions: 1. The information provided in the initial staff report are correct. 2. ARC member clarified yes EQAO was the basis for determining student achievements and that the EQAO scores were based on the information from the School Information Profiles. 3. Not all students who applied for FI for September 2015 received a spot. 40 students did not get spots. 4. There are 33 FI students who attend other schools than St. Gertrude for the program. 5. The Board will work closely with the teacher’s union to relocate any teachers displaced due to a school closure. Senior Planner, J. Rogers concluded by indicating the correspondence for the next meeting would be emails WG5‐111‐132; 22 items for next meeting. 10. Other Business Future meeting dates ARC member asked if we can bring the trustees voting up to an earlier date. Resource staff replied that there are Ministry timelines that the Board needs to follow. There is a minimum of 40 days required between the 1st public meeting and the 2nd public meeting. There is also a set number of days between the staff report and public delegations. ARC member expressed concern with the length of the process as teachers are applying for job postings. Resource staff responded that teachers are aware that schools will remain open for at least another year. The Chair suggested to the group that to have another ARC meeting for next Wednesday will be a tight turnaround for staff. Monday is Family Day and it’s already Thursday. It was suggested that perhaps school tours could be done. The committee took a vote to tour all 8 schools on February 17. CARRIED 11. Adjournment The Motion to adjourn was moved by: E. Kostuch, seconded by: S. Pozzobon. CARRIED P a g e | 5 February 11, 2016 Minutes ‐ East Credit ARC Working Group Meeting #4 The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Future meeting dates: February 17, 2016 – Site Visits (ARC Members Only) February 24, 2016 – ARC Working Group Meeting #5 March 2, 2016 – ARC Working Group Meeting #6 Distribution: ARC Members ARC Resource P a g e | 6 Refer to WG4-98
12
Refer to WG4-98
13
Refer to WG4-98
15
Refer to WG4-102
14
Refer to WG4-108
St Alphonsa
Catholic Elementary
School Location
East Credit
Review Area
16
WG4-97
Relocating the FI program from St. Gertrude to St. Gregory impacts more to the students and communities.
Relocating the FI program from St. Gertrude to St. Gregory impacts more to the students and
communities.
Sent:
Sunday, January 24, 2016 9:41 PM
To:
PAR - Info
Cc:
Shelley Bonello ‎[shellrob72@hotmail.com]‎; chelme@eol.ca
Attachments:Page 3 FI table.xls‎ (43 KB‎)
Currently, there are 279 students from 39 school boundaries attending FI program at St. Gertrude. If relocating the FI to
St. Gregory, the majority of students (about 172 or 62%) will have to take a longer route than they used to be (see the
table below and attached analysis). As we all know that the FI program doesn’t allow for school buses, some students
may have to be forced to drop the FI program especially for parents with more than two children attending different
programs. The stress to cope with longer commute or to drop the FI program doesn’t serve the well-being of students.
Of all the 279 FI students attending the FI program at St. Gertrude, 81 students (or 29%) are within the St. Gertrude
school boundary and only 9 students (3%) are from the St. Gregory school boundary. The FI program is carried out 90% in grade one, 70% in grade 2 and 3, and drops to 50% from grade 4 to 8 while the
regular courses gradually increase. Over years, regular courses and FI are well integrated at St. Gertrude, thanks to both
French and English teachers, and no doubt the operations will be disrupted if the FI program is physically separated out. Instead of relocating the FI program, the School Board should consider add more FI classes at St. Gertrude to improve
the utilization rate. FI program is becoming more and more popular as a result of high demands from the society. However, many students are currently kept out of the FI program or put in the waiting list as they not lucky to pass the
computer generated random central lottery system. Furthermore, many non-catholic families are considering either the FI or regular program at St. Gertrude. For some
reason, the secondary schools allow for the enrollment of non-catholic students but elementary schools do not. Perhaps
it is the timing now to lobby for an amendment to the current Education Act to allow for enrolling a proportion of noncatholic students, which will keep up the utilization rate and secondly to welcome kids and parents to get familiar with the
Catholic faith and become part of the Catholic families.
After all, the building facilities of both St. Gertrude and St. Gregory schools are about the same age with similar facility
condition index and renewal costs. Please consider keep the FI open at St. Gertrude for the wellbeing of the majority of
students.
Feeder school analysis for all French Immersion students currently attending St. Gertrude
FI students at St. Gergrude
Total
GR01
GR02
19
14
GR03
GR04
GR05
GR06
GR07
12
9
8
9
10
FI students from St Gertrude school boundary
FI students from St. Gregory school boundary
81
9
2
0
0
2
2
3
0
FI students from East Credit territory
Total FI students attending at St. Gertrude
Students impacted (longer route) if FI to be relocated to St.
Gregory
Percentage of St. Gertrude/East Credit
Percentage of St. Gregory/East Credit
Percentage of St. Gertrude/Total FI students
Percentage of St. Gregory/Total FI students
Percentage of impacted students/Total FI students
142
279
172
26
46
32
21
43
29
19
43
26
18
41
24
22
36
20
19
39
23
17
31
18
57%
6%
29%
3%
62%
73%
8%
41%
4%
70%
67%
0%
33%
0%
67%
63%
0%
28%
0%
60%
50%
11%
22%
5%
59%
36%
9%
22%
6%
56%
47%
16%
23%
8%
59%
59%
0%
32%
0%
58%
Regards,
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...qbQmbjKuShyAAAAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfQAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454347428269_935116073[2/1/2016 12:24:22 PM]
Relocating the FI program from St. Gertrude to St. Gregory impacts more to the students and communities.
WG4-97
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...qbQmbjKuShyAAAAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfQAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454347428269_935116073[2/1/2016 12:24:22 PM]
WG4-97
Feeder school analysis for all French Immersion students currently attending St. Gertrude
FI students at St. Gergrude Total
GR01
GR02
FI students from St Gertrude school boundary
FI students from St. Gregory school boundary
FI students from East Credit territory
Total FI students attending at St. Gertrude
Students impacted (longer route) if FI to be relocated to
St. Gregory
Percentage of St. Gertrude/East Credit
Percentage of St. Gregory/East Credit
Percentage of St. Gertrude/Total FI students
Percentage of St. Gregory/Total FI students
Percentage of impacted students/Total FI students
School
St. Gertrude
St. Veronica (MV #2)
St. Raymond
St. Matthew
St. Hilary
St. Valentine
Bishop Scalabrini
St. Bernadette
St. Gregory
St. Dunstan
Canadian Martyrs
St. Julia Catholic
San Lorenzo Ruiz
St. Herbert
St. Jude
Father Daniel Zanon
St. Charles Garnier
Metropolitan Andrei
St. David of Wales
St. Joseph, Mississauga
St. Thomas More
St. Barbara
St. Bernard of Clairvaux Catholic ES
Mary Fix Catholic
St. Catherine of Siena
St. Timothy
Un‐GeoCoded
Corpus Christi
Pauline Vanier Catholic
St. Alfred
St. Brigid
St. Jean‐Marie Vianney
St. John of the Cross
St. John XXIII
St. Kevin
St. Mark
St. Simon Stock
St. Teresa of Avila
XXX Bram West 1A
Total:
GR03
GR04
GR05
GR06
GR07
81
19
14
12
9
8
9
10
9
2
0
0
2
2
3
0
142
279
172
26
46
32
21
43
29
19
43
26
18
41
24
22
36
20
19
39
23
17
31
18
57%
6%
29%
3%
62%
73%
8%
41%
4%
70%
67%
0%
33%
0%
67%
63%
0%
28%
0%
60%
50%
11%
22%
5%
59%
36%
9%
22%
6%
56%
47%
16%
23%
8%
59%
59%
0%
32%
0%
58%
GR01
GR02
19
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
46
GR03
14
4
0
1
3
2
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
GR04
12
4
6
1
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
43
GR05
9
4
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
GR06
8
2
4
2
1
4
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
36
GR07
9
5
2
2
1
3
1
0
3
0
2
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
39
Total
10
4
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
31 279
% of Total
81 29%
28 10%
19
12
10
10
9
9
9
8
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100%
7%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Request for ESA map boundary and FI waiting list info
Request for ESA map boundary and FI waiting list info
WG4-98
Sent:
Sunday, January 24, 2016 9:59 PM
To:
PAR - Info
Cc:
Shelley Bonello ‎[shellrob72@hotmail.com]‎; chelme@eol.ca
Attachments:2013LongTermAccomodationPlan.pdf‎ (97 KB‎)
Please provide the Education Service Area Map showing the boundary of East Credit (CE08) and Hurontario
(CE09), which appear in the attached 2013 Long Term Accommodation Plan of the Initial Staff Report.
From the City zoning map, Mavis is a major road separating the district of “East Credit” and “Hurontario” and
I am curious if the ESA boundary is same. If St. Gertrude (east of Mavis) belongs to or plans to be part of
Hurontario, the student utilization will keep growing in a long term as St. Gertrude can pick up overflows from
other neighbour schools in Hurontario. A few high rises will be built along the Hurontario street and, as a
matter of fact, two towers are recently completed at the S/W of Eglinton and Hurontario. Secondly, please disclose the information of how many students applied to or are applying for the FI program
in the Mississauga area but kept out or in the waiting list, especially the information related to the St.
Gertrude FI program. Thank you very much,
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfRAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454343790032_911146291[2/1/2016 11:23:23 AM]
WG4-98
City of Mississauga ‐ Appendix 3A
Dufferin ‐ Peel Catholic District School Board
2013 Long Term Accommodation Plan
Elementary Schools
Education Service Area
Recom m endation
(ESA)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
2013/
2014/
2015/
2016/
2017/
2018/
2019/
2020/
2021/
2022/
2023/
2024/
2025/
2026/
2027/
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
CE01: Clarkson‐Lorne Park, Port Credit
Significantly Under Capacity
CS02: Cooksville/Dixie Overall enrolment is stable: Shorefront
will monitor
CE03 Erin Mills
Significantly Under Capacity
CE04: City Centre
Boundary Reorganization
CE05: Applewood
Boundary Reorganization
BR
BR
Significantly Under Capacity
CE06: Churchill Meadows
Boundary Reorganization
CE07: Central Erin Mills
Significantly Under Capacity
CE08: East Credit
Significantly Under Capacity
Overall enrolment is stable: will monitor
CE09: Hurontario
BR
CE10: Meadowvale/Lisgar Significantly Under Capacity
Overall enrolment is stable: CE11: Meadowvale Village will monitor
Overall enrolment is stable: CE12: Malton
will monitor
Legend
Addition
BR New School
Remove PAC
Addition
Boundary Review
New School
Significantly Under Capacity
Remove Port‐A‐Pac
8/27/2013
WG4-98
City of Brampton ‐ Appendix 3B
Dufferin ‐ Peel Catholic District School Board
2013 Long Term Accommodation Plan
Elementary Schools
Education Service Area
Recom m endation
(ESA)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
2013/
2014/
2015/
2016/
2017/
2018/
2019/
2020/
2021/
2022/
2023/
2024/
2025/
2026/
2027/
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
CE13: Brampton Centre
Significantly Under Capacity
Overall enrolment is stable: CE14: Brampton Southeast will monitor
CE15A: Bram west
2 New Schools Required CE15B: Credit Valley
2 New Schools Required Classroom Addition ‐ St Joachim CE16: Brampton West
New School
New School
3 New Schools Required
1 New School Required Classroom Addition ‐St Stephen
Classroom Addition ‐St Leonard
CE20: Sandringham
Monitor Enrolments
CE21: Wellingdale
1 New School Required CE22: Bram East
2 New Schools Required New School
Addition
Classroom Addition ‐ St Anne
Remove Port‐A‐Pac ‐ St John CE17: Bramalea North
Bosco
Overall enrolment is stable: CE18A: Fletcher's Meadow will monitor
CE18B: Mount Pleasant
CE18C: Northwest Brampton
CE19: Snelgrove/Mayfield West
New School
Addition
Remove PAC
New School
New School
New School
New School
Addition
Addition
New School
New School
New School
Legend
Addition
BR New School
Remove PAC
Addition
Boundary Review
New School
Significantly Under Capacity
Remove Port‐A‐Pac
8/27/2013
WG4-98
Town of Caledon & Dufferin County‐ Appendix 3C
Dufferin ‐ Peel Catholic District School Board
2013 Long Term Accommodation Plan
Elementary Schools
Education Service Area
Recom m endation
(ESA)
CE23: Bolton, Palgrave Estates
Overall enrolment is stable: will monitor
CE24: Caledon East
1 New School Required Boundary Reorganization
Overall enrolment is stable: will monitor
Overall enrolment is stable: will monitor
CE25: Caledon Rural
CE26: Dufferin County
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
2013/
2014/
2015/
2016/
2017/
2018/
2019/
2020/
2021/
2022/
2023/
2024/
2025/
2026/
2027/
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
New School
BR
Legend
Addition
BR New School
Remove PAC
Addition
Boundary Review
New School
Significantly Under Capacity
Remove Port‐A‐Pac
8/27/2013
WG4-98
Secondary, Boardwide ‐ Appendix 3D
Dufferin ‐ Peel Catholic District School Board
2013 Long Term Accommodation Plan
Secondary Schools
Education Service Area
Recom m endation
(ESA)
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
2013/
2014/
2015/
2016/
2017/
2018/
2019/
2020/
2021/
2022/
2023/
2024/
2025/
2026/
2027/
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Overall enrolment is stable: CS01 to CS07: Mississauga will monitor
CS08: Brampton Centre Overall enrolment is stable: will monitor
CS09: Bramalea
Holy Name of Mary CS10: Fletcher's Meadow, Snelgrove, Mayfield
New School Required
CS09: Bramalea, CS11: Sandringham, CS12: Bram East
New School Required CS13: Caledon
Addition
New School
New School
Overall enrolment is stable: will monitor
Legend
Addition
BR New School
Remove PAC
Addition
Boundary Review
New School
Significantly Under Capacity
Remove Port‐A‐Pac
8/27/2013
St Dunstan
St Dunstan
WG4-99
Sent:Sunday, January 24, 2016 10:24 PM
To: PAR - Info
I have no doubt that this inbox has been flooded with letters from concerned parents of children attending St. Dunstan
elementary school. The simple reason for this is that we are truly passionate about our school. St. Dunstan is not just a
school, it is a community of parents, children and educators who all look forward to seeing each other regularly at
school events, church and outside activities. When my husband and I were looking for a new home, we interviewed our potential neighbors about the schools in the
area. All of the parents and children we spoke to raved about St. Dunstan. After conducting our own research we
found St Dunstan was definitely the school we wanted our child to attend which is the primary reason we moved into
the area. Now after living here for several years, we both feel that sending our son to St.Dunstan was one of the best
parenting decisions we have made.
Schools like St.Dunstan do not come along very often. The principle Mr. O'Neill knows each and every student by
name as well as each and every parent. Mr. O'Neill's commitment to high education is clear in the teachers he has
chosen for St Dunstan. I have volunteered at the school on several occasions and know many of the teachers. I can see
that they are clearly a group of highly committed, enthusiastic educators with a sincere interest in providing the best
education possible for each and every student attending the school. St Dunstan is the only school in this area that is walking distance to the Church. The students often go on walking
excursions to St Joseph Church. It is so lovely for passers- by to see the entire school of students walking to Church.
This again illustrates the community spirit that St. Dunstan inspires in all of us. Does the board not want to encourage
strong relations between school and the Church?
St. Dunstan is a one of a kind school. It would be nothing short of tragic to close it and divide up our children and their
teachers into completely different schools. Please do not take away from our children a community environment where
our children feel safe, motivated and at home. Thank you,
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfSAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454343880280_211992389[2/1/2016 11:24:52 AM]
St. Gertrude closure
St. Gertrude closure
WG4-100
Sent:Monday, January 25, 2016 2:30 PM
To: PAR - Info
I have many concerns with the relocation of St. Gertrude to St. Velentine. In regards to busing I
understand that the students will have too be bused. Right now we are a school that does not use
busing because of it's area due to the FI.
It does not make sense to move a school that does not
alread utlizing busing for the facts that one there would be an increased cost of adding buses and
two the students and parents not acustomed to using the buses so there causing more of a difficult
transition for all involved. Now adding to this my husband and I chose area in which we would be
living along with the proximity to the school based on our family needs.
I have stayed home for
13 years in order to raise my children, and now that the needs of our family has changed and my
children are old enough to get to and from school on their own based on distance and safety they
have started to do so.
Busing for us was never an option of something we as a family wanted. So now that the school may relocated the distance is too far to walk on a good day and unsafe as
crossing Mavis is NOT something we as a family are comfortable with.
So the students will be
bused.
All my children and I have 4 have near perfect attendence they always have. So tell me
when the buses are cancelled do to bad weather and are forced to stay home why should they have an
absense from school?
Right now we live across the street from the school getting to school is
not a problem under any condition!
I am a caregiver for my mother and I leave very early to get
to her hospital appointments at
She goes a min. of 20 days per month
and we are there for 4 to 7 hours each time for treatment.
I have rearranged my life for this
and now that my children are older I can count on them to get themselves to school and back on
time.
I leave by 6:30 am to get to the hospital by 8 am.
My husband drops us off before going
to work and arranges his lunch to pick us up.
So dropping my children off in the morning or
picking them up after school is not an option.
I do not have someone I can rely on to drop off
or pick up my children.
So what do I do on the days that the weather is bad and buses are
cancelled?
My children have always been active in sports and other activities held in the
school.
Many of the practices are held before or after school.
Seeing as I am not able to
pick up or drop off my children from school, this means that they will not be able to do all the
activities they have always done.
They now will have to attend a school they do not want to go
to and how do they feel like they can fit in if they are not able to participate in these
activities?
Part of what it means for a child to flourish is to fit in and be active in their
school community, to feel accepted and that is it their home.
This will not be the case.
Even
if the weather was good for them to walk to school, the distance is still too far and they would
have to cross Mavis.
This is NOT something we as a family are comfrotable with. And even if my
children did walk home from school they would not be walking home with friends due to the location
of where we live. They will be able to meet up with some friends for part of the distance but
they distance they would still have too walk alone is unsafe. Last week one of my children was
walking home from high school when a man tried to lure my child into his truck.
Reports were
made and all is fine but my child wasnt alone and this happened, now I have to come to terms that
my youngest will be walking home alone for 2 years without a sibling.
I undetstand that changes
by all will have to be made, but what happens when these changes are not conducive to my current
family's needs?
You can not expect us to change because you deemed that we have too.
I have
planed my life and the raising of my family to take all these factors into consideration.
My
family and I have our faith and we go to church regularly, what is stopping us from going to the
public school next door?
It's not my first option but it's one I am forced to consider.
I
guess that would solve part of your problem less children to bus, but it is that very same case
sinerio the loss of students that has put us in this situation.
In all of the other schools
mentioned none have a public school next door to them that would prompt other parents to do the
same thing.
This is a very big factor to take into consideration or come this time next year we
could be looking at closing St. Valentine that is was suposed to be an option to keep schools
open.
It seems to me that the best option would be to have the schools that have the majority
of students who are already bused to school, bused to a new school.
The reason being is that if
they are already the majority beeing bused this means they live far enough that they wouldn't walk
to school to begin with so therefore sending them to a school that is a little farther out
wouldn't affect as much as walking wasn't the original option.
I wish for someone to look into
these concerns I have and get back to me.
thank you a very concerned parent.
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfUAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454343898738_850090744[2/1/2016 11:25:09 AM]
School closure
School closure
WG4-101
Sent:Monday, January 25, 2016 7:42 PM
To: PAR - Info
As both a parent and an educator I would like to see St. Dunstan, St Herbert and St Bernadette closed before any of the others. My boys are both spec ed students attending OLGV and I do not want to see their school closed. It is an excellent school with
excellent staff and would cause major anxieties for our family. Sent from Mail for Windows 10
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfVAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454343915243_670035976[2/1/2016 11:25:27 AM]
Fw: Letter to Board of Trustees
Fw: Letter to Board of Trustees
WG4-102
Sent:Monday, January 25, 2016 10:40 PM
To: PAR - Info
From: Board of Trustees, Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board
40 Matheson Boulevard West Mississauga, ON L5R 1C5
Mon. January 18, 2016.
Dear Board of Trustees
My son
attends SK at Canadian Martyrs and hopes to attend St. Gertrude's French Immersion Program
in the next intake. As a caring parent, I write this letter to advise you of my extreme disappointment at the potential
closure of St. Gertrude’s School in 2017.
It does not make sense to close St. Gertrude’s as they recently had a new addition to the building.
To spend funds to renovate then suddenly close the building seems fiscally irresponsible.
How much funding was spent and will be wasted with this strategy?
The school is almost at full capacity (86 %) and is very successful academically with high results in the EQAO.
Why eliminate a consistently well-ranked school? Seems like the opposite of rewarding good performance.
Also, moving the students would put those schools absorbing St. Gertrude students,
over their capacity level and land students in portables. This would affect those schools' productivity levels
and add greater levels of stress on their resources and staff.
There's also the added cost of transporting children to those other schools and the costs of portables.
Has anyone figured those costs yet?
I understand the notion to close St. Gertrudes may be based on a faulty calculation that the school is only 44% full
-- when in fact the French immersion Program students when added to that figure correctly shows 86% capacity!
Is the Board aware of this issue? Is it a faulty calculation of St. Gertrude's capacity level that has put the school at risk?
The school is the closest Catholic French Immersion school to the southeast area of Mississauga.
St, Gertrude's must not be closed as it will inconvenience hundreds of parents and children
who will have to drive for more than 30 minutes to replacement schools.
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfWAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454343934979_536968333[2/1/2016 11:26:00 AM]
Fw: Letter to Board of Trustees
The Catholic School cannot afford to lose more students to the public school system.
There is a public school with French Immersion just 5 minutes away from us.
I fear you will lose hundreds of Catholic students to the Public School system,
if you lose St Gertrude's valuable location and proximity.
WG4-102
Please select a different option. Closing St. Gertrude's doesn't add up.
It will cost more in the long run and hurt students, parents, staff and the Board.
I'm contacting the media about my concerns and hope to have an answer
from you soon before I do so.
Sincerely,
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfWAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454343934979_536968333[2/1/2016 11:26:00 AM]
PAR Alternative Options
PAR Alternative Options
WG4-103
Sent:
To:
Monday, January 25, 2016 11:04 PM
PAR - Info; Da Silva, Anna; D'Souza, Darryl; Xaviour, Shawn; Di Cosola, Frank; Pascucci, Mario; Hobin, Sharon; Abbruscato, Anna; Thomas,
Thomas; del Rosario, Luz; Iannicca, Bruno; O'Toole, Esther; Papaloni, Lucy; De Vellis-Carino, Tina; Yates, Karen
Cc:
chelme@eol.ca; shellrob72@hotmail.com
Attachments:PAR review and identificat~1.pdf‎ (3 MB‎)
Dear Accommodation Review Committee and Board of Trustees:
I attended the first ARC meeting on Wednesday January 13 as an audience member, wanting to gain a
better understanding of the work that has been done by the Planning Department, the process that lies
ahead of all of us over the next 5 months as part of the PAR for the East Credit review area and to see
where I can provide some of my feedback. I am fully aware of the Ministry of Education’s new PAR
Guidelines and the DPCDSB’s Long Term Accommodation Plan, which identified the East Credit Education
Area as being significantly under-utilized. Accordingly, I understand the need to eliminate the under-utilized
spaces as the funding for excess capacity has changed resulting in an anticipate $1.5M reduction.
Initially, I did not understand why St. Gertrude was even considered in the list of schools for potential closure
since it has the highest utilization rate amongst all the schools in the East Credit area. In fact it is currently
over 86% utilized and will only get as low as 82% in the projected numbers. I was advised that St. Gertrude Sep School has been considered under-utilized because the English
standard program is treated as separate from the French Immersion program. The reason for this
separation, based on what I have been told, is due to the fact that the FI program is not integrated into the
English program and so they are considered two. However, that is far from the truth. The FI program is now
in its 7th year at St. Gertrude and now the students along with the teachers have fully integrated and can be
considered really as one program. The students of the English program and FI program participate together
in many events such as: fund raising, concerts, school trips and religious ceremonies. Additionally, if the FI
program is to be considered separate from the English program, relocating the FI entirely from St. Gertrude
to another school with low utilization will not change the utilization of that new school. They will continue to
be faced with the same low utilization issue that they had prior to the relocation and be in the same situation
as St. Gertrude.
As I sat through the introductions and listened to the presentation that Ms. Cox provided, I was looking
forward to understanding the “rationale” behind the Initial Staff Report. The three options were highlight and
the preferred option was discussed with some detail. It is clear in the Initial Staff Report, which was repeated
again by the presentation that the primary object of this entire process is to reduce the number of excess
capacity for the East Credit Education area. However some additional information was shared with the ARC,
regarding other factors that were considered in the selection of Option 1 as the preferred option, this
included factors such as:
Maintaining a Catholic presence in major catchment areas between Hwy 401 and Hwy 403
Walking proximity of students within the school boundaries
Minimizing the crossing of major streets
Although these factors were considered, it was not clearly explained how they were used. For example, if
Option 3 results in the highest utilization rate, then what caused Option 1 to gain greater attraction and
ultimately become the preferred option? If the primary objective is to reduce the excess capacity, then
Option 3 is the preferred option. If there are other factors that are involved in the equation of the evaluation,
then it should be clearly presented and shown how they factor in to the decision.
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfXAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454343966688_974700452[2/1/2016 11:26:24 AM]
PAR Alternative Options
WG4-103
The attached report outlines an approach that should be considered in evaluating the options. A number of
criteria that fall into the Triple Bottom line of impacts have been identified, but may be enhanced based on
additional information that can be obtained by the ARC. I also understand, through our St. Gertrude ARC representatives that student grades or school rankings,
such as those from the Fraser Institute, should not be used as a factor in the evaluation of options. This
point was further emphasized by Mr. David Amaral, the ARC Chair at the first ARC meeting. However, I
vehemently disagree with this point. I respect the points that were raised as to why not to use grades as a
factor, which included:
-the rankings from the Fraser Institute does not tell the entire picture of why the student scores the way that
they did in the school
-the environment of the school is not factored into the scoring
-there are many things, such as the effect of the teachers that are not accounted for
-each school may have different programs or means in which the students could get extra help to increase
their scores
However, as indicated in the Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline, March 2015, any
school board PAR should be designed to align with the Ministry of Education’s vision and guiding principles:
Focus on student well being
Academic Achievement; and
School board financial viability/sustainability
Accordingly, any decision arising from the DPCDSB’s PAR process must consider impacts to academic
achievement of the students.
Although industry scores for schools can be readily available, such as those from the Fraser Institute, the
results have to be received with caution. As outlined above, these types of scores do not tell the entire
picture and can be skewed. However, test scores such as those from the Education Quality and
Accountability Office, which is a crown agency established by the Ontario Government, should be
considered. These tests may also only give us 95% of the true picture of aptitude of students and the school
itself, but it is the closest true province wide standardized testing available. Some of the variations that can
be attributed to the school and teachers at the school, actually furthers the argument that the teaching and
learning environment surrounding an individual school should be considered in the evaluation of the options.
Do not misinterpret this as a means to point out bad students, or bad teachers or even bad schools.
However, the higher scores by some schools should be acknowledged and recognized and equated to
positive learning environments that have been developed over a long time at some of the schools through
the programs available and the teachers at those school.
Similarly, the Ministry’s first principle should not be overlooked. Options that are presented and evaluated
must be compared against each other in accordance with meeting all three principles, otherwise the PAR
itself would not be in alignment with the PAR Guideline.
Thank you for your time,
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfXAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454343966688_974700452[2/1/2016 11:26:24 AM]
PAR Alternative Options
WG4-103
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfXAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454343966688_974700452[2/1/2016 11:26:24 AM]
WG4-103
PUPIL ACCOMODATION REVIEW
EAST CREDIT EDUCATION SERVICE AREA
IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for: Accommodation Review Committee and Board of Trustees Prepared By: John Duong, M.Eng. P.Eng. “This report was prepared by John Duong, M.Eng. P.Eng., as an independent review of the Initial Staff Report submitted by the Planning Department. It evaluates the proposed options as presented in the Initial Staff Report as presented to the Dufferin‐Peel Catholic District School Board and its Administration and Finance Committee on December 7, 2015 as well as other options that are based on available information obtained from public documents. This Report reflects the best judgment in light of the available information at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. John Duong M.Eng., P.Eng., does not accept any responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.” January2016
WG4-103
WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Table of Contents 1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................2
1.1
2
Background.......................................................................................................................................3
2.1
3
GuidingPrinciples.................................................................................................................................2
ProblemStatement...............................................................................................................................3
Evaluation..........................................................................................................................................3
3.1
Methodology............................................................................................................................................3
3.2
OptionIdentification............................................................................................................................5
4
EnvironmentalImpact..................................................................................................................5
5
Socio‐EconomicalImpact.............................................................................................................7
5.1
Socio‐economicalCriteria1(SEC1)–Numberofstudentsdisplaced............................7
5.2
sec2–potentialformaintainingandincreasingstudentgrade.......................................7
5.3
sec3–Schoolutilization....................................................................................................................8
5.4 sec4–Overcapacity–studentwellbeing(safety)issuebecauseeitherover
capacityincurrentschooloraddingportables.......................................................................................9
6
5.5
Crossingofmajorintersections....................................................................................................10
5.6
Minimizingseparationofstudents.............................................................................................10
5.7
MaintainCatholicSchoolpresenceinmaincatchmentareas..........................................11
Financial..........................................................................................................................................11
6.1
Savingsfromdeferringmajormaintenanceovernext5years.......................................11
6.2
Operating/maintenancecosts–electricityandgascommoditypricing...................12
6.3
Additionalcostsforifportablesarerequired........................................................................15
6.4
CoststoFrenchImmersionparentsforadditionalmileage.............................................15
7
EvaluationSummary..................................................................................................................16
8
Recommendations.......................................................................................................................19
9
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................19
AppendixA–MapstoOptionsIdentified...........................................................................................
AppendixB–FraserInstituteRankingCharts.................................................................................
AppendixC–EducationQualityandAccountabilityOffice(EQAO)..........................................
AppendixD–CurrentandProposedUtilizationRates.................................................................
AppendixE–RoadLanes.........................................................................................................................
AppendixF–SavingsfromdeferringOutstandingRenewalNeeds.........................................
AppendixG–DPCDSB2013‐2014EnergyConsumptionandGreenhouseGas
EmissionsReport........................................................................................................................................
AppendixH–SummaryofPotentialNeedofPortables................................................................
AppendixI–FrenchImmersionstudentsresidingindifferentschool
boundaries....................................................................................................................................................
Table of Contents i
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga 1 Introduction TheOntarioMinistryofEducationreleasedthenewPupilAccommodationReviewGuideline(PARG)
inMarch2015andoutlinedtherequirementsforeachschoolboardtodeveloporrevisetheirPAR
policytoaddresstheincreasingnumberofunderutilizedschoolspaces.Thisreviewwouldresultin
recommendationsonhowtoaddresstheunderutilizedspaces,whichcouldincludeschoolclosures.
Accordingly,theDufferin‐PeelCatholicDistrictSchoolBoard(DPCDSB)approvedtheamended
Policy6.5.1PupilAccommodationReviewonOctober27,2015.Togetherwiththeidentificationof
theEastCreditEducationServiceareaassignificantlyunderutilized,theBoardofTrusteesapproved
thecommencementoftheEastCreditMississaugaPupilAccommodationReviewProcesson
November24,2015viatheInitialStaffReport,whichwaspreparedbythePlanningDepartment.
TheInitialStaffReportidentifiedthreeOptions,ofwhichOption1wasselectedasthepreferred
option.Althoughthethreeoptionswereidentifiedanddiscussedinthereport,inaccordancewith
thePAR,thisreportidentifiesotheroptionsandevaluatesthemagainstcriteriathataredeemed
importanttotheDPDCSB,thecommunities,theteachersandprincipals,theparentsandmost
importantly,thestudents.Thecriteriaidentifiedareonlyexamplesofsomefactorsthatcouldand
shouldbeappliedtoeachoption,includingthethreeidentifiedintheInitialStaffReport,andbe
evaluatedinaclear,transparentandrepeatableprocess.Thisapproachcanbeappliedtoother
optionsthatmayberaisedfromtheAccommodationReviewCommitteeorotherparentsaffectedby
thePARprocess.
1.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ThepurposeoftheMinistryofEducationPupilAccommodationReviewGuideline,March2015isto
providea“frameworkofminimumstandardsforschoolboardstoundertakepupilaccommodation
reviewstodeterminethefutureofaschoolorgroupofschools.”
ThePARGuidelinefurtherindicatesthatanyschoolboardPARshouldbedesignedtoalignwiththe
MinistryofEducation’svisionandguidingprinciples:



Focus on student well being Academic Achievement; and School board financial viability/sustainability Any proposed recommendations for school closures, as part the PAR, should take into account and include in its criteria for evaluation, the impacts to student’s well‐being, academic achievement and be financial viability/sustainability for the school board. 2 JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga 2 Background 2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT TheOntarioMinistryofEducationpublishedthePupilAccommodationReviewGuidelineinMarch
2015,whichdirectedeachschoolboardtoreviewandaddressthelong‐termexcessspace.The
DPCDSB,asoutlinedinthePARGrecognizesthatpupilaccommodationreviewsinclude:
“aschoolorgroupofschoolstofacilitatethedevelopmentofviablesolutionsforpupil
accommodationthatsupporttheguidingprinciples”.
3 Evaluation ThegovernmentofOntarioregularlyconductsanalysisandevaluationsthatinvolvethegeneral
public.Manyoftheseassessments,suchastheEnvironmentAssessmentsprocess,utilizesa“triple
bottomline”approachtoensurethatallkeypublicimpactsareconsideredandevaluatedbeforea
decisionorpreferredoptionisselected.Thethreeareasofimpactsinclude:



Environmental Socio‐economical Financial Although,thePARisnotanEnvironmentalAssessment,theevaluationofoptionsinthePARshould
includeanenvironmentalcomponentasthisisalsoinalignmentwiththeProvinces’emphasiswith
theenvironmentandclimatechange.ThisisevidentinthechangeofnamesfromMinistryof
EnvironmenttotheMinistryofEnvironmentandClimateChangeandtheirVision:




Establish Ontario as a leader in climate change mitigation and science Redesign and build strong carbon neutral economy, communities, infrastructure and energy Protect ecosystems including air land and water Leave a legacy of a healthy world for our children and future generations Thecriteriaunderwhichtheoptionshavebeenevaluatedhavebeenselectedbasedonthespecific
impactstoeachoption.TheevaluationcriterialistedinTable3.1.1arerelevanttothestrategic
decision‐makingprocess,consideringthatthecriteriamayimpacteachoftheoptionsmore
positivelyornegatively,whichwillresultinapreferredoptionthatistransparent,repeatableand
rationalizedwiththegreatestvaluetoenvironmental,socio‐economicalandfinancialfactors.
3.1 METHODOLOGY Evaluationcriteriathatconsideredarangeofenvironment,socio‐economicandfinancialconcerns
weredeveloped.Thesecriteriarepresentaspectsrelatedtoimpactsontheoptionsthatcouldbe
considered.Thesecriteriawereselectedbasedonthefollowing:
 RequirementsofthePARGuidelines;
 CommentsobservedatARCtodateandfeedbackfromsomeparents;
 Theprofessionaljudgmentandresearchofinformationavailablefromonlinepublicdocuments.
Usingaconstraintevaluationapproach,a“low”ratingwasassignedtoanoptionwhichthe
evaluationcriterionposedlittleornoconstrainttotheproposedoption.Anoptionwitha“low”
Background 3
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga ratingwasonethatwouldbepreferredfortheproposedoption,baseduponthecriterionbeing
considered.Aratingof“high”wasassignedtoanoptionwhichitsconditionorcharacterwith
respecttotheevaluationcriterionunderconsiderationrepresentedahighdegreeofconcernor
potentialdifficultywithrespecttotheproposedoption.Anoptionwitha“high”ratingwasonethat
wasleastpreferredfortheproposedoption,baseduponthecriterionbeingconsidered.An
intermediaterating,“moderate”,wasappliedinthecasewheresomenegativeconcernsor
difficultiesarepresentforagivenoptionwithrespecttothecriterionbeingconsidered.Onerating,
i.e.low,moderateorhigh,wasassignedtoeachoptionforeachcriterionunderconsiderationto
guidetheevaluationanddeterminetherelativefeasibilityofeachoption.
Table 3.1.1: Evaluation Criteria and Rating Definition 4 CRITERIA
RATING DEFINITION
Environmental
Impacts
Low: low impact to the environment. No change to the current levels of pollution generated from vehicular use. Moderate: moderate impact to the environment. Some increase in smog could be anticipated but only on an occasional basis. High: high impact to the environment. Potential to increase the negative effect of smog and pollution in the surrounding community. SocialImpacts
Low: minimum impact to the community, such as: 1. Fewest students displaced, relative to other options 2. Greatest chances to maintain or increase grades by students 3. Highest utilisation of all school spaces in the East Credit Mississauga review area, relative to other options 4. Minimal safety issues due to introduction of portables 5. Fewest safety issues due to crossing of dangerous roads 6. Minimal separation of students from the same school 7. Maintains Catholic elementary school representation evenly through the major blocks from Hwy 401 to Hwy 403 in the East Credit review area Moderate: some impact to community, such as: 1. Moderate amount of students displaced, relative to other options 2. A fair chance for students to maintain or increase grades 3. Moderate utilisation of all school spaces in the East Credit Mississauga review area, relative to other options 4. Some safety risks due to introducing portables 5. Moderate safety issues from road crossings 6. Some separation of students from the same school 7. Some major areas in the Hwy 401 to Hwy 403 are not represented by the Catholic elementary school system High: high impact to regular community and business activities. 1. Highest amount of students displaced, relative to other options 2. Lowest chance for students to maintain or increase grades 3. Lowest utilisation of all school spaces in the East Credit Mississauga review JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga CRITERIA
RATING DEFINITION
4.
5.
6.
7.
area, relative to other options
Greatest amount of safety risks due to new portables Highest safety issues as a result of increased dangerous road crossings Greatest amount of students separated to attend different schools The greatest amount of areas not represented by the Catholic elementary school system Financial
Impacts
Low: lowest financial impact to the DPCDSB relative to other options including: 1. Highest savings from deferred major maintenance costs over the next 5 years 2. Highest savings from electricity and gas consumption annually 3. Lowest operating and maintenance costs due to over capacity (portables?) 4. Lowest financial costs for parents of FI for additional travel Moderate: intermediary financial impact to the DPCDSB relative to other options including: 1. Some savings are evident from deferred major maintenance costs over the next 5 years 2. Moderate savings from electricity and gas consumption annually 3. Some additional operating and maintenance costs due to over capacity (portables?) 4. Some additional costs to FI parents for transporting children to new school High: highest financial impact to the DPCDSB relative to other options including: 1. Lowest savings from deferred major maintenance costs over the next 5 years
2. Lowest savings from electricity and gas consumption annually 3. Highest operating and maintenance costs due to over capacity (portables?) 4. Highest financial costs to FI parents for transporting children to new schools 3.2 OPTION IDENTIFICATION BasedontheBackgroundandGuidingPrinciples,anumberofoptionshavebeenidentifiedin
additiontothethreethatwereidentifiedintheInitialStaffReport.Alloftheoptions,however,were
evaluateagainsteachofthecriteriaidentifiedinTable3.1.1includingOptions1–3asproposedin
theInitialStaffReport.AlloptionsareshowninthemapsasoutlinedinAppendixA.
4 Environmental Impact Thiscriterionisusedtoevaluatetheenvironmentalimpact;specificallythestressputupontheair
qualityduetoadditionaldrivingthatwillberequiredfromeachoption.Schoolbuseswillbe
availabletoregularEnglishprogramstudentswhoqualifybasedonthedistancefromtheirhometo
theschool.However,sincetheexactnumberofbusingrequirementsforeachoftheoptionsisnot
available,theimpactofbuseswasconsideredneutralfortheanalysisofthisreport.Anassumption
wasmadethatthenumberofstudentsrequiringindividualridestotheirnewschoollocationsare
relativelythesameforthevariousoptions.However,iftheARCisabletoobtainspecificbusing
Environmental Impact 5
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga requirementsforeachoption,thentheimpactsfromadditionalbusingneedsmaybeusedinthe
evaluation,ifdesired.Additionally,thedistancesarerelativelysimilarsothattheimpactfor
additionalkilometersofdrivingbyparentsfortheregularEnglishprogramswillbalanceandhavea
neutralaffect.
However,thestudentsintheFrenchImmersion(FI)programarenoteligibleforschoolbuses.
Therefore,anyFIstudentswhohavetochangeschoolswillrequirealltheparentsoftheFIstudents
todrivetheadditionaldistancetothenewschool.Assuch,onlyoptionsthatincludetherelocationof
theFIstudentswillresultinanimpacttotheenvironment.Onaverage,eachdaywillrequiretwo
trips:adropoffandpickup,totalinganadditional18kmoftravelforeachfamily(distancefromSt.
GertrudetoSt.Gregory).
Impactsofautomobilesonairpollutionarewellknownanddocumented.Numerousstudieshave
linkedparticulatematter(PM)generatedfromthecombustionofgasolinetoaggravatedcardiacand
respiratorydiseasessuchasasthma,bronchitisandemphysemaandtovariousformsofheart
disease.Particulatemattercanalsohaveadverseeffectsonvegetationandstructures,and
contributestovisibilitydeteriorationandregionalhaze.Table4.1.1belowprovidesaquickglimpse
ofsomeharmfulpollutantsthatareemittedbypassengervehicles.
Table 4.1.1: Average Emissions and Fuel Consumption for passenger cars (source: EPA, Emission Facts, October 2008). Pollutant / Fuel Emission (per mile driven) grams (g) ug / m3 grams (g) grams (g) kilogram (kg) 2,370.82 2.37 459,939.63 459.94 2,469.42 2.47 479,066.71 479.07 THC 1.077 (1.034 g/mi) x (1 mi/1.60934 km) x distance (km/ day or yr) (1.077 g/mi) x (1 mi/1.60934 km) x distance (km/ day or yr) 9.4 (9.400 g/mi) x (1 mi/1.60934 km) x distance (km/ day or yr) 21,552.93 21.55 4,181,269.34 4,181.27 15700 (13 ppm ‐ 8 hr) 36200 (30 ppm ‐ 1 hr) (0.693 g/mi) x (1 mi/1.60934 km) x distance (km/ day or yr) 1,588.96 1.59 308,257.41 308.26 200 (0.10 ppm ‐ 24 hr) 400 (0.20 ppm ‐ 1 hr) 10.09 0.01 1,957.19 1.96 9.40 0.01 1,823.75 1.82 844,692 845 163,870,173 163,870 NOx 0.693 PM10 0.0044 PM2.5 0.0041 CO2 AAQC kilogram (kg) 1.034 6 Annual Emission and Fuel Consumption VOC CO Daily Emission and Fuel Consumption Calculation 368.4 (0.0044 g/mi) x (1 mi/1.60934 km) x distance (km/ day or yr) (0.0041 g/mi) x (1 mi/1.60934 km) x distance (km/ day or yr) (368.4 g/mi) x (1 mi/1.60934 km) x distance (km/ day or yr) 50 30 Green house gases / climate change JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga 5 Socio‐Economical Impact 5.1 SOCIO‐ECONOMICAL CRITERIA 1 (SEC 1) – NUMBER OF STUDENTS DISPLACED Thiscriterionisusedtoevaluatethenumberofstudentsdisplaced,orhavingtochangeschools,asa
resultoftheoption.Studentswhohavetochangeschoolswillbenegativelyimpactedbythe
experienceofchangingschools,meetingnewstudents,teachersandnewschoolingenvironment.It
willbeparticularlyhardforthoseolderstudentsingrades5and6astheywillhavetochange
schoolsintheirfinalyearortwoyearsofelementaryschool.Theexperienceisfurthernegatively
impactedasnotallstudentswillgotothesameschoolandthusrelationshipsandclosefriendships
willbebrokenupjustbeforetheyentertheimportantyearsofhighschool.
The“Numberofstudentsdisplaced”iscalculatedfromthesumof2015‐2016studentsattendingthe
schoolsproposedtobeclosedineachoption.AratingofLow,ModerateandHighhavebeen
identifiedbelowforthenumberofstudentsdisplaced:
Number. of students displaced Rating 0‐500 501‐1000 1001+ Low Moderate High 5.2 SEC 2 – POTENTIAL FOR MAINTAINING AND INCREASING STUDENT GRADE Thiscriterionisusedtoevaluatethepotentialforstudentstomaintaincurrentschoolgradesor
increaseschoolgrades.Variousstudieshavebeenpublishedillustratingthepositiveandnegative
impactstogradesasaresultofstudentsbeingdisplacedtootherschools.Althoughtherehavebeen
nolocalexamples,astudyinChicagofollowedthestudentsof18schoolsthatwereclosed,to
examinetheimpactsofgradesfrombeingdisplaced.TheConsortiumonChicagoSchoolResearchat
theUniversityofChicagoUrbanEducationInstitutepublished“WhenSchoolsClose,Effectson
DisplacedStudentsinChicagoPublicSchools”in2009andfoundthat:
“thesuccessofaschoolclosingpolicyhingesonthequalityofthereceivingschoolsthatacceptthe
displacedstudents.Oneyearafterschoolclosings,displacedstudentswhore‐enrolledintheweakest
receivingschools(thosewithtestscoresinthebottomquartileofallsystemschools)experiencedan
achievementlossofmorethanamonthinreadingandhalf‐a‐monthinmath.Meanwhile,studentswho
re‐enrolledinthestrongestreceivingschools(thoseinthetopquartile)experiencedanachievement
gainofnearlyonemonthinreadingandmorethantwomonthsinmath.”
AsindicatedintheMinistryofEducationPupilAccommodationReviewGuideline,March2015,any
schoolboardPARshouldbedesignedtoalignwiththeMinistryofEducation’svisionandguiding
principles:
Industryscoresforschoolsarereadilyavailable,suchasthosefromtheFraserInstitute.However,
thesescoresneedtobeusedwithcautionasthescoresdonotprovidedetailsintothereasonforthe
Socio‐Economical Impact 7
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga scores.AnanalysiswascompletedusingtheFraserInstituteRankingfromthe2014scoresandis
showninAppendixB.Asonly7schoolscouldbecomparedinonegraphfromtheFraserInstitute
webpage,twochartshavebeenplottedtoshowalltheschoolsintheEastCreditReviewarea.
AnothersourceofstandardizedscoringcouldbeobtainedfromtheEducationQualityand
AccountabilityOffice(EQAO),whichisacrownagencyestablishedbytheOntarioGovernment.
Thesetestsmayalsoonlygiveus95%ofthetruepictureofaptitudeofstudentsandtheschool
itself,butitistheclosesttrueprovincewidestandardizedtestingavailable.Someofthevariations
thatcanbeattributedtotheschoolandteachersactuallyfurthertheargumentthattheteachingand
learningenvironmentsurroundinganindividualschoolshouldbeconsideredintheevaluationof
theoptions.EQAOscoreresultsfortheschoolsintheEastCreditReviewareaareshownin
AppendixC.
Fortheevaluation,boththeFraserInstituteandEQAOscoresareusedandshownseparately.The
gradeisbasedonthenumberofschoolsmovingfromeitherhigherrankingtolowerrankingor
lowerrankingtohigherranking.BelowistheproposedratingofLow,ModerateandHigh:
TheEQAOscoresusedaretheaveragesforReading,WritingandMathematicsforGrades3and6
takenforthelatestyear,2014‐2015.TheaveragesfortheEQAOscorescanbeseeninAppendixC.
Itshouldbenotedthatthesearethebestavailabledataformeasuringaveragegradesineachofthe
schools.Ifthereareotherscoresthatarenotavailabletothepublic,butavailabletotheARCthen
theycouldbesubstitutedusingasimilarapproach.Themainpurposeofthiscriterionagain,isnot
toseewhichschoolsarebetterthanothers.Instead,itissimplytoseewhichoptionprovidesthe
greatestopportunityforthestudentstomaintaintheircurrentgradesorincreasethem.
Potential to maintain or increase school grades More lower ranking schools going to higher ranking schools Neutral ‐ similar More higher ranking schools going to lower ranking schools Rating Low Moderate High 5.3 SEC 3 – SCHOOL UTILIZATION Thiscriterionisusedtoevaluatetheutilizationrateofeachoption,whichisanannualaverageofall
schoolswithintheEastCreditarea.Inordertocompletetheevaluation,theannualaverageis
furtheraveragedovertheperiodof2017to2025.Ifshouldbenotedthattheannualaveragedoes
notprovidetheutilizationofeachschool.Eachschoolmaybewellunderorwellovertheschool’s
capacity.Theovercapacityissueisconsideredinthenextsection.
ItshouldbenotedthatastherewerenonumbersforthebreakoutofOurLadyofGoodVoyage
(OLGV)northandsouthofBritanniaRdwest,anassumptionwasmade.Itwasassumedthat30%of
8 JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga thetotalschoolpopulationisnorthofBritanniaRdwest,while70%issouthofBritanniaRdwest.
ThisassumptionwasestimatedpurelyonapproximatingtheareaofOLGV.
TheInitialStaffReportindicatedthat20%istheminimumincreaseinoverallutilizationthatan
optionmustachievetobeconsideredforthePAR.However,itisnotclearwhy20%wasselectedas
thebenchmark.Anoverall20%increasedoesnotclearlyreflecttheimpacttoanindividualschoolas
the20%couldbeatthecostofaschoolbeingseverelyovercapacity.Thereforeoptionsthatdonot
necessarilyachievea20%increaseinoverallutilizationhavebeenconsideredinthisreport.An
addedbenefitofthisapproachistheabilitytomaintainsomebufferineachschoolintheeventthat
theprojectionsareoff,whichwaswhathappenedwiththelastCensusdataprojections.
ThecurrentschoolutilizationisshowninAppendixD.ThesenumberswereobtainedfromtheInitial
StaffReport,exceptfortheOLGVnorthandsouth,whichisdescribeabove.Theresultingutilization
ofeachschool,currentorcombined,foralloptionsarealsoshowninAppendixD.
Theratingusedforthiscriterionisbasedontheaverageutilizationfrom2017‐2025foreachofthe
optionsandshownbelow.
Utilization 0‐50% 51‐80% 81‐100% Rating High Moderate
Low 5.4 SEC 4 –OVER CAPACITY – STUDENT WELL BEING (SAFETY) ISSUE BECAUSE EITHER OVER CAPACITY IN CURRENT SCHOOL OR ADDING PORTABLES Thiscriterionisusedtoevaluatetheovercapacityissuethatiscreatedatsomeschoolsasaresultof
studentsmovingfromoneschooltoanother.Thiscouldresultintheneedtoinstallportablesto
accommodatetheadditionalstudents.Thereissomeflexibilitywithrespecttotheabilityofaschool
tooperatenormallyatorslightlyoverfullcapacityasaresultofclassroomsizeandrangesforthe
earlierschoolageclasses.Thereforeexactimpactoftheovercapacitywillnotberealizeduntilthe
studentsarepermanentlymovedover.However,evenifportablesarenotrequiredimmediately,the
factthattheschoolwillbeatorovercapacitymaybeasafetyconcernduetothesheernumberof
studentsandstaffattheschool.
Schoolportables,ifrequired,presentsanothersafetyconcernforthestudentswhoneedtogoinand
outoftheschoolforvariousactivitiessuchaswashroom,lunchandgymclass.Althoughnotareal
concernduringthemildersummer,springandfallseasons,whenthecolderweatherarrives,this
willresultinconditionsthatcouldbearemorehazardousforslipsandtripsandsicknesses.
Socio‐Economical Impact 9
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Theratingusedforthiscriterionisbasedonwhethertheoptionwillintroduceapotentialfor
hazard,whichiscreatedwhentheschoolisovercapacity.
Hazard from over‐
capacity 0 1 2+ Rating Low Moderate High 5.5 CROSSING OF MAJOR INTERSECTIONS Thiscriterionisusedtoevaluatethesafetyconcernsasaresultofhavingtocrossadditionalmajor
streetsbystudentswhowalktoschool.Majorstreetstraveledbystudentshavebeencategorized
into2‐lane,4‐laneand6‐lanes.Somesectionsof2‐lanestreets,suchasTerryFoxWayfromBristol
RdtoEglintonAve,alsocontainadditionalparkinglanes.Forthesesituationsandinthisreport,the
parkinglaneswouldbeconsideredlanewaysandbeincreasedfroma2‐laneto4‐lanestreets.For
thisreport,thekeymeasureisthewidthofthestreetsasitcouldbeassociatedwiththevolumeof
vehiculartravelaswellaswalkingdistancesacrossthestreet,whichisdirectlyrelatedtoadditional
safetyconcerns.ThenumberoflanesfordifferentpossiblestreetcrossingsisshowninAppendixE.
Theratingusedforthiscriterionisdirectlytiedtothesizeofthestreetsthatmustbecrossedby
studentswalkingtoschool.
Safety issue from crossing major streets 2‐Lane Crossing 4‐Lane Crossing 6‐Lane Crossing Rating Low Moderate
High 5.6 MINIMIZING SEPARATION OF STUDENTS Thiscriterionisusedtomeasuretheimpactsofseparatingthestudentsfromoneschooltotwoor
moreschools.Inadditiontobeingforceoutofaschoolthatthestudentshavebeenattendingsince
kindergarten,someoptionswillrequiresomestudentstogotooneschoolwhiletheirfriendsand
classmateswillhavetogotoanotherschool.Thesesituations,asseeninAppendixA,havebeen
identifiedandhavebeenbasedpurelyongeography.
Theratingusedforthiscriterionisrelatedtothenumberofschoolsthatwillrequiretheirstudents
tobeseparated.
Number of schools resulting in separation of students 1 2 3+ Rating Low Moderate
High 10 JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga 5.7 MAINTAIN CATHOLIC SCHOOL PRESENCE IN MAIN CATCHMENT AREAS ThiscriterionisusedtomeasurethepresenceofaCatholicschoolinthemainareasoftheEast
Creditarea,fromHighway301toHighway403,whichcouldbeseenintheOptionsmapsin
AppendixA.Ideally,therewouldbeanelementaryCatholicschoolineachofthequadrantsnorth,
south,eastandwest.
Theratingusedforthiscriterionmeasurestheabilitytomaintainaschoolineachofthequadrants.
Catholic school presence Both North‐South and East‐West One of: North‐South or East‐West Uneven distribution in the North‐South direction Rating Low Moderate High 6 Financial 6.1 SAVINGS FROM DEFERRING MAJOR MAINTENANCE OVER NEXT 5 YEARS ThiscriterionisbasedonthecostsoutlinedintheInitialStaffReporttooperatetheschools.There
areexistingOutstandingRenewalNeedsforeachschool,whichisitemizedintheStudent
InformationProfile.Although,therearesomeconnectionsbetweentheageoftheschoolandthe
costsrequiredoverthenextfiveyears,thecapitalmaintenancecostswillnotnecessarilybeavoided
iftheschoolisclosedin2017.Iftherepairsarerequiredinthenearfuture,itwouldbecertainthat
therepairsbecompletedinordertokeepthebuildinginastateofgoodrepair,whetheritremains
unoccupiedorifitissoldtoacommunitypartner.However,themaintenancecostslistedmaybe
representativeofarelativeamounttowhatmaybedeferredandnotberequiredtoberepaired.
Theratingusedforthiscriterionisrelatedtothemaintenancecoststhathavebeenidentifiedfor
eachschoolandassumedtobedeferrable,andisshownbelow.Asummaryofthepotentialsavings
basedonthedeferralofmaintenancecostscanbeseeninAppendixF.
Number of schools resulting in separation of students Rating 1 2 3+ Low Moderate High Financial 11
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga 6.2 OPERATING / MAINTENANCE COSTS – ELECTRICITY AND GAS COMMODITY PRICING This criterion is used to represent and provide a comparison of the annual operating costs. The Initial Staff Report listed the Expenditures for School Utility & Snowplowing/Salting Costs for each school. After further investigation, it has been discovered that the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board also produces an Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report for all the schools within their district, as required under the Ministry of Energy’s Green Energy Act and can be seen in Appendix G. A summary of the report showing only DPCDSB elementary schools is shown in Table 6.2.1 below. The Energy Intensity criterion illustrates the amount of energy used by each school divided by the square footage of the school. Based on 2013‐2014 numbers, St. Gertrude is the highest ranking, using the least amount of energy per square footage, for that school year. 12 JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Table 6.2.1: Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for DPCDSB elementary schools Energy Type and Amount Purchased and Consumed in Natural units
Electricity
Natural Gas
Number of Portables
Estimated Energy Costs
Natrual Gas**
Energy Electricity*
Energy Intensity Intensity GHG $ 0.1500 $ 0.1475
Rank
Emissions (Kg) (eKWh/sqft)
Total (calculated in webform)
Operation Name
Avg Hrs / Swimming Pool Total Floor Are Wk
(Y/N)
Our Lady of Good Voyage Sep S
St. Bernadette E S
51,526.84
57,995.95
80 No
80 No
0 385,117.65 51,445.46 126,537.75
0 356,478.03 71,196.84 161,703.28
18.09
19.19
3
5
$ 57,767.65 $ 7,588.21 $ 65,355.85
$ 53,471.70 $ 10,501.53 $ 63,973.24
St. Dunstan ES
St. Gertrude Sep S
St. Gregory
46,155.65
69,502.57
56,397.00
80 No
80 No
80 No
0 249,737.93 51,354.81 116,075.86
0 347,577.15 55,250.74 130,878.58
0 553,793.75 126,550.80 281,355.34
17.24
13.45
33.67
2
1
8
$ 37,460.69 $ 7,574.83 $ 45,035.52
$ 52,136.57 $ 8,149.48 $ 60,286.06
$ 83,069.06 $ 18,666.24 $ 101,735.31
St. Herbert
St. Raymond
St. Valentive ES
60,428.59
54,486.91
54,260.87
80 No
80 No
80 No
0 557,254.28 102,821.05 236,754.27
0 480,041.38 53,133.14 136,943.86
0 480,818.29 117,345.14 258,403.85
27.31
19.17
31.84
6
4
7
$ 83,588.14 $ 15,166.10 $ 98,754.25
$ 72,006.21 $ 7,837.14 $ 79,843.35
$ 72,122.74 $ 17,308.41 $ 89,431.15 Quantity (kWh)
Quantity (m3)
* Electricity Price effective November 1, 2015 and is an average of Mid‐Peak and Peak prices ** Natural Gas Price effective July 2015 and is inclusive of Commodity Price and Gas Cost Adjustment Financial 13
Total Annual Energy Costs
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga As evident in the Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report the exact amounts of gas and electricity consumed by each school is listed, which is important to understand in order to move towards decreased dependency of increasing commodity prices as well as reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Figure 6.2.1 below illustrates the rising trend of electricity over the last number of years Figure 6.2.1: Electricity Price Trending (2006‐2015) Theratingusedforthiscriterionistoreflectthedifferencebetweenthehighestsavingsoptionto
theoptionthatisbeingmeasured.
Difference between the highest savings option Rating 0 ‐ $10,000 $10,001 ‐ $50,000 $50,001 + Low Moderate High 14 JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga 6.3 ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR IF PORTABLES ARE REQUIRED As outlined in Section 5‐4, some options may introduce the need for additional portables to accommodate the overcapacity at some schools. If a portable is required, there will be additional costs associated with constructing the portable as well as the operation and maintenance costs that were not identified in the Initial Staff Report. Since the capital construction or maintenance costs could be not obtained in time for this analysis, a “relative” approach to evaluating the impacts of portables was taken. Portables were assumed to be required after 100% of the school capacity and each portable can accommodate 25 students, which can be seen in Appendix H. The costs to maintain and operate these portables will be directly related to the number of portables required. Therefore, in the absence of these costs, the evaluation will be based on the number of portables required and is shown below. Number of portables required 0 1 2+ Rating Low Moderate High 6.4 COSTS TO FRENCH IMMERSION PARENTS FOR ADDITIONAL MILEAGE The impact of costs may not only be attached to the DPCDSB for each option. Costs that will be incurred by parents as a result of the options should also be considered. As outlined in Section 4, Option 1 will require the French Immersion program be moved from St. Gertrude to St. Gregory, which is approximately 4.5 km away. Most of the parents who have their children in the FI program at St. Gertrude actually live south, much further south than St. Gertrude. Of the 279 students who currently attend the FI program at St. Gertrude, 205 of those students come from districts that will be required to travel an additional 4.5 km to get to St. Gregory. Appendix I shows the number of students in the FI program who are located in other school boundaries, which was based on data extracted from the PAR UPDATE – Supplementary Information and Update – East Credit, Mississauga, December, 7, 2015. Table 6.4.1 below illustrate that each parent will be required to spend an extra $291 per year for the additional driving, which is another burden to parents and results in a negative impact. Table 6.4.1: Costs of additional Driving Gasoline Consumption Fuel Consumption Rates* (per mile driven) 0.04149 Calculation L/d L/year (4.5*2*2 km/d) / (12 km/L) 1.50 291 Annual cost @ $1.0/L 291 Total $ that will be spent by FI parents $59,655 *Source of Fuel Consumption Rate: EPA Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline‐Fueled Passengers Cars and Light Trucks Financial 15
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga The rating used for this criterion is a measure of additional costs to parents to transport their children to school. Additional cost to parents for travel per year Rating $0 $1‐50 $51+ Low Moderate High 7 Evaluation Summary EachoftheoptionsisevaluatedbasedonthedefinitionsestablishedinSection3forHigh,Moderate
andLowratings.ResultsoftheevaluationcanbeseeninTable7.1.1.
ToprovideasimplervisualrepresentationoftheHigh,ModerateandLowratings,eachlevelrating
canbeassociatedwithasymbolasshowninTable7.1.2.Thefullevaluationofeachoptionisfurther
showninTable7.1.3usingthesymbols,whichprovideaneasyandquickglimpsetoidentifyingthe
preferredoptions.
Table 7.1.2.2: Evaluation Legend Table ‐ Degree of Concern / Difficulty SYMBOL
RATING
Low Moderate High 16 JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Table 7‐1: Evaluation of Options Environmental Criteria 1
Total increase in annual kilometers from FI move (increased air pollution)
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6
Option 7
715,860
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
Social Criteria 1
Number of students displaced as due to school closure
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1,150 881 1,222 456 833 784 881
High
Moderate
High
Low
Higher to lower: 3 schools
Neutral: 1 school
Higher to lower: 2 schools
Lower to Higher: 2 schools
Higher to lower: 2 schools
Lower to Higher: 2 school
High
Moderate
Higher to lower: 3 schools
Lower to higher: 1 school
Higher to lower: 3 schools
Lower to Higher: 1 schools
High
High
90%
Low
6
High
Moderate
Rating Definition
0
Low
1‐1000 km 1001 km + Moderate
High
0‐500 Low
501‐1000 1001+ Moderate
High
More lower ranking schools going to higher ranking schools
Low
neutral ‐ similar Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Higher to lower: 2 schools
Lower to Higher: 1 school
Neutral: 1 school
High
Higher to lower: 3 schools
Lower to Higher: 1 school
Neutral: 1 school
High
Higher to lower: 2 schools
Lower to Higher: 2 school
Neutral: 1 school
High
Higher to lower: 1 schools
Lower to Higher: 1 school
Neutral: 2 school
Moderate
Higher to lower: 0 schools
Lower to Higher: 3 school
Neutral: 1 school
Low
87%
Low
92%
Low
72%
Moderate
75%
Moderate
87%
Low
87%
Low
0‐50%
51‐80%
81‐100%
4
High
6
High
0
Low
0
Low
5
High
19
High
0
Low
1 Moderate
2+
High
2 lane crossing: 0
4 lane crossing: 4
6 lane crossing: 1
High
2 lane crossing: 1
4 lane crossing: 2
6 lane crossing: 2
High
2 lane crossing: 0
4 lane crossing: 4
6 lane crossing: 0
Moderate
2 lane crossing: 2
4 lane crossing: 3
6 lane crossing: 0
Moderate
2 lane crossing: 2
4 lane crossing: 2
6 lane crossing: 1
High
St. Dunstan and St. Valentine
St. Herbert and St. Dunstan
OLGV and St. Dunstan
OLGV, St. Dunstan and St. Valentine
OLGV and St. Valentine
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
North‐South: Y
East‐West: Y
Low
North‐South: N
East‐West: Y
Moderate
North‐South: Y
East‐West: Y
Low
North‐South: Y
East‐West: Y
Low
North‐South: Y
East‐West: Y
Low
Social Criteria 2
Potential for higher education acheivement
A. Changes based on 2014 Fraser Institute scores
Higher to lower: 4 schools
Neutral: 1 school
High
B. EQAO scores
Social Criteria 3
Average Utilization (2017‐2025)
Social Criteria 4
Number of portables required
(based on max capacity of 25)
Higher to lower: 5 schools
Higher to lower: 4 schools
High
Higher to lower: 3 schools
Lower to Higher1 school
more higher ranking schools going to High
lower ranking schools
High
High
Moderate
Low
Social Criteria 5
Increased Road Crossings
Social Criteria 6
Separation of students from same school
Social Criteria 7
Maintain Catholic school presence in majar quadrants of East Credit area
2 lane crossing: 0
4 lane crossing: 3
6 lane crossing: 1
High
St. Gertrude and St. Dunstan separating
Moderate
North‐South: Y
East‐West: N
Moderate
2 lane crossing: 1
4 lane crossing: 5
6 lane crossing: 0
Moderate
2 Lane crossing
Low
4 Lane crossing 6 Lane crossing
Moderate
High
OLGV, St. Dunstan and St. Valentine
1
Low
High
2
3+
Moderate
High
North‐South: Y
East‐West: Y
Presence in only 1 direction North‐South: N
East‐West: N
Moderate
North‐South: Y
East‐West: Y
Low
Low
High
Financial Criteria 1
Savings in School Operating and Outstanding Renewal needs is Difference from best option
$ 6,634,403 $ 6,045,394 $ 5,291,967 $ 3,861,442 $ 4,864,158 $ 6,133,286
0‐$500k Low
$501k‐$1.5M +$1.5M Moderate
High
170,677.43 $ 199,822.53 $ 245,525.08 $ 164,110.10 253,541.25 218,760.24 199,822.53
0‐$10k Low
82,863.82 53,718.72 8,016.18 89,431.15 ‐
High
High
Low
High
Low
$10k‐$50k +$50k Moderate
High
$ ‐
Low
$ 6,050,225
$ 589,009.0 $ 1,342,436.0 $ 2,772,961.0 $ 1,770,245.0 $ 501,117.0 $ 584,178.0
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Financial Criteria 2
Savings Annual Energy and Gas Consumption
Difference from best option
34,781.01
Moderate
53,718.72
High
Financial Criteria 3
Additional Costs for Portables
6
High
4
High
6
High
0
Low
0
Low
5
High
19
High
0
1
2+
Low
Moderate
High
$ 291 $0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
$1‐$50 + $51 Moderate
High
Financial Criteria 4
Additional costs annually to FI parents
High
Low
Evaluation Summary 17
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Table 7.1.3: Evaluation Criteria and Rating CRITERIA
OPTION 2
OPTION 3
OPTION 4
OPTION 5
OPTION 6
OPTION 7
CLOSE OLGV,
ST. DUNSTAN,
ST. GERTRUDE
CLOSE OLGV,
ST. DUNSTAN,
ST. VALENTINE
CLOSE ST.
DUNSTAN, ST.
HERBERT, ST.
GREGORY
CLOSE OLGV,
ST. HERBERT
CLOSE OLGV,
ST. HERBERT,
ST. VALENTINE
CLOSE OLGV, ST.
BERNADETTE, ST.
VALENTINE
CLOSE OLGV, ST.
DUNSTAN, ST.
VALENTINE
Environmental
AirQuality
Social1
No.ofStudentsDisplaced
Social2
PotentialforAcademic
Achievement(Frazer)
Social2
PotentialforAcademic
Achievement(EQAO)
Social3
SchoolUtilization
90% 87% 92% 72% 75% 87% 87% Social4
Overcapacity(Safety
issue)
Social5
IncreasedRoadCrossings
(Safetyissue)
Social6
Separationofstudents
fromthesameschool
Social7
Maintaindistributed
Catholicpresenceinarea
Financial1
Savingsinschool5‐Y
maintenanceandO&M
Costs
Financial2
O&M–ElectricityandGas
Consumption(Energy
Intensity)
Financial3
Additionalcostsfor
portables
Financial4
AdditionalcoststoFI
Parentsforincreased
travels
18 OPTION 1
JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga 8 Recommendations BasedonacomparativeevaluationofthealternativesshowninTables7.1.1and7.1.3,beloware
somerecommendations:
‐Option4and6providetheleastnegativeimpactoverall.Bothoftheseoptionshavebeenshownto
generatetheleastEnvironmental,Socio‐EconomicalandFinancialimpactandeitheroptioncanbe
justifiablyselectedasthepreferredOption.
‐Whendrillingdowntothecriterionandtherankingsthemselves,Option4shouldbethe
preferredoption.ThereasonforthisissimplythatOption6rankspoorlywithtwocriteriathat
measurestheimpacttosafetyforthestudents:overcapacityandhavingtocrossmajorstreets.This
isfurtheremphasizedbytheGuidingPrincipleofachieving“studentwell‐being”inthePAR
Guideline.
‐Option5hasonlyoneadditionalnegativeimpact.AcasecanbemadeforOption5dependingon
whatprioritiestheremaybeforsomecriteria.
‐Options4,5and6couldbefurtheranalyzedtoconsiderprioritiesorweightingfactorstothatwill
raisetheimportanceofonecriterionoveranothercriterion
‐Options1,2,3and7poseanumberofdisadvantagesrelatingtoEnvironmental,Socio‐Economical
andFinancialimpactthatmakeitleastfavourableandthereforeshouldbescreenedoutifamore
detailedanalysisistobecompleted
9 Conclusion OnOctober27,2015,theBoardofTrusteesfortheDufferin‐PeelCatholicDistrictSchoolBoard
approvedtheinitiatedofthePupilAccommodationReview.Accordingly,thePlanningDepartment
preparedtheInitialStaffReport,whichwasalsoacceptedonOctober272015bytheBoardof
Trustees.InaccordancewiththePARGuideline,thisReporthasbeenproducedtoidentify
alternativeoptionstothethreeoptionsidentifiedintheInitialStaffReport.
Basedonestablishingcriteriathatmayaffecttheoveralldecision,includingEnvironmental,Socio‐
EconomicalandFinancialimpacts,anumberofoptionsinadditiontothethreepresentedinthe
InitialStaffReportwereidentified,reviewed,scrutinizedandevaluated.Theevaluationapproach
usedissimilartomanyothersthattheProvincialGovernmentofOntarioministriesuseandresulted
inOption4asthepreferredoption.
Ifadditionalscrutinyisrequired,aweightingfactorapproachcanbeappliedtotheanalysis
completedinthisreporttocomplimenttheworkdone.
Recommendations 19
WG4-103
WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Appendix A – Maps to Options Identified WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Appendix B – Fraser Institute Ranking Charts WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Appendix C– Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
IIdentification of Allternatives Options: P
PAR Review 2015 –
– East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
|Identiffication of Alternattives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Creditt Mississauga JANUARYY 2016 WG4-103
IIdentification of Allternatives Options: P
PAR Review 2015 –
– East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Appendix D – Current and Proposed Utilization Rates WG4-103
WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Current Utilization Rates of Schools in East Credit Review Area and Fraser Institute Ranking for 2014
Fraser Ranking
7.2
4.3
8.5
7.9
6.7
5.8
7.3
7.3
O.L. Good Voyage
N. OLGV
S. OLGV
Utilization
St. Bernadette
Utilization
St. Dunstan
N. Dunstan
S. Dunstan
Utilization
St. Gertrude
FI
Utilization
St. Gregory
Utilization
St. Herbert
Utilization
St. Raymond
Utilization
St. Valentine
N. St. Valentine
S. St. Valentine
Utilization
OTG
280
487
484
752
556
533
651
651
2015
192
58
134
69%
215
44%
312
160
152
64%
367
279
86%
323
58%
264
50%
447
69%
377
243
134
58%
2016
178
53
125
64%
205
42%
316
161
155
65%
361
309
89%
309
56%
247
46%
388
60%
388
250
138
60%
2017
174
52
122
62%
201
41%
334
171
160
69%
347
309
87%
285
51%
237
44%
368
57%
394
250
144
61%
2018
175
53
123
63%
196
40%
350
180
170
72%
336
303
85%
283
51%
230
43%
348
53%
403
258
145
62%
2019
171
51
120
61%
198
41%
346
179
167
71%
334
304
85%
277
50%
227
43%
321
49%
416
268
148
64%
2020
170
51
119
61%
200
41%
358
185
173
74%
326
303
84%
270
49%
230
43%
297
46%
419
269
150
64%
2021
165
50
116
59%
201
41%
368
187
178
76%
312
301
82%
266
48%
232
44%
275
42%
429
276
153
66%
2022
165
50
116
59%
203
42%
373
192
181
77%
314
302
82%
271
49%
237
44%
252
39%
432
277
155
66%
2023
170
51
119
61%
206
42%
370
192
178
76%
315
302
82%
275
49%
239
45%
241
37%
443
285
158
68%
2024
167
50
117
60%
215
44%
373
192
181
77%
322
302
83%
280
50%
239
45%
231
35%
454
293
161
70%
2025
171
51
120
61%
217
45%
369
192
179
76%
322
302
83%
280
50%
242
45%
232
36%
449
290
159
69% WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga New Utilization based on Option 1: Close St. Dunstan, St. Gertrude and OLGV
OTG
2015
2016
205
2019
198
2020
200
2021
201
2022
203
2023
206
2024
215
2025
217
S. Dunstan
New St. Bernadette
Utilization
St. Gregory
152
155
160
170
167
173
178
181
178
181
179
367 360 361 366 365 373 379 384 384 396 396
75%
74%
74%
75%
75%
77%
78%
79%
79%
81%
81%
556
323
309
285
283
277
270
266
271
275
280
280
279
602
309
618
108%
264
160
424
80%
447
58
134
639
98%
377
243
134
367
744
111%
247
161
408
77%
388
53
125
566
87%
388
250
138
361
749
114%
115%
2776
2701
63%
61%
Over capacity
Utilization
St. Herbert
533
N. Dunstan
New St. Herbert
Utilization
St. Raymond
N. OLGV
S. OLGV
New St. Raymond
Utilization
St. Valentine
N. St. Valentine
S. St. Valentine
St. Gertrude
New St. Valentine
651
651
752
Over capacity
Utilization
2018
196
487
FI
New St. Gregory
215
2017
201
St. Bernadette
Total Space Used
Surplus Spaces
Existing Utilization
Proposed Utilization Increased Utilization
2878
309
594
38
107%
237
171
408
77%
368
52
122
542
83%
394
250
144
347
741
90
114%
303
586
30
105%
230
180
410
77%
348
53
123
523
80%
403
258
145
336
739
88
114%
304
581
25
104%
227
179
406
76%
321
51
120
492
76%
416
268
148
334
750
99
115%
303
573
17
103%
230
185
415
78%
297
51
119
467
72%
419
269
150
326
745
94
114%
301
567
11
102%
232
187
419
79%
275
50
116
440
68%
429
276
153
312
741
90
114%
302
573
17
103%
237
192
429
80%
252
50
116
417
64%
432
277
155
314
746
95
115%
302
577
21
104%
239
192
431
81%
241
51
119
411
63%
443
285
158
315
758
107
116%
302
582
26
105%
239
192
431
81%
231
50
117
398
61%
454
293
161
322
776
125
119%
302
582
26
105%
242
192
434
81%
232
51
120
403
62%
449
290
159
322
771
120
118%
2646
232
60%
92%
32%
2624
254
60%
91%
31%
2594
284
59%
90%
31%
2573
305
59%
89%
30%
2546
332
58%
88%
30%
2549
329
58%
89%
31%
2561
317
58%
89%
31%
2583
295
59%
90%
31%
2586
292
59%
90%
31% JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga New Utilization based on Option 2: Close St. Dunstan, St. Valentive and OLGV
St. Bernadette
S. Dunstan
New St. Bernadette
Utilization
St. Gregory
OTG
487
556
N. St. Valentine
New St. Gregory
2015
215
152
367
75%
323
2016
205
155
360
74%
309
2017
201
160
361
74%
285
2018
196
170
366
75%
283
2019
198
167
365
75%
277
2020
200
173
373
77%
270
2021
201
178
379
78%
266
2022
203
181
384
79%
271
2023
206
178
384
79%
275
2024
215
181
396
81%
280
2025
217
179
396
81%
280
243
566
250
559
102%
264
160
134
558
101%
247
161
138
546
105%
447
58
134
639
98%
367
279
86%
102%
388
53
125
566
87%
361
309
89%
250
535
‐21
96%
237
171
144
552
19
104%
368
52
122
542
83%
347
309
87%
258
541
‐15
97%
230
180
145
555
22
104%
348
53
123
523
80%
336
303
85%
268
545
‐11
98%
227
179
148
554
21
104%
321
51
120
492
76%
334
304
85%
269
539
‐17
97%
230
185
150
565
32
106%
297
51
119
467
72%
326
303
84%
276
542
‐14
97%
232
187
153
572
39
107%
275
50
116
440
68%
312
301
82%
277
548
‐8
99%
237
192
155
584
51
110%
252
50
116
417
64%
314
302
82%
285
560
4
101%
239
192
158
589
56
111%
241
51
119
411
63%
315
302
82%
293
573
17
103%
239
192
161
592
59
111%
231
50
117
398
61%
322
302
83%
290
570
14
103%
242
192
159
593
60
111%
232
51
120
403
62%
322
302
83%
2776
2701
63%
61%
2646
333
60%
89%
29%
2624
355
60%
88%
28%
2594
385
59%
87%
28%
2573
406
59%
86%
27%
2546
433
58%
85%
27%
2549
430
58%
86%
28%
2561
418
58%
86%
28%
2583
396
59%
87%
28%
2586
393
59%
87%
28% Over capacity
Utilization
St. Herbert
N. Dunstan
S. St. Valentine
New St. Herbert
533
Over capacity
Utilization
St. Raymond
N. OLGV
S. OLGV
New St. Raymond
Utilization
St. Gertrude
FI
Utilization
Total Space Used
Surplus Spaces
Existing Utilization
Proposed Utilization Increased Utilization
651
752
2979
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga New Utilization based on Option 3: Close St. Dunstan, St. Herbert and St. Valentine
O.L. Good Voyage
OTG
280
2015
192
2016
178
2017
174
2018
175
2019
171
2020
170
2021
165
2022
165
2023
170
2024
167
2025
171
58
134
160
352
53
125
161
339
52
122
171
345
65
53
123
180
355
75
51
120
179
350
70
51
119
185
355
75
50
116
187
352
72
50
116
192
357
77
51
119
192
362
82
50
117
192
359
79
51
120
192
363
83
126%
215
152
153
520
121%
205
155
142
502
107%
447
323
770
118%
377
243
134
111
488
75%
367
279
86%
103%
388
309
697
107%
388
250
138
105
493
76%
361
309
89%
123%
201
160
141
502
15
103%
368
285
653
100%
394
250
144
96
490
75%
347
309
87%
127%
196
170
133
499
12
102%
348
283
631
97%
403
258
145
97
500
77%
336
303
85%
125%
198
167
134
499
12
102%
321
277
598
92%
416
268
148
93
509
78%
334
304
85%
127%
200
173
134
507
20
104%
297
270
567
87%
419
269
150
96
515
79%
326
303
84%
126%
201
178
134
513
26
105%
275
266
541
83%
429
276
153
98
527
81%
312
301
82%
128%
203
181
138
522
35
107%
252
271
523
80%
432
277
155
99
531
82%
314
302
82%
129%
206
178
139
523
36
107%
241
275
516
79%
443
285
158
100
543
83%
315
302
82%
128%
215
181
138
534
47
110%
231
280
511
78%
454
293
161
101
555
85%
322
302
83%
130%
217
179
140
536
49
110%
232
280
512
79%
449
290
159
102
551
85%
322
302
83%
2776
2701
63%
61%
2646
175
60%
94%
34%
2624
197
60%
93%
33%
2594
227
59%
92%
33%
2573
248
59%
91%
32%
2546
275
58%
90%
32%
2549
272
58%
90%
32%
2561
260
58%
91%
33%
2583
238
59%
92%
33%
2586
235
59%
92%
33%
N. OLGV
S. OLGV
N. Dunstan
New OLGV
Over capacity
Utilization
St. Bernadette
S. Dunstan
W. St. Herbert
New St. Bernadette
487
Over capacity
Utilization
St. Raymond
St. Gregory
New St. Raymond
Utilization
St. Valentine
N. St. Valentine
S. St. Valentine
E. St. Herbert
New St. Valentine
Utilization
St. Gertrude
FI
Utilization
Total Space Used
Surplus Spaces
Existing Utilization
Proposed Utilization Increased Utilization
651
651
752
2821
JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga New Utilization based on Option 4: Close St. OLGV and St. Herbert
OTG
St. Bernadette
S. Dunstan
New St. Bernadette
Utilization
St. Dunstan
N. Dunstan
St. Herbert
New St. Dunstan
Utilization
St. Gregory
N. OLGV
New St. Gregory
Utilization
St. Raymond
S. OLGV
New St. Raymond
Utilization
St. Gertrude
FI
Utilization
St. Valentine
N. St. Valentine
S. St. Valentine
Utilization
Total Space Used
Surplus Spaces
Existing Utilization
Proposed Utilization Increased Utilization
2015
205
155
360
2017
201
160
361
74%
2018
196
170
366
75%
2019
198
167
365
75%
2020
200
173
373
77%
2021
201
178
379
78%
2022
203
181
384
79%
2023
206
178
384
79%
2024
215
181
396
81%
2025
217
179
396
81%
160
264
424
88%
323
58
381
68%
447
134
581
89%
161
247
408
84%
309
53
362
65%
388
125
513
79%
171
237
408
84%
285
52
337
61%
368
122
490
75%
180
230
410
85%
283
53
336
60%
348
123
471
72%
179
227
406
84%
277
51
328
59%
321
120
441
68%
185
230
415
86%
270
51
321
58%
297
119
416
64%
187
232
419
87%
266
50
316
57%
275
116
391
60%
192
237
429
89%
271
50
321
58%
252
116
368
56%
192
239
431
89%
275
51
326
59%
241
119
360
55%
192
239
431
89%
280
50
330
59%
231
117
348
53%
192
242
434
90%
280
51
331
60%
232
120
352
54%
651
367
279
86%
377
243
134
58%
361
309
89%
388
250
138
60%
347
309
87%
394
250
144
61%
336
303
85%
403
258
145
62%
334
304
85%
416
268
148
64%
326
303
84%
419
269
150
64%
312
301
82%
429
276
153
66%
314
302
82%
432
277
155
66%
315
302
82%
443
285
158
68%
322
302
83%
454
293
161
70%
322
302
83%
449
290
159
69%
3581
2776
2701
63%
61%
2646
935
60%
74%
14%
2624
957
60%
73%
13%
2594
987
59%
72%
13%
2573
1008
59%
72%
13%
2546
1035
58%
71%
13%
2549
1032
58%
71%
13%
2561
1020
58%
72%
14%
2583
998
59%
72%
13%
2586
995
59%
72%
13% 487
2016
215
152
367
75%
74%
484
556
651
752
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga New Utilization based on Option 5: Close OLGV and St. Valentine
OTG
St. Bernadette
S. Dunstan
New St. Bernadette
Utilization
St. Dunstan
N. Dunstan
S. OLGV
New St. Dunstan
Utilization
St. Gregory
N. OLGV
New St. Gregory
Utilization
St. Herbert
S. St. Valentine
New St. Herbert
Utilization
St. Raymond
N. St. Valentine
New St. Raymond
Utilization
St. Gertrude
2015
215
152
367
75%
205
155
360
74%
2017
201
160
361
74%
2018
196
170
366
75%
2019
198
167
365
75%
2020
200
173
373
77%
2021
201
178
379
78%
2022
203
181
384
79%
2023
206
178
384
79%
2024
215
181
396
81%
2025
217
179
396
81%
160
134
294.4
61%
323
58
381
68%
264
134
398
75%
447
243
690
106%
161
125
285.6
59%
309
53
362
65%
247
138
385
72%
388
250
638
98%
171
122
292.8
60%
285
52
337
61%
237
144
381
71%
368
250
618
95%
180
123
302.5
63%
283
53
336
60%
230
145
375
70%
348
258
606
93%
179
120
298.7
62%
277
51
328
59%
227
148
375
70%
321
268
589
90%
185
119
304
63%
270
51
321
58%
230
150
380
71%
297
269
566
87%
187
116
302.5
63%
266
50
316
57%
232
153
385
72%
275
276
551
85%
192
116
307.5
64%
271
50
321
58%
237
155
392
74%
252
277
529
81%
192
119
311
64%
275
51
326
59%
239
158
397
74%
241
285
526
81%
192
117
308.9
64%
280
50
330
59%
239
161
400
75%
231
293
524
80%
192
120
311.7
64%
280
51
331
60%
242
159
401
75%
232
290
522
80%
752
367
279
86%
361
309
89%
347
309
87%
336
303
85%
334
304
85%
326
303
84%
312
301
82%
314
302
82%
315
302
82%
322
302
83%
322
302
83%
3463
2776
2701
63%
61%
2646
817
60%
76%
16%
2624
839
60%
76%
16%
2594
869
59%
75%
16%
2573
890
59%
74%
15%
2546
917
58%
74%
16%
2549
914
58%
74%
16%
2561
902
58%
74%
16%
2583
880
59%
75%
16%
2586
877
59%
75%
16% 487
484
556
533
651
FI
Utilization
Total Space Used
Surplus Spaces
Existing Utilization
Proposed Utilization Increased Utilization
2016
JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga New Utilization based on Option 6: Close OLGV, St. Bernadette and St. Valentine
OTG
St. Dunstan
N. Dunstan
S. Dunstan
S. OLGV
New St. Dunstan
2015
312
160
152
134
446
316
161
155
125
441
92%
323
58
381
68%
264
215
134
613
91%
309
53
362
65%
247
205
138
590
115%
447
243
690
106%
111%
388
250
638
98%
2017
334
171
160
122
453
‐31
94%
285
52
337
61%
237
201
144
582
49
109%
368
250
618
95%
752
367
279
86%
361
309
89%
347
309
87%
336
303
85%
334
304
85%
326
303
84%
312
301
82%
314
302
82%
315
302
82%
322
302
83%
322
302
83%
2976
2776
2701
63%
61%
2646
330
60%
89%
29%
2624
352
60%
88%
28%
2594
382
59%
87%
28%
2573
403
59%
86%
27%
2546
430
58%
86%
28%
2549
427
58%
86%
28%
2561
415
58%
86%
28%
2583
393
59%
87%
28%
2586
390
59%
87%
28% 484
2016
Over capacity
Utilization
St. Gregory
N. OLGV
New St. Gregory
Utilization
St. Herbert
St. Bernadette
S. St. Valentine
New St. Herbert
556
533
Over capacity
Utilization
St. Raymond
N. St. Valentine
New St. Raymond
Utilization
St. Gertrude
651
FI
Utilization
Total Space Used
Surplus Spaces
Existing Utilization
Proposed Utilization Increased Utilization
2018
350
180
170
123
473
‐12
98%
283
53
336
60%
230
196
145
571
38
107%
348
258
606
93%
2019
346
179
167
120
466
‐18
96%
277
51
328
59%
227
198
148
573
40
108%
321
268
589
90%
2020
358
185
173
119
477
‐7
99%
270
51
321
58%
230
200
150
580
47
109%
297
269
566
87%
2021
368
187
178
116
481
‐4
99%
266
50
316
57%
232
201
153
586
53
110%
275
276
551
85%
2022
373
192
181
116
489
5
101%
271
50
321
58%
237
203
155
595
62
112%
252
277
529
81%
2023
370
192
178
119
489
5
101%
275
51
326
59%
239
206
158
603
70
113%
241
285
526
81%
2024
373
192
181
117
490
6
101%
280
50
330
59%
239
215
161
615
82
115%
231
293
524
80%
2025
369
192
179
120
491
7
101%
280
51
331
60%
242
217
159
618
85
116%
232
290
522
80%
WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga New Utilization based on Option 7: Close St. OLGV, St. Dunstan and St. Valentine
OTG
St. Bernadette
S. Dunstan
New St. Bernadette
Utilization
St. Herbert
N. Dunstan
S. St. Valentine
New St. Herbert
2015
487
2016
215
205
152
367
155
360
2020
200
2021
201
2022
203
2023
206
2024
215
2025
217
170
366
75%
230
180
145
555
‐22
104%
283
53
336
60%
348
123
258
729
‐282
112%
167
365
75%
227
179
148
554
‐21
104%
277
51
328
59%
321
120
268
709
‐321
109%
173
373
77%
230
185
150
565
‐32
106%
270
51
321
58%
297
119
269
685
‐317
105%
178
379
78%
232
187
153
572
‐39
107%
266
50
316
57%
275
116
276
667
‐319
102%
181
384
79%
237
192
155
584
‐51
110%
271
50
321
58%
252
116
277
645
‐324
99%
178
384
79%
239
192
158
589
‐56
111%
275
51
326
59%
241
119
285
645
‐348
99%
181
396
81%
239
192
161
592
‐59
111%
280
50
330
59%
231
117
293
641
‐366
98%
179
396
81%
242
192
159
593
‐60
111%
280
51
331
60%
232
120
290
642
‐390
99%
247
161
138
546
105%
323
58
381
68%
447
134
243
824
102%
309
53
362
65%
388
125
250
763
127%
117%
752
367
279
86%
361
309
89%
347
309
87%
336
303
85%
334
304
85%
326
303
84%
312
301
82%
314
302
82%
315
302
82%
322
302
83%
322
302
83%
2979
2776
2701
63%
61%
2646
333
60%
89%
29%
2624
355
60%
88%
28%
2594
385
59%
87%
28%
2573
406
59%
86%
27%
2546
433
58%
85%
27%
2549
430
58%
86%
28%
2561
418
58%
86%
28%
2583
396
59%
87%
28%
2586
393
59%
87%
28% 533
74%
556
651
Over capacity
FI
Utilization
Total Space Used
Surplus Spaces
Existing Utilization
Proposed Utilization Increased Utilization
2019
198
264
160
134
558
75%
Utilization
St. Gertrude
2018
196
160
361
74%
237
171
144
552
‐19
104%
285
52
337
61%
368
122
250
740
‐89
114%
Over capacity
Utilization
St. Gregory
N. OLGV
New St. Gregory
Utilization
St. Raymond
S. OLGV
N. St. Valentine
New St. Raymond
2017
201
JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Appendix E – Road Lanes WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Appendix F – Savings from deferring Outstanding Renewal Needs WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Summary of Deferred Maintenance Costs Status Quo
New Costs
Impact
Option 1: Savings from closing the schools (St. Dunstan, OLGV, St. Gertrude)
Expenditure for School Utility and Snowplowing/Salting Costs ($)
$ 831,845 $ 559,808 $ 272,037
Outstanding Renewal Needs
$ 11,844,206 $ 5,481,840 $ 6,362,366
Transportation Costs
$ 167,755 $ 73,862
Savings in School Operating and Outstanding Renewal needs is $ 6,634,403
Option 2: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Dunstan, St. Valentine)
Expenditure for School Utility and Snowplowing/Salting Costs ($)
$ 831,845 $ 545,971 $ 285,874
Outstanding Renewal Needs
$ 11,844,206 $ 6,084,686 $ 5,759,520
Transportation Costs
$ 167,755 $ 73,862
Savings in School Operating and Outstanding Renewal needs is $ 6,045,394
Option 3: Savings from closing the schools (St. Dunstan, St. Herbert, St. Gregory)
Expenditure for School Utility and Snowplowing/Salting Costs ($)
$ 831,845 $ 501,718 $ 330,127
Outstanding Renewal Needs
$ 11,844,206 $ 6,882,366 $ 4,961,840
Transportation Costs
$ 167,755 $ 124,250
Savings in School Operating and Outstanding Renewal needs is $ 5,291,967
Option 4: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Herbert)
Expenditure for School Utility and Snowplowing/Salting Costs ($)
$ 831,845 $ 614,563 $ 217,282
Outstanding Renewal Needs
$ 11,844,206 $ 8,200,046 $ 3,644,160
Transportation Costs
$ 167,755 $ 140,579
Savings in School Operating and Outstanding Renewal needs is $ 3,861,442
Option 5: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Herbert, St. Valentine)
Expenditure for School Utility and Snowplowing/Salting Costs ($)
$ 831,845 $ 496,887 $ 334,958
Outstanding Renewal Needs
$ 11,844,206 $ 7,315,006 $ 4,529,200
Transportation Costs
$ 167,755 $ 124,250
Savings in School Operating and Outstanding Renewal needs is $ 4,864,158
Option 6: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Bernadette, St. Valentine)
Expenditure for School Utility and Snowplowing/Salting Costs ($)
$ 831,845 $ 527,759 $ 304,086
Outstanding Renewal Needs
$ 11,844,206 $ 6,015,006 $ 5,829,200
Transportation Costs
$ 167,755 $ 126,511
Savings in School Operating and Outstanding Renewal needs is $ 6,133,286
Option 7: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Dunstan and St. Valentine)
Expenditure for School Utility and Snowplowing/Salting Costs ($)
$ 831,845 $ 541,140 $ 290,705
Outstanding Renewal Needs
$ 11,844,206 $ 6,084,686 $ 5,759,520
Transportation Costs
$ 167,755 $ 73,862
Savings in School Operating and Outstanding Renewal needs is $ 6,050,225
JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Appendix G – DPCDSB 2013‐2014 Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report WG4-103
WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga WG4-103
WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Appendix H – Summary of Potential Need of Portables WG4-103
|Identification of Alternatives Options PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Summary of Potential Need of Portables
Assumed Maximum students per portable = 25
Option 1: Savings from closing the schools (St. Dunstan, OLGV, St. Gertrude)
# of portables needed
St. Gregory
2
St. Valentine
4
Total
6
Option 2: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Dunstan, St. Valentine)
# of portables needed
St. Gregory
1
St. Herbert
3
Total
4
Option 3: Savings from closing the schools (St. Dunstan, St. Herbert, St. Gregory)
# of portables needed
OLGV
4
St. Bernadette
2
Total
6
Option 4: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Herbert)
# of portables needed
0
Total
0
Option 5: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Herbert, St. Valentine)
# of portables needed
0
Total
0
Option 6: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Bernadette, St. Valentine)
# of portables needed
St. Dunstan
1
St. Herbert
4
Total
5
Option 7: Savings from closing the schools (OLGV, St. Dunstan and St. Valentine)
# of portables needed
St. Raymond
16
St. Herbert
3
Total
19
JANUARY 2016 WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga Appendix I – French Immersion students residing in different school boundaries WG4-103
WG4-103
Identification of Alternatives Options: PAR Review 2015 – East Credit Mississauga RE: Automatic reply: Board Email Postings
RE: Automatic reply: Board Email Postings
WG4-104
Sent:Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:33 AM
To: PAR - Info
Can you direct me specifically where on the Board website that the emails are posted? As I can't find it.
Regards,
From: PARinfo@dpcdsb.org
To:
Subject: Automatic reply: ECMPAR-Options for Schools to Stay Open
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:22:42 +0000
Thank you for your email which will be shared with the Accommodation Review Committee in its entirety for
consideration as part of this review. A copy shall also be posted on the board website; however to respect personal
privacy, any personal information (i.e. name, email address, contact information, personal story) shall be (blacked out)
redacted prior to posting. E-mails received at PARInfo@dpcdsb.org will also be posted to the Board website with personal information redacted.
Should you wish to become further engaged in the process, please contact your principal for more information.
Please note that all information pertaining to the Pupil Accommodation Review for the East Credit Review Area
including meeting dates, agendas, minutes and all information shared with the ARC is available on the Board’s website.
The first Public Open House will be on January 20, 2015 at St Joseph Secondary School, located at 5555 Creditview
Road, from 6pm - 9pm.
http://www.dpcdsb.org/CEC/News/Pupil+Accommodation+Review.htm
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfYAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454344513544_103161714[2/1/2016 11:35:27 AM]
Pupil Accommodation Review 2016 St. Gregory
Pupil Accommodation Review 2016 St. Gregory
WG4-105
Sent:Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:31 AM
To: PAR - Info
For a moment let’s look beyond my direct personal family impact of the situation.
Let’s say the school is closed, what will be done with the building?
Presently as a functioning school we work hard to protect the property and keep it clear of graffiti and unwanted visitors but if
it’s closed will it turn into a “hang out” for trouble makers? Impacting not just the Public school next door and their children but
the street it’s on and our community?
Will it make our community less safe?
And lower our property values?
These are all serious things we need to consider.
Regards
This email message is confidential, may be legally privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. If you received this message in error or
are not the intended recipient, you should destroy the email message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing,
disclosing or using any information contained. Please inform us of the delivery error by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
Le présent message électronique est confidentiel et peut être couvert par le secret professionnel. Il est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous recevez ce
message par erreur ou si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous devez détruire le message et toute pièce jointe ou copie et vous êtes tenu de ne pas
conserver, distribuer, divulguer ni utiliser tout renseignement qu’il contient. Veuillez nous informer de toute erreur d’envoi en répondant à ce message. Merci
de votre collaboration.
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfZAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454344537384_569604050[2/1/2016 11:35:47 AM]
teacher education
teacher education
WG4-106
Sent:Tuesday, January 26, 2016 11:48 AM
To: PAR - Info
Hello!
I'm hearing from many parents in the community that both children and teachers at my school think
it is a fact that the school will be closing. What information and resources are you providing
teachers will to ensure they are informed about the PAR process and what guidance are you
providing them with to address the concerns of our students?
Thank you
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfaAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454344553136_596557830[2/1/2016 11:36:07 AM]
Pupil Accommodation Review 2016 St. Gregory
Pupil Accommodation Review 2016 St. Gregory
WG4-107
Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2016 9:33 AM
To: PAR - Info
With all the Syrians we are bringing into the country is it not possible that enrollment as a result will increase in the next couple
of years as people start to find their own residences outside the city core and move into outlying areas?
Are we being premature making these changes now prior to knowing what the full impact will be to the school system with all
these new immigrant children arriving? Perhaps this should be postponed and revisited when we have a clearer picture of the
impact otherwise we could be spending more money than we are saving when we come to the realization that we may have to
reopen schools or move things around yet again.
Regards
This email message is confidential, may be legally privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. If you received this message in error or
are not the intended recipient, you should destroy the email message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing,
disclosing or using any information contained. Please inform us of the delivery error by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
Le présent message électronique est confidentiel et peut être couvert par le secret professionnel. Il est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous recevez ce
message par erreur ou si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous devez détruire le message et toute pièce jointe ou copie et vous êtes tenu de ne pas
conserver, distribuer, divulguer ni utiliser tout renseignement qu’il contient. Veuillez nous informer de toute erreur d’envoi en répondant à ce message. Merci
de votre collaboration.
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfbAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454344572389_895824837[2/1/2016 11:36:24 AM]
Pupil Accommodation Review 2016 St. Gregory
Pupil Accommodation Review 2016 St. Gregory
WG4-108
Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2016 9:30 AM
To: PAR - Info
I’m am curious as to why if we are trying to be efficient and conscientious of the money that is being
spent, why would the board be spending millions of dollars building a brand new catholic school at
Mississauga road and Steeles when for a fraction of the cost the board could bus the kids to St
Gregory in 15 minutes? The same time by the way it would take my child to be bussed to St.
Raymond.
This does not sound like a fiscally responsible thing to be doing with our tax dollars. Especially when
those tax dollars are coming from parents belonging to schools that are being threatened with
closure in the general area.
Regards
This email message is confidential, may be legally privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. If you received this message in error or
are not the intended recipient, you should destroy the email message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing,
disclosing or using any information contained. Please inform us of the delivery error by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
Le présent message électronique est confidentiel et peut être couvert par le secret professionnel. Il est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous recevez ce
message par erreur ou si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous devez détruire le message et toute pièce jointe ou copie et vous êtes tenu de ne pas
conserver, distribuer, divulguer ni utiliser tout renseignement qu’il contient. Veuillez nous informer de toute erreur d’envoi en répondant à ce message. Merci
de votre collaboration.
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfcAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454344589821_565714422[2/1/2016 11:36:50 AM]
Questions for the ARC Working Group
Questions for the ARC Working Group
WG4-109
Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:53 PM
To: PAR - Info
Dear Sir/Madam,
Can you please answer the following questions:
1. Will staff be reviewing and verifying the data provided in the options proposed by the individual schools?
First, to ensure that the data is correct (I understand that there will be some corrections to the initial data
provided to the public) and secondly, to ensure that any calculations and/or statistical analysis provided are
correct. Anyone can make a mistake and given the importance of this endeavor, we should ensure that the
data is correct.
2. In St. Dunstan's presentation, they noted that students from closed schools were moved to similar or
higher performing schools. How did they determine the student achievement or performance level for the
purpose of their proposed option - was it solely based on EQAO scores? If not, what other factors were
considered in determining each school's achievement level?
3. What is the acceptance rate for French Immersion students? Do all students in this School Board who
register for FI get a spot? If not, how many students were denied entry to the FI program last year as well as
previous years? This question is to evaluate the viability of FI at a second school in the East Credit area in
order to increase utilization.
4. Related to question 3, can you please tell me how many FI students live in the East Credit area but attend
a French Immersion school outside of East Credit (i.e. do not attend St. Gertrude)?
5. If a school closes, where do the teachers from that school relocate to, in general terms? Do teachers
from the closed schools have to stay in East Credit or can they choose to relocate to another area? If a
teacher wants to stay in this area, can they "bump" another teacher at one of the other schools in the area?
I am trying to determine if I am correct in predicting that even if my children's school remains open, we will
have some new teachers and some current teachers might be forced to leave.
6. The same question as in #5 except as it relates to principals. If a school remains open, will the principal
remain at the school or can they be displaced by another principal?
I look forward to a response to the above questions.
Thank you.
https://webmail.dpcdsb.org/...AAyBPdAADi8A9SWLxQRqbQmbjKuShyAAAAyMfdAAAJ&a=Print&pspid=_1454344654358_494482481[2/1/2016 11:38:00 AM]
Pupil Accommodation Review 2016-St. Gregory
WG4-110
Sent:Friday, January 29, 2016 9:22 AM
To: PAR - Info
I think we have to remember that schools are not just were we send our kids for the day, it’s where they learn academically,
intellectually, physically, by example and from role models, so what kind of a message or lesson are we teaching our kids in this
case? That the dollar is the most important thing and that their needs are irrelevant and unimportant and that no one really
cares about how they feel? Yes in their teens and later years they will learn the hard truth about life but personally I don’t
believe that at the age of 11, 12 or younger is the time. And I would rather they didn’t learn it from the people we have told
them they can trust and that are looking after their best interest, the school board…..
Regards
This email message is confidential, may be legally privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. If you received this message in error or
are not the intended recipient, you should destroy the email message and any attachments or copies, and you are prohibited from retaining, distributing,
disclosing or using any information contained. Please inform us of the delivery error by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.
Le présent message électronique est confidentiel et peut être couvert par le secret professionnel. Il est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire. Si vous recevez ce
message par erreur ou si vous n’en êtes pas le destinataire prévu, vous devez détruire le message et toute pièce jointe ou copie et vous êtes tenu de ne pas
conserver, distribuer, divulguer ni utiliser tout renseignement qu’il contient. Veuillez nous informer de toute erreur d’envoi en répondant à ce message. Merci
de votre collaboration.