|
|
Post by cwhitehead on Jun 15, 2013 22:58:30 GMT -5
The Near West Working Group is in the final stages of preparing the presentation for June 20th. There was a draft copy circulating that has some inaccuracies, especially around Concept C. We will get this straightened out and a final presentation out to you as soon as its available. We are also preparing an FAQ document.
The meeting on the 20th will have a similar format to what we did at Devonshire on June 6th. There will be an introductory explanation of the working group's mandate and process, and an overview of the 4 main concepts that we're presenting with some of the major strengths and weaknesses that we've identified. Next will be break-out sessions in 4 classrooms, each with a facilitator and several working group members on hand to answer questions and receive input. Members of the public are welcome to stay in the room for one concept that interests them or circulate through them all. At the end I believe there will be some sort of plenary session.
Numbers are staff projections for 2016 school year, concepts A-C assume Elmdale's English program is dissolved and the students split to Hilson and Connaught.
A) Fisher Park JK-8 EFI, Connaught JK-8 ENG: Large (414 students) JK-6 EFI program added to Fisher Park to relieve overcrowding at both Elmdale and Devonshire. There are concerns that there would be too many 7/8s in the building (658 students) relative to the younger grades, so this concept redirects either the English 7/8s (108 students) or the Summit Alternative 7/8s (142 students) or both (250) to Connaught.
B) Fisher Park JK-8 EFI, Cambridge Dual-track ENG/EFI: Not so large(between 206 and 300 students, depending on where you draw the boundaries) JK-6 EFI program added to Fisher Park to relieve overcrowding at Elmdale and western part of Devonshire, smallish (164 students) JK-6 EFI program at Cambridge to relieve Devonshire overcrowding on the eastern side. 7/8 students (English or Alternative, probably not both) are redirected to Connaught to reduce the topheaviness of 7/8s.
C) Connaught Dual-Track ENG/ EFI: Not so large (275 students with the boundaries as drawn) JK-6 EFI program added to Fisher Park to relieve overcrowding at Elmdale. Smallish (162 students) JK-6 EFI program added to Connaught with eastern boundary around Fairmont/Merton, includes Mechanicsville. All 7/8s stay at Fisher Park. Variations possible: Elmdale could keep their portables or become a JK-3 school with 4-6 located in a wing of Fisher Park. If necessary to relieve Devonshire more, a seed EFI program (starting with JK-3ish, then adding a grade per year) could be added at Cambridge.
D) Connaught JK-8 Alternative, Fisher Park JK-8 Dual-Track ENG/EFI, Cambridge Dual-Track ENG/EFI: Large(414 students) JK-6 EFI program added to Fisher Park to relieve overcrowding at both schools. English programs currently at Connaught and Elmdale move to Fisher Park. Summit Alternative program redirected to Connaught, which becomes a new Alternative JK-8 school. Numbers are impossible to estimate for this concept, since we have no way of knowing at this point how many English students at Connaught would opt to switch into the Alternative program and how many would go to Fisher. This concept also requires a full ARC, which would delay the final decision and implementation. JK-6 EFI added to Cambridge to relieve Devonshire.
As I said, each of these concepts will be presented with some obvious strengths and weaknesses, and you are encouraged to identify more at the break-out sessions. Personally, I'm not happy that three of these concepts remove students from Fisher Park, where there are currently drama, music and design and tech classes with teachers with the necessary skills and class space to deliver great programs. They will be moved to a smaller school without the necessary critical mass to attract teachers with the same skills, so effectively the English/ Alternative kids will not be getting the same educational experience as their EFI and MFI counterparts. I don't think that's right.
I would encourage everyone with an opinion or concerns to provide feedback to the working group. If you feel that none of these options make sense, tell us. If you have a better idea, tell us. If you feel that the working group has no legitimacy and these decisions should be made for us by OCDSB planning staff, tell us. Don't hesitate to give your unvarnished opinions. Narrowing down the options to one action plan this fall will be a very difficult task, and Lil and I will need to know if we're pushing in the right direction. Once the working group develops a workable scenario, there will be another round of consultation before the group reports to the trustees.
I'll say this again and again: nothing is set in stone, boundaries are not fixed, we don't even know for sure how many classrooms are available in some of these schools. The time for input is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by leanneholt on Jun 16, 2013 6:54:58 GMT -5
Thanks for this. I would like to know why Fisher Park has to be part of the solution. The SWOT overview shows adding JK -6 to Fisher would be unreasonably costly, fundamentally change Fisher, too heavy on 7/8, have walkability problems, raise security questions for young kids because of the community centre. Parents in this forum have also expressed concerns with this option and it's been brought to my attention that we should be thinking about the environmental health implications of a play ground area in such close proximity to the Queensway- which would be the case at Fisher.
I will look more closely at the other option and come to the meeting on the 20th with more constructive suggestions - many of which I have seen in this forum. But if you have insight as to why all of the proposed options include Fisher, I would appreciate hearing about it.
Thanks
|
|
megk
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by megk on Jun 16, 2013 7:08:22 GMT -5
Thank you Christopher. Here are my questions…
1. Moving out Fisher Park Gr. 7 & 8 isn’t necessary, correct? There is space in the school to keep them. The issue is, is it desirable to have our children in a K-6 at a school with so many 7 & 8s? I would like to hear how the changes would be implemented to understand what the issues are. Will the two groups use separate doors? Will there be separate wings/areas so there is little overlap? How would the board roll out the changes?
2. You and Lil were selected to represent Devonshire at the Working Group. Soon after the meetings got underway, all the selected parent volunteers learned they were not representing their schools, but tasked with solving all the programming issues of all the schools. The board has also not contributed or clarified any information. When did the original mandate change? Was it because of our trustee or the board staff?
3. Have all the non-EFI communities been consulted in the process? The Alternative parents, the MFI parents, the English parents, the ESL parents, the 7 & 8s? All these groups could be affected. Would having a full ARC more fully include all these groups, and put more tasks onto the school board to contribute information?
4. Can the parents ask to put Hilson back onto the table? Hilson and Connaught are both in close proximity of Elmdale and Devonshire and would keep kids in their neighbourhood schools and ease the pressure where the majority of children live.
|
|
lil
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by lil on Jun 16, 2013 9:28:41 GMT -5
Hi Leanne - Fisher plays a role in the scenarios because there is so much capacity pressure in the Western part of the study area with very few physical options for relief - Fisher and Hilson. Hilson, as it currently stands (and English and MFI school), has only 3 empty classrooms - not enough to add an EFI program. Something would need to move to create additional space. Fisher has space. There are more relief options in the East - Connaught and Cambridge both have at minimum 6+ empty classrooms (these numbers still need to be verified). We have not been able to figure out a way to move enough students from Elmdale to the East without using Fisher in some way.
One options that was briefly discussed, and that you'll see briefly mentioned on Thursday, is switching MFI to EFI at Hilson, adding MFI to Connaught, and adding EFI to Cambridge. Hilson is extremely opposed to this.
Any new ideas/suggestions are welcome.
|
|
lil
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by lil on Jun 16, 2013 9:48:15 GMT -5
Hi Meg - to briefly answer your questions: 1. All of these issues have been raised at our meetings but we have no answers yet. Please feel free to raise them again on Thursday. 2. When the working group first met, we had no official mandate and had to create one. The one that the group created and has been shared with parents is the one that we've tried hard to keep to. You can see it here: www.ocdsb.ca/sch/as/Near%20West%20Docs/22%20April%202013%20meeting/NW%20Study%20Mandate%20Approved.pdf. Each school has 2 delegate and Christopher and I represent Devonshire. The difficulty is there is that any solution for Devonshire will affect at minimum 1 other school and we have a responsibility to look at the impacts on other schools. 3. As scenarios involving other programs/schools arise, those other schools are invited to participate in the Working Group. So yes, everyone has representation at this point in time. However, this has been part of the difficulty in moving forward. When new delegates arrive, because the scenarios and issues are so complicated, it takes some time for them to get up to speed and not only holds up the process but sometimes makes us go backward a bit. I don't know that a full ARC would help matters. In fact, I am very concerned that it would not be possible to come up with a solution for 2014 if an ARC were started (this is one of the major drawbacks to the 4th scenario) and we would have to come up with another interim solution for that year. 4. Yes, Hilson can go back on the table. It was set aside to see if we could find a workable solution without it since the opposition was so strong. We have an obligation to revisit if we cannot find an acceptable solution without it and/or if there is a strong interest in exploring it further. A heads up that the preliminary numbers we've seen make the situation at Hilson not very workable in the way the scenario was presented on the forum. Ideas to make it workable would be welcome. Hope this helps, Lil |
|
|
|
Post by marthadulmage on Jun 16, 2013 10:13:38 GMT -5
As Lil points out if EFI is added to Hilson, the MFI program has to go somewhere. This means Connaught becomes MFi and Cambridge would be needed for EFI. The other option could be to use Fisher Park for MFI and have EFi at Hilson and Connaught.
I'm not thrilled that we have to use Fisher Park, but it is looking increasingly necessary, particularly since it appears Cambridge does not have as much available space as initially thought. Board staff have also said that Fisher Park would no longer be suitable as a high school - not sure why, though, so we should ask for clarification. Also, I feel that the students who will eventually go to Glebe for high school (east of Bayswater for sure, and between Bayswater and Holland have choice) should be redirected away from Fisher Park to a middle school downtown. Glashan is full already and Mutchmor is adding 11 more EFI classrooms. Where are those kids going to go to middle school? All this to say that there could be enough space at Fisher Park for a medium sized EFI program and room to accommodate this bubble of kids though middle school, particularly if we increase middle school capacity downtown.
Personally I think option c is our best bet. It doesn't require moving 7/8s out of Fisher Park, it doesn't require using Cambridge, and it puts the extra EFI space exactly where it is needed. The preliminary boundaries also make more sense than some of the other variations. Essentially Devonshire's overflow goes to Connaught, and Elmdale's to Fisher Park. There wouldn't be the need to have the renos and playground in place for 2014 because Elmdale can hold tight in portables for a year or two with their English program moved out. Connaught could still be implemented in 2014.
|
|
|
|
Post by karinaroman on Jun 16, 2013 11:36:29 GMT -5
i'm sure this is posted somewhere, but can I ask again what the suggested boundaries are for c? from the description above it sounds like elmdale uses fisher and Devonshire (the ones who will be moved) go to Connaught, but I know there was once a suggestion that the overflow to fisher would start somewhere around parkdale (and west). so, I guess i'm trying to get a sense of where we would go in this scenario as we are between parkdale and Holland.
thanks,
Karina
|
|
|
|
Post by kellskitchen on Jun 16, 2013 11:56:56 GMT -5
Is there a magic bullet for Devonshire? Would adding an EFI with boundaries Fairmont to Holland (North-South to Carling) at Connaught serve OUR purposes? If, for some reason, populations & demand shifted in 5 years, both schools could easily adjust programming to suit the neighbourhood. Both schools are walkable for the majority of students in the catchment already.
Would removing the English program and keeping portables at Elmdale give them the space they need to get through this bubble of enrolment? If the OCDSB fully examined and maximized the space at Elmdale as they have done at Devonshire, would this create the needed classroom space? A roving English teacher, such as we have at Devonshire instead of a dedicated room? A portable media lab instead of a large computer room? Would monies be better spent on renovating an existing school rather than making a new one at Fisher? Wouldn't Elmdale parents prefer to keep their boundaries intact?
Wouldn't this leave other schools (except Connaught of course) and their programs alone and out of the discussion? Fisher will be adding classrooms at 7 & 8 in the next 3 years, and could need the space a small EFI JK - 6 school will occupy.
It seems as though the Working Committee has been tasked (unfairly) to solve several programming issues in the Near West area rather than address the basic, immediate problem of two schools that are overcrowded. If they were allowed to focus on that issue alone, the solutions for each school could be more easily found.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwhitehead on Jun 16, 2013 12:41:25 GMT -5
I think the boundary used by staff to run numbers on this scenario was Parkdale. I looked at the Devonshire scatter map and there were a few families (maybe 15-20?) on the other side of Parkdale. I would suggest to the working group that those children have the option of moving to Connaught with the rest of Devonshire and that only future kids between Parkdale and Holland go to Fisher Park (except siblings of those at Devonshire who should have the option of Connaught as well). It doesn't make sense to split off a small number of kids from the rest of their classmates. The devil is in the details, and people do need to know what the implementation would look like before deciding whether they like a scenario or not.
I wouldn't think keeping portables at Elmdale would be preferable to using Fisher, but my children are not affected by that so my opinion doesn't really count! Fisher has a lot of empty space at the moment, and Elmdale has had portables for years so arguably they need to either reduce their boundaries or get an addition. Good question though about whether staff have really maximized the space there.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwhitehead on Jun 16, 2013 12:41:54 GMT -5
sorry that was Martha Dulmage replying not cwhitehead
|
|
megk
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by megk on Jun 16, 2013 12:50:12 GMT -5
Kelly - I like that idea. I wonder what it would take to find out if it can work. It really seems that it is up to us as parents to find the workable solutions, that the board will not help us.
I also think it is a unfair task for the parent volunteers on the Work Group to be expected to solve programming issues and their work looking into that is diverting everyone from finding a solution for the problems at Devonshire and Elmdale.
It is also very difficult to accept that Hilson is off the table, but all other schools and programs are on the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by karinaroman on Jun 16, 2013 13:34:26 GMT -5
I think if those of us between parkdale and Holland could move with the rest of Devonshire (and siblings too) to an efi Connaught program, there would be a lot of support for C not just from us but from the whole civic hospital community. especially if there are only a handful of families to accommodate (i.e. wouldn't overburden Connaught and wouldn't hurt the viability of a fisher program)...and option C uses fisher, which should please the board and elmdale.
I agree the working group is being asked to solve more issues than it should be. let's start with the shortage of efi programming and the overcrowding at Devonshire and Elmdale. I am dumbfounded that option d is still on the table. there is no proof it will boost enrollment at Connaught (enough), so there's every chance Connaught stays under populated while we cram fisher to the gills.
in another thread, Christopher (I think) expressed some surprise that the a vote on options at the meeting at Devonshire showed a lot of support for the option with the most absurd boundaries, largely because that option meant fisher was not part of the solution. while that might not be practical or feasible in real life, I think that kind of vote shows how strong the opposition is to fisher as Devonshire's solution. that should be taken seriously by the working group since we are one of the two schools at the heart of this accommodation review.
I have met a lot of parents in the community over the past few weeks, both those with kids at Devonshire and those with kids who soon will be going there and have been trying to encourage them to go to the june 20th meeting. I should say there is not a lot of confidence in the process so far. not because they don't see our reps working hard at this, but they see that a lot of the options do not reflect the feedback being given (i.e. feedback on this forum) and they tell me they assume the result is a foregone conclusion, that their input won't make a difference because "the board isn't listening" and so on. I try to counter that but to be honest it's hard for me to convince them otherwise when i'm not entirely convinced they're wrong. in fact I know several families who are leaving the board next year (not just ones with jk kids, but those with kids who have been at Devonshire for a while) because they have lost faith. I hope they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prashant on Jun 16, 2013 13:54:30 GMT -5
I have to say that from a purely selfish POV, I prefer C (even more so with Kelly's changes).
That said, trying to look at things objectively (to the extent that's possible), I still prefer C (again, more so with Kelly's changes).
But, and with all due respect to all the incredibly hard work all the parents have done on this, in particular Lil and Christopher, I do echo the idea that we've been unfairly forced to try to solve the entire Near West issue instead of just working for our school and our children and, in this alone, I feel that our group (and each other group too) doesn't necessarily have the legitimacy to speak for all parents from the Canal through to Island Park.
Clearly that is borderline impossible.
This should always have been a full ARC despite the time that would have taken, and perhaps it will still end up becoming a full ARC despite the time and space pressures if, as the Board seems to have admitted with respect to the Mutchmor issues, the current "solutions" are not met favourably by the community.
Is there any solution a majority of Devonshire parents can rally behind?
|
|
|
|
Post by leanneholt on Jun 16, 2013 17:21:09 GMT -5
I really appreciate all that Christopher and Lil are doing on this. I agree that the scope of this seems too large without a full ARC and/or so large that a phase in of changes - like taking care of Devonshire's over opo and Connaught's under pop up to 2016, is very reasonable. It also seems that other schools are deciding their own fates while Devonshire families have to live with the Board's decisions. I strongly urge all to talk with their neighbours and friends to make sure there is a strong and common voice coming from Devonshire/Connaught area parents -as I'm sure is the case with Hillson and Elmdale.
On a side note, the next conversation for the OCDSB and parents should probably be about the need to boost the academic record and reputation of Connaught as opposed to trying to avoid sending our kids there. A battle for another day.
|
|
|
|
Post by kellskitchen on Jun 16, 2013 20:39:16 GMT -5
The only reason anyone would or should avoid sending their child to Connaught is if they want EFI programming. It is a fantastic, interesting and engaged school that does so many great things. Children are regularly streamed out of EFI if there is any possibility that there could be learning issues or if English is not their first language., hence how so many have ended up at Connaught.
Also, if academic records, EQAO results or test scores are important, most of the top schools in Ottawa are either from the French board or have EFI programming. If you build it, it will come.
|
|
