|
|
Post by kellskitchen on Jun 21, 2013 9:49:04 GMT -5
I don't understand the 'splitting up' of the Civic Hospital neighbourhood argument. Surely, there are children in that neighbourhood who go to different schools? On my street, 10 kids go to 5 different schools. There are no adverse problems to this - and in fact, it's refreshing for my kids to have friends outside of their regular school environment. No judgement here - I just wish to understand this position more clearly.
As crossing major streets also seems to be a popular argument/weakness for some scenarios, the boundaries proposed in Scenario C actually seem logical. For students attending Fisher, they travel west and only cross at Holland or better still, over the pedestrian bridge and on to Harmer (where the proposed entrance would be). For students attending Connaught, a walk down Fairmont crossing directly in front of the school (where there is already a crossing guard in place) or a walk down Parkdale, a right on Gladstone, again crossing directly in front of the school.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisawhite on Jun 21, 2013 14:39:54 GMT -5
Ottawa’s 4 public boards with multiple programs, and all the private school options provide a lot of choice, which is a good thing. However, some believe it is important for families in the same neighbourhood who choose the same board and program, to be able to able to send their children to the same school. That enhances the neighbourhood experience for those children and their parents. Many may not ever agree with that, which I respect and don’t pass judgment on either.
The Ottawa Civic community is a long and narrow neighbourhood that runs mostly east – west. Concept C cuts a very thin strip out of the very center of that neighbourhood. The thin strip runs as far north as the Ottawa River, and as far south as Carling. That strip is only approximately four blocks wide. I see that as splitting up a neighbourhood. Just my opinion which I realize differs from the majority who post on this forum, but I appreciated the opportunity last night at Nepean High School to speak to other Devonshire parents who feel the same as I do.
As far as crossing busy streets goes, many children are already crossing both Parkdale and Holland to get to Elmdale (English) and many cross Parkdale to get to Devonshire. All current and proposed boundaries have children crossing Gladstone, Richmond and even Scott. Children will continue to cross busy streets to get to all the Near West Schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by karinaroman on Jun 21, 2013 19:28:36 GMT -5
I am hopeful we can convince the working group and board that option C is viable with the tweaking of the boundary for Connaught...so that the Connaught efi catchment goes all the way to Holland, south of the Queensway. 1. it doesn't split up the civic hospital neighbourhood and 2. it doesn't split up the Devonshire cohort that would be leaving Devonshire.
if the elmdale cohort leaving elmdale gets to all go to one place together (other than the English program), then why can't we? I don't think the number of kids in the expanded boundary I am suggesting would take away the viability of a Fisher program for elmdale overflow and I don't think it would crowd Connaught.
|
|
|
|
Post by karinaroman on Jun 21, 2013 19:40:12 GMT -5
oh and I echo what Lisa says re splitting up the neighbourhood. of course all our neighbourhoods have kids going to different schools because of different boards and specialty programs at different schools. BUT it would be nice if in one neighbourhood all those choosing a particular board and program (i.e. ocdsb EFI) could go to the same school. ESPECIALLY if up to now they HAVE been going to the same school. I would like the Devonshire cohort to be able to stay together going forward. At least as much as possible. and as I said, the numbers wouldn't be totally skewed by slightly broadening the boundary for option C westward to Holland.
and if some think it's weird that people on Holland wouldn't go to Fisher, then a) perhaps this area could become a grey zone of choice and b) it's no more weird than the fact that according to the proposed boundaries those on Harmer north of the Queensway would not go to Fisher, but would go to Elmdale.
|
|
lil
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by lil on Jun 21, 2013 20:11:20 GMT -5
I understand the desire to keep the cohort and neighbourhood together. Here's my question then... Fisher or Connaught?
|
|
|
|
Post by karinaroman on Jun 21, 2013 20:25:54 GMT -5
Connaught for Devonshire overflow. Fisher for Elmdale.
or Connaught for both, but I don't think there is room. and Elmdale doesn't like that solution.
option C would be closer to perfect if the Devonshire cohort could stay together and go to Connaught.
|
|
megk
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by megk on Jun 21, 2013 21:10:22 GMT -5
So chatting with Elmdake parents - who possibly diverge from rest, what about thinking in broader terms and ask for renos to Elmdale to handle EFI. They could move as group to WE Gowling during renos. Meanwhile, Devonshire has Connaught as our solution. If we split school scenarios and stop trying to solve everything for everyone, we may have more options. Would Elmdale be willing to relocate during transition if it meant keeping their boundaries? I'd like to see big ideas out there for discussion. Btw, it was Elmdale who first brought it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwhitehead on Jun 21, 2013 23:17:38 GMT -5
With regards to the boundaries for concept C, what was presented Thursday was a preliminary draft drawn that way to minimize crossing Holland and Parkdale and see how the numbers worked. The initial concept for C was to find a plan that avoided using Fisher altogether. That particular scenario was presented to Devonshire June 6th as D/E variation 1. There were some big problems associated with that: the schools were right against the east side of their catchments and Connaught was overcapacity by 4 classrooms. In addition, Elmdale's reps told us that the Elmdale community didn't consider Connaught walkable, since they would have to drive their kids across Holland and Parkdale to get there. With this limitation in mind, I recrafted the catchment for C to minimize the number of students crossing Holland and Parkdale and hopefully make sense with the Queensway underpasses at Parkdale,Fairmont and Bayswater for people to walk north to their closest school.
There are a lot of big challenges to keeping Civic Hospital together. West of Holland it seems pretty straightforward that kids should walk over the footbridge and be right at Fisher, but does that mean that kids on Loretta and Champagne should be bused there? Is Fisher, or Connaught, or Devonshire, the neighbourhood school for the Civic? If Connaught were the Civic EFI school, the current 193 EFI students would fill the available space immediately, leaving no room for growth or for the Hintonburg students that live across the street from the school.
I would encourage anyone with improvements to the current suggested boundaries to send them in.
Quickly to Meg's point: by renos, do you mean addition? If so, I'm skeptical about the province ponying up the money with so much space available next door at Gowling. Maybe if Gowling went dual-track to take the Agincourt overflow in 2015? It would definitely be preferable to find a way of not using Fisher, since it will be tight there in 2016 and beyond with the current bubble. If Elmdale were to opt to hold tight in their portables, they'll still need to build kindergarten rooms for 2014.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisawhite on Jun 22, 2013 6:39:44 GMT -5
The children on Champagne and Loretta are actually closer to Fisher Park, than the children between Parkdale and Holland are to Devonshire, where they currently go. If Fisher became the community school of the Civic Hospital, walkability would overall be neutral compared to current status quo. It would just be different children with the longer walk, or bus options. Maybe the boundary could be Bayswater if that makes the families on the east side of the community happier. Or the families between Bayswater and the tracks could have a choice of schools. That would be better than chopping our neighbourhood into 3 pieces.
To answer Lil's question, I would choose Fisher Park over Connaught as our neighbourhood option. But if we could keep the full neighbourhood together at Connaught, I would support that too. I just haven't been able to figure out a way for that to occur.
|
|
|
|
Post by karinaroman on Jun 22, 2013 20:22:39 GMT -5
Christopher, could you post the link to the current boundaries and proposed boundaries for all the options presented Thursday night? I don't have a paper copy and I can't find them online (or can you direct me to where I could find them in this forum somewhere). then I might be able to make more concrete suggestions for option C, boundary-wise.
and when you say 193 from civic hospital area, is that including the area west of Holland (who currently go to elmdale)? where are you getting that number from? when I think of a good boundary for the civic hospital relocating to Connaught, i'm thinking Fairmont to Holland, south of the Queensway, but without seeing those maps and numbers, I can't tell how many kids that means.
I prefer Connaught over fisher because it's an elementary school, not a high school. I have no faith in proper retrofitting. and if my kid did have to go to fisher, I would actually prefer a small jk-6 EFI program there that is segregated from the 7 and 8s, rather than a 'balanced" mega school.
as to meg's point, I heard similar ideas from elmdale parents about building a wing/addition to replace the portables and make room for growth (although the English program would still be moved in this scenario). there did seem some willingness to temporarily relocate, but I didn't hear gowling as the option there (actually, Fisher came up as one idea). I know Jennifer McKenzie said the province would ask whether the board had made use of existing space already, before giving money for major construction, but I would argue that in terms of Fisher, it is not an ELEMENTARY space and shouldn't be counted as space to be filled by overcrowded elementary students. elmdale parents bring up the glebe situation (where there will be an addition), but there are no undercapacity schools there, so it's not exactly parallel.
|
|
|
|
Post by karlazuniga on Jun 22, 2013 20:24:25 GMT -5
As a family purchasing a house on Loretta, Little Italy in order to go to Devonshire; it was news to me to learn back in October that we where part of the Civic Hospital Neighborhood Area. I have nothing against it but I guess that we have never felt that we belong to the CHNA. Also I know that several of the kids my son plays with at the park go to different schools, and he loves that diversity. I truly do not understand the problem with dividing the CHNA as we will still meet at the park or any other kind of activity, but I respect different points of view.
Personally, I do have a preference of school due to walk-ability. But when comes to trying to negotiate I would give up, walk-ability for security. Hence I would not mind which one of the 3 schools my 6 years old son ends up attending as long as it has the basic security requirements in place. I know that at this point Fisher Park is not walk-able and I am prepared to bike with my son when possible and to send him on a bus in winter. Nonetheless when on Thursday I asked the school board representative if they where certain to have a safe and fenced playground by September 2014, the reply was that this was mandatory only for JK and SK. When I asked if this “mandatory” category could also be applicable for 1st and 2nd grade students, I was told that they would be using the open yard as the board is only required to provide fenced yards for kindergarteners.
Having my 6 years old son running around an open public area with his classmates is not acceptable.
So to answer Lil’s question if it comes to choosing a school I would choose Connaught because I would rather protect younger children by providing them the security they need until they understand some of the risks associated to independence.
|
|
|
|
Post by karinaroman on Jun 23, 2013 6:56:51 GMT -5
wow. I had no idea the fenced yard was only mandatory for kindergarteners. that makes me even more loathe to send my kid to fisher. In fact, if that were the reality, I would not send my children to Fisher. period.
I wonder if that were a better known fact by parents what that would mean for support for the Fisher concept.
|
|
megk
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by megk on Jun 23, 2013 8:42:01 GMT -5
I've looked over the Glebe/OOS ARC data and they went through all the same scenarios/discussions/concepts that we are going through -> move grades to the 7/8 feeder school, dual-track new schools, move JK/SK, etc. A few take-aways - they used a round-table discussion in their public meeting and this worked even with 120+ participants. I'd like that format to hear what other parents/community like & dislike because that information is missing for me, especially around Elmdale.
I also don't think we should underestimate the power we have in influencing the decision making with the board and trustees. Let's not argue the boards position or Jennifer's position among each other. Let's create concepts and present them and leave the board and the trustees to address them. We can assume a solution can't be done, but that hinders the process. If we assume it can be done, then there is more freedom to think beyond the current concepts.
I'd also support presenting a Devonshire only solution and allow Elmdale to present their best solution and leave the MFI and Alternative streams as-is....
|
|
