|
Post by cwhitehead on Nov 11, 2013 23:56:47 GMT -5
I think, unfortunately, this has been a process of choosing between multiple crummy options and hopefully finding the least crummy fit for the most people. When a Fisher EFI program was on the table, the assumption was that it would be phased in in the same way as C: JK-3 to start and growing from there. I got the sense tonight that there is a lot of uncertainty about how many kids will actually be going to Connaught in September with all the changes to the ENG catchment, the new EFI program and the various special cases (such as allowing grade 3s to move to Hilson early for MFI). Planning staff is uncomfortable with uncertainty, and the JK-3 EFI already brings the school close to using all the current classrooms. There is the potential to add 2 more classrooms with some renovations, but that may not be done this year.
|
|
alan
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by alan on Nov 12, 2013 10:01:15 GMT -5
Last night we discussed in great detail these corner cases where families would end up in crummy situations like that. While it is impossible to ensure nobody ends up in one of those situations, we have recommended that families in these situations be allowed when possible to transfer to another school to alleviate the stress. And really what that means is that if the numbers add up in both affected schools, and if bussing will be available if required, then it should happen.
The matter of bussing is important to understand though. The bussing schedules may change fairly dramatically based on the new structures and boundaries, and this may mean that a child affected by one of these corner cases just simply cannot realistically be bussed to their school of choice.
|
|
|
Post by ursula on Nov 13, 2013 7:48:36 GMT -5
A JK to 3 program is not a full EFI program. The 2014 grade 3 kids will be the oldest kids, the most proficient french speakers, in the program for 4 years! This is not a full EFI program. Students need to be immersed as much as possible including the opportunity to interact with more proficient french language speakers. An EFI program to grade 5, or even grade 4, is more helpful. The implementation proposal of JK to 3 EFI is a sad disservice to the students.
|
|
|
Post by karinaroman on Nov 13, 2013 23:12:21 GMT -5
I think before the board decides that moving the 4s and the 5s is not wanted because parents/kids don't want the 3 schools in 3 years thing, the board should do a comprehensive survey of the parents in that situation and see. Might be surprised that many aren't that worried about it. They would have some of their cohort with them AND this would also keep siblings together. And yet i would argue a NEW, TINY EFI program (emphasizing the "seed" in seed program) in a DUAL TRACK school is a recipe for failure and immense dissatisfaction by all affected. It's like treating the jk-3 efi kids moving to connaught as "overflow" that needs to be put somewhere. It might not be like that when it grows to a full program but for the first few years it would. And the kids who are part of that overflow are the ones central to this whole process. They are the ones who have no choice but to change schools and be the guinea pigs in a new program. It is only fair to them to make that program as good, as strong, as viable from the start.
I think if more parents had known this kind of phasing in with option c was so likely, the working group might have had different responses on the surveys.
Two other comments. The board doesn't have control over bussing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have influence. Bussing kids close to connaught to avoid parkdale and the on and off ramp crossings is a must.
Also concerned about recesses at connaught. The kindergarteners have separate play areas but the 1-6 share a playground at connaught. I liked the 2 yards at devonshire because it was obvious at school bbqs and events that the bigger kids just dominate the play structures when all the kids from all grades share the yard. Yes, connaught playground is bigger but i was wondering if recesses could be staggered, not for efi vs french but for primary 1-3 vs the older kids 4-6). Is that possible? Is there a precedent for that elsewhere?
|
|
megk
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by megk on Nov 14, 2013 15:33:55 GMT -5
As school council co-chair, I am happy to do what I can for the parents. The working group is done now and people are encouraged to contact trustee Jennifer McKenzie with problems. Remember, the board has not made their report or given their recommendation yet. If parents have an idea of something school council can do, please share here, or send to devonshireparents@gmail.com We can also have a discussion at the next council meeting. I have Christopher's final details still to post, including dates of board meetings and trustee voting in December and January.
|
|
|
Post by darcie on Nov 14, 2013 19:19:46 GMT -5
I am very pleased with the recommendation made to the board. My daughter will move to Connaught next year as a grade 2 student and my son will start JK there in 2016, if the catchment remains as described by Christopher. My support for this option arises mainly from a keen awareness of the limitations of the other options, and an acceptance that Devonshire is overcrowded and that some kids must therefore go elsewhere.
I am aware that there may be some challenges rolling this out. I hope and expect that the board will make resources available for such things as books and classroom materials in French. However, I also expect that there will be a need for affected parents to rally together to pose questions of the Board and Trustees and to seek solutions together. Jan-Sept is not a long time to sort things out. Luckily, there should be fewer issues to sort out at Connaught than at Fisher Park.
A final point: while many of those in the new catchment living south of the Queensway will have to travel along Parkdale to get to Connaught, some (including my family) will cross under the Queensway at Fairmont.
|
|
|
Post by liseann on Nov 17, 2013 15:20:14 GMT -5
First, thank you to those parents who have put in so many hours trying to find a fair, long-term solution to the problem of overcrowding. I would like to share my thoughts on the implementation of Option C. There will be no perfect solution for all families, so I think the focus should be on finding the right balance between the creation of a strong EFI program at Connaught, while not putting an unnecessary burden of multiple transitions on the older Devonshire cohort. I have a child currently in Grade 5 at Devonshire, and my strong preference would be for him to finish Grade 6 at Devonshire. Transitions are stressful for kids, and I don't see enough of a global benefit to outweigh the disadvantages of having this group go to 3 different schools in 3 different years. So, I am in favour of a phased-in approach. On the other hand, I can understand why parents with children in the younger grades would advocate for a larger EFI group at Connaught. Perhaps a reasonable compromise is a JK-GR 4 phase-in at Connaught for the first year, with Grades 5 and 6 finishing off at Devonshire.
|
|
|
Post by cwhitehead on Nov 20, 2013 23:19:47 GMT -5
The new JK-3 EFI program at Connaught is projected to be about 140 students in September, an average of 28 per grade. Hilson's entire JK-6 ENG program is about 168 kids this year (20.5/grade), Cambridge has 149 (18.6), Elmdale's ENG is about 60 (7.5). Connaught's EFI program will be a healthy, viable program from day one, and will probably have more than one full class per junior grade.
I agree that it's unfortunate that the older grades won't be in the school with them. There is definitely a case to be made to move the grade 4s at the same time as the JK-3s: the numbers are large enough to justify having a grade 4 class at Connaught and there are enough classrooms there as well. I don't see a case for moving grade 5 (only 9 students would be moved), and splitting grade 6 up for a year seems to me a bad idea. I would suggest that someone take the Devonshire directory and do some surveying of parents of the grades 4,5 and 6s. Take the results to the board as a delegation and see what happens.
Planning staff is very aware of the problem of the Parkdale on/off ramps and is trying to get an answer on whether OSTA will consider that interchange a designated hazard that requires busing.
|
|
|
Post by kmacey on Nov 21, 2013 18:26:31 GMT -5
Thanks Christopher. Would you be able to provide the numbers by grade rather than averages. Jk is not a part of the EFI program. What are the numbers for Sk, gr 1, 2 and 3? Will parents with kids in 2 schools be permitted to transfer- did the WG addresses this as part of the implementation plan? I am still deeply disappointed that parents of kids who will be moved out of devonshire (myself included) were not given the opportunity to provide input on the implementation. We were definitely given the impression at the October public meeting that that implementation would be handled by a transition team following the decision.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas Olmstead on Nov 21, 2013 19:38:11 GMT -5
I'm sure either Lil or Christopher will correct me if I'm wrong, but the WG was only tasked with making a decision on how to solve the population problems. The transition team has yet to be struck from what I've heard, so there is still a lot of road left to travel. We will get our chance for input I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by kmacey on Nov 21, 2013 20:08:27 GMT -5
Oh my apologies then, I was under the impression that the WG recommended an implementation plan for sk - 3. Hopefully I'm mistaken. Lil? Chris?
|
|
megk
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by megk on Nov 21, 2013 22:08:53 GMT -5
I haven't seen the final WG report, but they did suggest SK-3. I know that is what Jennifer McKenzie had mentioned at one of the public meetings and is something the board has done before, which I assume is one of the reasons it was suggested.
Lil has information on what the transition team will do. I know a few parents who have mentioned they are very keen to be a part of it.
|
|
|
Post by cwhitehead on Nov 22, 2013 22:50:28 GMT -5
We did make the recommendation that the program start with JK-3. Everything we've recommended has to balance the negative impact on someone versus the positives for someone else. As I've said, I can see a case for JK-4 moving in September, and that may make sense to the trustees as well. I think it's also valid for parents of the grade 4s to object to their kids being moved and friends broken up when it's not, strictly speaking, necessary for space reasons, but rather to surround the younger grades with more French speakers. [As an aside, there was virulent opposition in June to the idea of moving 40 students from Elgin to a hypothetical Cambridge EFI program that would have otherwise had only 120 students JK-6.] I don't know what the right thing to do is and am happy to leave that to the trustees. I can say that the board has added EFI streams to ENG schools several times in recent years, so they know what needs to be done and what has worked in the past. The WG is simply a group of well-intentioned parents without any pedagogical expertise: if the board says that JK-3 has worked well, we don't have any better information to go on to say differently other than hunches.
Nicholas is right: our task was to find a solution and suggest broad stroke ways it could be implemented. There will be a transition team made up of our superintendent, principals, students and staff who will take whatever the trustees decide and make things work. I've heard of a few people who are interested in participating, I would imagine there will be more than enough work to go around if more people want to join in.
There is a recommendation in the report that says the transfer policy should be applied in a way to minimize hardships on families affected by the decision.
I don't have exact Connaught EFI numbers for the most recent proposed boundary changes (Holland to Fairmont), but they should be fairly close to these: SK: 28, Gr. 1: 31, Gr.2 23, Gr.3 24, Gr. 4: 26, Gr. 5: 9, Gr. 6: 27 JK is 52 combined EFI/ ENG
|
|
|
Post by lisawhite on Nov 24, 2013 14:22:02 GMT -5
In reference to Kmacie’s question about whether the Working Group addressed the issue of permitting families with children in 2 schools to transfer, I attended the last Working Group meeting as a public observer precisely to hear the discussion on that point.
It was pretty clear by the end of the meeting that transferring to keep siblings together would NOT be permitted. It was said that if that starts happening, “then everything falls apart.” That was the quote. I got the impression that Option C is so tight there is absolutely no wiggle room to accommodate families for that reason.
One Working Group member asked the board staff how parents would manage this situation, and whether they would simply “have to suck it up?” That is the wording that was used. The answer from the board staff was a pretty clear “yes”. It is expected that siblings in the new Connaught EFI catchment will be split up and have to go to different JK to 6 schools, depending on their grades and the phase in plan chosen by the trustees.
|
|
|
Post by Prashant on Nov 24, 2013 20:28:37 GMT -5
I don't remember any implementation plan being presented to the community at November 11, 2013 meeting at Fisher Park with a couple of hundred parents present. If Chris or Lil can prove me wrong, I'm happy to eat my words. From that time (when the community was invited to comment) to the Working Group's final report, massive changes were made to "Option C" that were NOT put before the community and on which NO ONE other than the Working Group members had any opportunity to comment.
Consequently, the "Option C" that has been put forward is categorically NOT the "Option C" that the Working Group put before the Community on November 11, 2013. Call it something else if you want, but let's not kid ourselves.
My family is going to suffer because of this "New NOT Option C"; we will have 2 children in 2 different schools for 3 years with siblings, friends and cousins split apart and, regardless of the number of students at the new Connaught EFI, there's NO French books, NO French library, NO French anything (not even teachers yet) other than some vague transition and 7-8 year olds will be the "senior" students in the program. And because neither the Board's nor the Working Group's mandates have been respected in this decision, each of Devonshire, Elmdale and Connaught be IMMEDIATELY either at or over capacity, so there's no opportunity for "special" cases like ours' to take our hardship to the Board. "Suck it up" indeed. And that response from the same Board Staff member who, on November 11, said that the Board would work to accommodate families like us. Lies. Are we unhappy? Yes and rightfully so. And we're not the only family who thinks this way.
What is the implementation plan here and who in our community has approved it? Democratically or otherwise? Board Staff was clear about both the Fisher Park and Connaught alternatives on November 11, 2013, that they couldn't and wouldn't promise ANYTHING. So, we have no promises, we have nothing but empty platitudes that everything will be fine.
Of course, no solution was ever going to satisfy everyone. So we've been told by the same Board Staff that wanted to close Devonshire not 8 years ago, who waited till after the last minute to start the Near West Review 14 months ago because they were "busy", and who tried to force the Civic Hospital community between Preston and Holland, Carling and the Queensway, into Gowling with NO consultation whatsoever.
I'm the first to admit the Working Group had a difficult task, made the more so due to Elmdale's recalcitrance to do anything of value for any other school (other than to get out the English students they clearly didn't want) and Board Staff's apparent (based on my reading of various postings by Lil and Chris) lack of interest in assisting. That said, the area from Preston to Holland, Carling to the Queensway had virtually no parental involvement in the Working Group and its meetings (yes, Lil, Laura, Ursula, Mark and others came out) but I'd be astonished if 10% of families in this area were actually involved or are even aware of what's actually going on other than the options presented at the Nepean and Fisher Park meetings where Board Staff put on its Happy Face and then CHANGED the options with no notice whatsoever.
The Civic Hospital community has not been consulted; the Civic Hospital community has not been informed; and the Civic Hospital community has not been engaged. We were told to trust the process and because the mandates were not respected or followed, we've been duped.
Sure there may be a core of Devonshire families who are happy about the Working Group's final decision (mostly from north of the Queensway) or who just don't care, perhaps because their children aren't affected (they get to stay at Devonshire, or get to move to Connaught which is closer) but most (PROBABLY 90% OF CIVIC HOSPITAL FAMILIES) have not been engaged at all or have had the rug pulled out from under them due to the changes to "Option C" that were never discussed. That is a huge democratic deficit and takes away all legitimacy from the Working Group's final decision.
And at the end of the day, the only thing that's really been accomplished is that Board Staff have guaranteed they have jobs for another 2-5 years (with salaries we pay through some of the fastest increasing property taxes in Ottawa if not Ontario), because they'll be needed in 2-3 years (if not sooner) to fix the mess they just created. Sad really. But this isn't over.
|
|