Post by Nicholas Olmstead on Nov 25, 2013 20:06:03 GMT -5
@prashant
I'm going to sound like I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit here, and in a sense I think I might be but bear with me.
You mention that the Civic neighbourhood was not adequately consulted. What would have satisfied you in terms of consultation? I can't speak for all parents involved in the process because I only have a daughter at Devonshire, but I think all the parents of the involved schools were made aware of the ARC process as much as was possible. Would there have been a process that you would have found more thorough? Would a public meeting by the CHNA have been good for you? I chaired a meeting on behalf of the Hintonburg CA, widely publicised by the HCA, and we had precisely three people show (including two on the HCA board.) If there was something that you feel would have fulfilled a consultation requirement I would like to know what that could have been. Maybe the Board can take it under advisement for the West ARC which should be coming next year (Gowling/Agincourt et al.) I know Amanda Faris, CHNA member and WG co-chair, was hugely involved...
I just read the WG recommendation and it's largely unchanged from what was presented at the Fisher Park meeting: a JK-6 EFI program at Connaught with Elmdale's English program being redirected. Yes, the WG has provided a number of 'supporting recommendations' but truthfully, I have no idea whether the Board will impliment any of those, or even if they're going to approve the WG recommendation. I wouldn't be surprised to see staff and trustees go with a Fisher Park solution even though that's not what was publicly popular. It would be a shame to see all the work the WG put in go down the tubes, but I'm a cynic so it wouldn't surprise me. The WG did actually recommend a flexible transfer system as part of their main recommendation to help parents in our situation.
The transition team has yet to be struck so the 'implementation plan' is still being made. They're the ones who will be tasked with putting the recommendation in place now that the WG has completed their task. We've still got a fair amount of road left to travel before things are in full swing. That includes providing adequate French resources for the new EFI program (which would be a new program no matter what school it was at: Fisher, Connaught, Cambridge etc.) Personally, I'm in exactly the same situation as you and your family. I have a daughter in grade 5 at Devonshire who will be finishing out her grade 6 there because of the likely phase in, and I have another who will be starting SK at Connaught next year. Two kids in two schools. I actually hope there ISN'T a phase in because my eldest WANTS the year at Connaught but I realize most parents are likely to want a phase in to minimize transitions (look at the hue and cry that happened when the Board thought about moving the 6's for the interim solution... The interim solution is why we held our youngest back from JK this year.)
I agree with you on the Board bungling this process though. It seems the WG weren't provided with enough information, information that they requested, or inconsistent information. It might have been better to actually hold a proper ARC for this but I've never been part of one so I can't say. It does seem though that the Board left it too late in the process to adequately address our issues. I doubt that should fall at the feet of the Trustees but it would have been nice to see some proactive work from someone to help adress this more adequately. I think it's up to us to voice our particular concerns now to help the transition team make this as palatable as possible for everyone.
I'm going to sound like I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit here, and in a sense I think I might be but bear with me.
You mention that the Civic neighbourhood was not adequately consulted. What would have satisfied you in terms of consultation? I can't speak for all parents involved in the process because I only have a daughter at Devonshire, but I think all the parents of the involved schools were made aware of the ARC process as much as was possible. Would there have been a process that you would have found more thorough? Would a public meeting by the CHNA have been good for you? I chaired a meeting on behalf of the Hintonburg CA, widely publicised by the HCA, and we had precisely three people show (including two on the HCA board.) If there was something that you feel would have fulfilled a consultation requirement I would like to know what that could have been. Maybe the Board can take it under advisement for the West ARC which should be coming next year (Gowling/Agincourt et al.) I know Amanda Faris, CHNA member and WG co-chair, was hugely involved...
I just read the WG recommendation and it's largely unchanged from what was presented at the Fisher Park meeting: a JK-6 EFI program at Connaught with Elmdale's English program being redirected. Yes, the WG has provided a number of 'supporting recommendations' but truthfully, I have no idea whether the Board will impliment any of those, or even if they're going to approve the WG recommendation. I wouldn't be surprised to see staff and trustees go with a Fisher Park solution even though that's not what was publicly popular. It would be a shame to see all the work the WG put in go down the tubes, but I'm a cynic so it wouldn't surprise me. The WG did actually recommend a flexible transfer system as part of their main recommendation to help parents in our situation.
The transition team has yet to be struck so the 'implementation plan' is still being made. They're the ones who will be tasked with putting the recommendation in place now that the WG has completed their task. We've still got a fair amount of road left to travel before things are in full swing. That includes providing adequate French resources for the new EFI program (which would be a new program no matter what school it was at: Fisher, Connaught, Cambridge etc.) Personally, I'm in exactly the same situation as you and your family. I have a daughter in grade 5 at Devonshire who will be finishing out her grade 6 there because of the likely phase in, and I have another who will be starting SK at Connaught next year. Two kids in two schools. I actually hope there ISN'T a phase in because my eldest WANTS the year at Connaught but I realize most parents are likely to want a phase in to minimize transitions (look at the hue and cry that happened when the Board thought about moving the 6's for the interim solution... The interim solution is why we held our youngest back from JK this year.)
I agree with you on the Board bungling this process though. It seems the WG weren't provided with enough information, information that they requested, or inconsistent information. It might have been better to actually hold a proper ARC for this but I've never been part of one so I can't say. It does seem though that the Board left it too late in the process to adequately address our issues. I doubt that should fall at the feet of the Trustees but it would have been nice to see some proactive work from someone to help adress this more adequately. I think it's up to us to voice our particular concerns now to help the transition team make this as palatable as possible for everyone.