ARC Delegates meeting Wed. Dec 11, 7-9pm

Here are the notes for the meeting. Please add any comments as we are preparing the draft for our submission.

Devonshire Parents Meeting re: School Council Delegation on Near West Accommodation Review

Attending: Vicky Smallman, Vicki Campbell, Mark Scrivens, Nicholas Olmstead, Melanie Brown, Kristen Macey, Kim Lynch-Johnson, Joanne Kim, Joan Hatch, Lianne Ouelette, Karina Roman, Darcie Doan

After a round of introductions, the people who attended the previous night’s OCDSB meeting gave the highlights of what they heard, particularly from Trustees when they were questioning staff (Note: most of the highlights can be found on twitter using the #nearwestarc tag).

Key observations included Jennifer’s comments on busing (that while Parkdale/417 has been declared a hazard, if there are safe walking routes kids may not necessarily be eligible for buses), and her heads up for staff that she wanted to examine the numbers of families that would be potentially split with both a JK-3 and JK-4 scenario in the first year, as well as the numbers impacted by including both sides of Fairmont in the move to Connaught.

Also notable were comments by trustees expressing concern about whether the solution is sustainable for at least 5 years, particularly on the Elmdale side. One trustee quite clearly stated that she didn’t understand why they did not move grade 6 students to Fisher, as she has several JK-5 schools in her catchment. Another trustee picked up on the comments of the working group regarding future growth and the need to add a school in the area at some point in the future, wondering why the group did not consider using 440 Albert (the tech high school). He also expressed concern about Elmdale’s capacity.

What we’ve heard from Devonshire parents

Lots of questions about boundaries, especially where Fairmont is concerned. Current experience with divided streets (ie Hamilton) is not positive; there was general support for the notion of having both sides of a street kept together.

Concerns were expressed about the size of the program and the need to ensure that it is viable. Some of the concerns centred around resources – will including more grades mean more resources to the program? Will there be enough resources through the entire implementation period? Would incluing another grade mean a bigger community/more families/more capacity for fundraising to make up any shortfall?

Class size was raised as a concern. If possible we should minimize split classes. Concern was also expressed about allowing too many exemptions/cross boundary transfers, thus eroding the size of the cohort in the new program.

A lot of families are fine with the decision and ready to move on to implementation, so we want to make sure that the recommendation is not derailed by trustees.

General discussion and questions:

Boundaries – will this be decided by the trustees or could this be changed in implementation?

Phase-in – there was a lot of back and forth with different perspectives expressed about the benefits/draw backs of including or not including the grade 4 cohort in the move in the first year. It was observed that the community’s feedback was based on the assumption of a JK-6 cohort moving over. A JK-3 implementation was discussed in the context of Fisher, but not Connaught. So we don’t really know what the community feels about a JK-3 program. We were all assuming that whether we moved would be based on where we lived, not what grade our kids were in.

There are strongly held views on both sides on this issue with no completely convincing arguments on either side. Unlikely there will be a consensus view.

Question: Will more grades mean more resources? What does “sufficient resources” mean in the staff report and does this apply to each year of the phase-in, not just the first year?

Concerns about exemptions, transfers and the erosion of the program. Worried no one will be left (or not enough to make it viable). While some families are worried about keeping kids together, many kids are going to want to go where their friends are.

It was noted that many parents are relieved that their kids are going to Connaught instead of Fisher Park (or Gowling). We should make sure our delegation makes positive comments about the outcome of the process.

Resources dedicated to the EFI program. Need more than a start-up budget; there needs to be sufficient resources for full implementation. Unless they do the full move. Question is: what have been the startup budgets from other new programs?

Busing – we should be prepared to make a strong argument regarding this. Older kids will make a bee line up parkdale no matter what; they won’t necessarily walk via Fairmont. Daycare provisions are also made according to busing, and there is a need to relieve traffic pressure around Connaught.

We should also be considering the impact on the existing English program and mindful of the need to ensure a smooth transition for everyone and to build a strong community at Connaught.


Delegations

At least two Devonshire parents have already registered. Others may still register.

It was generally agreed that our school council delegation should be from the elected officers, in order to represent the school as a whole as there are definite differences depending on our personal situtations and how we are affected.

Key points to reinforce: Solution really does reflect the input we heard. It is the result of extensive consultation and what we think it makes the most sense for the community as a whole. But we do have some things we need to say about how this is implemented in a way that ensures strong programs and a smooth transition for everyone affected.

Key points to highlight: We don’t have consensus about what grades should be included in the first year. Different families are impacted in different ways. Our main concern is that there should be enough included to ensure a viable program and minimize split classes as much as possible. If the phase-in is gradual, we want a commitment for substantial budget allotments in each year of the implementation in order to build the resources and ensure adequate staffing and supports. Given the extensive renovations required in some of the early scenarios floated by staff and the fact that this solutions requires minimal capital costs, there is an argument to be made for a commitment to fund the other things we will need to start up a program and ensure that it is of high quality from the beginning. This includes: adequate staffing and incentives for teachers with experience; french language library resources for all grade and reading ability levels; french language educational assistants and additional special education resources so the addition of a new program does not mean resources taken away from existing special education programs at Connaught and so special ed resources are available to kids in both programs; technological resources as indicated in the reports Trustees have already received [NOTE: We didn’t discuss this at the meeting, but I figured I would get these ideas out while I was doing the notes in the hopes that others might add points]

It was generally agreed we should say something about the grade 6 pressure valve as it was raised in the report as well as by trustees. It makes the solution workable for the middle to long term, addresses over-capacity at Elmdale and allows for some fluctuations in population in the not-too-distant future. When we discussed it for the interim solution, there was no complete consensus but it was Devonshire’s preferred interim solution. It should be considered as a potential solution for ongoing capacity pressures but it would only work if grade 6 students from all area schools made the transition, in order to ensure critical mass in that grade at Fisher Park.

Looking ahead at the future, we share the concerns about growth in the catchment area. There will need to be a new elementary schools, and we also need to be mindful of the need for middle school space as well as high school capacity. While we don’t want to mix this issue up with the current crisis of the need for EFI space in the elementary years, we encourage trustees to start thinking about the long term and working now to develop solutions.

Transition questions flagged for future discussion
busing for kids who would have to cross 417 – we’ll need an advocacy strategy. There are questions about how they are going to manage the 417/Parkdale construction in general over the next couple of years
How are JK/SK classes going to be organized? Will they be combined? Separated by program in SK? Or in JK?
How do recesses happen at Connaught now? Staggered by age range (junior/senior)? Worried about younger kids getting overrun.
Can National anthem be bilingual? How will morning announcements be dealt with?

Lisa - That is certainly something that could be done, but council needs a parent willing to do the work. If you are interested in drafting a list of questions parents feel are important, we can put them into survey monkey and send it via email to collect responses. However, there is a lot of community feedback provided by the board on their website. All emails from parents, survey results, opinions, etc, have been published and are open to the public to review.

If you are offering to put together a list of questions, Lianne and I would be happy to look it over and see if we can put together a survey monkey questionnaire.

Feel free to post here, or send it to
devonshireparents@gmail.com

As for JK-3 vs JK-4, the teacher rep and Devonshire principal had some insight into how the grade break-downs work best in EFI. They presented this information to parents the past two council meetings and have been very open to questions. JK-3 is the primary curriculum with each year building on the previous. Gr 4-6 are the Junior curriculum, so everything changes in grade 4. It almost sounds like have JK-3 in year one works best for resourcing and planning curriculum for a full primary grouping, then in year two, move over the grade 5 so the junior grouping would have grade 4 & 5 together. It sounded like having only one grade in the junior level in year one would not be the best thing for the junior level students.