By Tom Muir

May 17, 2017

BURLINGTON, ON

Tom Muir has been a relentless commentator who asked the hard questions and pressed even harder for answers and the information he felt the public was not getting.
Today – he writes the 11 Halton District School Board trustees outlining their role and the obligation they have to the public that elected them. Muir delegated to the Trustees last Thursday

Dear Trustees,

I have been considering the experience I observed on the evening I delegated to you  and wondering how you are going to move forward in the delivery of your duties and responsibilities.

Tom Muir

Frankly, there is scarce evidence of your views or intentions in debating this report toward making decisions, and I find this troubling.

This week, May 17, as you know, there is another tabling of the Director’s final report, a formality for final decision on June 7. However, this tabling really only begins your task of, and responsibility for, a transparent and accountable decision-making process. I cannot delegate in person, so please accept this as a written delegation for the record.

This information report tabling allows for your opportunity for deep questions, analysis, and for motions and resolutions for amendments and changes to the Director recommendations.

I have troubling questions about how strong the Trustees are in decision-making in this political context, and if there are any Trustees who will say no to the Director and Board.

I have provided much information, analysis and commentary on this matter, so you should be familiar with this body of evidence, and what it says about the PAR process so far.

The Board and the Director constantly worked at obstructing my efforts to engage the process and investigate the Conditions 1 and 2 that formed the justification for the PAR.

My requests for relevant information were constantly ignored and/or refused. I was forced to go to the Office of Information to request pertinent information, and then I was subjected to more obstruction.

The information I was able to get, which I have provided to you, gives evidence-based proof that the state of utilization that the Board cites as Condition 1 was knowingly and deliberately caused by the Board.

It’s irrefutable that the declines in utilization of those schools are planned declines, the direct result of Board actions.

I’m having problems with how you are portraying the utilization of the schools, like it’s due to natural causes and demographics, and therefore that’s the problem, not the Board’s intention and action. You have been doing this for most of the time since this all started. This misrepresents the situation, and is not truthful.

As I said in my delegation of May 11, utilization in Burlington was planned and directed so as to fill a NE Burlington school (Hayden), and the evidence clearly shows that this was done by choking the life out of 4 of the 6 existing Burlington schools, with premeditation.

Steve Armstrong graphed data showing that the changing of boundaries and limiting the feeder school is what put the Pearson high school at risk of closing.

The current UTZ was planned long ago, and imposed by the Board – it didn’t just happen by itself. I have provided proof of this in the data.

But rather than getting to the bottom of how to fix the underlying causes, the Board focused on stopping release of pertinent information to me and the public, including forcing me to submit an FOI request, and even then further obstructing and refusing the release of information.

The current situation of low utilization was caused by the Board, and only by them. Refusing to be transparent and accountable for this is the big lie of the Board.

Now using this PAR, the same Board is now blaming the victims, and recommending that two of the six victims be sacrificed by closure.This recommendation by the Director came right at the start of the PAR, with no public discussion.

To decide the closures, the victims were pitted against one another, a process still ongoing, but it didn’t matter. After a long process the Director still wants his two victims.

His reasons are not the true context, but as they say, if repeated over and over again, people will eventually believe it.

For truth in your deliberations, you have to note each time that you discuss utilization, that the rates of UTZ are the result of a conscious decision by the Board, and implemented in their planning by building Hayden and putting 1500 students there from the other schools and their feeders, causing the planned declines in UTZ in those schools.

Now, as the result of these known consequences, they want to close schools to make it up, and that’s part of their plan too.

There is no accountability, and I think that’s part of the Trustees job to call out, but it’s not evident.

What I have seen is a general administrative failure of transparency and accountability by all the Board, and a failure to show visible oversight on the part of the Trustees.

Do you plan on doing anything to correct this misrepresenting slant, and the failure of accountability?

Halton District school Board Director of Education Stuart Miller

The Director’s report also speaks of Condition 2 for the PAR. This mentions that the PAR will address questions of equity of opportunity for students, but I see no concrete problem analysis, or details of solutions.

The report also states that “reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities.” Please note that the Condition 2 uses the action words “could enhance”. It does not say “will” and so guarantees and specifies nothing.

There is no transparent and accountable information provided by the Board indicating any details of the delivery of this Condition 2 aspect of the PAR. There are only abstract assumptions, and ideology, that larger enrollments and schools allow for this. This assertion is disputed by education studies, and by parents and students in Burlington.

I repeat the point made about how much the financial operating savings are with closures of empty spaces. The $2 million operating cost savings is the only operating funding that is spent on maintaining empty spaces. Since there is no increase in budgets for instruction, more programming cannot come from there,

The PAR Policy statement says that; “Decisions that are made by the Board of Trustees are in the context of carrying out its primary responsibilities of fostering student achievement and well-being, and ensuring effective stewardship of school board resources.”

I remind the Trustees that you will be closely watched to see how your decisions fulfill these duties and responsibilities, in a transparent and accountable way.

Bateman

I ask you to demonstrate how closing Bateman fosters student achievement and well-being in our most vulnerable, and needing of extra support, children? After seeing some of these kids at the delegations, I don’t know how you could in good conscience close their school for so little savings and so much cost, as the most expensive option.

And show me how removing the possibility of the small school experience of Pearson, with the integrated day-care facility, fosters the same things, while providing a test of the real validity of the large school ideology currently dominating the Board planning and design.

And I look forward to you showing me how you equate the ensuring of effective stewardship of school board resources with the closing and loss of 2 of Burlington’s community schools, and the gain of practically nothing of significance in the financial and fiscal condition of the Board. The ignoring of future growth needs, and social changes, is especially reckless regarding closure induced over-utilization, and risks of pressure for renewed future schools and capital needs.

Dr. Frank J. Hayden High School

Remember again, it was the Board that created this problem in a planned, deliberate way, and this added cost of school closures in this deliberate plan, in building Hayden, must not be swept under the rug in an attempt to forget it. That is what I see happening now.

I argue that based on demonstrated benefits to student achievement, and stewardship of school board resources, now and in the foreseeable future, there is no case to close any schools. There are simply no demonstrated financial gains in closing schools, thereby destroying the community of Burlington schools, to provide any meaningful benefits. This is the truth of the matter.

Indeed, it is always in the best interest to deliver and act on the truth, because there is no telling what harm will come of leaving out these details in the future. That’s really what happened by leaving out the truth of Hayden’s impact, so please, let’s not compound that mistake by closing schools.

At bottom, we are not only dealing with numbers or dollars, but instead with children, and essentially the future of our community. This makes our decisions much more important than just taking care of business.

The trustees have within their authority the means to move boundaries, feeders, and programs in order to undo the skewed enrollment caused by building Hayden without considering the consequences.

Hayden was built and filled with students by transfers from existing schools that can just as easily be undone.

The Halton District School Board trustees in session

In conclusion, the Trustees do not have a pressing need to close schools, and it appears that on planning, financial, fiscal, risk, student benefits from demonstrated significantly enhanced academic offerings as opposed to known negative impacts, the real net economic effects looked at closely, and the impacts on the overall school community, it makes no sense.

If you happen to disagree with this assessment, it is your responsibility to demonstrate your reasons in a transparent and accountable way.

By Pepper Parr

May 15th, 2017

BURLINGTON. ON

Steve Armstrong was one of the 14 members of the Burlington community that sat on the PAR – tasked with being the conduit between the Board of education and the community.

It is safe to say that every member of the PARC believes the process was badly flawed and resulted in communities fighting with each other rather than working together to find a solution that worked for everyone.

PARC committee needed some time to understand the rules they had to work within. They had begun to realize that they were in an impossible situation yet began to come to the conclusion that not closing any schools was perhaps the best option for the immediate future.

The PARC leadership was not able to find a route to a solution; the PARC members did begin to coalesce around the option that called for no school closures. What the PARC did do was reject the original recommendation which was to close Central high school and Pearson high school.

The second recommendation recommended closing Bateman high school and Pearson high school; that led to a much closer look at just what Bateman had going for it – a lot more than many people realized.

That realization and the better late than never arousal of the Bateman parents brought some exceptionally valid information the public didn’t have before. We will have more detail on just what Bateman does have going for it; as much if not more than Central.

Steve Armstrong, a Pearson parent said in his delegation that the Board of Education’s utilization (that portion of the capacity of a school that is being used) sits at 75% and, based on the Board’s projections, will hit 80% in 2020.

That 75% is a city wide number – it includes all the schools – some of which are at the Board policy utilization level of 90% while others are at significantly below.  Pearson is one of the schools significantly below.   Armstrong believes that “If these sorts of numbers (75%)  were being seen at each of the schools we wouldn’t be undergoing this process.”

Armstrong prepared a series of graphs, one of which showed that Burlington’s overall actual enrollment bottomed out in 2014, and is presently on the rise. He also shows yearly Long Term Accommodation (LTAP) for as far back as 2006. The curve labeled as 2010 represents the 2010-2011 LTAP data.

This graph shows what the LTAP boundaries were for each of the years – the actual number is shown in red and indicates that enrollment bottomed out in 2014

“Just focusing on the pattern associated with 2020 enrollments we can see that from the 2010 projections up to the most recent data provided to the PAR Committee there has been a strong increase in the expected numbers. Over 700 students to be exact, and 2020 isn’t very far away.”

The LTAP numbers for Oakville are shown for comparison

Armstrong notes that this pattern is also seen in the Oakville data, but is a little more “bursty”, and makes bigger jumps when it moves. Not surprisingly the accuracy of the projections goes down, in both municipalities, the further out one looks.”

“The Region is growing, the City is growing, high school enrollment is growing, and the pattern has been that the projection errors tend to underestimate the actual numbers. This isn’t to surprising as the Board recognizes the planned housing growth at a different point than the City does.

Andrea Taylor, Principal at M.M. Robinson in conversation with Steve Armstrong during a PARC meeting.

Given the known near term growth, and the lower confidence in the projections beyond 5 years, extreme caution regarding closing schools is merited. Especially if it involves selling real estate assets in return for short term cash benefit.”

“High over utilization (crowding) creates problems, and low enrollment numbers will reduce some opportunities for studnets. Both situations alter the student experience, and we have these conditions present in two close proximity schools located in north Burlington – Hayden and Pearson. As the image below indicates they show a large overlap in “walkability” zones.”

The most recent projections indicate that if nothing changes Hayden will grow in size and be 600+ students over capacity by 2021. And there is no room for additional portables or a permanent addition on that site.

The symbol indicating the school aligns with the boundary area. Armstrong identified just three relatively small areas where a student would not be expected to walk to school from.

Option 19 had proposed to move the French Immersion (FI) program to MM Robinson as a way to deal with this looming issue. The Board had also listed in its Options the idea of capping enrollment, with extra students being redirected to an overflow school.

The PAR Committee also briefly discussed boundary changes, but ultimately the present recommendation stays with moving FI, and monitoring the situation going forward.

Armstrong has great concern and takes “exception to the simple notion of “monitoring”,.

Armstrong argues that the “enrollment numbers for Lester B Pearson as depicted in this graph “we can visualize three sets of data. The upper most curve represents the projected enrollment prior to a boundary change associated with the opening of Hayden. The boundary change purposely reduced the expected enrollment to just below 600 students. Apparently smaller enrollments where Ok back then! The actual enrollment went off the plan quickly, and significantly. Presently that school is sitting 30% below its planned student body, and indeed those 392 students are witnessing the problems of too little enrollment.”

Armstrong doesn’t have much faith in the Board’s plan to monitor.  “If monitoring simply means standing by and watching then that is unacceptable. If 30 % off target isn’t enough to trigger action what is? The Board needs to put a stronger set of actions around tracking and managing, and the Trustees needs to press for frequent reporting back to them” he said.

Armstrong wil tell you that “Hayden definitely has a “vibe” to it, and it’s more than just being a new building. “When I toured the school as a PARC member I couldn’t help but feel that Burlington needs more of this. In reality, feel probably has little to do with the age of the walls.”

Armstrong likes the idea of conjoining Hayden and Pearson as a way of combining the best of both schools. “If Hayden’s Principal was to also oversee Pearson, similar to what happens with some elementary schools, would this not help ensure success? Since the goal is that some of the students presently going to, or about to start at Hayden, would be instead attending Pearson, why not bring some of the teachers over as well he asks.

Pearson has been a vibrant smaller school in the past, and not everyone is seeking out everything that a large school has to offer. Armstrong points out that currently 25% of Pearson’s students do so through optional attendance. A similar percentage also attend Bateman’s English stream program through optional attendance. Apparently there is value in having such environments available both north and south of the QEW.

With a proposal like this both student bodies expand their programming options, in an environment most suited to their preferences.

“The current set of recommendations would move the city’s overall utilization from the present 80% trajectory to 108%. Based on the historical inaccuracies of the projections beyond the 5 year mark this plan greatly increasing the risks of requiring capital intensive construction in the future.

“Hayden’s projections involve it running at 150% of capacity by 2021. Redirecting FI to MM Robinson to relieve overcrowding is too critical to simply leave to “monitoring” the progress.

“Closing Pearson removes close proximity capacity from the North, eliminates an option for smaller school attendance, and takes what by 2020 will be a 88% utilization up to 111% overall for the remaining 2 schools.”

“Change isn’t always easy” acknowledged Armstrong. “Perhaps starting with a smaller project, that would develop better community based problem solving, is in order.”

Closing no schools was always an option – it just took the PARC members some time to realize it might be the best one. 7 dots

The original option to close Central and Pearson was interesting to those who were not representing either of the schools. 9 dots

This was the same as option 19 with some variation on boundary changes and shifts in the program offerings. 9 dots

Armstrong has come to the conclusion that Pearson is necessary to give Hayden some breathing room and to continue the community based approach to problem solving.  He was a strong advocate for retaining access to a smaller school in the North.

The PAR committee members were asked to rank the options that were before them.  Each of the 14 PRAC members were given two dots to put on which ever option they favoured. The objective was to begin to whittle down the 40 plus options that were on the table.  The results made it immediately clear that there wasn’t going to be anything near the consensus the Board would have liked to see.  It also meant that the trustees had a very hard job ahead of them.

After his three months of work on the PARC, Armstrong feels the trustees need to vote for the “close none of the schools option” and allow time for the Board, with significant involvement from the community, to fully study the issues and finally get it right.

Like many in the community, Armstrong believes that Hayden should not have been built – but it exists and parents are going to have to live with that decision.  That is is a fine school today, even though it is over crowded, should not blur the issues about what is done with the other six high schools.