There have been ten case of raccoon strain rabies in the Region.
The Halton Region Health Department received test results from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on February 13 confirming a case of raccoon strain rabies in a skunk found in the City of Burlington. Residents are reminding to avoid all contact with raccoons, skunks and other wild animals.
Alive they are cute – dead they could be the death of you. They can be pretty stinky as well. Just leave them alone.
Rabies is a viral disease that causes severe damage to the brain and spinal cord, and if untreated before symptoms appear will lead to death. The virus is spread through the saliva of an infected animal, usually entering through a bite or scratch.
“Anyone who comes in physical contact with a raccoon or other wild animal should see a physician immediately and contact the Health Department by dialing 311,” said Dr. Daniela Kempkens, Acting Medical Officer of Health for Halton Region. “Halton Region, as well as neighbouring communities, are experiencing a higher than average number of rabies cases and we want residents to be aware of rabies and know how to protect themselves from wild and stray animals.“
After someone is exposed to rabies, timely use of the rabies vaccine can prevent the rabies illness. While the rabies vaccine is extremely effective if it is administered before any symptoms occur, there are a number of things you can do to protect your family and pets from the threat of rabies:
• Seek medical attention immediately if you come in contact with a raccoon, skunk or other potentially rabid animals. • Report all animal bites or scratches to the Halton Region Health Department.
• Warn your children to stay away from any wild, stray or aggressive animals.
• Do not touch dead or sick animals.
• Do not feed or keep wild animals as pets.
• Make sure your pet’s rabies vaccinations are up to date.
• Keep your pet on a leash when off your property.
• Any pet that has come in contact with a raccoon or other wild animal should be seen by a veterinarian.
In order to begin whittling down the 30+ options before the PARC the members of the committee were asked to pair up by school affiliation and offer their input on the outstanding options, (it was now down to 14 options)
Using the 13 point PARC framework, PARC members were asked to write down supporting details to either “Criteria Met,” or “Criteria Not Met,” for a given option, along with any suggestions on the foolscap paper.
Along with the written input expected from PARC members, there was also a “dot-mocracy” exercise. After contributing (and reading others’ contributions) all the outstanding options, PARC members were asked to attach a dot to three options for which they favoured.
Members of the Program Accommodation Review Committee meeting February 9th.
Options that received two or fewer dots were not seen as not having much in the way of support and were dropped from further consideration.
Option 7 ………
No school closures, cap enrollment at Hayden
Criteria Met
Overall: Least disruptive to school communities, given that there are no school closures.
Accommodation of students in a permanent facility
Cost effectiveness of transportation
80% utilization across the city
Regional programming remains an option
Criteria Not Met
Overall: Does not meet a range of outstanding issues, which prompted the PAR
Low utilization persists exacerbating fiscal issues o No precedent or process for capping enrolment
Suggestion: Boundaries could be adjusted to create stable boundaries and allow for growth.
Bateman closes …. Criteria Met
Overall: Next to Option 7, it is least disruptive to school communities, given that there is only one school closure, and there is a neighbouring school nearby (Nelson) that could absorb some of the Bateman students.
90% utilization rate met
Unified cohorts
Criteria Not Met
Overall: Compromises issues of programming and equity for all HDSB students.
Uncertainty if all programs will be offered (e.g., OYAP, SHSM)
CPP, Essential, and LEAP all move to one school
Balance of enrollment not met (Hayden remains over-capacity; Pearson remains under-capacity)
Nelson requires portables
Split cohorts
Bateman daycare closes
Option 19 ……………
Pearson and Central close; Hayden program change.
Criteria Met
Overall: Disruptive given that two schools are closing, and leaving a large gap in downtown Burlington without an HDSB high school; utilization met.
Full range of programs (mandatory and optional)
Fiscally responsible (utilization rate is improved; transportation savings)
Accommodation of students in permanent schools
Criteria Not Met
Overall: Compromises issues of programming and equity for all HDSB students
Increases use of portables
Increases transportation costs
Elementary PAR will be required; splitting of cohorts
Specialized programming is lost
Does not balance enrollment
Lose Pearson nursery
Walkability decreases
Suggestions:
Tweaks to Aldershot and Bateman to balance enrollment;
Tweaks to facilitate stable long term boundaries (e.g., Increase boundary for FI South Burlington east (Aldershot), move some FI to Nelson and to Bateman
Avoid splitting Pineland cohort between Nelson Bateman
Option 28………
Pearson and Central close; Aldershot and Hayden program change
Criteria Met
Overall: Disruptive given that two schools are closing, and leaving a large gap in downtown Burlington without an HDSB high school; utilization met.
Accessibility addressed
Stable boundaries
Good range of programming
Minimal use of portables
Fiscally sound
Criteria Not Met – Overall: Compromises issues of programming and equity for all HDSB students
PARC members first set out what they felt was and was not met in terms of the Framework criteria – and then their ranking of the options before them. The 14 have now been whittled down to four.
Transportation costs are high
Elementary PAR will be required; splitting of cohorts
Specialized programming is lost
Lose Pearson nursery Suggestions:
Increase Bateman enrollment by moving Nelson English boundaries
Increase Aldershot English boundary to include Maple.
Keep Pearson
Correct error in utilization for 2019 at Dr. Frank J. Hayden SS.
This gets the choices down to four options.
What hasn’t been broken out are the increased transportation costs and the cost of additional portables.
This is drifting towards a recommendation to close Central and Pearson high schools.
The Halton District School Board’s Accessibility Plan calls for:
Reasonable provision shall be made to provide accessibility to each building, each building floor space and all types of student program space within each floor space for persons with disabilities such as physical mobility disabilities, visual impairment and hearing impairment.
The total cost to get the high schools to the boards standard is $10,326,837
In a report to the board assessments on the cost of getting the high schools up to the board standard were based on the following information:
Aldershot High School is a grade 7–12 school with a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 143,000 sq. ft. Originally constructed in the mid-1900s, it is a 2 storey school with additional level changes at various locations on the ground floor. The 2nd floor is accessed by a limited access limited use elevator (LULA) and stair lifts have been installed to address access issues to the various levels of the school. Washrooms appear to have been upgraded but are still below current accessibility standards. The total budget to implement accessibility recommendations is $1,565,066
Burlington Central High School is a 3 storey grade 7-12 school with a GFA of approximately 158,000 sq.ft. The original building was constructed in 1922 and has been added to over the years. The last major addition added a new technical wing and gymnasiums. The auditorium has been upgraded with new seats and equipment. There are currently floor areas of the building that are only accessible by stairs, necessitating both a new elevator and stair lifts for accessibility to all floor areas. The total budget to implement accessibility recommendations is $3,186,106
Lester B. Pearson High School was constructed in 1976. It is a 2 storey school that currently has a single storey ‘porta-pak’ addition that is not in use. The GFA including the porta-pak is approximately 113,000 sq. ft. The 2nd floor is currently accessed by a LULA elevator. The total budget to implement accessibility recommendations is $1,538,114
M.M. Robinson High School was constructed in 1963. A recent renovation has created a large entrance foyer and includes a full size elevator that provides access to all floor areas. It is a 3 storey school with a GFA of approximately 214,000 sq. ft. The school includes a large wing outfitted for special needs education and several technical shops. The special needs wing is equipped with accessible features that buildings of this age do not often include. The total budget to implement accessibility recommendations is $1,396,676
Nelson High School was constructed in 1957. The school is a two story building with a GFA of approximately 168,000 sq. ft. 2nd floor areas and a small music wing are currently accessible by LULA elevators. The total budget to implement accessibility recommendations is $1,715,241
Robert Bateman High School was constructed in 1970 (then called Lord Elgin High School). It is a 2 storey school with a GFA of approximately 213,000 sq. ft. The second floor space is accessed by a full sized compliant elevator. The school includes teaching space for many service-related courses, in a variety of technologies and the culinary arts. The school also has a large special needs wing on the ground floor that has several accessibility features in place. The total budget to implement accessibility recommendations is $925,634
If Central and Pearson were closed that cost would be reduced by $4,724,220 for a total of $5,602,617
The information was given to the 14 members of the PARC who are preparing a report to the Director of Education who will in turn prepare a report for the trustees who will make a decision if any o the high schools should be closed and if so – which high schools would be closed.
There are 1800 plus high school classroom seats in Burlington that do not have students in them.
Scott Podrebarac called it dotmocracy – you cast your vote by putting dots on a chart.
It is a process used to get a sense as to where the thinking of a group of people is going.
Sort of like a straw poll.
When the dots (three to each person) were handed out to the 14 people on the PARC who vote – there are a number of advisors – there were 42 dots to be distributed.
The official tally won’t be released until the minutes of the February 9th meeting are published. The publishing of those minutes will be delayed a bit – they have to be signed off by the Chair who is going to be away from his desk for a personal matter for a day or so.
The Gazette has been able learn what the two critical dotmocracy results were:
Dots shown are not the official count. The final total was 15 dots.
Option 19, which was the Director of Education told the trustees was the Staff recommendation got 15 dots and
Dots shown are not the official count. The final total was 8 dots.
Option 7 which was to not close any schools got 9 dots.
The Board staff recommendation got just a little less than one third of the dot votes that were available.
The other votes were all over the map.
So – at this point in time – after three meetings the PARC has yet to settle on a choice – things are still quite fluid.
Aldershot is very concerned about what will happen to them if Central is closed and Bateman is getting scarred silly that they might get closed.
Central and M.M. Robinson PARC members write there comments on whether or not they felt a particular option met or did not meet the Framework outline.
The Board has added another day of PARC meetings and is preparing for the first public meeting.
Given the way the December 8th meeting went and some of the hallway conversations that have taken place between parents and Director of Education Miller – it could get noisy.
Many parents look at the data and the facts that are out there and suggest “we are in this mess because Hayden was built” – and that may be so – but the school was built and it did have a significant impact on the class room capacity. There is nothing that can be done – the building isn’t going to be torn down.
The opportunity does exist for some creative boundary re-alignments – and several parent groups who seem to have more of a grip on the numbers than the Board’s Planning staff have come up with some interesting ideas that are now in front of the PARC people.
What we appear to be seeing at the PARC meetings is each set of parents from the seven schools are beginning to do what they have to do to keep their school open.
Nelson is seen as safe because of its iconic status in the city; M.M. Robinson is going to get more students.
Somewhere in all this there has to be some leadership – from either the board staff or the PARC people.
Aldershot high school PARC representatives Steve Cussons and Eric Szyiko are both adept at speaking up and making their point. They can see a yard full of portables coming their way if Central is closed.
There are some very intelligent people within the PARC – will a natural leader emerge and come up with a recommendation that the trustees can vote for?
Don’t expect to see any leadership from the trustees. That crowd is made up of 8 people who are still learning their jobs and a couple of dinosaurs who let this situation develop. There are exceptions: Donna Danielli, who sits on the PARC as an advisor, is in a position to give the PARC a perspective they need.
At this point the Central people are putting out a very strong case – and they are being very active.
Sharon Picken, brash and bold but she knows what goes on in the schools. She is one of the two Bateman PARC members.
The Bateman people realize that their school is at risk and they are now beginning to organize themselves.
The Pearson people are asking that they be given back the students they once had – those that were sent to Hayden where it is said that students are doing their gym classes in the hallways.
At some point a serious analysis has to be done on how boundaries can be re-aligned so that students are distributed more evenly throughout the buildings that exist.
To add to the mix of issues is the cost of the portables that are apparently going to be needed at Aldershot and the cost of transporting hundreds of students by bus.
The trustees sit on the sidelines taking it all in – their time will come in May.
Somewhere in all this data there is an answer. The Board staff are saying that they have put forward an option – close two of the seven schools.
The parents aren’t buying it – the trustees are sitting quietly on the sidelines figuring out what they will do when crunch time arrives for them.
In my opinion the Halton District School Board (HDSB) projects the appearance of being either incompetent or manipulating the Program Accommodation Review process, let me explain.
First of all, data in the School Information Profiles (SIP) is changing on an ongoing basis. The original SIP was posted on the HBSB web site with a revision date of November 9th, the table below shows the variance in 5 year renewal costs relative to the most recent SIP of January 24th.
What is driving the change in these renewal costs, was this in error/incompetence, or is this being manipulated to determine an outcome?
It’s interesting that Bateman costs have come down after option 23 (Close Bateman) was presented at the PARC.
Also, Central’s costs have gone up by almost 400%!
Most recently, the Program Accomodation Review Committee has been told these numbers are not correct and they will be getting new ones, are we to believe the third time the charm?
Just what is it going to cost to keep Central high school up to the required standards – and is the board fiddling with the numbers?
The SIP also contained the 10 yr historical maintenance costs, Central’s maintenance cost over the last 10 years is one of the lowest. I see this two ways, the school itself is cost effective to maintain given it is the oldest school in Burlington. Or, the HDSB has spent as little as possible at Central (and further planned to as per the Nov 4 SIP) given it had tried to close Central in the past and wanted to ensure its closure in this go around.
Are the future renewal costs realistic? If you add up the renewal costs for the last 10 years for all 7 schools from the SIP, this totals $22M, is the board saying it now is going to quadruple that cost as we need to spend $43M over the next 5 years? Has the maintenance of our schools been inadequate over the last 10 years or, are the new numbers being inflated to drive a predetermined conclusion?
Option 19 – the Director of Education’s choice is not all that popular with the PARC people on the early count of hat should be kept in and what should be set aside as the 14 people work towards what they want to pass on in the way of their views to the Director.
As you observed at the meeting on February 9th, the first presentation by the board was on the operating cost savings associated with closing Central and Pearson. How can the PARC members be asked to remain unbiased and open minded when the board presents this information only for Option 19 and claims it is too much work to do the calculations for the other options?
Has the Board heard of spreadsheets? I could have done the financial analysis for all options in a few hours.
Now for the accuracy of that information, it was obvious to me right away that the board had forgotten to include the cost of the portables for Aldershot which would have significantly reduced the calculated savings.
When asked this question by the PARC, the board representatives danced around the answer eventually saying they would move portables from other schools. The reality is they forgot to include this, Aldershot under Option 19 needs 10 to 12 portables. The portables at Pearson are fixed in place, not to mention 30 to 40 years old, which the board was alluding to, that could be moved to Aldershot. So is the plan to take Central kids out of their building and stick them in 30 year old portables? The reality is the board will need to lease portables at $60,000 – $70,000/year (this cost was sputtered by the HDSB member presenting this information) for 10 portables, or say $700,000 a year!
The board issued an information package to the PARC that contained a summary of course conflicts for all Halton Secondary Schools, with Central shown to be the highest. No support or background, just one page.
The HDSB hired a consultant, IPSCO, to conduct a student survey primarily targeted at programming. At the end of my letter I note the Director’s take away message of “listen to the students”, keep this in mind.
The draft data was briefly presented at the PARC Meeting #1 with no real conclusions, why? Well, if you read each of the questions, the survey was constructed to identify programming issues, and I think the board was hoping to use this information to promote its theory that larger schools are better; and there are significant issues with our smaller schools. If you look at this data closely, and considering it’s the voice of the students, here’s what I’ve observed from this data:
• Central had the highest response rate, suggesting great interest in this process and students whom are engaged.
• The response rate was very similar across all grades, counter to what the Director told the PARC later in the meeting.
• Central scored well below the mean (which is a positive) in response to:
o I moved schools to take a course or program not offered at my home school.
o I moved schools to enroll in a specialty program (e.g. SHSM, OTAP)
• Interestingly, a large school like Hayden showed little difference to the other schools when questioned about class sizes greater than 35 or less than 20 on a percentage basis.
• However looking a little deeper, 1011 students from Hayden responded to the survey representing almost a 1/3 of the respondents, and therefore 200 students from Hayden responded that they had 20 or fewer students in a class, and this has happened 3 or more times to them. According to the board big schools should solve problems like this, no?
• 61 students from Hayden reported that they were unable to make course changes because sections are full, happening 3 or more times. By comparison 18 students had this same situation at Central. On a percentage basis it seems similar, but clearly more students are impacted at larger schools.
• 27 students at Central reported they were unable to make course changes because of course conflicts compared to 40 students at Hayden, 3 or more times. Not to mention that Central was well within the mean on a percentage basis for all Burlington schools.
• 14 students at Central responded that they had class in an alternative class room (e.g. science in a class without a lab or math class in an auto shop) 3 or more times. By comparison, 152 students at Hayden reported this situation occurring 3 or more times, a 10 fold increase! Is this what can be expected if we overcrowd Aldershot?
• 41 Central students responded that Central did not have the variety of courses to satisfy my pathway requirements compared to 71 students at Hayden. Both were similar on a percentage basis and below the overall mean. Is Central satisfying student course needs as good or better than a large school?
• 72% of Central students responded and agreed to the statement that their teachers know something about them (interests, strengths, how I learn best) compared to 56% at Hayden. Hayden was well below the Burlington mean, and the lowest overall. Big school is better?
I could go on, there is much more to be learned from this data, but I think my point is clear.
So, the HDSB hired an outside consultant, spent tax payers money, conducted a survey and put the report aside because it did not generate the results it wanted? But, presented the PARC with unsupported data regarding course conflicts.
I would note that a very relevant student survey focusing on busing, walk-ability, portable class rooms and impact on student life should be conducted. I’m not sure the HDSB wants to hear the voice of the student to these questions.
Let’s talk about the outside consultant hired by the HDSB for this study who was supposed to facilitate the PARC meetings. As a result of feedback from the PARC members and generally poor facilitation skills, the HDSB superintendent is now facilitating the meetings with the outside consultant (being paid by the taxpayers) relegated to a side line position. How was this person/firm hired, what was the RFP (Request for Proposals) process and were references checked by the HDSB prior to retaining his services? Why are we still paying for this?
Next the HDSB issued the Facility Audit Report to upgrade the schools for accessibility to the PARC members.
The HDSB has known about this requirement in our schools for years, and it now decides to retain an architectural firm to prepare estimates. The report has not been reviewed nor checked by the HDSB, and only an executive summary is presented to the PARC. Central is shown to be the most expensive to upgrade at $3M with the other schools around $1.5M. So the obvious conclusions by the PARC members are, “wow, Central is going to be expensive to upgrade”. Did the board hire the right consultant this time?
PARC members putting their views as to whether or not criteria for closing a school were met or not met.
The HDSB could qualify the this information by saying (but it does not):
• These are only estimates and there are is an accuracy range of each of these, and we need to do a thorough review, so take this with a “grain of salt”.
• Keep in mind that Central is “ESTIMATED” to be $1.5M higher than the other schools, this is a small difference, think of it as only 3 years of bussing costs of Central kids if we close Central.
• Some of this work was completed at other schools in the past so the costs are lower now, we need to be fair to all schools.
So, to recap:
• the HDSB presents to the PARC new higher renewal costs for Central;
• shows over inflated annual savings associated with closing Central and Pearson;
• presents unsupported data on course conflicts;
• ignores relevant voice of the student data on programming;
• presents an Audit Report for accessibility showing Central higher than all other schools with no qualification nor without a thorough review.
Options 23 b and c were put up on the meeting room wall but the original option 23 wasn’t – staff said they “forgot” to put it up.
Now the HDSB expects the PARC members to act in a fair and unbiased way as it evaluates options that determine the school life of 1600 Burlington students, and coincidentally forgets to put one of the options up on the wall for evaluation, Option 23 Close Bateman.
A number of the PARC members request that more time is needed, perhaps a 5th or 6th PARC meeting given the new and changing data. The HDSB is very reluctant to do this and provides a “let’s see” answer.
Why the rush to determine the lives of students and families in Burlington for the next 20 or 30 years!? The HDSB is under significant pressure for a new high school in Milton and needs additional provincial funding. The housing market is booming, interest rates are low and developers are making handsome profits.
Hayden was built for $34M in 2013 as a result of poor planning by the HDSB, and was not needed based on student enrollment. Interestingly, the distance from Hayden to the South-West side of Milton is 12 km or a 12 minute drive according to Google Maps. By comparison it is 6.1 km between Central and Aldershot and 11 min drive time. So it’s the same travel time by car (likely much longer bus ride due to traffic congestion in Burlington ) to transport Central kids to Aldershot, compared to transporting Milton kids to Hayden. Why is this option not being looked at!?
The board can then use the $35M – $45M saved to upgrade older Burlington high schools that have had the minimum level of maintenance done on them over the last 20 years.
Director of Education Stuart Miller with a parent at a Central high school meeting.
Director Miller likes to explain that when we started this process the HDSB had a small amount of information and through the PAR the board is gathering much more information through this process. That is all fair and good, helps to justify the countless corrections to information, but quite frankly is an extremely flawed approach. Opinions and solutions crystalize in people’s minds at an early stage in the process which are then hard to change with new incremental information. Also, the way in which new information is presented comes in to play with respect to the formation of opinions and solutions. The HDSB should have conducted a year or two of information gathering and vetting before any decision was proposed.
The “icing on the cake” occurred at the end of the meeting when Director Miller invites a student council member to speak to the PARC meeting, which we later learned was a Bateman student. Why not a Pearson or Central student from one of the schools he recommended for closure!?
Bateman student Oubaida Ikharbine asking the PARC members to “listen” to the students” The committee members asked why a students was being presented to them now when they had been asked not to communicate with students. The rules seemed to be getting changed on the fly.
The take away message from the Director in his closing remarks to the PARC is “think about the students, listen to the students”, if I were on the PARC I would quite frankly be insulted. As a parent and former grad, I’ve talk to my son and his friends, and all I can think about the friendships that are going to be broken up by taking the 600 high school kids at Central and sending some to Aldershot and some to Nelson, the extra hour per day they will spend on or waiting for a bus, not to mention the 450 kids at Pearson, the 275 grade 7 and 8 kids at Central, the 250 7/8’s at Aldershot that are being ignored in this process, and the 300 kids at Aldershot that will have to attend school in portables for next 20+ years!
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions, but it’s clear to me how the “dots are being connected”.
Michael Hribljan has lived in Burlington for 54 years; he graduated from Central High School in 1981 after which he went on to earn a Bachelor and Master’s degree in chemical engineering, leading to “a fantastic position, making a difference”, with a major global technology company. His son Peter currently attends Central where he is one of 40 students on the Central Robotics Team – 2386.
Last Thursday the Program Accommodation Review committee was not presented with a 150 page report on AODA prepared by Snyder Architects. They were given a brief outline of approximately six pages. The full report is to appear on the Board’s website. Let’s wait and see where the devil lies.
The asbestos issue was handled very poorly by Board staff. It is my understanding that since the mid 2000’s all Boards in Ontario have tested for and documented the location of asbestos in their schools. My understanding is that this is a requirement of OHSA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). It is also my understanding, having previously been employed at unionized facilities where I was tasked with removing asbestos material, that there will be detailed reports of any occurrence where asbestos has been disturbed and reports of the remedial actions taken.
So the location of asbestos in all the schools appears to be known and well documented.
Asbestos is not an AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) issue, it is an OHSA issue. Now we get into the meat of the issue which is friable and non-friable asbestos, but we have to wait to see what the full AODA report says.
It is unfortunate that the Board has presented asbestos as an AODA issue. It is not, it is an OHSA issue.
Parents from high schools that are at risk of being closed listen intently to what the PAR committee members are saying and what staff is telling them.
A considerable amount of work has been done in the province to protect the public from asbestos exposure. Again, we must wait to see the full AODA report to see if the Board’s staff did a disservice to the public by raising fears and a disservice to the PARC committee process.
We have to wait for the full AODA report to be posted on the website to confirm if the architects had been given access to the asbestos documents prepared in the 2000’s and to see how these documents were used to estimate asbestos removal costs.
Asbestos is a hot button and was very poorly handled by Board staff.
If I were Donald Trump I’d have to say that it was the largest crowd ever. There were more people assembled at Nathan Phillips Square than at former US president Obama’s inauguration. And all those white spaces between the people… well that was just snow.
Seriously, there were only a few thousand brave souls who turned out on a bone-chilling February mid-day at Toronto’s city hall this past Saturday. They had assembled to protest Trudeau breaking his promise about how we elect our MPs. And it was a pretty good crowd for such an event given such short notice. Besides, there were as many as twenty of these protests being held across the nation.
Gazette columnist Ray Rivers publicly protesting the decision Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made to abandon his election promise to never again hold an election where the First Past the Post was the winner.
The organizers seemed pleased with the turnout. After all, electoral reform is not top-of-mind for most Canadians. No doubt that was what the Liberals found out recently after polling convinced them that they could safely kill the electoral reform promise. And the whole matter is complicated, filled with unfamiliar terms like first-past-the-post, single transferable vote and mixed-member proportional representation. You won’t find that kind of language every day in the sports section.
The faces in the crowd were mostly young – a generation of first-time voters, once convinced not long ago that Mr. Trudeau was just one of them – that new kind of politician, offering a better political deal for Canadians. Better representation might make politics more relevant to this generation and even the one before, the Gen-Xers, who had largely shunned politics and left voting to their parents.
But there was this proverbial elephant in the midst of the protest. If it was this easy to cancel one promise, what about all the other promises the PM made? Can we have faith that he’ll deliver on any of those other promises now? What about legalizing pot, for example? Or will that be the next domino to fall, because someone in the PM’s office has decided there is no consensus on that issue either?
Former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty did try to reform Ontario’s electoral system.
But wait, weren’t these the same political staffers who once convinced Dalton McGuinty to reform Ontario’s electoral system a few years ago? Yes, they engineered a process so fair and discrete that when it came time for the referendum, most voters had little idea what they were actually voting for – a process designed to fail. Was that benign neglect? Or were they disingenuous or incompetent?
There were voices in the crowd on Saturday yelling out liar, liar, pants-on-fire. But it seems unlikely this is a case of unbridled mendacity. I mean what rational politician would set out to raise expectations in an election, planning to break his word following the victory party? And why, especially when he knows full well the ultimate consequence – the shedding of all those voters who had delivered him his majority government?
Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington in 1995. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Tweet @rayzrivers
What began as polite meetings that went from 7 pm to 9 pm have become meetings that go beyond 10 pm and have some pretty stiff comments about how the process being used is working out. There are parents from schools that are at risk who aren’t very happy.
With close to 30 different options before the PARC Scott Podrebarac, the PARC chair knew that there was some whittling down to be done – and the Thursday evening meeting was the beginning of that process.
Fourteen options are put up on the walls of the meeting room – PARC members begin to reveal what they like and what they don’t like.
There were 14 different option put up on the walls of the meeting room Thursday evening.
Each PARC member was given three round red stickers that they could place on whichever option they wished.
The PARC members were being asked to decide if the option met or did not meet the “criteria”
Every question asked by embers of the PARC and the decisions they make has to fit into the Framework.
With 14 PARC members having three dots each – there were 42 of the things to be distributed.
Some of the options got nothing. Option # 19 – the one that would close two of the three high schools in the city got the most – however its total was less than the total of the dots given to the other options.
PARC members were asked to first write down which criteria were met and which were not met and then to indicate which option they supported.
Option 7 – to close none of the schools – did well – and option brought forward by the parents at Central high school also did well – but not as well as the option to close Central and Pearson
There are a lot of questions to be asked:
Where does Pearson high school stand in all this and how do the people at Aldershot feel about a bunch of portables being put on their property if Central is closed?
And is Bateman really at risk?
The board has said repeatedly that the decision is not a money decision – it is what is best for the students.
However the cost of getting the high schools up to AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) standards is high. The matter of lead based paint in some of the older schools – and the probability that some of the older schools may have asbestos in them is an AODA issue that is going to add to the cost of getting schools to that standard.
At some point the trustees, who do have a fiduciary responsibility, are going to balk at the suggestion that school board taxes be increased to cover the AODA expenses.
There is a massive 150 + page report on the AODA condition of the schools that was presented to the PARC committees.
Add to the mix – the views of the students which Director of Education Miller though important enough to have him meet with a group of high school students and then bring one of them to the PARC meeting where he asked that the students be listened to.
While the members of the PARC were getting into some serious deliberations the principals from every high school gathered at a table at the far end of the room on standby to answer question – there were none for then at PARC meeting # 3 but there were several significant questions asked at PARC meting number 2 held on February 2nd. .
Principals or vice principals from each high school sat as advisors.
With two people from each high school sitting on the PARC we are beginning to see their interests coming to the surface.
The pair from Aldershot are probably the two best speakers. Ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward, who is at the table representing Central high school (she has a son at Central and was chosen by the parent council) worked well with Ian Farwell the oher parent representative. Meed Ward continued her practice of asking a lot of questions.
The pair from Bateman are certainly active in pressing their case. Little is heard from the Pearson high school pair. Even less from the Nelson and M.M. Robinson pair – their schools appear to be safe from any closure plans.
Parents from high schools were able to listen to the conversation but were not allowed to participate in the deliberations. Several came close to accosting the Director of Education after the meeting. He may want to leave earlier at future meetings.
It is a busy process – one that requires more time than originally planned. The board added an additional meting for February 16th – the day after the Central high school parents hold a meeting at the Lion’s club to update their community.
To make the whole process even more interesting – the first phase of census data showed that Milton had a population growth of 30% between 2011 and 2016 – and that is certainly going to call for new schools.
The trustees have their hands full. All four Burlington trustees have been on hand for the meetings – so far none of the other trustees have attended PARC meetings. One of the Burlington trustees explained that there was some concern over the impact their attendance might have on the process – given that all the trustees can do is sit and listen – it was difficult to understand why there is any concern. Burlington has four of the 11 votes that are going to be cast. Six are needed to determine what the decisions are going to decide. Where are the Burlington trustees going to get those two additional votes?
And are the Burlington trustees going to vote as a block.
If one of the choices put before the trustees is to close Bateman – will trustee Collard vote for that choice?
In a follow up article we will drill down into some of the data that got put on the table.
This is the time table that has been followed. May 17th is decision date.
The time line is getting tighter. The PARC report will go to the trustees on March 29th and then a final vote by the trustees on May 17th.
Paper is given life through the works presented in the two Art Gallery of Burlington shows: A Safe Haven: Raphael Vella and Visual Poetry: Contemporary Woodcuts.
As a time honoured medium for artists, paper allows for the expression of thoughts, observations, reflections and statements. Artists Raphael Vella (Malta), Tom Hammick (United Kingdom), Donna Ibing (Burlington, ON) and Naoko Matsubara (Oakville, ON) use this medium to explore a variety of subject matter from contemporary politics to everyday life.
A Safe Haven: Raphael Vella combines his two series of drawings, For the Welfare of All Children alongside ten works from No Place Like HOMeS. For Vella, the role of the artist is not to create an object, but to engage people by sparking discussions and questions. In For the Welfare of All Children, Vella questions society’s supervision of children and the imposed social structures to protect them. For the series No Place Like HOMeS, Vella combines iconic buildings with the ravages of the Syrian War, bringing to the fore the power of war over peace and destruction over construction, while questioning the act of reclaiming such sites.
Visual Poetry: Contemporary Woodcuts looks at the work of Tom Hammick (United Kingdom), Donna Ibing (Burlington, ON) and Naoko Matsubara (Oakville, ON). Each artist works in a different style, though all execute their work on a grand scale producing multiple layers of meaning, creating unique and thought provoking work.
Raphael Vella
Raphael Vella is an artist, educator and curator based in Malta. He obtained a PhD in Fine Arts at the University of the Arts London in 2006, and is currently Senior Lecturer at the University of Malta. He has exhibited his works in important international exhibitions and venues, including the Venice Biennale, Domaine Pommery (Reims, France), Modern Art Oxford in the UK and the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw, Poland. For many years, he has also been active as a curator, having directed the Valletta International Visual Art festival (VIVA) in 2014 and 2015, and is currently co-curating the Malta Pavilion at the Venice Biennale of 2017. He has also directed the project ‘Divergent Thinkers’ for emerging artists in Malta since 2011.
Tom Hammick
Tom Hammick is a British artist based in East Sussex and London. He is a Senior Lecturer in Fine Art, Painting and Printmaking at the University of Brighton, and a Visiting Lecturer of Fine Art at University of Ulster, and Nova Scotia College of Art and Design (NSCAD University). He has work in many major public and corporate collections including the British Museum (Collection of Prints and Drawings), Victoria and Albert Museum, Bibliotheque Nationale de France (Collection of Prints and Drawings), Deutsche Bank, Yale Centre for British Art, and The Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
Donna Ibing
Donna Ibing of Burlington is a graduate of the Ontario College of Art, and is considered one of Ontario’s leading artists in painting and printmaking. Her work has been shown in major cities across Canada including Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. Ibing’s work can be found in collections across Ontario including the Art Gallery of Hamilton, Robert McLaughlin Gallery, Kitchener/Waterloo Gallery and the Toronto Public Library and Archives.
Naoko Matsubara
Naoko Matsubara graduated from the Kyoto Academy of Fine Arts, and was a Fullbright scholar at the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh where she received her MFA. Subsequently she studied at the Royal College of Art in London. In 1981 she became a Fellow of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, and in 2009 she received an honourary doctorate of Fine Art from Chatham University in Pittsburgh. She continues to create single-sheet woodcuts, paintings and murals from her Oakville studio. Matsubara’s work can be found in private and public collections around the world including the British Museum; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Cincinnati Art Museum; The White House; the National Museums of Modern Art, Tokyo and Kyoto; Staatliche Museum zu Berlin, Germany; Royal Ontario Museum; and Yale University Art Gallery.
The exhibition runs from February 10 to April 2, 2017 Art Gallery of Burlington in the Lee-Chin Family Gallery.
There is a public reception Thursday February 9, 5pm-7pm
Asked what were the driving forces that got her into serving the public at the school board level Leah Reynolds provided the Gazette with a rather lengthy list of what shapes her involvement in the education of our children.
Trustee Reynolds, centre with Collard on her left and Gray on her right.
“I understand the public wants to know how I will vote on this issue. I will wait for the PAR committee to complete their work, for the Director’s Final Report and to hear from the public throughout this process and more formally in April, before committing to any option as I believe the best option has yet to emerge.”
The driving force behind entering public office is my passion for education as evidenced by my long-serving school volunteerism through reading club, breakfast club, chairing school councils, participating in community discussion of elementary school closing and helping lead numerous school capital fundraising enhancements and initiatives. These experiences equipped me with the skills to navigate the school board and I realized that I could be helpful to parents and community.
I also understood that there were population challenges and should a Program Accommodation Review (PAR) be held, I wanted to be a part of the conversation because schools are the heart of the community.
Reynolds pointed out that “this is a full time job, serving parents and families days, evenings and often weekends, one that trustees gladly take on in service to students and their education.”
Trustees attend far more meetings than city Councillors do.
If Central high school is closed – for whatever reason – can Leah Reynolds get re-elected?
Reynolds said her “top priority and philosophy is focused squarely on what is in the best interests of students.” She did make clear that “schools are the heart of the community”.
Her decision matrix, said Reynolds will consider more than the three factors the Gazette set out. Her considerations include the 13 factors identified by the PAR policy which are:
I. Range of mandatory program 2. Range of optional program 3. Viability of Program – number of students required to offer and maintain program in an educationally sound and fiscally responsible way 4. Physical and environmental state of existing schools 5 Proximity to other schools (non-bus distances, natural boundaries, walking routes) 6 Accommodation of students in permanent school facilities and minimal use of portable classrooms 7. Balance of overall enrolment in each school in the area to maximize student access to programs, resources and extra-curricular opportunities and avoid over and under utilization of buildings. 8. Expansion and placement of new ministry or board programs. 9. Stable, long-term boundaries to avoid frequent boundary changes 10 Cost effectiveness of transportation 11 Fiscal responsibilities 12 Existing and potential community uses and facility partnerships 13. Goals and focus of the current multi-year plan
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward and school board trustee Leah Reynolds the night Meed Ward launched her re-election campaign. Are these two joined at the hip on the school closing issue.
There may be additional factors that bubble up as a result of the PAR committee’s discussions. But the lens through which all these factors will be viewed is what is best for students at our schools.
Every person added Reynolds “has an opportunity right now to make their voice heard to help shape the options that emerge for trustee consideration in the spring.
Those who remember the December 2013 Ice Storm, will have a lot of sympathy for those people in New Brunswick who have been without power for 11 days.
Glenn Thibeault listen to Gerry Smallegange as he explains where a new hydro cable had to be put in place in north Burlington during th 2013 ice storm
Burlington Hydro learned a lot from that 2013 experience and determined that they would be handling this differently when the next storm hits – and they are convinced that there will be another storm – sometime.
A new Outage Management System, complete with a real-time outage map for customers, to upgraded phone systems, website enhancements and a new mobile application were brought forward with the intention of improving Burlington Hydro’s power outage communications..
The upgrades to the Operations room at Burlington Hydro make more information available in real time – which gets passed along to the customer base.
Launched in 2014, Burlington Hydro’s Management System (OMS) includes a web-based Outage Map that provides current information about power interruptions so that customers can access information on power outages in real time. In addition to a comprehensive map of the outage area, the web-based tool allows customers to access the cause of the outage if known, and the estimated time that power will be restored.
The OMS allows customer service and call centre representatives to link customer outage reports directly to the utility’s Control Centre. As each incident is updated, service representatives are able to provide the customer with updates and relevant information about the power outage.
These improvements complement the recently announced upgrades to the company’s customer call-in capabilities. The ability to handle a greater number of customer calls at one time – 24/7 – is another way that Burlington Hydro has improved its customer service competencies in 2014.
“We partnered with our mapping vendor to develop the customer Outage Management System which we call LiveOps. The new system aggregates data and produces a comprehensive central information repository of current system outages. Cutting-edge technology integrates smart metering and Geographic Information System (GIS) map platforms, and enhances Burlington Hydro’s Control Room Operators’ ability to manage, quickly deploy crews, and track power outages.
Gerry Smallegange, President and CEO, Burlington Hydro
Gerry Smallegange, President and CEO, Burlington Hydro Inc., remembers how tough things were in December of 2013 – he wasn’t going to go through that experience again. He wants it to be “as convenient as possible for customers to stay informed during power interruptions and extreme weather events.”
Christmas of 2013 for Smallegange was spent in the field trying to get a grip on the scope and scale of the damage.
Last night, Eleanor McMahon, MPP for Burlington and Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, presented the Burlington Public Library with the Angus Mowat Award of Excellence at the Ontario Public Library Service Awards in Toronto, Ontario.
The Ontario Public Library Service Awards identify and promote creative public library service ideas. There are two types of awards: The Minister’s Award for Innovation and the Angus Mowat Award of Excellence, which recognizes a commitment to excellence in the delivery of public library services.
(L-R) Burlington Public Library staff members Amanda Wilk, Shelley Archibald, Minister McMahon, and BPL CEO Maureen Barry at the Ontario Public Library Service Awards.
Angus Mowat was a Canadian librarian who initiated and contributed to the continuing improvement of the library systems in Saskatoon and Ontario, from the 1920s through to the 1960s.
He was the Inspector of Public Libraries for the province of Ontario and remained head of the provincial library office – a part of the Ministry of Education – until his retirement in 1960.
Throughout his career he encouraged better quality collections for adults and children, professional staffing and library training, the necessity for improved finances, more efficient management by trustees and librarians, and upgraded or new buildings. He believed strongly that the ‘personal touch’ was essential for library service and that local effort, supplemented by provincial assistance, was the key ingredient in advancing local library development.
One wonders if he ever said hush in his life.
The Burlington Public Library received the Angus Mowat Award in recognition of the library’s community led youth service model, which provides empowering leadership and growth opportunities for teens.
“Libraries, librarians and the staff who run them”, said Minister McMahon, “are at the heart of our communities. I’m proud of the work that these incredible institutions do for everyone across the province, and I’m particularly proud that the Burlington Public Library’s achievements were recognized last night at the Ontario Public Library Service Awards.”
Burlington’s MPP brought one home to a library system that deserved this award
Sometime later this year the Director of Education will present the Halton District School Board trustees with a report on what he believes should be done to solve the problem he has with more than 1800 empty high school seats in Burlington.
The four Burlington trustees are glued to this issue.
Director of Education Stuart Miller is going to have to write a major report on school closings sometime in May.
Each will read over the Director’s recommendation and consider the views of those who chose to communicate with them.
When the four Burlington trustees decided to run for office and serve on the school board they entered public office with a set of values they would use to guide them in their deliberations.
The Gazette wanted to know what the driving force was for each trustee.
Was it a desire to serve the public? Was there a burning desire to resolve a school related problem in their community?
Maybe they just wanted to get out of the house a couple of nights each month.
The Gazette set out some of the possible driving forces and asked each trustee to rank them from their perspective and the importance they give to each when they make a decision on accepting or not accepting the Director’s recommendation.
We asked:
Is the driving force for you:
The financial impact of closing or not closing a high school in Burlington?
or is it
The impact the closing of a high school will have on the quality of the academic offering the closing of a high school will have on students in the communities that will be impacted?
or is it
The impact the closing of a high school will have on the community it is located in. Where does community rank in your view?
We asked: Do you feel schools are a vital part of a community and that every community should have a school in its neighbourhood?
In ranking the possible driving force for each trustee we asked:
Financial – academic – community. Label them 1, 2 or 3.
There are going to be some long hard board of trustee meetings in April and May.
We added that a trustee may feel there were other choices and invited them to add those choices but to first rank the three we set out or them.
We then invited each trustee to write whatever you wanted to expand on your choices and the views they had to support their choice.
We suggested 350 words on each choice is reasonable but write longer if they wished.
Leah Reynolds – trustee for the ward Central high school is located in.
We asked the trustees to respond within ten days but added that – if you feel you need additional time – be in touch and we will work with you to give you the time you need.
In our request we made some comments saying that “The closing of two high schools is a very significant event – it is a decision you are going to have to make based on the information you are given.
“We would like to report on the philosophy and vision for education that you bring to the responsibility you have as a school board trustee.”
We thought the request was a reasonable one.
Andrea Grebenc: “I’ll get back to you” – she didn’t.
Tracey Ehl Harrison: A polite note – but no answers.
The trustees didn’t see it that way. Two of the 11 trustees sent a note saying they would get back to us; they didn’t.
One trustee, Leah Reynolds, sent a very long response which we will publish as a separate article.
The Chair of the Board of trustees stunned us with her response which was:
The Program and Accommodation Committee (PARC) have not started their work and trustees are reluctant to comment on anything that might either impact or impede the work of the PAR committee.
We (the Board of Trustees) are ultimately the decision makers and are aware of the importance of letting the process proceed as outlined in the policy. Trustees must maintain our objectivity, without influencing or appearing to influence the PARC process.
School board chair Kelly Amos – decides to speak for all the trustees.
The Gazette felt this was a critical time and that the public deserved to know where these women come from in their thinking.
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident who comments frequently in the Gazaette said: “This is their job, and if they don’t want to do this for their own “political” motives then they have lost their way, and are not representing us. Commenting is not the same as trying to affect the vote
We will put these questions to the trustees again once the Director has sent them his report.
Having the views now would give the public an opportunity to lobby the trustees who are there to listen to the views of the people they represent.
These people cannot hide – they have an important job to do.
They don’t get to make a decision – they are asked to advise, the decision lies with Board of Trustees
The (PARC) Program Accommodation Review Committee is to act as the official conduit for information shared between Trustees and school communities
They are expected to provide feedback on the option considered in Director’s Preliminary Report They can seek clarification on Director’s Preliminary Report and provide new accommodation options and supporting rationale.
The members of the PARC getting introduced to the rules they are going to work within.
The end result is a big one for Burlington and people in the communities that will experience the change. Both Central and Pearson high schools believe they have strong arguments for being kept open – both arguments seem to rest on the way the board has changed boundaries.
The committee that is going to produce a report is made up of representatives from the seven high schools as well as advisors. They are expected to stick to a framework that has been given to them. Will they do that?
Criteria the PARC is expected to adhere to.
Set out below are the names of the representatives for each school as well as the email address you can reach them at – a single email address gets your comments to both representatives for a school;
Parents who want to ensure that the school in their neighborhood is not closed.
Aldershot HS: Email: aldershotparc@hdsb.ca Steve Cussons and Eric Szyiko
Burlington Central HS: Email: centralparc@hdsb.ca Ian Farwell and Marianne Meed Ward
Dr. Frank J. Hayden SS: Email: dfhaydenparc@hdsb.ca Matthew Hall and Tricia Hammill
Lester B. Pearson HS: Email: lbpearsonparc@hdsb.ca Steve Armstrong and Cheryl De Lugt
M.M. Robinson HS: Email: mmrobinsonparc@hdsb.ca Marie Madenzides and Dianna Bower
Nelson HS: Email: nelsonparc@hdsb.ca Kate Nazar and Rebecca Collier
School parent association representatives worked at a different table for part of the meeting.
Robert Bateman HS” Email: rbatemanparc@hdsb.ca Lisa Bull and Sharon Picken
They meet for their next meeting as a group on Thursday evening.
It is too early to tell if the report they come out with will be a unanimous document or if some people will want to issue a minority report.
The community got to get a bit of a sense as to where the Halton District School Board is going with the Program Accommodation Review that is now underway.
The Board recommendation to the trustees is to close two of the seven high schools in the city.
The parents at Central high school oppose this and are providing the board and the public with data to support their argument that there is no need to close Central high school.
Parent representatives from the seven Burlington high schools discussing the high school closing options that were being considered. Some of the words used were less than respectful.
The parents at Lester B. Pearson argue that their school was fine until the Board of Education changed boundaries and had students taken away from Pearson and sent to Hayden which is now at 125% + capacity.
The procedure is a multi-level process. The Board of Education staff see a problem with accommodation levels – a report is given to the trustees,
The trustees decide that there should be a Program Accommodation Review.
A PARC (Program Accommodation Review Committee) is formed and begins to hold their meetings.
The first public meeting of the PARC was held last week.
The PARC will produce a report which they will give to the Director of Education who will then prepare a report to the elected trustees who will make a decision as to whether or not any of the high schools should be closed.
The Gazette has reported extensively on the various meeting. Those news reports can be found elsewhere.
The process of reviewing the available information and going through the mountains of data given to the PARC has begun.
Central high school parent had a front row seat.
For the next several months a group that includes two parents from each high school along with a number of advisors will review, discuss, debate and finally produce a report for the Director of Education on what they feel are his options.
The Director of Education will then give the trustees his final recommendation and they will decide what should be done. They can do whatever they think is in the public interest.
What was taking place last Thursday was a meeting where between 40 and 50 people watched what 30 people were doing on the other side of the room – with no microphones to pick up the sound.
The public got to hear Chair Scott Podrebarac, a Board of Education Superintendent tasked with shepherding the PARC process, outline the procedures. He is supported by Kirk Perris, a senior vice president with Ipsos, a leading public opinion research firm who is serving as a facilitator and data analyst on contract with the Board of Education. Perris has a doctorate.
One could pick up some of the conversation at the tables. It was obvious that the PARC people were heavily engaged in discussion working from 3 inch loose leaf binds containing all kinds of data.
The PARC had the framework they are expected to work from presented to them with some explanation
There were comments on the December 8th public meeting where it became evident that there were competing interests. The data collected indicated parents wanted their children to be able to walk to school; less use of any form of transportation.
Parents wanted more information on the fiscal issues and wanted to hear a lot more about boundaries that are created.
The public wanted to know more about what there was going to be in the way of future public meetings. Kirk Perris admitted that they lost the debate on how the December 8th public meeting went and asked rhetorically what a public meeting would/should look like? The old chestnuts transparent, robust and clearer got tossed into the discussion.
While Director of Education Stuart Miller is not part of the PARC process he did say in his short remarks that the data the public and the PAR Committee have been working from is based on the LTAP – Long Term Accommodation Plans; a document that is revised every year by the Board’s Planning department.
The Board has surveyed anyone that moved. The students were surveyed; the school board staff were surveyed and the parents were surveyed.
As the 30 some odd people settled in to begin their work Miller again commented that the recommendation that was put forward was “the one that fit”: he didn’t say what it was being fitted to.
Hayden high school – opened in 2012 took in students who used to attend Pearson. That reduced the Pearson enrollment to the point where the school was recommended for closure. Meanwhile Hayden is now at close to 120% capacity.
The parents at Pearson high school are saying that if the board gave that school back the students that were transferred to Hayden – a school that is over capacity now and has 12 portables with WiFi that could be a lot better, Pearson would not be at the 65% accommodation level that requires a PAR.
When the PAR process started there were 19 options – there are now 23.
The first task now is to begin eliminating some of those 23 options.
With the introductions and the overview explanations done with – the PAR Committee members were broken into two groups.
One group had the parents who were chosen by the parents group of each high school plus Milton school board trustee Donna Danielli who served as an advisor.
The other table had the people chosen by the Board of Education from people who had “expressed an interest” in serving on the PARC. The Board asked people who wanted to serve to apply and the board vetted that group. They were looking for balance in age, gender, diversity and geography.
PARC chair Scott Podrebararc, on the left with city manager James Ridge who is representing the city.
City manager James Ridge was put in with the Expression of Interest group. He didn’t appear to be saying all that much. What isn’t clear to many is what does Ridge have as a mandate? Is he there to serve as an information resource? Has he been given a clear mandate from city council? All we know is that the Mayor thought he would be a great choice to represent the city. Nothing was heard at a city council meeting on what he supposed to do – other than “represent” the city which was invited to be at the table.
The seven representatives from the high school parent groups and the seven representatives from the Expression of Interest groups are the people who will decide what the report that goes to the Director of Education will contain.
Scott Podrebarac who chaired the “Expression of Interest” group started by going through the 19 options staff had identified and getting a sense as to what his group felt about each option. While it was very difficult to hear what was being said at the tables Podrebarac seemed to be leading the conversation and working at whittling down the list that kept getting longer.
Principals from each high school were on hand to answer questions; the Manager of Planning Dom Renzelli was prowling from table to table answering questions.
The evening got off to an interesting start when about 50 parents from Pearson high school put on a boisterous demonstration outside the Board offices on Guelph Line where the meetings were taking place.
While very difficult to hear what was being said it was evident that Podrebarac was leading his group while Kirk Perris was letting his group work out where they wanted to go. Hearing a PARC participant say “Oh come on” suggested that the conversation was animated
Podrebarac later said that he and Perris would compare and compile notes and get the agenda ready for the February 2 meeting.
The PARC is scheduled to hold four working meetings.
There will be tours of the high schools set up for February 7th and 8th.
What came out of the first working meeting? Difficult to tell at this stage.
Parents paying close attention to the PARC proceedings last Thursday.
It was a full meeting – but very much in the early stages. The members of the PARC are getting a feel for each other – where each school representative is. Sharon Picken, a parent representing Bateman high school was very direct with her comments which members of the audience found a little offensive.
Picken was overhead saying to former trustee Dianna Bower, who is representing M.M. Robinson, that she, Picken, thought “whoever wrote this isn’t even human”. Picken was commenting on the submission from Central high school parents. The PARC has meeting norms about respectful comments that the Central people want to see put firmly in her place.
Meed Ward who is participating as a parent with a son at Central high school – she also has a daughter at Aldershot high school, was her usual self – asking questions and pressing for answers.
Bateman high school parent and PARC member Sharon Picken.
Three of the four Burlington school board trustees attended. Trustee Richelle Papin was ill. The trustees play no role in this part of the process – all they can do is observe.
What was interesting was that none of the trustees from Milton or Oakville attended – Burlington has four of the 11 votes that will decide what gets done with the high schools in the city. How the other seven trustees vote is critical. Burlington needs to ensure that it has the support of at least two of the other seven trustees.
If the issues becomes one of how does the Board of Education pay to keep high schools that are nowhere near their capacity open – and there are trustees who see fiscal prudence as their primary role – then Burlington might have a problem.
These meetings are going to be drenched in data – keeping on top of it all is going to be a challenge.
The Halton District School Board has set two dates for public meetings related to the Program Accommodation Review that is has residents reviewing the recommendation to close two of Burlington’s seven high schools..
The content of both meetings will be the same – just offered in two different locations in the city on different dates
Parent paying close attention to the Program Accommodation Review Committee proceedings.
Meetings will be held on February 28, 2017 at Dr. Frank J. Hayden Secondary School, 3040 Tim Dobbie Drive at 7:00 pm
On March 7, 2017 at the New Street Education Centre, 3250 New St. at 7:00 pm The New Street location date is a change from what was previously announced.
NOTE: This date has changed from a previously scheduled date.
The purpose of the meetings is to share the work of the PAR Committee to date and to explain the process for gathering further community input.
Members of the Program Accommodation Review Committee meet to discuss the options while the public look on.
The Program and Accommodation Review (PAR) has been is reviewing and providing feedback on the Director’s Preliminary Report.
Through the problem solving process of the PAR Committee, it is expected that further options will likely come forward, which may involve the closure of other schools than those that have currently been recommended.
In a much anticipated meeting the Halton District School Board Program and Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) formed to let people representing residents an opportunity to make suggestions and present new ideas on the the recommendation to close two of Burlington’s seven high school has released the agenda for the first PARC meeting.
The meeting will be held at the Board room at the J. W. Singleton Board office on Guelph Line at 7:00 pm on Thursday January 26th
The agenda is as follows:
Scott Podrebarac will chair the first meeting of the PARC.
1. Welcome 5 minutes i. Instructions for gallery ii. Instructions for PARC members
2. Meeting and Group Norms 5 minutes
3. Brief Summary of PAR process 5 minutes i. Terms of Reference PARC ii. Work of the PARC
4. Public Meeting Report and PARC Framework 15 minutes
5. Student Survey Questions 10 minutes
6. Additions to School Information Profiles 5 minutes
Stuart Miller – Director of Education
7. Director’s Preliminary Report 15 minutes i. Current Situation ii. Review and discussion on Option 19
8. Examination of Existing Options of Interest or Present new options 45 minutes
9. Homework for February 2nd Working Meeting 5 minutes
10. Ongoing Communication with Communities 5 minutes
11. Additional Meetings 5 minutes i. Determine after February 2nd…(hold Feb 16th)
There is no mention in the agenda of the questions that were asked at the December 8th public meeting when an audience of close to 300 were asked 25 different questions.
Upcoming Meetings:
PARC Working Meeting #2: 7:00 pm on Thursday February 2, 2017 PARC Working Meeting #3: 7:00 pm on Thursday February 9, 2017 Public Meeting #2 (Dr. Frank J. Hayden SS): 7:00 pm on Tuesday February 28, 2017 Public Meeting #2 (New Street Education Centre): 7:00 pm on Thursday March 2, 2017 PARC Working Meeting #4: 7:00 pm on Thursday March 23, 2017
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident, has been an active participant in civic affairs or more than 25 years. He has been described as “acerbic”, a fair term for Tom. He has outlined, in considerable length, a large part of why the parents at Central and Pearson high schools are in the mess they are in as a result of the recommendation to close their schools. In this article, one of a series Muir suggest what he feels are obvious solutions to the problem the Board of Education believes it has. There is a lot of material; it gets dense at times. Living in a democracy means you have to accept the responsibility of citizenship and stay informed.
What does the city do?
This school closing issue and decision-making process is by definition political.
That makes it personal, so we are all involved, elected official or not.
Is saving a school the same as saving a community?
The City is involved regardless of opinions. Elected city officials and city staff are involved as our representatives. I want them to comment on what various options and issues mean for the city.
This is their job, and if they don’t want to do this for their own “political” motives then they have lost their way, and are not representing us.
And I have to wonder what the Mayor is thinking when he avoids involvement, saying it’s political, which is just a truism, and thus a disingenuous dodge, in my opinion. He’s playing politics himself.
City Manager Jim Ridge has been appointed to the PARC to represent the City, and I can only hope that he takes a full briefing to that table of the many City interests that are involved and at stake in this issue.
It’s not just Central and Pearson on the block – everything and every school, including elementary, are in there somehow, and in some way.
It is not just a school board issue, although they have the vote, and make the final decision.
I realize that the decision is for education trustees to make, but Councilors that claim they have no role whatsoever are abdicating their duty to politically represent residents and the city as a whole.
To say that the city has no interest in whether there are schools in the city or not is just out to lunch. The city has key interests, which are obvious.
City manager James Ridge will represent the city on the Program Accommodation Review Committee. What is his mandate and is it public?
These interests need to be outlined by the City and Council, and injected into the debate and dialogue.
Jim Ridge can take these to the table, but the Council and Mayor must take their public responsibilities in this matter seriously and not dodge the political reality they are elected and empowered to carry forward.
If the intensification development plan that the Mayor and city are pushing does not need a school in the downtown, where 70% of the new is supposed to go, then the plan is fundamentally flawed in its conception and contradiction with any closure plan.
There’s no “complete communities” in this plan, and never will be if it happens.
Mayor Goldring decided he would have the city manager represent the citizens on the Program Accommodation Review Committee. It was a controversial decision.
Let’s hear from the Mayor and Council on this. We need a motion to direct staff to provide a report on potential school closings and the strategies that can be developed to protect community assets for future generations.
I would start with the following investigation. I would like Jim Ridge to direct staff to examine what the City and communities will lose if schools close, considering at least the following.
We all know that schools have many uses and many values. They are not just for educating the young during the day. It shouldn’t matter that they are not completely full right now – the neighborhood needs them for the future, which will certainly change, and this change is evident now.
People come and go from our schools at many times of the day and week all year, and for many reasons. I ask that the City document all these comings and goings, all of the ways that people interact with the schools.
They belong to the residents that fully paid for them, and own them, and the school board holds them in trust, or is supposed to.
They are a bought and paid for part of the community fabric, the community capital stock, and an asset that has many uses and values, including recreation, sports, social clubs, adult education, clubs, green-space, heritage, school spirit, memories, diversity of city form and landscape, and the list can go on.
They contribute to property values and a sense of the familiar and well-being – the quality of life.
Pearson was a purpose built school -intended to serve both students and a wider community. Are the Catholics going to be able to come to terms with the Board of education and acquire the property?
Are not most schools considered to be community schools? These interactions are in fact part of the glue that ties neighborhoods and communities together.
This will include recreation, sports and athletics, adult education, day care, social and other clubs, public meetings, and any other activity that uses the school buildings and property.
Indeed, the Alton (Hayden) school construction and opening was delayed 2 years because of the partnership between the Board and the City of Burlington to augment the on-site facilities, with city funding, providing 8 gymnasiums, a library, and community meeting spaces.
So this city partnership shows there is a clear city interest in this matter and issues arising.
I also ask that you consider how the schools enter into the City parks and green-space plans, and into good municipal planning in general.
What about the loss of property values, since we all know that schools, and green-space in a neighborhood, add to the price of housing there.
Is the City prepared for assessment appeals and the loss of tax revenue, or is this something to be ignored, and denied when the time comes?
We need a certain irreducible level of schools capacity, and this includes an appropriately located capacity to have schools.
So my point is we need schools everywhere they were built. The extra capacity is money in the bank to buffer the changes that are certainly going to come from the growth and changes the city is facing, and that the province and Council are advocating.
I don’t think it can be said that we absolutely have too many schools, and especially too much and too many of the functions and products and factors that schools represent and deliver to people.
So the city has a big stake in this for all the things I listed, and Council has a responsibility to the residents they represent to pay attention to these things and account for them.
This is no time for silos, artificial divisions, and neglect of care and concern for these things.
Is a Board of Education matter likely to become an election issue for city council?
So let’s stop talking about closing schools right off the bat, as a starting opinion, and exhaust ourselves figuring out creative and adaptive ways to reconfigure how we make do and keep what we have.
We will surely need it sometime in the future.
Following this we need a City organized public debate on this threatened confiscation of community assets and the multi-faceted impacts on the city.
If Council can’t see their role in this important matter, that goes to the heart of everything the city is planning – strategic plan, growth, Official Plan, intensification, community, and so on – then, again I say, they have lost their way.
Tom Muir is a resident of Aldershot who has been a persistent critic of decisions made by city council. He turns his attention to the current school board mess. He recently suggested to Burlington city council that “If you are so tired of and frustrated by, listening to the views of the people that elected you, then maybe you have been doing this job too long and should quit.
Muir explains that the PARC will only get what people send in, what they come up with from their own efforts, and what they ask/demand from the board. They have to decide what they want and go after it ruthlessly. They will have to fight with tooth and claw and take no prisoners.
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident, has been an active participant in civic affairs or more than 25 years. He has been described as “acerbic”, a fair term for Tom. He has outlined, in considerable length, a large part of why the parents at Central and Pearson high schools are in the mess they are in as a result of the recommendation to close their schools. In this article, one of a series Muir suggest what he feels are obvious solutions to the problem the Board of Education believes it has. There is a lot of material; it gets dense at times. Living in a democracy means you have to accept the responsibility of citizenship and stay informed.
The Gazette published the results of the 25 questions put to residents at the public meeting held by the Board on December 8.
There has been some concern expressed that the responses may be biased because of the representation by school is not even.
This is because all of the schools are not explicitly named as the primary option for closures, so there is a selection bias built right into the sampling frame itself, used by the Board consultant.
This sample of the resident/parent/student populations reflects the selection of schools that are directly named for closure or other changes – Central, Pearson, and Hayden. It is expected that the population of these schools would self-select to participate.
The low turnout from the other schools is also expected on similar grounds as not being in the selected schools directly affected.
These are the parents that answered the 25 questions put to them by the Ipsos facilitator the Board of education hired to collect and analyze the data. The vast majority of them were from Central high school.
In my opinion, the selection of schools is biased, so the turnout population sample reflects this bias – in effect the net bias balances out.
This is my summary of the details of the responses. The opposite views and votes are found by subtraction from 100%.
When you consider these closely, you can see what parents think about what they were asked, and what they want.
We have set out all 25 questions and the responses to each question – they are shown in red.
The Questions and the responses:
Question 1: Which high school are your representing tonight? The number beside the school was the number people in the audience would key in. The screen displayed a number that indicated how many devices had been handed out and another number showing how many people had responded.
7. Aldershot 7
6. Dr. Frank J. Hayden 43 5. Lester B. Pearson 43 4. Nelson Public 6 3. Robert Bateman 5 2. Burlington Central 150 1. M.M. Robinson 2
Question 2: How important is the availability of mandatory / core courses for your child(ren) within your home school?
3. Very Important 187 3. Somewhat Important 58 2. Not Very Important 12 1. Not at all Important 3
Question 3: How acceptable is it to attend a school outside of a home school for mandatory / core programming for your child(ren)?
4. Very Acceptable 22 3. Somewhat Acceptable 42 2. Not Very Acceptable 64 1. Not at all Acceptable 135
Question 4: How important is the availability of optional / elective courses within your home school for your child(ren)?
4. Very Important 94 3. Somewhat Important 117 2. Not Very Important 38 1. Not at all Important 14
Question 5: How acceptable is it for your child(ren) to attend a school outside of a home school for optional/elective courses?
4. Very Acceptable 37 3. Somewhat Acceptable 92 2. Not Very Acceptable70 1. Not at all Acceptable 62
Question 6: How willing are you to have your child(ren) take a mandatory/core course in an alternative method (e.g., summer school, night school, e-learning or attend another school?
4. Very Willing 55 3. Somewhat Willing 54 2. Not Very Willing 57 1. Not at all Willing 96
Question 7: How willing are you to have your child(ren) take a optional/elective course in an alternative method (e.g., summer school, night school, e-learning or attend another school?
4. Very Willing 90 3. Somewhat Willing 74 2. Not Very Willing 46 1. Not at all Willing 49
Question 8: How important is it for you high school to offer a full range of pathway programming (e.g., workplace, college, university)?
4. Very Important 120 3. Somewhat Important 89 2. Not Very Important 33 1. Not at all Important 15
Question 9: How concerned are you that your child(ren) has access to appropriate learning facilities (e.g., kitchens, science labs, gyms, libraries)?
4. Very Concerned 165 3. Somewhat Concerned 58 2. Not Very Concerned 16 1. Not at all Concerned 19
Question 10: How concerned are you that some high schools have large amounts of specialized learning spaces that remain underutilized?
4. Very Concerned 18 3. Somewhat Concerned 56 2. Not Very Concerned 92 1. Not at all Concerned 92
Question 11: How important is it for your home school to have a full range of extracurricular activities (e.g., drama, arts, athletics, clubs) for your child(ren)?
4. Very Important 121 3. Somewhat Important 92 2. Not Very Important 35 1. Not at all Important 13
Question 12: How likely are you to support your child(ren) participating in extracurricular activities at another school?
4. Very Likely 72 3. Somewhat Likely 69 2. Not Very Likely 49 1. Not at all Likely 68
Question 13: How important is it for your child to have access to the highest level of competition in athletics?
4. Very Important 19 3. Somewhat Important 30 2. Not Very Important 170 1. Not at all Important 141
Question 14: How important is the physical condition of your existing school to you (e.g., environmental sustainability, energy consumption, safety)?
4. Very Important 75 3. Somewhat Important 37 2. Not Very Important 32 1. Not at all Important 95
Question 15: How important is it to you that the board ensures schools have an up-to-date, fully-accessible learning environment (e.g., elevators, air conditioning)?
4. Very Important 56 3. Somewhat Important 38 2. Not Very Important 32 1. Not at all Important 116
Question 16: How important is it you to preserve existing community partnerships at your child(ren)’s current school (e.g., swimming pool, library, community centre)?
4. Very Important 97 3. Somewhat Important 36 2. Not Very Important 49 1. Not at all Important 69
Question 17: How important is it you to minimize the use of portable classrooms?
4. Very Important 159 3. Somewhat Important 27 2. Not Very Important 27 1. Not at all Important 39
Question 18: The Board’s current walk distance is a maximum of 3.2 km. How important is it that your child(ren) are within the Board mandated walking distance to reach school?
4. Very Important 198 3. Somewhat Important 22 2. Not Very Important 21 1. Not at all Important 12
Question 19: Which of the following is your child(ren)’s most common form of travel to school currently? (list methods)
6. School Bus 37 5. Car (drive or drop off) 32 4. Public Transit 0 3. Walk 176 2. Bike 17 1. Other 4
Question 20: How important is it to you that the Board be fiscally responsible by reducing transportation to reach school?
4. Very Important 151 3. Somewhat Important 44 2. Not Very Important 22 1. Not at all Important 30
Question 21: How important is it for your child(ren) to spend their secondary school years in one school community?
4. Very Important 238 3. Somewhat Important 14 2. Not Very Important 6 1. Not at all Important 0
Question 22: The Ministry does not fund empty pupil places. To what extent do you agree that the Board should reallocate its limited budget to fund these spaces?
Question 23: The Board’s MYP states it will maintain a minimum overall average of 90% building capacity. To what extent to do you agree with this goal around future sustainability of Burlington secondary schools?
Question 24: The goal in the current MYP is to use innovative approaches to student learning spaces (e.g., classrooms, gymnasiums). To what extent do you feel the current situation of Burlington high schools is sustainable?
4. Very Sustainable 91 3. Somewhat Sustainable 55 2. Not very Sustainable 20 1. Not at all Sustainable 25
At this point people began walking out. Answers for the 25th question were not collected.
Question 25: Of the four themes, which is most important to you?
4. Programming and enrollment 0 3. Physical state of existing schools 0 2. Geographical and transportation Issues 0 1. Fiscal responsibility and future planning 0
Very little is known about the parents who are members of the Program Accommodation Review Committee other than that they have a tremendous amount of work ahead of them. There is no remuneration for the members of the committee.
Tom Muir’s analysis of the answers that were given to the questions asked.
Readers are going to have to shift up and down the pages to read the question and all the responses Muir has analyzed. Awkward – but it was the only way to set the data out for readers.
1) It is apparently important there be no school closures:
– the Board allocate the budget to fund empty spaces (Q22, 74%);
– present empty spaces are sustainable (Q24, 76%) – question also said MYP goal is to use innovative approaches to learning space use;
– response disagrees with Board 90% utilization goal (Q23, 78%);
– response not concerned about empty spaces being underutilized (Q10, 71%).
2. The importance of the home schools for core/mandatory subjects, and even optional/elective, is quite emphatic (Q2, 94%; Q3, 76%; Q4 80%; Q6, 58%; Q5, 51%), and consistent;
– Q7 indicates some support (63%, but only 35% are very willing), for optional/elective in alternatives like summer school, night school, e-learning, another school.
– do not agree with the Board 90% utilization goal (Q23,78%); – and again, want the Board to allocate the budget to fund empty spaces (Q22, 74%); – see being within 3.2 km, or 2 mile, Board mandated walking distance to home schools as important (Q18, 86%) – 69% already walk, 14.5% ride bus (Q19); – see reduction in bus transportation to each school as important (Q20, 79%); – see spending secondary years in one school as important (Q21, 98%); – are concerned that appropriate learning facilities be accessible (Q9, 86%); – want a full range of pathway programs (Q8, 81.3%); – feel current situation is sustainable – as above in 1. (Q24, 76%); – see it as important to minimize the use of portables (Q17, 74%).
4. Suggesting further support for retaining all schools are the following:
– a full range of extra-curricular activities (e.g., drama, arts, athletics, clubs) is important (Q11, 82%) – in my view, this implies more schools with more space for fewer students, means more opportunities; – parental support to help students do extracurricular at another school is not at all likely, or not very likely, for 45% of respondents, compared to 55% at somewhat or very likely (Q12); – the importance of the highest level of competition in athletics is not important (Q13, 81%) – in my view, this implies the larger top tier schools with large student populations are not important in this regard.
5. Other parent/resident views reflect a small majority percent expressing that:
– the physical condition of the school as not at all or very important (Q14, 53%); – that the importance of the school as up-to-date and fully accessible, with elevators and air conditioning, is not at all or not very important (Q15, 61%); – preserving existing community partnerships at current school (pools, libraries, community center) is very to somewhat important (Q16, 53%).
Again, the opposite views and percent support can be derived by subtraction with regard to response preference bracket.
I believe my analysis is accurate. It is unbiased and done in good faith.
Tom Muir is a resident of Aldershot who has been a persistent critic of decisions made by city council. He turns his attention to the current school board mess. He recently suggested to Burlington city council that “If you are so tired of and frustrated by, listening to the views of the people that elected you, then maybe you have been doing this job too long and should quit.
Muir explains that the PARC will only get what people send in, what they come up with from their own efforts, and what they ask/demand from the board. They have to decide what they want and go after it ruthlessly. They will have to fight with tooth and claw and take no prisoners.
By Staff
