By Pepper Parr

November 3rd 2016

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The closing of a school is no small matter – and when it happens there is disruption at many levels – especially for the parents who have children in one of the schools that was recommended for closure.

In the Program Accommodation Review the Halton district School Board is undergoing, the Director of Education put a recommendation before the trustees that two specific schools be closed. Central and Pearson.

There are parents who wish the Director had not done so.

Lynne Crosby, a parent with children at Central high school said yesterday that “They did NOT have to make a recommendation that named two schools. This shows a complete disregard for the students and staff at those two schools, plus the students in grade 7/8 and the feeder schools. The high school students at these schools have been greatly negatively affected, and in many cases their school year is tainted if not ruined.

They (the Board of Education) could have chosen option 7 which is to close no schools to begin the PAR. Or they could have made an Option 20 to close one school or two schools, particular ones to be determined through the process, and not naming specific ones.

Crosby is bothered by the rule that does not allow any questions during the presentations that are being made to each high school. “We can’t ask him this question because they don’t allow questions. What a farce. I doubt they are taking questions from the media either, but this is a point that should be raised, since they keep giving us this line about how they had no choice.”

“One thing that really bothers me” said Crosby, “is them saying how they had to make a recommendation, as if their hands were tied by the Ministry rules. All the board had to do was ask the trustees to decide if they wanted to do a Program Accommodation Review to begin the process.

The Board did produce a report that had a recommendation – which is all it is at this point in time.

The enrollment numbers to show that there are far too many seats in the high schools that have not been filled.

By Pepper Parr

November 3rd, 2016

BURLINGTON, ON

 

School Board Director of Education Stuart Miller isn’t getting home for dinner very often this month.

He is committed to being in front of high school parents and has added to that the desire to delegate before the Community and Corporate Services Standing Committee at council next Monday where he will delegate on the Halton District School Board’s Secondary School Program and Review (PAR) Process.

The delegation will outline the process for a program and accommodation review, including timelines and consultation.

While the school board and city play the biggest roles in the daily life of citizens in the city (well maybe waste removal – a Regional responsibility  – fits in there somewhere) the city and the school board rarely meet in any formal fashion.

They are their own fiefdoms.

The school board is shaking up every household in the city with their requirement to go to the parents and talk about closing high schools.

The city gets this kind of feedback when it want to close an arena or a swimming pool – so they both have experience dealing with the public.

The public would say that neither are very good at communicating. For the record the school board is putting itself in front of people.

At city Standing Committee meetings delegations are limited to ten minutes – watch how quickly that gets waived.

The Board of Education isn’t allowing Q&A at its meetings with parents – but at city council meetings Councillors can ask questions.  Parents might want to lobby their member of council to get some answers.

The biggest issue we hear from parents is that the school board doesn’t appear to be thinking in terms of “community” – focusing instead on what they can do for the students.  Parents want to think in terms of  how community can be retained.

By Pepper Parr

October 28, 2016

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Burlington parents with students in Central high and Lester B. Pearson high school are scrambling. The Halton District School Board (HDSB) put a series of recommendations before the trustees earlier this month that could result in the closing of the two high schools.

The Board of education is driven by provincial funding rules that require them to do a Program Accommodation Review (PAR) if the percentage of the seats available in a school that are being used falls below 65%
Central high and Pearson are at that level.

The Board situation is complicated in that the three year old Hayden high school is at 115% capacity.

Director of Education Stuart Miller explained to the trustees that the city has one and a half too many high schools – and that they are south of the QEW where the student population is falling.

The process of closing a school requires that a Program Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) be formed and that the trustees listen to what that committee recommends before making a decision.

The PARC process is to be completed by May of 2017. That is a tight timeline.

There are people in the academic world who think the province is forcing the school boards to do this the wrong way – and that opting for larger school rather than smaller school is bad pedagogy.

Schools play a central role in their communities. They are essential to economic development and they make communities more attractive to new- comers. Businesses are more likely to move to communities with schools, and families will not move to communities without schools. When a community loses its school, it loses its viability.

Extensive research over the last decade shows that small schools make excellent learning environments for students, and that, despite economies of scale, they are often cost effective because of their higher graduation rates.

Creative and proactive strategies must be developed now to recognise the value of small schools and to ensure their viability and that of their communities.

Bill Irwin of Huron University College and Mark Seasons at the University of Waterloo school of Planning argue that the push to close school doors seems to be an economic exercise, overlooking educational and community needs. Irwin is a professor of Economics and Management and Organizational Studies at Huron.
Together they have launched a website: env-blogs.uwaterloo.ca/schoolclosures/ offering a research-based platform to guide discussion about school closures.

“We believe,” the website states, “that the theory and best practices of both urban planning and public participation are good foundations from which to ameliorate the school closure process, and ultimately lead to a more effective and equitable outcome for those involved.”

The website is one of the outcomes of a 2013-14 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant.

“We’re looking at the whole issue surrounding school closures, in terms of several touchstones – as a public policy issue, and how policy is developed and delivered; as a public participation issue and the relationship between institutions and communities; and the implications of closures in terms of impacts on financial, social and human capital,” Irwin explained.

There are a number of factors driving this school closing trend.

• The last of the baby-boom generation’s children (who have created an enrollment swell since the 1970s) are now completing their secondary education.
• Ontario’s secondary school curriculum was reduced from five years to four years resulting in the loss of a whole grade of students.
• With the growing industrialization of agriculture, the loss of Ontario’s family farms has added to the exodus from rural areas.

“The research into the subject of school closures is grounded in developing and implementing a better decision making process with regards to accommodation review. To complement this, the researchers are concentrating on three areas of focus; public participation, urban planning, and the accommodation review process itself. We believe that the theory and best practices of both urban planning and public participation are good foundations from which to ameliorate the school closure process, and ultimately lead to a more effective and equitable outcome for those involved.

“One of the key components to realizing this objective is the ability to achieve an increased awareness of this issue, and to encourage an informed discussion between government officials, policy makers, school board administrators, and civic leaders alike. To support this, the researchers have provided material that they believe will enable a wide range of stakeholders to become better informed about the various guiding aspects of accommodation review and school closures.”

A major problem the closing of a school stumbles upon is that planning is a municipal function – and in Burlington the Board of Education and city hall tend not to work very closely together; the two don’t have an organizational structure they can meet on as equals.

The last time there was an educational issue that involved the city was when the Charles Beaudoin School wanted to add more portables – but in order to do so they had to get permits from the city.

The parents at the school didn’t want more in the way of portables so they pressured the city not to give the Board of Education what they said they needed.

The school board eventually got permission to install additional portables – just not as many as they needed.

“There is documentation that will enable others to become better informed about some of the more subtle elements and underlying causations that have led school closures to become such a highly contentious and polarizing experience.

“School closure decision making process have been framed by policy makers in Ontario, through the accommodation review process (ARCs) (2006), as exercised in public participation. Critics of ARCs have decried the process being more of a subterfuge than a genuine attempt of joint institutional-community review. At its core, the research is a quest to better understand the relationship between institutions of education, in Ontario represented by the provincial Ministry of Education and local school boards, and the community.

“Furthering this understanding will require addressing the question: How do people view the concrete and practical application of school closure policy in their community? Critics of the current ARC process in Ontario have stated that the provincial government appears to ne be making use of school boards to regulate the citizenry to their own end, applying the version of the Foucauldain (a form of discourse analysis, focusing on power relationships in society as expressed through language and practices) notion of governmentality.

“The questions are: How does the community view the consequences of school closings, especially as the closing occur in local settings? How does (or do) the end results of school closings reflect what community members’ desire? or the process of review?

“The research starts with the premise that ‘true public participation’ in any policy decision rests not only with the institution listening to the community; the institution needs also to consciously include the community insights into the final outcome. Therefore institutional context and motive plays a pivotal role in determining a group or individual’s capacity to make informed choices, and then transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes. Capturing that institutional context and motivation as it relates to public participation, actual and perceived, is a major focus of the research.”

Bill Irwin explains: “When I started my research – my thesis (in 2012) was on school closures – no one else had looked at this issue since the policy had come forward in 2005,” he continued, adding if the province was closing smaller community schools as a fiscal savings measure, there was no tracking of those savings. More importantly, there was no review of community costs.

“How does a closure impact students as learners? We don’t know if this is impacting students’ ability to learn or their marks. This happens in young people’s lives at the same time they’re going through emotional, physical changes. There are so many unanswered questions in this,” Irwin continued.

“The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is spending resources on rebuilding houses, while the Ministry of Education is supporting closures of community schools. We want to rebuild our inner cities, yet we want to shut down schools in their communities,” Irwin said.

“We’re taking schools from poor neighbourhoods and putting them in affluent neighbourhoods. It’s a reverse Robin Hood situation.”

“What’s more, current policies surrounding school closures ignore previous research that shows smaller schools have a great impact within their communities.

“In the 1960s, 70s and 80s, robust research literature was done on the benefits of small schools as learning environments, as having long term benefits to students. That literature has been totally ignored in this whole process,” Irwin said.

“All of us realize there will be a provincial election this year. This should be part of the discussion. How we treat our schools has a tremendous impact long-term on the social fabric of our communities,” Irwin said.

• The number of small elementary schools with full-time principals has dropped by 15%, twice the rate of the drop in all elementary schools in the province.
• The number of small elementary schools with a teacher-librarian (full- or part-time) has declined by 53% compared to a 30% decline in all elementary schools.
• Just 20% of small elementary schools have access to a physical educa- tion teacher, compared to 51% of larger elementary schools.*
• Only 25% of small elementary schools have access to specialist music teachers, compared to 61% of larger elementary schools.
• All larger secondary schools have libraries that are open full-time, but 21% of small secondary schools had libraries open only part-time.

Three quarters of Ontario’s small elementary schools and 83% of small high schools report that their schools are used by the community after school hours for everything from sporting events to ratepayers’ meetings.

Ontario’s drive to build larger schools is solely a response to an education funding formula geared to larger schools – it is an economic decision rather than a pedagogical one.

The HDSB recently approved taking on commercial enterprises that could use some of the space; meetings were held but nothing has come of this kind of opportunity so far.

The city of Burlington has been renting space in the Sims Building directly across from city hall for years. There is a consultant’s report in a filing cabinet gathering dust that sets out what the city is going to need in terms of office space and what is currently has – that report has not been released to the public yet.

After years of stopgap solutions, it is time to reverse the trend and recognize that closing a school is not simply an educational issue, it has major social and demographic repercussions as well.

The researchers declare that “we must recognize the reality of declining enrollment in Ontario, and come up with new and proactive solutions to maintain the viability of small schools and communities. It is time to develop creative ways to keep the school buildings vital and expand their role as the hub of their communities. We can take cues from other places: English small schools are inviting postal sub-stations to occupy a part of their buildings; Newfoundland has community schools that have on-site social service agencies, community radio stations, and seniors’ programs. It is possible to modify school buildings slightly so that they can function as community centres as well, and, if provided with adequate funding, day care centres enhance schools and act as a draw for young parents.”

Somewhere in the research there is mention of adjusting transportation guidelines and funding to ensure that no student spends more than 1½ hours per day on the school bus. That amount of time suggests students in Burlington are being prepped for commutes on the QEW,

The battle in front of the parents right now is the very real threat to two of the city’s high schools – there might be a higher level discussion these parents can put in front of the trustees and that is – what size of schools do we want and can we slow things down a bit and take the time needed to get this right the first time.

This article draws heavily on the work of Bill Irwin at Huron University College and Mark Seasons at the University of Waterloo.  

By Pepper Parr

October 21, 2016

BURLINGTON, ON

 

For the parents at Lester B. Pearson high school the thought of their school closing is a tough one.
Many parents wanted their children to attend a small school and moved into the neighbourhood for just that reason.

Some talk about actually moving out of the community or “we will send our kids to St. John”, which is the local Catholic school.

Another parents, who asked not to be identified said she did not want her kids “going to the pharmacy”, which was code for a school with a drug problem.

During the Board of Education discussion about Lester B. Pearson (LBP) trustee Richelle Papin talked about the Nursery Program in the school that has been in place for more than forty years that has become a model and a training ground for students from Mohawk who expect to work in the child care field.

The Halton District School Board is acutely aware that they face a serious situation where, as Director of Education Stuart Miller put it – “Students will begin voting with their feet and we will lose even more students”.
All the feelings and concerns don’t change the facts – Burlington has too much high school capacity. There are 1800 high school student seats that the Board can’t fill.

Yes, there is some intensification taking place but condominiums are being built and they tend not to house families with several children. Add to that – the population growth has been north of the QEW and the high school capacity is south of the QEW.

The Board of Education staff set out 19 possible options – and recommended what is referred to as option 19 – which proposes that:

• Close Lester B. Pearson HS, and redirect students to M.M. Robinson HS
• Close Burlington Central HS and redirect students to Aldershot HS and Nelson HS
• Change Dr. Frank J. Hayden SS boundary and programming.

This recommendation is not a final decision of the Board of Trustees, but a starting point for consultation.

Stuart Miller, Director of Education said: “I want to stress that the recommended option is the starting point for the Program Accommodation Review (PAR) process.” “With feedback from the public, and the research and work of the PAR committee, a different solution could arise as a result of this process.”

Initial information sessions will be held to provide communities with further information about the PAR process and rationale for why the Board is undertaking a PAR for Burlington secondary schools. These sessions will be ‘information only’. There will be no question and answer opportunity at these initial sessions.

There is a massive amount of data and detail the public will need to think through the alternatives.

Parents are now in the process of setting up what will be called PARC (Program Accommodation Review Committees) that will work through everything and give the Board of Trustees their recommendations.

It is the Board of Trustees that will make the final decision – however, whatever decision they make has to comply with provincial government guidelines and the cold hard fact is that – there are too many spaces south of the QEW and not enough north of the QEW.

The Hayden High school that hasn’t been open for three years already has portables set up – and worse – the WiFI service is “spotty”.

The really positive upside is that the parents who have surfaced and are facing the challenge are a bright, energetic bunch of people –they are going to come forward with a solution.

It is the parents that are going to make the difference.