By Pepper Parr

March 22, 2017

BURLINGTON, ON

Quantitative? Qualitative?

How many people responded to the survey and was there balance in the responses.

Tuesday evening the PAR Committee members were given a briefing on what the 1611 people who completed the on-line survey had to say about the six options to close high schools that were on the table.

The details on that survey were published as a separate article.

PARC members writing their comments on large sheets of paper.

This PARC has had difficulty with getting good data and pulling information from that data that can be used to determine the best direction.

The process the province put in place to involve parents is now seen as deficient.  It is new and will no doubt be changed but the PAR committee has to work with what they have been given.

The chair of the PARC appears to b ready to loosen things up a little.  Scott Podrebarac, a Superintendent with the Board, is running meetings under a process that is new – he is sort of learning what to do each meeting.  Many of the PAR committee members want a more open process.

Last night the public heard the numbers part of the quantitative part of the data. There was a lot of discussion about the value of the data. The number of responders was small and it was a complex survey with the average time spent by those who completed it amounting  to 21 minutes.  The Board did no report on the number of people who did not complete the survey.

The qualitative aspect wasn’t discussed on Tuesday. There were tens of thousands in the way of comments. How do they get tens of thousands of comments from 1600 + responses? There could have been as many as seven comments from each person (7 x 1611 = 11,277) and the PAR committee wanted to see every one of them.

PARC members from Aldershot and Central high schools.

There is a significant level of distrust between the Board staff and some members of the PARC. They are complaining about the quality of much of the information they are being given and unhappy with the Terms of Reference they have been asked to work within.

Some members of the PARC feel the Board staff will present just those comments that support their option – which was to close two of the seven high schools.

Board staff talked about privacy issues in releasing all the comments. Blank out anything that identifies anyone responded those PARC members who are unhappy with the way Board staff have been managing the flow of information.

It has taken the 14 PARC members time to begin to work as a group – almost from the beginning the PARC members spent their time and energy defending their schools. When it became evident that both Nelson and Bateman were being considered for closure their representatives became very vocal.

The committee began to feel that the Board staff had them working against each other to save their school when what many of them wanted to do was find a solution that could keep all the schools open

The parents wanted to be part of a process that was going to look for a solution and they felt they weren’t being allowed to do that.

Lynn Crosby didn’t want to miss a word that was said. It was difficult at times to hear what the PARC members were saying

There might have been a bit of a change in the way the Board is managing this process. The trustees are meeting this evening – Wednesday and are expected to add additional meeting time for the PARC members to deliberate.

There is quite a bit more to take place – the real leaders should become more evident very soon.

And everyone is waiting to see what those tens of thousands of comments actually say.

By Pepper Parr

March 22, 2017

BURLINGTON, ON

Capturing data that is valid, balanced and detailed enough to tell research analysts what people think and what they would like to see done has been a challenge for the Program Accommodation Review Committee (PAR).

The Halton District School Board hired IPSOS Reid to take on the data gathering and the analysis of the data that was gathered as well as create the questions that would give both the Board, the trustees and the members of the PAR the information thy needed.

If you want to count how many chickens there are in a coop – there have to be some chickens – which is an awkward way of saying that IPSOS Reid was never able to get balanced data.

The first survey they did of parents at a December meeting was so skewered to Central high school parents that it was difficult to project what parents from all seven high schools thought about an issue.

The second survey that ended March 13th does not appear to have been all that much better.

IPSOS Reid presented an Overview of the data gathered on what responders thought of the six options for possible school closing were still on the table.  The names given to some of the options were not as clear as they needed to be – for example 7b was to not close any of the high schools and change the Hayden boundaries.

Most of the options that came forward went through some modifications which added an alpha to the number.  Thus 7b had at least two changes made to the original content.

The next piece of data explained who was answering the survey – a parent, a student – who?

The PARC wanted to know who was responding – – the vast majority were parents.

Which school did the responder represent as the next concern.  What surprised many was that more of the responders came from Nelson high school which while on the list of possible closures was not nearly as at risk as Central, Pearson and Bateman.

Knowing who was responding to the survey, which schools they represented  the researched asked the responder what they thought the impact would be for each option from their perspective.

The data for all six options was formatted the same way.

We have set these out for each of the six options.

Kirk Perris, IPSOS Reid researcher who presented the data on the second survey.

There were 1611 responses to the survey.

People completing the survey had seven choices from most positive to least positive.  The blue area indicated people saw this as having a positive impact. grey was neutral, orange indicated a negative impact.

Kirk Perris, the IPSOS Reid researcher did point out that there was no certainty that the responses were all valid by which he meant that he could not say for certain that one person did not complete the survey many times,

He did point out that the average person who did the survey spent 22 minutes doing so which suggested that the bulk of the responses were valid.  This wasn’t a survey you could race through.

Perris said the most important part of the survey was the comments people made – that data will be presented to the PARC at their next meeting on Thursday.

This option is slightly different than the option Board staff originally put forward. It has more to do with boundary changes than the closing of a specific school.

Once this option – closing Nelson was on the table the parents from that high school suddenly got very active. More Nelson parents responded to the survey than any other school – there involvement is reflected in the data.

Closing Bateman and Pearson would solve the 1800 empty seats – Parents at Pearson felt that if they were given the students that were taken from them and sent to Hayden they would be viable.

This option was the one the Board staff put forward. It had much higher negative responses than the option that appeared to be the most favoured which was #7 – don’t close any of the schools.

This option to not close any of the schools had the most or highest favourable response – but it doesn’t resolve the problem of those 1800 seats that are empty.

Closing just Bateman was not a clear choice – the positives outweighed the negatives but people felt neutral about many of the questions.

By Pepper Parr

March 20th, 2017

BURLINGTON, ON

With Spring Break over and most of the snow melted away the citizens of the city can begin to look for warm sunny days – and fret about just what is going to happen to the city’s high schools.

Public attendance was good – not huge but those attending paid very close attention.

While many parents were out of the city the Board staff were working towards the last two PARC meetings that will take place later this week; one on Tuesday and a second one on Thursday. The Board would love the PARC to arrive at a consensus – the best this PARC is going to be able to do is go for the option that doesn’t close any of the high schools or choose to close Bateman if it is absolutely necessary to get the number of empty seats down.

This PARC has been less than satisfying to the parents and most of the participants. The process followed is a new one issued by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and it has some, (many?) bumps to be dealt with.

The 14 PARC participants have had a tough time getting a grip on the process and at the same time having to deal with a Board that has not delivered anywhere near enough in the way of data and information.

PARC Chair Scott Podrebarac on the left with city manager James Ridge on the right. Ridge had very little to say – the public was never told what his mandate was other than to occupy the seat allocated to the city.

The PARC was given nothing in the way of historical background and the reasons why the city now has seven high schools with 1800 + seats that are empty and one high school that is close to 150% of it rated capacity.

They were given a template to use as they made decisions on the various options that were put in front of them.  That template asked them to consider, but not be limited to the following:

1. Range of mandatory programs;
2. Range of optional programs;
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 underutilization 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

It would take a single edition of the Gazette to pick apart the 13 points in the framework – transportation is one of the better examples.  Every time the question as to the cost of busing and the impact busing would have on the students was brought up everyone from the Director on own was told to “don’t go there” it is far too complex.

The issue that is almost as important as what students learn in the classrooms is how we get them there got shoved to the sidelines because it was too complex.

The Board has deliberately obfuscated on a number of occasions and has kept the PARC away from issues that are critical to finding an acceptable solution that is fiscally prudent, take into consideration the importance of community and strives to give the students the best possible educational advantage. Not an easy thing to achieve but there are some very smart committed people on the PARC. They deserved more respect from the Board than they have been given.

The PARC people had to learn new acronyms that the Board uses daily.

The principals or their proxy were on standby during most of the PARC meetings – they acquitted themselves very well. Not one of them stumbled.

The PARC members had to listen to data that was wrong the first time it was given to them and wrong the second time as well.

Parent groups from the high schools most at risk – Central and Pearson to begin with then Bateman and Nelson at a later date.

The public never got the sense that they were really involved. Meetings were held at which the public as not encouraged or given a chance to ask questions.

The five high schools that were not named as possible closure took a pretty relaxed attitude early in the process – when it became evident that Nelson and Bateman were being given a look at for possible closure they got active quickly.

The result was a turf war between the different high schools rather than an open co-operative and collaborative approach to resolving a serious problems.

Superintendent of Facilities Gerry Cullen gave a report in which he explained what was wrong with the data they were being given – that was the extent of it – other than to say that was what the Board was working with.

During all this the elected trustees chose to be mute. They didn’t want to “influence the process”.

The four Burlington trustees were on hand for every meeting – the others popped in on occasion. The city now faces a situation where all four of its trustees could vote not to close any of the high schools but the other seven trustees (there is a total of 11) could vote to close two of the high schools and that is what would be done.

What the PAR committee has to do is:

Remind themselves that while they were brought together to WHAT that they need to do is look at the bigger picture and determine in their minds what is best overall for the state of the high schools in the city.

PARC committee members from Ward 1 and 2 talking over what was taking place. Both were very direct with the chair.

Each PARC member needs to ask themselves why they are there: To fight for the existence of the school they represent or to be involved in a committee that looks at the available data and if it is insufficient then demand that the Board provide factual data.

The constantly updating data on the part of the Board is unprofessional and unacceptable and the PARC needs to tell the Board as much.

The PARC members need to demand that they have some direct input into the report that goes to the Director of Education. They should also demand that they be given the time and the resources to critique the report the Director gives the trustees March 29th.

Demand that the Board not rush the PARC – these 14 people have full time jobs that require time – as volunteers their time needs to be respected. The PARC should not be made slaves to a time line the board created.

Somewhere in this crowd are a number of Board of Education Superintendents explaining as best they can what the preferred school closing option is and why it makes sense. Many of the parents weren’t buying it.

The PARC has yet to find its voice – hopefully the Spring Break will have given everyone some time to catch their breath and provide the city with the service each one is capable of giving.

There is a lot more riding on this decision than most people realize.