By Michael J. Hribljan
February 13, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
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.
How, on the one hand, can you use your own children as examples and on the other hand, say these children can’t be moved? It doesn’t seem that moving from school to school hindered your children, especially with your daughter being an honours student.
I am a parent of a student of Robert Bateman High School. My son is currently in Grade 12 and in the OYAP program for culinary. My daughter graduated from Bateman 2 years ago. And is currently a 2nd year ECE student at Mohawk College. Both of my kids have IEP’s for learning disability. My children would not be where they are if it wasn’t for Robert Bateman. Both of my kids were in Life Skills in Elementry school. My daughter left our home school is Grade 3, the first Life Skills class she went to was from Grades 4-6. She then had to move schools again for Grades 7-8. Then off to Bateman in Grade 9 where she entered the Essentials Program. She was a honour roll student. Grade 10 entered Applied for all subjects except math. My son was lucky to leave our home school and go to a elementry school that had Life Skills from Grade 4-8. Went to Bateman in Grade 9 did a year in Life Skills and went into Essentials in Grade 10. My kids got the individual attention they needed to succeed and reach their goals.
All I have seen this far in the PAR process is Central NOT giving any considerations to our CPP (Community Pathways Program) students and what moving schools will do to their lives. Most of these kids do not deal with change well. Ask any of their parents what a change of minute of their day does to them. Ask parents how many elementry schools their kids have been to before getting to high school? How many elementry schools did your kids go to before entering high school? The answer is 1 for many.
It is against all human rights that these kids get moved out of Bateman. And I would also like to add that these kids are in a PLACEMENT not a PROGRAM. They don’t have a choice. Parents have to go threw a long process to have their kids identified and then PLACED in the appropriate PLACEMENT.
In closing how bout Central stops bashing Bateman and actually show some compassion for the kids that are at Robert Bateman High School.
Editor’s note: The writer of this comment is believed to be a member of the PARC. She appears to have put her personal wishes ahead of the task she undertook to look at all the options in a fair manner.
Michael: your letter was true to form. Thank you!!!
I am a parent of a BCHS graduate as well as I have a son attending grade 8 at BCHS. I am concerned by the incompetency of the board and those that supply the incorrect/biased information to the PARC and blatantly ignore the request for further information or clarification on information provided. Where were the cost breakdowns for the other options on the table for review? I remember the response to that request..too time-consuming. ALL students deserve correct, unbiased, and complete information. I am also not surprised by their behaviours, even though we were told that every placement/program is movable to another school location, every option was to be provided fair review as well as any new option that became known would be fully considered. It was clear to all of us how the Director wanted this to go when the Central parent community was called bullies at the meeting in October. Concerned parents requesting information and pulling together to save our school.
We were told that no one other than PARC members would be able to speak at PARC meeting but the Director invited a student (Bateman) to speak for all students (what this student presented at that meeting was not what all students who met with the Director thought). I really would love to hear what all those students thought that met with the Director. The sad realization is that the Director is meeting with students who are leaving the school system in the next year to 2 years. Students currently attending grade 7 and 8 are invisible in this matter. For that matter, all elementary kids are being ignored in this process. Their voices have to matter despite being in elementary school. Their parents have to be that voice. A reminder that if BCHS closes and Aldershot is to receive more students another PAR must be called immediately as now the grade 7/8 at both BCHS and Aldershot will need placement. Therefore, that means this vicious, emotional, time consuming, and costly process begins again for ALL elementary schools in Burlington. While I understand, there are 1800 empty seats within the walls of current secondary schools with the exception of Hayden – portables should never be the solution. All those portables at Hayden and Pearson sitting there begging for students. In addition, a reminder that transportation cost will rise as BCHS is a walkable school (roughly, five students are bussed). Amazing!! To those individuals that are on the PARC, thank you for your time. Keep asking and pushing for answers to your questions. You ARE the voice of ALL students in Burlington. Find the BEST solution for our students and our City. HDSB Board (staff) – our students, parents, PARC members, and City deserve the CORRECT information and full access to answers to all Option questions. HDSB Trustees – I am asking that when the time comes to vote on the BEST viable Option that you look deep into what is truly best for our kids.
As Lisa stated, that land is to valuable.
If someone would ask the board exactly what was planned for the vacated school and it’s land.
Well then you would have the answer’s to all your questions.
What I would really be interested in finding out is if this letter /information has been presented to a print publication such as Burlington Post or Hamilton Spectator. .I’m sure the HDSB would cetainly not allow it and exert some sort of pressure to keep the public from learning this information. Also, which schools are the people of the HDSB graduates of or where do thee kids go…. ? Thanks for such a great letter Michael. Let’s hope it helps. I mean seriously… what braintrust thinks it is a good idea to not have a school in the city core. .to have such a massive gap from east to west. ..
I am so dishearted and disillusioned by the dishonesty that has been displayed by the Halton Board of Education toward this PARC process providing manipulated data that serves their purpose of supporting the closure of Burlington Central High School. This behaviour is unacceptable and would never be tolerated in most industries. Governmental offices should be accountable to provide accurate and substantiated data as would be the case with declaring financial data in any corporation. They should be subject to an independent review of the financials and only accurate information should be provided to the PARC.
The Board has also lied regarding their aim to do what is best for the students -their well being and future opportunities. They have not made any effort to truly hear the voices of the students at Central regarding all the unique qualities and opportunities this school affords to them. While there seems to be a sense of concern expressed by some PARC and Board members to not disrupt some students there is a blatant disregard for the well being of the 600 plus Central High School students.
Appears the appetite for the price of this land matters more than doing the right thing for Education in Halton and all students.
It is time for action to address this injustice before it is too late.
This isn’t just about the Halton District School Board – this goes higher into the education system across Canada. Education is a money-maker. What HDSB did in creating Hayden was pandering to the elite who live in the Orchard, Millcroft, and Alton. These people were crying out for a school so their own kids didn’t have to sit on busses for hours on end. The problem is, the schools that are being recommended to close are the ones with the least amount of household income.
Think about it.
Nelson caters to the Lakeshore community. It won’t close. Bateman caters to the other side of Appleby and kids being bussed in for specialized programs. MM has school board offices already there. Aldershot is all the Northshore kids. So what’s left? Pearson – very middle income. Very easy to railroad them and close the school with zero remorse as there’s no money there. Central – what do they matter? East of Brant goes to Nelson and the rest to Aldershot. Not too much taxpayer revenue lost there. So many live in rental apartments down there anyway. Not to mention the city operated pools (Centennial at Bateman, Angela Coughlin at MM, and Aldershot).
So – there you go.
This is why the meetings are a bust. They’ve already made their decision. They just want to make it seem like they valued the communities input.
It’s always about money. It’s never been about the kids. So…figure out now if you want to switch boards, borders, or homeschool.
That land is too valuable, and the HDSB is too greedy.
Excellent summary of the process thus far Michael. This letter must be required reading for both Halton Board trustees and Director Miller. When speaking directly with Mr Miller and one of the trustees earlier in the process I was given assurances that Option 19 was not remotely a done deal. Evidenced based data would be provided to help generate options, not fake, ever changing numbers that defy both logic and integrity. So many cost items become inflated or conviently omitted always with a negative reflection for Central under Option 19. And then the kicker, let’s not even have Option 23 on the list of options for the PARC to consider and vote on. A disgraceful oversight!
The above letter identifies a number of issues that Director Miller must consider and specifically and transparently address. He promised me this to my face. Please get this train wreck back on track Stuart.
Lastly, if Director Miller and the HDSB trustees are genuinely interested in what the Central experience has done for current and past STUDENTS I implore that they read heartfelt student stories online. Read these testimonials with an open mind. You will learn why an inclusive school like Central is truly unique!
I graduated from BCHS in 1971. Now some of my grandchildren attend school at BCHS. It makes me sad and angry that the HDSB is more concerned about the money they are in-trusted with then the children that they are supposed to be looking after. It may be only 600 students to them but they matter as much as all the other students in Burlington. Please members of the HDSB do what you are supposed to be doing and look out for all the students.
Absolutely bang on and disgraceful that this is really just the tip of the iceberg in this flawed process. I wonder if the Director is aware that the HDSB staff is either grossly incompetent or manipulating both the numbers and the facts to skew Central from the beginning and lead the PAR Committee towards the initial recommended option. At one meeting, two reps were told on separate occasions they could not speak when they wanted to dispute an erroneous point because they had to “move along”. Surprise! Both of those reps were from Central. Nobody else was shut down.
At the end of the day, the Board could look at options where you don’t end up with two schools less than 2 km apart on the same street at the east end of the city rather than creating a huge gap in the middle of the city with no school and expect everyone from the west and centre to all cram into portables at the small school at the west end. But it seems they don’t want to look at other options at all.
Student needs are not being met with either the current option or the deeply flawed process currently being undertaken to supposedly look at alternate ideas. Again I ask: does the Director know what his staff is doing and whether it is sheer incompetence or something worse? How many times can numbers be proven to be wrong or shown to be missing before they realize we don’t trust ANY of their data or supposed facts? It was actually stated at the most recent meeting “We didn’t run all of the numbers in choosing Option 19.” Wow. And they are now half-way through the process and still don’t have those numbers, yet they are making decisions.
Just think how much high density housing can be, crammed, jammed, stuffed, onto the land these old schools sit on. The motivation to get rid of them must be huge.
Editor’s note: The school board cannot just sell the land that :might” get freed up to a developer. The land has to be offered to a number of groups – a least four – before it can be put up for sale.
Great article Mike.
Their is nothing but a system to “wear parents down” with endless meetings.
At the end the trustees will use the “park guide lines” (which say nothing about the health of kids or the time lost waiting on the buss) to conclude as adults they must “do what is finically responsible.” Parents will be painted as emotional, but not “financially realistic.”
You are just seeing the book cooking to end in that “conclusion.”