By Pepper Parr
January 6th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 3 of a 3 part series
The Halton District School Board held a public meeting to gather data on what people felt about how public educations are delivered and paid for. The Gazette has run a three part series on the data collected. This is the third of the series.
The 25 questions were asked of about 350 people attending the event. 256 were given hand held clickers to enter their responses. 58.6% of the responders were from Central high school; 16.8% from Pearson and 16.8% from Hayden; 2.7% from Aldershot ; 2.3% from Nelson; 2% from Bateman and .8% from Robinson.
Quite how the members of the PARC are going to evaluate and use data that is so heavily skewed to one school will be interesting to watch.
Question 18: The Board’s current walk distance for secondary students 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?
Very 78.3%; somewhat 8.7%; not very 8.3%; not at all 4.7%
Question 19: Which of the following is your child’s most common form of travel to school currently?
School bus 14.5%; car 8.6%; Public transit 0%; walk 68.8%; bike 6.6%; other 1.6%
Question 20: How important is it that the Board be fiscally responsible by reducing transportation to each school?
Very 61.1%; somewhat 17.8%; not very 8.9%; not at all 12.1%
Question 21: How important is it for your child(ren) to spend their secondary years in one school community?
Very 92.2%; somewhat 5.4%; Bot very 2.3%; not at all 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 places?
Strongly 52.6%; 21.6%; somewhat disagree 12.1%; strongly agree 8.3%
Question 23: The Board’s MYP (Define) states it will maintain a minimum overall averae of 90% building capacity. To what extent do you agree with this goal around future sustainability of Burlington’s secondary schools?
Strongly agree 8.3% ; somewhat agree 14.1%; somewhat disagree 22%; strongly disagree 55.6%
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 in Burlington high schools is sustainable?
Very 47.6%; somewhat 28.8%; not very 10.5%; not at all 13.1%
Question 25: Of the four themes which is the most important to you?
The facilitator wanted to know which of the four themes the questions were put into was the most important to the audience
The themes were:
Programing and enrollment
Physical sate of existing school
Geographical and transportation issues
Fiscal responsibility and future planning
Data on the choices was not captured
Members of the PARC at a quick meeting after the first public meeting at Gary Allan high school early in December.
It took a little arm twisting to get the data from the Board of Education. The Gazette was at first told it would be made available to the PARC and then released to the public. The Gazette persuaded the Board that it was public information gathered at a public meeting and was therefore public – and they released it the following day.
Scott Podrebarac, a Board of Education Superintendent and Chair of the PARC
Scott Podrebarac, a Board of Education Superintendent and Chair of the PARC, said a more fulsome report will be prepared before the first working meeting of the PARC in late January.
Parent comment varied – little of it all that positive:
One parent said: “My thoughts are that if the purpose of the meeting was to actually gather public input, it pretty much failed big-time. If the purpose was simply for the board to be able to check off a box that they satisfied Ministry or Board guidelines to hold a public session to say they gathered public input, I suppose they accomplished their mission. The meeting occurred, but that’s about it.
Parents and some students at the public meeting where data was gathered.
Another said: “We thought since it was billed as a chance for us to answer their questions and ask our own questions that (a) the questions we were answering would be non-biased and easy to understand. They were neither; and (b) that our own questions for them would be answered, not simply asked and then left to float off into the air.
I don’t see how they will be able to use the data to prove anything, since many schools were barely represented according to the attendance figures from each school, and since it was clearly publicly aired over the course of the entire evening that people were confused by the questions, found them biased, and felt they were not being heard at all with their own questions.
The fact that many Superintendents and senior staff and the Director all fled the meeting instead of offering to answer those questions, certainly did not go over well.
