By Staff
February 17th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The Program Accommodation Review (PARC) committee has gotten to the point where they can put forward six options they will send to the Director of Education.
Ward 2 city councillor MArianne Meed Ward is reprenting Cntral high school parents on the PARC. She has a son at Central. She told a meeting of Central high parents earlier in the week that it is “tough” going but that she was optimistic that Central high school could b kept open.
After four meetings at which these people worked hard at absorbing mountains of information and communicating with each other – there are 14 members of the PAR process – they are at the point where they can say : This is where we are – there is at this point no consensus on any one option but they have whittled down the 30 they had in front of them to the six the public will be asked to comment on
There will be two public meetings, one in the north another in the south on February 28th and March 7th.
Here are the options:
Option 23d ‐ Robert Bateman HS, Lester B Pearson HS closes, Dr. Frank J Hayden SS program change
No change to Aldershot HS boundary
Burlington Central HS catchment expands to include Tecumseh PS catchment
IB program added to Burlington Central HS from Robert Bateman
Nelson HS boundary expands east. SC‐SPED & Essential programming redirected to Nelson HS from Robert Bateman
MM Robinson HS ENG catchment expands to include Lester B Pearson HS
Frank J Hayden SS FI program redirected to M.M. Robinson HS. No change to the English catchment.
Option 19b – Burlington Central HS, Lester B Pearson closes HS, Dr Frank J Hayden SS & Robert Bateman HS program change
Aldershot HS catchment expands east to Brant St, ESL program relocated to Aldershot HS from Burlington Central HS. 10 rooms available from the Aldershot elementary facility to accommodate additional
Nelson HS expands west to Brant
Robert Bateman HS catchment include John William Boich PS catchment south of Upper Middle Rd, and the entire Frontenac PS catchment
FI program added to Robert Bateman HS with same boundaries as the English program
MM Robinson HS English boundary expands to include Lester B Pearson HS. FI boundary include Dr. Frank J Hayden SS with the exception of John William Boich PS catchment south of Upper Middle
Frank J Hayden becomes English only school, with a reduced English catchment area
Option 4b – Robert Bateman HS closes
No change to Aldershot HS
Burlington Central HS expands to include the entire Tecumseh PS
Nelson HS expands east to include Robert Bateman HS. Nelson HS receives the SC‐SPED and Essential programming from Robert Bateman
MM Robinson HS catchment expands to include Kilbride PS catchment
Lester B Pearson HS catchment expands to include Florence Meares PS catchment. IB program and Gifted Secondary Placement added to Lester B. Pearson HS from Robert Bateman HS and Nelson HS
Frank J Hayden SS English catchment area is reduced.
Option 7b – Dr. Frank J Hayden SS Boundary change
No changes to schools south of the
Lester B Pearson HS catchment expands to include Kilbride PS catchment area, John William Boich PS catchment area south of Upper Middle Road, and Alexander’s PS catchment
Frank J Hayden HS catchment reduced.
Option 28d – Burlington Central HS and Lester B Pearson HS closes, Program change for Dr Frank J Hayden SS
Aldershot HS catchment area expands easterly to railway tracks, ESL program added to Aldershot from Burlington Central
Nelson HS catchment area expands west to the railway
Robert Bateman HS catchment area expands to include John William Boich PS catchment area and Frontenac PS catchment
MM Robinson HS catchment area expands to include Lester B Pearson HS catchment area.
FI is removed from Dr. Frank J Hayden SS and redirected to MM Robinson HS
CH Norton PS area that is currently directed to Lester B Pearson HS, to be redirected to Dr Frank J Hayden
Option 3b – Nelson HS closes, Dr Frank J Hayden SS and Burlington Central HS have a program change
Aldershot FI expands to include Burlington Central HS FI catchment
Burlington Central HS English catchment area expands to Walkers Line
Robert Bateman HS expands west to Walkers
FI program added to Robert Bateman HS
Lester B Pearson HS catchment area expands to include John William Boich PS catchment area and Kilbride PS catchment area. The Secondary Gifted placement added to Lester B Pearson HS from Nelson
Frank J Hayden SS FI program redirected to M.M. Robinson HS.
Frank J Hayden HS catchment reduced.
Kirk Perris, a facilitator from IPSOS Reid who will be putting together the survey that will be sent out to all parents by the school board and will be available to anyone else on line.
Option 19 was the one the Director of Education recommended to the trustees.
Option 7 – a decision not to close any of the high schools had a bit of a battle to remain on the list. Some PARC members thought such an option voided the whole purpose of the PAR process while others felt very strongly that the public had the right to voice an opinion on whether or not they wanted any of their high schools closed.
One of the problems the people from Central and Pearson had was there being a lot of financial data available on the savings that would result from closing Central and Pearson but they didn’t have similar data for any of the other options.
Some PARC members felt they were being manipulated by the board to agree on option 19.
The PARC process brought a lot of information to the surface that the board didn’t readily supply.
The process also put members of the PARC in a position where they had to vote for the closing of some other school to ensure that their school remained open.
The Aldershot PARC members were very concerned what a closing of Central would do to their school.
I am still wondering about the extra busses needed if Nelson closes.those kids will need to bus to central and all the central french immersion kids have to be bussed to Nelson and Aldershot.its like busses passing each other each way.
Will:
Good point. That is one of the factors that the PARC is supposed to use when weighing the options, see number 10 and 11 below.
If you haven’t seen them, here is list:
“In respect of the school or group of schools being studied, the PARC will 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 enrollment 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.
Tom:
“Do you have evidence that NONE of the PARC support 7b?” I never said that, since it is going forward it has MAJORITY SUPPORT.
“More generally, do you have evidence that the majority of the PARC support 19b, in particular, and all the others as well?” The only options put forward for the public consultation have SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY.
Most people in here use an alias, I prefer it and it doesn’t change my opinions or the facts. I don’t even know if that is your real name and it doesn’t matter to me. If you are assuming I have vested interest because I don’t agree with some of what you say and can carry on a conversation, you need to have a look at your own motives.
All I’ve done is try to correct misinformation posted here by others with verifiable facts and a bit of my own opinion. Why assume I have any vested interest when I haven’t even stated what, if any, options I personally support?
David, I too am reaching for the Tylenol.Although it’s been many years since my kids attended Central High I do not want to see it close. I have read every comment I can find related to this story and have today read Tom Muir’s article detailing his meeting with Stuart Miller of HDSB (Tom, that must have been excruciating and I commend you for your efforts – I hope you receive the information you have asked for).
Back to the posted comments – now I cannot find the one I want to address (wouldn’t you know it?) but the list of it was “don’t confuse HDSB policies with COB policies”. Why not? The closure of Central High School (and, one must assume, the closure of Central Public in the not to distant future) marries perfectly with COB’s “intensification” mantra (i.e. build more Condos) COB is quite obviously hell bent on driving families out of the downtown area one way or another and what better way than to close schools. I believe that every neighbourhood in every community benefits from a good mixture of residents, from the newest infant to the oldest senior and everything in between and the surest way I know to ensure the slow death of a neighbourhood is to close schools. This neighbourhood need families and children to keep it vibrant and alive. COB’s vision of downtown is to shoehorn a high-rise Condo into every available space. It’s hard to foster any sense of neighbourhood or community when no-one lives at street level anymore. If Central High School is closed I would like to ask HDSB what it intends to do with it.The school and playing fields occupy a substantial piece of land – what’s to be done with it? Just leave it boarded up and empty? That wouldn’t fit it with COB’s vision of the future would it? So, again, I’m asking the question – if Central High School closes what does HDSB intend to do with the property? And please, let’s not hear that they haven’t thought that far ahead; if Stuart Miller doesn’t want to address “political issues” then perhaps he could tell us who will.
There have been so many really divisive issues in Burlington over these past few years that sometimes I hardly recognize this city anymore. And I am getting heartily sick of being told what’s best for our communities and downtown in particular. Regardless of which Ward you live in surely keeping our schools open is something we can all get behind as no doubt there will be a school closure coming to your neighbourhood in the not too distant future.
I have put the 2018 Elections into my calendar, the whole lot should be kicked to the curb, I am also voting against everyone on council don’t care if they do a good job or not. Someone recently said “Its time to drain the swamp” can’t remember who said it off the top of my head. But I do agree with the statement, its time to fight back against ineptitude and complacency. p.s Yikes! have you seen the financials for this group, talk about mental sums, take a look at it, then cruise on over to the Catholic board, as they seem to manage. How on earth did they screw this up so badly. Take a look at the payroll & benefit costs, while I’m on a role have a look at the reports of even government pensions being unsustainable. THE KIDS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SUFFER. Throw away your marker pens & sticky dots & fight back.
Tell them all. “IF ONE SCHOOL CLOSES, YOU ARE GONE” I am personally disgusted beyond belief, my son went to Central, the biggest kick I had was watching him walk to school with a back pack. It might sound all very Norman Rockwell to you but he enjoyed his school experience and lifetime friendships.
He is now a senior director in a multi billion dollar corporation in the states with kids of his own. His friend works for disney animation studios. Another is president of a major world wide consulting company, his once girlfriend is a lawyer. his other friend is an actor.
My wife & I struggled to afford this investment in normality and every kid as far as I’m concerned deserves the same chances, look what this one school has turned out, all schools are important, all kids are important. I need a Tylenol.
Agreed the PAR process is cumbersome and focuses way too much on numbers and charts, but that is what the Ministry requires school boards to do.
Regarding attempts by HDSB to steer the outcome to Option 19, did you miss the part where PARC dropped Option 19 and put forward Option 19B in its place? If Director Miller was actually trying to steer the committee, which I don’t believe he is, the PARC did what it was supposed to do and reject the options they don’t support.
The timing of this stage in the PAR is tight, mainly because it is just one step in the entire process. There are still public consultations, and the Director has to make his final recommendation to the Trustees who have to vote on it before the end of the school year.
Jason B
I just looked again at the latest Options information.
Option 19b still closes Central and Pearson, so the big consequences are the same. So what’s the big deal that makes you cite this revision?
There are a few minor tweaks, and Aldershot is still way over capacity implying need for portables.
Other than this, I didn’t miss any significant change.
The PARC still started from and remains at the 2 school closures.
Tom:
You are missing the point. My statement was about how the PARC decided to drop Option 19 and put forth Option 19b, with the modifications the committee agreed to, in its place. This was in response to Josie’s allegation that the board and Dir. Miller were forcing Option 19 on the PARC and the public.
The options supported by PARC cover the full range of no closures, one closure and two closures. These options have been modified and supported by the majority of PARC. They had they option to drop all options involving two closures, but they didn’t.
Tom:
I’ll restate my point. The fact that PARC dropped the original Option 19 and replaced it with Option 19B is an example of how PARC is choosing their own path and not just following the board’s suggestions. Yes, 19b is very similar to 19, but it has the support of the majority of PARC members. even if the public or some members of PARC don’t want 19B it has the support of the majority on the committee.
As of the last PARC meeting they have a list of Options to be presented at the Public Consultation meetings. It is possible that PARC could change the list again before making its final recommendation(s) to Dir. Miller. They are below (not in my words, just copied from elsewhere).
Understanding the Options:
If you’d like to view all of the Options which are being brought forward to the Public Meetings– they are:
3B Nelson Closes (Frank J. Hayden and Central Program Change)
4B Robert Bateman HS Closes
7B Frank J Hayden HS Boundary Change
(Please note that none of the PAR Committee members see this Option, in its current form, as viable. It was left for consideration to force/encourage further conversation about exploring a ‘no school closing’ option)
19B Burlington Central and Lester B.Pearson Close
23D Robert Bateman HS and Lester B. Pearson Close
28C Burlington Central and Lester B. Pearson Close (Frank J. Hayden Boundary Change)
There are two options where Bateman closes and two where Central closes. All of these options have been modified/created at PARC’s request and are published on the HDSB website.
Hi Will, What I would cut & that you can’t afford any more tax increases are actually the only questions that should be actively discussed at all levels of government. Because if you decide that the education of the young in a society is sacred and therefore not negotiable then it follows that whatever remains are the action items.
I am an old business war horse from the past and am not in the least bit interested in mission statements & being statistically pie charted by people who do not have a clear goal. Sorry Will, that’ll teach you for asking an old person for their opinion because I see things in a more simpler light.
Do you still value education? Is the education of a good quality? Is the education well funded? Are the funds being directed towards the quality of the product? Are funds being diverted to other goals of a lesser value up stream.
It aint rocket science Will and if it can’t be figured out, it dose not say much for the quality of education now in place.
I really think that you need some dollar a year men to sort it out for you. You know the kind of men that funded & built Central High back in the twenties.
Hi David, thank you for that. The focus should be on the quality of the product. How come we are hearing so much here about money and data and not about student learning? What should the focus be on? Money? Students? Who gets bussed?
By the way I remember the old days of sen sen and Hutches little shack. Too many kids and grandkids since then.
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.
The PAR process is triggered by one of several conditions, the main one being low enrollment at schools in South Burlington. The format for the PAR is defined by the Ministry, not HDSB.
Members of the PAR committee are volunteers, one from each student council and one parent chosen by the student council, HDSB did not pick the members or try to ‘stack the deck’ in favour of a particular outcome. Each school has equal representation on PARC.
HDSB investigated at least 19 options prior to the PAR. Option 19 was presented as the HDSB staff recommendation. The PARC has time to review all 19 options and add several of their own – including versions of Central, Bateman, Pearson, Nelson closing or staying open. In some cases HDSB has been unable to provide complete data requested by PARC, due the short time frame available. Considering the PARC has almost doubled the number of options to consider it is pretty obvious there has been no attempt by HDSB to steer the PARC towards or away from any options.
Regarding issues with determining transportation costs. The cost of busing each student is set by Halton Student Transportation Services, not by HDSB or the co-terminus Catholic board. HSTS serves both boards and HDSB can save money on transportation costs by coordinating scheduling with HDCSB. To get exact costs on changes in busing the amounts have to come from HSTS.
JasonB – you are correct, there is a lot of misinformation in this thread, including in your comment.
Yes, a PAR in Burlington secondary schools has been triggered by low enrollment, however maybe the solution is not to close a school/schools but to redistribute students such that the existing schools are closer to capacity without other schools being over-enrolled or having portables (many for decades now), which can be done. The only reason to look at closing a school/schools is so the Board can receive increased funding from the Ministry, to support the building of new schools, new Board offices, etc.
Members of the PAR committee are volunteers, but their placement is not as you state. One parent is chosen by Parent Council and the other BY THE BOARD, from volunteers who submit their name for consideration. What criteria does the Board use to choose a PARC rep? No one knows, it is their own system for which they answer to no one. For this PAR, it seems the Board tried to choose people whose names were unknown to them as school supporters in a community, and whose background they could determine (from online sources, etc) suited their purposes.
Option 23 was submitted with as much, or even more information than any of the Board Options contained. How can lay people construct a more comprehensive document using the Board’s own data than the Board can? It’s not like there were 70 Options put forward, and many of the other Options submitted were basically one-line thoughts by someone, left to the Board to complete. Shouldn’t those people have submitted more rationale for their thought, or did the Board focus on expanding only a few of the submitted Options, with no costs attached to others, because of pressure from someone, or to suit their own purposes? Staff at the Board is paid for doing this work, not the public, so now we have paid twice by paying their salaries and also doing their work.
Also, it is not the number of new Options submitted that show the HDSB hasn’t attempted to steer the PARC in their discussions, it is the data the HDSB has provided to complete the submitted option ideas which is biased and/or incomplete. This data certainly steers discussion by moving PARC members to support certain Options.
As to transportation costs, the cost of busing is set by the Transportation budget of the Board. They have no more money than that.
And on the reliability of the Board’s reporting of transportation numbers – at the Feb 9th PARC meeting, the Director was asked point blank about an average cost to bus a student to aid evaluation with a number to apply to all Options. The Director said “you can’t get an average number” due to all the different bus types and other factors. Then somehow, at the very next PARC meeting, the HDSB Business Manager presented to the PARC and somehow HAD developed an average cost to bus a student. And somehow the Business Manager’s number was about 25% lower than the cost that the community had come up with meanwhile, by delving into the Board’s data online to find the number themselves, so as to fairly evaluate Options. Trying to skew an outcome? You decide. The PARC does not need “exact costs” on busing, there is no contract being negotiated, they just need an average number to apply across the Board to make an informed recommendation.
Also on the issue of busing, the problems encountered with busing at the beginning of this school year 6 months ago continue to plague students, and are possibly worse. The busing supplier continues to have tremendous issues filling driver spots, with many routes still ‘uncovered’ by a permanently assigned driver. This has led to many issues:
1) Current drivers are often asked to cover more than their route, often after they have finished and returned home, then have to go back, get a bus and drive another route. This all for minimum wage and on their own gas costs.
2) Bus companies are having such a dire time recruiting new drivers that they are willing to hire almost anyone, and unfortunately some of these new hires are not truly capable of this job, which may be the reason for a stark increase in school bus accidents recently.
3) Buses are continually running so late that bus companies now have an app for parents and guardians to check estimated bus arrival times at their stop. This may provide necessary info however does nothing to deal with the fact that (in the secondary system) students are often late for classes in the morning, and late for part-time jobs or other responsibilities in afternoons when left stranded at school. OR parents are forced to drive or pick up students to avoid these issues, thus wasting the money already paid to bus them, possibly making parents late for work, polluting the environment, etc.
We do not even want to think about how Elementary students will be affected after a resulting Elementary PAR requires more busing for younger students as well, once some Elementary schools face closure.
Yes I was off the mark a bit about how the second PARC rep was selected. Have you asked the board what their criteria was> If, not the rest is pure speculation.
You can choose to disbelieve me on how transportation is funded, you must have attended different school board budget and funding presentations than I have. The shortage of bus drivers has little/nothing to do with the PAR.
I don’t know if you are talking about 23 or 23d or what but doesn’t one of them at least have about 300 kids going to be bussed from Nelson to Central?
The Option submitted by the Central team did not include closing Nelson. You would have to ask your question of those people that submitted that Option.
I will only say that the low enrollment in south Burlington was created by the Board by building Hayden with no rationale in need for pupil places.
Board projections for almost 10 years before the PAR showed flat to declining enrollment for the foreseeable future.
There was no need for Hayden and that was the reason for the PAR.
If you don’t know that, then you are basing your comments on misinformation.
Please don’t just tell us that this Board action on Hayden, that created this mess, is okay.
It is what gave rise to the first paragraph of your comment.
It’s why you see such outrage that dominates all the conversation on this issue.
The PAR is a coverup by the Board for the Board.
I’ve said nothing about Hayden. Coming from someone who has spent so much time ‘investigating’ the rationale behind the construction of Hayden, you have missed a rather important part.
Hayden was built to meet demand in North Burlington due to massive residential development in Alton Village and the surrounding area. Before Hayden was built the students of that area were bused to Nelson, Bateman and MMR. This created a bubble in the population of those South Burlington schools that has now burst.
Exactly the same scenario happened about 14-15 years ago with some South Burlington Public schools (for example Ryerson and Pauline Johnson), their enrollment dropped way down when new schools were in in the North. Ryerson was about to closed under the Harris funding model, but was stopped when McGuinty was elected, first by moratorium on closures, then by a less rigid approach to closing low enrollment schools.
If you want to discuss how changing the catchment for Hayden could delay closing schools in the south (option 7b) I’ll join you.
If you want to insist that the PAR is just a cover-up for past bad acts, I’ll not be responding.
JasonB
My time spent “investigating” is for the purpose of getting the facts about the rationale for Hayden according to the official Board LTAPs, Capital plans, and other reports.
I did not miss an important part. The rationale you offer as an opinion appears nowhere in these official sources.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their own set of facts. To form my opinion, I wanted to know the facts about Hayden. That took some time.
In fact, there is no rationale or business case provided anywhere in the LTAPs for Hayden in terms of pupil places need, according to Ministry Guidelines for New Pupil Places or Growth Pupil Places criteria.
This is an issue and open question that needs an answer if the Board is to be honest and credible.
My concern is that the Board won’t talk about it. The Director Miller told me that opening up the Hayden approval was “too political” for him. But he also agreed that building Hayden was the cause of the present mess. But it remains unmentionable.
They built a school that took about 900 students from Nelson, Bateman, Pearson and Robinson.
Overall utilization was 80% to 90%, just around the utilization rate that is the Board’s goal. Opening Hayden reduced the utilization of the existing 6, now on the block, to the levels considered to warrant a PAR.
Closing Pearson and Central means 500 to 600 additional, but different students will have to be bused. This is just shifting and increasing the students needing busing around Burlington. Pearson is very close to Hayden so busing was not needed.
The Board transportation budget, at $15 million buses 5000 to 6000 students, so based on the average cost, this is an additional $1.5 million.
There was no bubble. Pearson had about 800 enrolled in an OTG of 639, but when Hayden was opened the enrollment was projected to drop to below OTG.
The overall long run projections for Burlington were for stable to declining enrollments, even with Hayden open. So the Board knew from the outset that building Hayden was going to create excess capacity Burlington-wide.
So the net effect was the knowing creation of surplus places that are now the subject of the PAR, which is aimed primarily at closing schools somewhere else to make up for Hayden.
Because of this knowledge that Hayden would create surplus spaces, the Board should have had a PAR early in the time when Hayden was being considered. But no, the Board did not do this timely PAR, but instead created the present mess that they are responsible for.
This is why I say that the PAR in the present is a cover-up for these bad acts and failure to be transparent and responsible by having a PAR when it should have taken place.
I will say that the question is, in my opinion, not about whether the resident’s “want” for Hayden has no merit, for whatever reasons you want to venture as your opinion, which I think is fair.
The real issue, based on the facts, is that Hayden was built with no business case rationale using Ministry guidelines of New Pupil Places or Growth Pupil Places, that are supposed to be based on demonstrated “need” for student spaces.
In other words there is no visible paper trail showing how this approval was given, and how Ministry guidelines were applied.
This building cost around $30 million of taxpayer money, but has no transparent rationale or explanation. Not the way to spend our money, but nobody responsible wants to talk about this.
This building then involved a corresponding and known consequence that there is now a surplus of seats that didn’t exist before.
But this consequence is now being dealt with according to Ministry guidelines that warrant a PAR to consider the surplus spaces.
So you see, the rules were apparently waived for the building of Hayden – adding what were known to be surplus spaces from the outset – but rules for eliminating surplus spaces – even closing schools – are being strictly applied.
It’s this disconnect that is provoking the outrage you see, both here in the Gazette, and generally by parents and others.
That’s my important part you said I missed, but in fact, you seem to have missed it. And it’s my point, but based on Board documented facts, and not just opinion.
You are entitled to express your reasons for Hayden, but they are just your opinion – everyone wants a neighborhood school. You know this and can see it in the PARC discussion, and here in the Gazette.
If you want to discuss changes to the catchment for Hayden I am willing to discuss whatever you might propose. I think some of this is in the Option 7b you mention.
This is my preferred option and the only fair one, and the only one that admits responsibility for the mess, and shows a willingness to take on the management of it.
On your last point, my referring to the PAR as a cover-up and really, an evasion of responsibility, for past bad acts, is based on the facts in the Boards own documentation or lack of it.
I stand by it. If you choose to ignore it or not.
The portable numbers, actually any numbers, in the board’s data are wrong. And they cannot access excess pupil space at Aldershot. They needed 10 portables to accommodate Central’s students. Then overnight they announced, after people complained about that lunacy, that they magically found 10 empty classrooms. They sputtered to explain where these classrooms materialized from, why they didn’t know about them before, but it seems like it’s in the elementary wing. Considering there are 260 elementary students at Central that the Board forgot about, if these rooms exist, they will be full of elementary students. They also forgot about the 120 ESL students and then added them in at the end. They react when they are shown mistakes. Then they try to fix them and act like they didn’t screw up the first time. It’s an endless, repeated cycle. There are lots more, we’re working on them, it’s tough to keep up.
The entire process has been a sham. There has been NO meaningful discussion whatsoever at the PARC. The board made sure of that, either by design or complete ineptness, probably a combination of both. There has literally been NO discussion of the merits of the options, city-wide, looking at everything that would benefit the most number of students. They play silly little games that are meaningless. Put up dots and watch one rep put up 6 instead of 3 was the silliest one yet. Of course that doesn’t really matter, since the PARC has no mandate, no say and the Director will make his final recommendation regardless of what they do. He can pick an option that is not on the table at all and never was. He can ignore the PARC completely. I have come to realize this is a good thing.
The PAR process is a sham right across Ontario. That is why several PAR members in Ontario have resigned in the middle of it. We had hoped Halton could at least do the best with a bad system, but alas, no such luck. They managed to make it much worse.
At the end of the day, the problem in south Burlington is in the east end, where there are two schools with catchments almost totally overlapping, 1.9 km away from each other, one of which has such declining enrolment they have to keep adding programs to it where they bring kids in from other areas. It makes no sense to take out a school where there is no other school in the community and put the majority of the students at the far west end of the city on busses, in a too-small school and have a huge hole of almost 12 km between schools, and then have two at the east end 1.9 km apart.
You are talking about 900 kids at Central, and every student FOREVER in the core downtown and the rest of the Central catchment which translates to thousands and thousands of students, being considerably worse off and having no community school.
Lynn
Aldershot elementary utilization is at about 50% and expected to say close to that level. That has resulted in 10 class rooms that are not required for the elementary students..
If you look at option 28c you will see a note in red that explains just that. 210 spaces are available, 21 students x 10 class rooms, for secondary students, eliminates the need for portables and no elementary PAR required, students stay where the are.
That is a very good use of the Aldershot high school.
John,
Then why did it take until Option 28c and mid-February for the Board to note this to the PARC? Never mentioned in any of their original 19 Options. Also, mixing the Elementary and Secondary students at Aldershot goes directly against the Board’s current policy of not overlapping these students in their hallways and classrooms.
Concerned Parent
The original option 19 in the director’s recommendation, back in October, noted Aldershot would be over capacity, it also noted space available from the elementary facility.
I only know there are 10 rooms available, how they are configured or would be reconfigured within the school is something I’m sure would be considered.
I don’t think I’ve met any of you but it seems to me that there is a lot of unnecessary attacks on people rather than the issues.
I looked up some of this stuff and it looks like the parc added more options to look at. If what I have read here is true there are 2 options that look at closing Bateman and 2 options that look at closing Central and Pearson and 1 to close Nelson and 1 to keep them all open.
I am trying to understand how it is fixed if there were 19 and now there are at least up to 28 or more.
To Royal George and Josie (and John Was by implication)
You two are right on the money, and I agree fully from my own observations of his many comments all pushing much the same agenda.
It’s not just that John is not in the same room, or sitting in the same chair set as most of the rest of us, he lives in another universe, an alternative reality, where everything the Board does and all the process, is just hunky-dory.
The universe that the rest of us live in, is the messy reality that is so obviously the manipulations of the Board to serve their own ends.
You, and so many others, here in the ongoing story, see and feel this, and report here.
John Was never will. Alternate universes may be parallel, but they are opposites, and never overlap.
John, my I suggest you try moving to a different chair when attending the next meeting as it seems like something has been obstructing your view from wherever you’ve been sitting so far!
Josie
As you know it’s a small room and difficult to miss anything but, I will try your suggestion next meeting.
John,
Please read Tom Muir’s reply below…
Josie
Tom always has interesting opinions, what’s your point?
John,
Once again, you demonstrate that you seem oblivious to what people are saying to you. Remember the “hearing aid” comment from Royal George?
That’s the point.
To was4:
You could not have been in the room I was in.
On multiple occasions the people from Central were not permitted to speak; on another occasion the boards financial person fudged the numbers on transportation costs and was not able to give full details on portable rentals; and the final insult to the process was that after asking the PARC members not to reach out to the students the Director of Education brings one into the process and fails to reveal that the students is very close to the PARC representative from Bateman – the students was from Bateman as well.
Do you perhaps use a hearing aid and didn’t have it turned on?
I have attended every PARC meeting so far and I have to say, it’s been pretty obvious from day one which way is the board stacking the options and slanting things John! Even few months back when our Director of Education kept repeating how Option 19 is only the beginning, not the end, I had a pretty clear idea where he wanted to be at the end of this process…
Here we are, way deep in the process and board is still bringing in their people to present different ways the board could save money if Central closes. They are not willing to waste their time looking at how much money might other options save! No, they are just interested in numbers for option 19! We are now at the end of the process, yet, the only firm option on the table is still closer of Burlington Central High School?! How did we get here? How are we not seeing anything wrong in ripping out one and only downtown school from the heart of the city? Are we really saying this is in the best interest of ALL Burlington kids, our community as a whole, our city?! Really?
Josie
I have also attended every PARC meeting, what I observed was the board facilitating a meeting that gave every PARC member an opportunity to ask questions, state their point of view and bring new options and ideas to the table.
John:
The process is inherently flawed. The PAR essentially pits the school representatives against each other and ensures that the Board’s recommended option is adopted. This is not some master plot but simply a very poorly designed process that could never produce a solution that was in the best interests of all the students. There is virtually no way that the Director’s initial recommendation will be overturned. It’s a mugs game and a very costly one. Intuitively, the closure of Central makes absolutely no sense. But there is little sense being displayed here.
I am confused. I thought the ministry said the director had to give an option. Didn’t the committee look at all the options from 1 and up? Wasn’t there options for different schools closing? What did the committee do about that?
Will:
The fact that an initial option is recommended is, in my view, a flaw in the process as established by the Ministry. The recommended option not only has the support of the Board staff, who developed it, but it has greater detail and analytical weight than the other options. It is the “given solution” that then must be replaced by an alternative and, given the diverse and somewhat adversarial makeup of the PARC, it is unlikely that any consensus will be reached around an alternative. The recommended option gets the support of those schools that escape the axe. That seems to be what is happening here. Far better, I think, to present a manageable range of options at the outset with no stated preference and have the PARC truly deliberate with full support from Board staff.
I didn’t know they had to reach consensus. That makes a difference if they do.
It does look like a battle between some thinking Bateman should close and some thinking Central and Pearson should close. Maybe that’s why there are 2 of each of those options still left. Pearson has 3 options that close them.
Will:
The PARC does not need to reach consensus and, in fact , does not present a recommendation. It is my understanding that the PARC provides additional analysis of the options and/or additional options for consideration. However, if you have a “preferred option” going in (and this is the process prescribed by the Ministry Guidelines) then it is unlikely that it will be reversed unless there is a strong alternative supported by most of the PARC. And if the “preferred option” is flawed (my heartfelt opinion in this case) then the process is also flawed. But I’ve said my piece.
Hi Mike
The flaw you point out to Will is indeed something the board must provide, any change to that needs to be done at a different level.
I think what has been lost in the discussion is the PARC is not making any decisions to close schools.
What they are doing very well, is understanding the issues and finding ways to solve them. If you look at the 30 plus options that have been on the table at one time or another every school and combination has been considered and analysed.
When 14 parents are discussing the education of their children I would expect nothing less than a passionate debate. That’s not a flaw, that ensures a full consideration of all opinions.
John:
Absolutely correct. That’s why I point that particular finger at the Ministry, not the Board. However, in my opinion which differs from yours, I do not believe that the Board has handled the flawed process well. How does the PARC ‘consider and analyse’ all the options when all the options are not costed in equal detail and data is provided that is in error or is absent – “too much work”.
I realize that the PARC is not making any decisions nor will they make a recommendation. So, the purpose of the PARC is to …? Again, not really my idea of a “purpose-built” process. Certainly, it takes much of the populist democracy out of the process. Let’s just say that the PARC is not an “empowered vehicle”.
“When 14 parents are discussing the education of their children I would expect nothing less than a passionate debate. That’s not a flaw, that ensures a full consideration of all opinions.” Now, in this context, what was the COI that you felt MMW had? Just asking. It would seem that she is close to an ideal representative.
Mike
If your question is regarding MMW the parent, I have acknowledged her eligibility under the board’s requirements.
If you are asking about MMW the councilor, please stay tuned.
How many options were there?
This whole thing with the schools is shameful.
Saving money, really! Why don’t you shut them all you could save even more.
Disgraceful, you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
If it costs more, Oh well! It is what it is.
Cut something else, or increase taxes.
Making parents fight it out as to which lot of kids suffer is appalling.
Well said David!
What would you cut? I can’t afford any more tax increases.
As I have stated before, Option 19b and 28d are basically the same closure, with tweaks for differences that can easily be changed.
This is the Board cheating democratic process, and stacking the options, to slant things to what they want. Pure bias is plain and simple.
In their democracy you can vote twice for the same thing.
It also bumps out what could be another option.
Tom
The board did not choose these options, the 14 parents sitting on the PARC did.
If you believe the board is cheating the democratic process, stacking the options and slanting the things to what they want, the 14 parents must be collaborating with them.
I think the 14 parents know what they are doing.
John,
The PARC picked from the options provided by the Board.
Closing Central and Pearson are what the Board wants to close, so no surprise it pops up twice.
Almost all the options, most not provided with consequence details – financial, impacts on students, etc – “too much work” or “too complicated” are the Board excuses.
This is “stacking” by working definition.
Also, the PARC is also stacked with 5 votes to 2 on targeting these two schools.
This is collateral collaboration by Board design.
John,
I left some text out.
The third para should read;
Almost all the options provided by the Board are about closings, most not provided with consequence details – financial, impacts on students, etc – “too much work” or “too complicated” are the Board excuses.
Tom
All members of the PARC can request an option be developed to close schools or not. The board then generates the impact it has on all seven schools, enrolment, programs etc.
A review of all the options requested by the PARC can be seen on the board’s site.
Ultimately the PARC will send a repot to the director outlining their opinion of the option or options they feel best deals with the issues.
All 14 parents on the PARC bring something to the table and have worked very hard on a complicated issue. I trust them to provide sound advice to the director.
Will “this” process regardless of the final outcome
be repeated next year and the year after etc.?
Would have thought secondary schools could have
their own boundaries, not based on the elementary boundaries.
Are future students allowed to attend any secondary school
in the region that satisfies their requirements?
Yes Bryce, if Central closes, there will have to be another time-consuming and tax-paid PAR process done immediately to rectify the resulting situation in the elementary system due to the Grade 7 & 8 students who are also housed in Central. There has been absolutely no indication, written or verbal, on what the Board will do with those students, only the response that it would have to be determined at a separate PAR. Even though a number of other Boards in the Province have conducted PARs for Elementary and Secondary concurrently. As the Board responded when asked why they didn’t have the savings calculated for all Options, “it’s too much work”.
I thought the Director said that it would have to have all elementary schools involved and would have too many people there at the committee to get work done.
Did the board think about maybe letting the 7 and 8 kids go back to the elementary school?
Option 7 seems like the only reasonable choice out of the options given. However, where is the option to just close Pierson?
I agree with Greg; any planning should start with the elimination of ALL portables as its first step. Then recalculate to optimize catchments, programs, etc.
The board should not be in the business of operating a trailer park to use for classrooms.
Absolutely right on the trailer park reference re: portables Hans! Your solution to eliminate portables first is totally valid, if this were truly all about the students as the Board keeps repeating. We all know that it is NOT about the students, it is about the money available for closing schools. It is obvious the Board thinks the public is simple, by repeating this mantra and expecting us to believe it, also to not provide detailed data for public review because “it’s very complicated”.
Many schools have had portables for decades, and are full currently yet the Board has not provided funds to add any permanent classrooms to these buildings. The Board should get their priorities straight.
Readers really need to look at all the details of each option, available on the HDSB web site.
For example, option 4b (not listed in this article)leaves 231 excess spaces with Hayden, Nelson and Pearson using portables.
Option 23b creates a shortage of 411 spaces with Hayden, MMR and Nelson using portables.
Editor’s note: Option 4 is included – it was improperly formatted and got included with another option. The formatting has been rectified.
John,
I agree that all the options, and all the data on consequences, really need to be looked at (I need to do that myself, again), but aren’t these 6 options the ones that will be provided for public comment?
And on another of your comments above, isn’t option 28c basically the same as 28d and 19b? Same closures tweaked?
Tom
From the 30 plus options considered the PARC has determined the remaining 6 will be provided for public comment.
From the board’s site the remaining options are 3b,4b,7b,19b,23d and 28c.
The 28d above may be a typo, I am not aware of that version of 28.
All option’s started with a number 1,2,3 etc. When there were tweaked they all took on an a,b,c etc.
It’s interesting that all the remaining options, including 7b with no closures, have been tweaked, likely to improve the details.
You can not run a plan that puts portables at Aldershot. It’s a very constrained
school in terms of space around it.
We have too much class room space AND need to use portables as the solution?
Why doesn’t change “Haydens catchment” – which needs done in all cases – and
just close Pierson come up on the list? This seems to obviously be the least
disruptive.
Greg
Have a detailed look at option 28c on the board’s site.
It utilizes empty elementary spaces at Aldershot, eliminating the need for portables.
It also minimizes the use of portables at all other schools.