 By Staff
July 11th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Revised at 9:30 am Tuesday morning.
The June 7th decision to close two of the city’s seven high schools stunned parents with children in both schools. Many saw it as an inevitable decision – few expected the 10-1 vote for the staff recommendation.
There were two different votes:
Bateman’s vote was 10-1
The Lester B. Pearson vote was 8-3 with the ward trustee Papin voting for non-closure.
The two high schools had different stories to tell: Lester B. Pearson was being starved of students from the feeder schools and Bateman had a great story which few people knew that much about. When the Board Director of Education decided to change his position on which high school should be closed (Bateman instead of his first decision – Central high school – there wasn’t enough time for them to get their story out and sway the 11 elected trustees who made the decision.
 The Pearson parents fought against the closing of their school – they did so without the support of their trustee who never did commit herself to saying she would do everything she could to keep the school open. In the end she voted to close Bateman but to keep Pearson open. It was the first time her constituents got to see her do anything for them. Parents at each school decided to seek an Administrative Review of the decision made by the trustees.
A request to have a decision reviewed can be made by filing a request if the the following conditions are met:
Demonstrate the support of a portion of the school community through the completion of a petition signed by a number of supporters equal to at least 30% of the affected school’s student headcount (e.g., if the headcount is 150, then 45 signatures would be required). Parents/guardians of students and/or other individuals that participated in the accommodation review process are eligible to sign the petition1
The petition should clearly provide a space for individuals to print and sign their name; address (street name and postal code); and to indicate whether they are a parent/guardian of a student attending the school subject to the accommodation review, or an individual who has participated in the review process.
Submit the petition and justification to the school board and the Minister of Education within thirty (30) days of the board’s closure resolution.
The school board would be required to:
Confirm to the Minister of Education that the names on the petition are parents/guardians of students enrolled at the affected school and/or individuals who participated in the review process.
Prepare a response to the individual’s or individuals’ submission regarding the process and forward the board’s response to the Minister of Education within thirty (30) days of receiving the petition.
If the conditions set out above have been met, the Ministry would be required to:
Undertake a review by appointing a facilitator to determine whether the school board accommodation review process was undertaken in a manner consistent with the board’s accommodation review policy within thirty (30) days of receiving the school board’s response.
What Steve Armstrong, part of the driving force behind the request, is saying is that the Board failed to follow its own Program Accommodation Review (PAR) rules
He sets out the position and the views of the Lester B. Pearson parents on just how the PAR process failed the community.
We have greatly exceeded the number of signatures required in support of asking for this review.
 Steve Armstrong was not only a consistent advocate foe keeping the school open but also provided some of the best data, superior to that o the Board staff, that supported keeping the school open. As a former Programming and Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) member I can attest first hand to many of the details in what follows.
Armstrong says he believes the intent of the PAR process was to have meaningful consultation with the communities involved and that in this regard the process failed.
He then sets out 16 different sections of the PAR policy and proceeds to set out where his community believes the Board failed.
We have set out those 16 points below along with details that WORD
What makes this particularly relevant is that the provincial Ministry of Education has admitted that there were flaws in the PAR process and put a hold on all future PAR proceedings.
That hold did not apply to the decision by the Halton Board that had already been made.
The parents at Bateman were preparing a request for an Administrative Review as well. Communication with the Bateman community is somewhat limited.
Here is the Pearson application
1) The board’s policy states:
Processes for decision‐making including those related to program, accommodation, school boundary reviews, school closures/consolidations will be timely, inclusive, transparent and open.
As will be elaborated further in the discussions below examples of a lack of timeliness, inclusivity, transparency and openness, have each been demonstrated during this process.
2) The board’s policy states:
The HDSB is committed to sharing relevant information with the public and affording affected school communities and stakeholders the opportunity for input.
Some community members sought to access information from the Board they felt was relevant to the issues at hand. Those efforts were met with roadblocks, and in one case even after filing a Freedom of Information request the results yielded an incomplete picture of the information being sought. A Trustee offered up, during delegation by that individual, that she would have gotten it for him had she known. Clearly there are inconsistent messages being sent.
3) The board’s policy states:
The HDSB will invite parents, students and staff from the school(s) under review and the broader community to participate in the pupil accommodation review process.
The PARC members took seriously their responsibility to interact with their communities, but were excluded from various process steps that would have helped facilitate those conversations.
From Director Miller’s letter to the Students on Oct 27, 2016 (a copy of the entire letter can be found in Appendix B)
As high school students your opinion is valued. The decisions made by the PAR committee will profoundly impact your school experience and those who follow you. In the new year, the PAR committee will gather feedback from Burlington high school students. We want to hear your voice!
 Director of Education Stuart Miller listens to a student from Bateman speak – then later revised his recommendation to close the school. The above paragraph erroneously setup the expectation that PARC members where making the decisions, when in fact it is the Trustees who have sole responsibility for the final call. The comment that PARC members would be gathering feedback in the new year set up an expectation that there would be interaction once the committee was up and running. Against the desires of many PARC members there was in fact no such opportunities. The student survey was conducted in December of 2016 before the PARC could review or suggest modifications to any questions. The PARC, and ultimately the Trustees, were left with only the data generated based on what HDSB thought was relevant. No opportunity to further explore the outcomes of the survey were permitted.
Likewise, the teacher/staff survey was sent out early in January before the PARC had its first working meeting.
Again no chance to shape the questions, seek follow up information, and ultimately no results were made available to either the PARC or Public at large. When asked on April 26th by a Trustee during the initial presentation of the Director’s Final Report draft where the Staff Survey results quoted in the report were, it was stated that the results contained information that would have to be heavily redacted. Ultimately the information was shared only privately with the Trustees. The PARC members and public were never given insight from this important stakeholder group.
 On line survey response was available at one of the public meetings – the problem was that the data was badly compromised with the wide open response process voting – people could respond as often as they wished. The final online survey for community input was taken following the third public meeting. PARC members had asked to be involved in setting those questions, and initially were told that would be possible. Ultimately the questions were frozen without PARC input, and the results didn’t inquire on aspects we felt important to seek input on.
4) The board’s policy states:
Prior to establishing a pupil accommodation review, the Director will present to the Board of Trustees a preliminary report that identifies a school or group of schools that may be considered for a Program and
Accommodation Review (PAR) if one or more of the following conditions apply:
● The school or group of schools has experienced or will experience declining enrolment where the On the Ground (OTG) utilization rate is below 65%;
● Reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities for students;
Much of this PAR process has centered around utilization rates of the individual high schools. The HDSB PAR policy uses a 65% Utilization rate as a trigger threshold for review. This threshold is not something that appears in the Ministry guidelines, and in fact has caused much confusion to both the PARC members and community. Given that the overall utilization in Burlington is currently sitting at 75%, and will reach 80% by 2020, this fact alone raised concerns among many as to why Burlington was undertaking a PAR itself.
Underutilization is mostly an economic factor and has little direct impact on the student experience. This stands in contrast to under enrolment which does have significant impact, mainly felt in the number of student programming options available. Conversely over utilization does have a negative impact on the student experience, especially when facilities are pushed beyond they’re total capacity. This condition exists at Dr. Frank J Hayden (Hayden) high school which is a one of the schools included in this review.
Throughout the process declining enrollment was highlighted as the root cause of all the problems.
The graph below plots the actual enrollment numbers as well as the projections from the yearly LTAPs going back to 2006
 Steve Armstrong produced data that the Board didn’t refuse, showing enrollment overall had shifted and appeared to be rising. What clearly jumps out is that for the last 2 years Burlington’s overall enrollment has in fact, been increasing, and will continue to do so for the next number of years.
The closure of Pearson and Bateman will leave approximately 5300 student places available. One can easily see the projected enrollment over the next 10 year period will be in excess of this remaining capacity.
During the PARC process the question was raised as to the accuracy of the projections. The official response was “that historically the projections have been very accurate”. A statement that is clearly not supported by the evidence. Many of the conclusions, and recommendations, have been made by focusing on the furthest point out in the projections. This data point that has in fact been historically the least accurate.
The second part of the highlighted policy concerns reorganizing to enhance programming options.
When PARC members tried to get answers as to how much better the student experience would be after closing a school or two we were always given a generic answer that failed to quantify the improvements.
 Below 700 students course options are strongly effected by enrollment, at rate of 15 courses per 100 students of change. Above critical mass the benefits of larger enrollment on the number of course options is drastically smaller. An analysis of the SIP data much later in the process finally shed some light on the specifics and is shown above.
The data suggests that there is a critical mass that occurs around the 700 student enrollment point. Below 700 students course options are strongly effected by enrollment, at rate of 15 courses per 100 students of change. Above critical mass the benefits of larger enrollment on the number of course options is drastically smaller. What makes this very interesting is that if Burlington’s current enrollment was evenly spread over the 7 high schools there would be 780 students per school, certainly above critical mass.
Taken together these observations call into question some of the statements repeated during discussions that ultimately shaped opinions and presumably decisions.
Some of this information was present as a delegation, and the later part was only allowed to be shared as an email to individual Trustees. The process certainly has flaws. The complete document discussing these two issues can be found in Appendix C.
5) The board’s policy states:
The report must also include information on actions taken by school board staff prior
to establishing a pupil accommodation review process and supporting rationale as to any actions taken or not taken
Both the Ministry guidelines and the HDSB PAR policy talk of re balancing school enrollments in response to changing enrollments. Of the 19 Options originally developed by the Board only one explored keeping all schools open. That Option simply used capping of enrollment at Hayden to lessen the overcrowding crisis present there.
Twelve of the original nineteen options called for closing Pearson despite its’ proximity to Hayden, and completely ignored the fact that boundary changes to Pearson’s previous catchment are the root cause of Pearson’s declining enrollment. Those boundary changes were made when Hayden was opened and ultimately are now contributing to Hayden’s problems.
The Director’s Initial Report is silent on all actions taken or not taken before this process was started. Clearly the Board had awareness of the issues surrounding both Pearson and Hayden and has failed to take any corrective action, or provide the required information.
When asked by a Trustee on June 7th, the Director responded that his team had looked at boundary changes for Pearson but simply couldn’t find a scenario that fixed the problems. This is troubling in that it came up on the evening of the decision and not as an input to the PAR process as required in the PAR policy.
Additionally, it should be noted that community members had no problems developing multiple suggestions that were presented to Trustees during delegations or in emails sent directly to them. The conclusion is that neither the Board or Trustees spent much time deliberating on community inputs in opposition to their mandates.
6) The board’s policy states:
If new capital investment is required as a result of the pupil accommodation review, how the school board intends to fund this, as well as a proposal on how students would be accommodated if funding does not become available;
While this is listed as a requirement for the Director’s Initial report the original recommendation did not require significant capital outlay as City wide utilization was projected to only reach 100% of capacity.
The updated recommendations in the Final report will push overall utilization up to 110% of capacity which when combined with specialized program moves will require significant Capital funding.
The Final Report fails to explain how students would be accommodated if funding were denied.
7) The board’s policy states:
The PARC will review the completed School Information Profile(s) and have the opportunity to discuss and consult thereon.
PARC members identified a variety of errors in the first set of SIPs provided by board staff. Some of these data were corrected, but even after a second major release many issues remain. There was great concern expressed from PARC members when the projected facilities capital needs grew greatly during the revision process.
 Superintendent of Facilities Gerry Cullen kept changing the data in his presentation – no one on the PARC challenged his data. The Superintendent of Facilities explained that part of the issue was the transition to a new set of data as the Ministry was in the midst of requiring a change to the tool used for capturing capitol requests. Also highlighted by the Superintendent was the fact that forward looking projected costs are somewhat inflated to convey to the Ministry that HDSB always has need for more capital then it receives. Some fraction of the listed items will come to fruition based on actual funding provided.
Ultimately it doesn’t appear that this data was used as part of the decision making process, thus reducing the concerns of PARC members (and the public) to questioning the level of commitment of staff towards data integrity.
8) The board’s policy states:
The PARC acts as the official conduit for information shared between the Board of Trustees and school communities.
The PARC will provide feedback to the Board of Trustees and the community on the options considered in the Director’s Preliminary Report and may, throughout the PAR process, seek clarification of the Director’s Preliminary Report.
These statements imply communication is expected between the Trustees and PARC members. Unfortunately, nothing to this effect was undertaken during the PARC portion of the process. The PAR policy states that Trustees are not required to attend PARC meetings, but are free to do so. Like general members of the public they must sit in the gallery thus eliminating any interaction with PARC members. As many in the public gallery will attest it was difficult to hear the discussions going on.
 There were trustees in the room for this public meeting – the trustee serving as chair literally hid in a corner of the room. Trustee attendance at the Public meetings was also optional, and tended to usually be just the 4 Burlington Trustees plus the PARC Trustee member.
Trustees had been instructed at the beginning of the process that they were to have limited interaction with PARC, and community members. Participation at School Council meetings or other Community meetings was to be strictly in a listening mode.
Throughout the process, PARC members primary method of interaction with the Trustees was by sending emails, most of which received either no response or a short acknowledgement indicating receipt. The Board’s instructions to the Trustees greatly interfered with any thoughtful dialog. How where their questions raised and answered?
The PAR policy clearly states that PARC will provide feedback to the Board of Trustees. There was no presentation, dialog, or documents created as an output by PARC members. The Director’s Final Report simply itemized the actions undertaken at each meeting, and included the unapproved minutes in an appendix. There was no direct feedback from the PARC, only the basic proof of process.
It seems inappropriate that Trustees would receive instruction from the Board on what they can and cannot do when interacting with the constituents that elected them. The Trustees are not beholden to the Board, it is the other way around.
9) The board’s policy states:
The PARC does not need to achieve consensus regarding the information provided to the Board of Trustees and the Director
The processes used did little to encourage consensus. When a few attempts were made to use an informal show of hands to gauge the degree of any consensus these where quickly shut down by the Chair.
For any sort of meaningful consensus to be achieved all outstanding questions need to be answered, at least to some degree. Multiple times during the PARC meetings the members found themselves being asked to take Options off the table, including at the very first working meeting in January, long before clarity started forming on some of the important concepts in play. In hind sight, the process utilized at the working meetings was inappropriate.
 Many PARC members had problems with the use of dotmocracy so early in the process. Discussion about what the real issues to be tackled where, and resolution of questions arising from that work are necessary before anyone should start eliminating Options. The use of a Dotmocracy exercise on the third of seven working meetings was totally inappropriate. The Options being discussed were far from being fully developed, or even the best ones to choose from.
Coming into the PARC working sessions there was a belief held by a number of the members that the Board needed to close schools in Burlington in order to receive funding for building new ones in Milton. This perception was finally laid to rest during the third meeting, but not before the consequences of that mistaken belief had impacted the process. When decisions on what Options should be removed, or added, are based on false information the damage is done. In this case it also was destructive to the collaboration needed in this process as communities had already been pitted against each other to save their school. Unfortunately, this misinformation also existed at the Trustee level as evidenced by the Vice Chair asking for clarification on this same issue during the Board meeting of May 24th. Well into the process and only a short time before the decision was to be made.
10) The board’s policy states:
Members of the PARC will solicit input from the community they represent. The format and process of the input will be discussed once the PARC is formed.
Any information requested or additional options generated by the PARC will be shared through a combination of methods including community meetings, letters to the community, website postings, school newsletters, and media releases.
At the outset of the PAR process the Board had given guidance to school administrators (Principals) concerning the interactions and support to be given during the process. This guidance apparently was not explicit enough to ensure consistent application across the 7 high schools undergoing the PAR.
 Communicating with the members of the PARC was not possible in the very early stages of the PAR – when a process was put in place it seemed convoluted to many. It wasn’t till the end of the second working meeting that clarity was brought about allowing the board provided PARC member email address to be added to individual school websites, the control of which rests with the school Principal.
The Pearson PARC members were severely disadvantaged in efforts to connect with their community on multiple occasions. While some schools allowed PARC members to send out emails to their specific student / parent database we were denied that channel.
When we tried to engage with teachers and staff we were cut off.
While some schools even allowed community meetings to be held on site Pearson was not. Not only was there inequity in accessing school resources to enable meaningful engagement with our communities, the fundamental premise stated in the policy was not adhered to.
The Pearson PARC team was not provided any practical way to contact, meet or interact with its community. It instead had to rely on the “SaveLBP high school” team as a conduit, along with motivated parents who sought out the PARC email addresses. Neither mechanism ensured the broadest engagement.
11) The board’s policy states:
The secretary of the PARC will be responsible for preparing detailed minutes of all meetings.
Once approved by the PARC, the minutes will be posted on the Board’s website.
Minutes were never approved. Procedurally they were emailed out to PARC members, who invariably requested additions or corrections, some of which were incorporated others of which weren’t. At no time was the committee asked to approve the minutes either during a subsequent working meeting, or by email.
Since the minutes were the only correspondence included in the Director’s Final Report as output from the PARC there is a significant under representation of that group’s thinking.
12) The board’s policy states:
The Board of Trustees encourages PARCs to be clear about the challenges and opportunities being addressed and work actively to identify and promote shared values and interests
This is an area where the PAR process as whole has performed poorly.
When the committee members sought clarity on the specifics of the original challenges and opportunities as presented the answers were generalizations that didn’t quantify either the downsides or upsides. Moving forward making decisions on which Options to continue discussing early on was inappropriate.
13) The board’s policy states: PARC Framework
In respect of the school or group of schools being studied, the PARC will consider, but not
be limited to the following:
Accommodation of students in permanent school facilities and minimal use of portable classrooms;
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;
Fiscal responsibilities;
The Final Recommendations and decisions made on June 7th leave Dr. Frank J Hayden high school in a significant overcrowding situation over the next 2 years, and are dependent on student/parent choices regarding participation in the optional French Immersion program at MM Robinson high school to bring down the stresses being felt by the students at Hayden in the long term. Over the full 10 year period of the LTAP projections this school is not projected to see its enrollment brought down to the OTG capacity of the building.
Consequently, the decision made will not reduce the use of portables over the next 10 year period. This later aspect deprives the residents of Burlington the full enjoyment of the sports fields, library and community center gymnasiums during the evenings and weekends.
From a fiscal perspective, the decision to close two schools and immediately require $12M (or more) to reproduce what already exists at Bateman clearly calls into question whether the Board and its Trustees have failed to protect the financial interests of Ontario taxpayers in the near term when enrollment is growing. The decisions made also greatly increase the risk of needing further major capitol funding if the current pattern of increasing enrollment projection in the 5 – 10 year horizon continue.
14) The board’s policy states:
The affected local municipality, the Region of Halton, as well as other community partners that expressed an interest prior to the pupil accommodation review will be encouraged to provide their responses on the recommended option(s) in the Director’s Preliminary Report before the final public meeting.
The Ministry guidelines use much stronger language and state that:
 City council chose to say little about the possible closing of high schools – in this photograph three of the seven council members took part on a public meeting. The affected single and upper‐tier municipalities, as well as other community partners that expressed an interest prior to the pupil accommodation review, must provide their response on the recommended option(s) in the school board’s initial staff report before the final public meeting.
Similar requirements surround documenting any relevant information in the Final Report.
The Board has failed on to provide this perspective in any of its reports, including acknowledging letters written by City Councilors opposing the Board recommended closures.
15) The board’s policy states:
 Director of Education Stuart Miller The Director’s Final Report will include a community consultation section that contains feedback from the PARC and any public consultations, as well as any relevant information obtained from municipalities and other community partners prior to and during the pupil accommodation review, and for transparency, identifies key considerations in formulating the final recommendations to the Board of Trustees.
The Director will consider all input received in developing recommendations.
Feedback from the public delegations will be compiled and included as information to the Board of Trustees together with the Director’s Final Report.
The Director will present the Final Report, including the compiled feedback from the public delegations, to the Board of Trustees.
The Director’s Final Report is deficient in providing feedback from public delegations, public consultations, and municipalities, thus calling into question how much consideration was given to these inputs if at all.
16) The board’s policy states:
There must be no fewer than ten (10) business days between the date of the public delegations and the final decision of the Board of Trustees.
Given that public delegations occurred on June 7th, the same evening as the final decision was being made, it is a trivial thought process to see that a clear deviation from the PAR policy occurred.
Given the above policy violation, and the immediacy in which prepared statements were made by Trustees during the decision making portion of the meeting, it is quite clear that thoughtful deliberation could not have occurred.
 The trustees were put in the very difficult position of not having some critical information and at the same time being bombarded by more than 700 emails. Many Trustees lamented that they had read all the over 700 emails, listened to the numerous voicemail messages, and phone calls received. Combined with the knowledge that the clear majority of this occurred post the PARC phase, and post the release of the draft of the Director’s Final Report, when any questions arising would be answered solely from the Board’s perspective, without any engagement with the community, it becomes easy to understand the appeal of the Board’s recommendations
In summary:
It is consideration of all the above, we the petitioners believe that HDSB did not follow its Programming and Accommodation Review policy, and request that a you undertake an Administrative Review of the process leading up to the decisions made on June 7th, 2017
 By Staff
June 17, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Won’t be long now.
The paving of New Street between Guelph and Walkers Line and then on to Appleby Line is well underway – and the markings that indicate where the lane lines are going to go are in place.
 The white paint dots are where the bike lane line is going to go. Then it will be safe to drive a bike along New Street – right?  The paving of New Street is well underway – when done the bike lanes without safety barriers will get really serious. The painting machines will be putting the lines in place really soon – next week perhaps?
Don’t expect an official opening event – the lanes will just be there for people to use and the transportation department will begin their traffic flow measurements while the two sides of what has become a very contentious difference of opinion can get back at in an even bigger way.
Hard to see how a positive result is going to come out of the pilot program.
This things was a mess right from the beginning – reflecting the significantly different opinions within the city.
Not much in the way of leadership from city council on this one.
Transit and transportation needs and policy direction have to be worked out before the city can become whatever it is going to become.
There is a solution out there – the city has to find it and then be resolute in implementing a policy – and then funding it properly.
For the immediate future New Street will open and the arguments can rise to a new level.
 By Staff
June 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The Ontario Legislature has adjourned until September 11, 2017.
Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon set out what the government has done and the direction they expect to go during the balance of their term.
 McMahon talking to seniors during her annual Tea. McMahon is the Minister of Tourism Culture and Sport and a member of the Treasury Board – she is part of that group that determines policy and the direction the government wants to go in – they measure the risks that are both financial and political.
Governments do what they believe is best for the public that elected and what they feel they have to do to stay in power – it is always a very delicate balance.
In her report to Burlington citizens McMahon said:
 McMahon at a community event just after the August 2014 flood. she was instrumental in getting provincial funds into the hands of those whose homes were seriously flooded. Ontario is creating opportunity and security for the people of Burlington and across the province through a series of comprehensive measures introduced during the spring legislative sitting. These measures support good jobs, fair workplaces and better wages, prepare our workforce for the new innovation economy and make life more affordable for workers, students, seniors and families.
Ontario’s economy is in a relatively strong position. However, many people are not feeling that growth in their everyday lives. To help more Burlington residents get ahead and stay ahead in a changing economy, the government has announced actions that will make a positive difference in people’s lives. These are possible because Ontario has balanced the budget. These actions include:
• Raising the minimum wage and creating more security for employees through landmark changes to employment and labour laws
• Making prescription medications free for everyone 24 years of age and younger through OHIP+: Children and Youth Pharmacare — the biggest expansion of universal Medicare in Ontario in a generation
• Launching a pilot project to assess whether a basic income can better support workers and improve health and education outcomes for people on low incomes
• Making it more affordable to buy or rent a home, expanding rent control and bringing stability to the real estate market through Ontario’s Fair Housing Plan
• Lowering electricity bills by 25 per cent, on average, for all residential customers and as many as half a million small businesses and farms
• Providing access to affordable, quality licensed child care for 100,000 more children, including 24,000 in 2017–18
• Making it easier for Ontario businesses to grow and create more jobs by cutting red tape and reducing regulatory burdens
• Creating tomorrow’s jobs today, and attracting talent and investment by funding transformative technologies such as artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles and 5G (fifth-generation) wireless networks
• Continuing to stand up for Ontario workers and businesses by actively defending the province’s trade and investment interests with U.S. legislators and businesses.
 Burlington MPP Eleanor|McMahon with a constituent. “Actions introduced this legislative sitting are part of our plan to create jobs, grow our economy and help people in their everyday lives” said McMahon
The province goes to the polls on June 7th, 2018 when the government will have to defend this record which includes selling off a significant part of Hydro One and cutting hydro rates by 25% knowing that those rates are going to have to rise – but not until after the provincial election.
The provincial government finally eliminated its deficit, but its debt is rising to new heights.
 The 2008 recession forced the province to borrow – that borrowing has slowed down – but they are now selling off highly valued assets – Hydro One – to raise funds. The deficit is the financial shortfall during any one fiscal year – we spent more money on providing services and paying interest on the debt than was brought in as tax revenue
The debt is the money we borrowed when there was a deficit and we didn’t have the money to pay our bills.
One of the things Ontario did was sell a portion of Hydro One to the public. That raised a tonne of money which the province is using to pay for large infrastructure projects that we would normally have had to borrow money to pay for,
The province’s first balanced budget in a decade gets rid of a deficit that had at one point reached about $20 billion, and the government is projecting that balance will continue through to 2020.
The debt, however, is another matter. It is projected to be $312 billion this year, or roughly $22,000 for every Ontarian. It is projected to grow to $336 billion in 2019-2020.
The province’s net debt has tripled since the provincial Liberals came to power. In the last budget presented by Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives before the 2003 election, the debt was about $110 billion.
The overall size of the budget, meanwhile, has roughly doubled – from $71 billion in 2003 to $141 billion this year – the government is spending more money which is fine just as long as tax revenue covers all the spending – and that the tax rate is something the voters will live with.
Interest on debt is the fourth largest spending area, at $11.6 billion. It is also projected to be the fastest-growing spending area, at an average 3.6 per cent a year from 2015 to 2020, compared to an annual 3.3-per-cent increase in health and 2.8 per cent in education.
Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown maintains : “There is no plan in the Liberal budget to get the debt under control.”
 Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown maintains : “There is no plan in the Liberal budget to get the debt under control.” “We are spending more servicing the debt each year than we’re spending on all transit and provincial highways, more than we’re spending on the Ministry of Children and Youth Services…more than on care for seniors, more than investments in our post-secondary education, more than supporting northern communities,” he said.
Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa said debt is in fact being managed. “A first step to managing debt is coming to balance,” he said.
 We have gotten into a borrowing habit – is this the way to run an economy? There are different views and different political philosophies. It is complex – but we are paying the interest on this debt. “The debt-to-GDP ratio is improving”, Sousa said, “and the percentage of the budget that goes toward servicing the debt is considerably smaller than it has been in years.
“We’ve locked in those rates over long periods of time to minimize volatility and risk,” he said.
 The choices if you don’t like the Liberal government: NDP leader Andrea Horvath and Progressive Conservative leader of the opposition Patrick Brown. The net-debt-to-GDP ratio is down to about 37.5 per cent from a high of roughly 40 per cent in recent years, but the government hopes to wrestle it down to pre-recession levels of 27 per cent by 2029-30. In the interim, the government has set a target of reducing that number to 35 per cent by 2023-24.
That’s the big picture – you get to decide if you can continue to live with it or if you want to get somebody else in the legislature and see if they can do a better job. They do work for you – never let them forget that.
 By Staff
June 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
This should be interesting.
Tom Muir and Greg Woodruff, both Aldershot residents want to publicly debate Rick Craven the city Councillor for Ward 1.
Muir has been a thorn in Craven’s side since he first got elected to office. Woodruff, who ran for the office of Regional Chair in 2010, is no less determined than Muir to make his point – just not as prolific.
There is a potential development on Plains Road on the property that currently is home to a bingo hall and a Home hardware.
 Location of the property on Plains Road that a developer has expressed an interest in developing. A developer, National Homes, hasn’t filed anything with the city – so it is just talk at this point but then that is the way things work in some wards.
A developer will get cozy with the ward Councillor and learn as much as he can from the politician. Developers don’t want to go to the Planning department without some assurance that they are going to get more than a fair hearing.
When the developer has done as much as they can to create the conditions they need – they then make a formal application and the development is now in the hands of the professional planners employed by the city.
The Planning department follows all the procedures and the protocols that are in place and in the fullness of time they prepare a report on the merits of a development project that goes to city council where it is debated.
 Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven is proud of the improvements that have been made along Plains Road – some of his residents don’t share his views. Councillor Craven made mention of the development in the Newsletter he publishes and sends out to anyone who asks to have their name on the newsletter list. That’s where Muir and Woodruff became aware of the development – and they swung into gear.
When Muir first got wind of the developers thinking he sent the following to Councillor Craven:
Rick,
This notice of intended redevelopment of this large plaza personifies the issues that people have about what’s happening in Aldershot, and has been happening for some time now.
The wholesale replacement of commercial with what is basically residential, with token retail, makes a mockery of the mixed use, work, shop, play, walk, enjoy, idea.
 Councillor Craven refers to the Plains Road Village Vision and believes it has resulted in a different and better community- he has a number of constituents who don’ share his vision. But nobody at City Hall, including you, seems to listen and all we hear are excuses – like we need to get rid of all the commercial we have, to get more population, so we can somehow get commercial back at some time in the future. This is a joke?
This will never happen, as there will be no place to build meaningful commercial. You heard all the people comments the other night telling you this. What response we got from you guys was; well this plan goes to 2040, so wait and see.
My wife and I have frequented the Home Hardware, Dollar Store (previously Shoppers), the restaurants there, for a long time, and years ago what was a grocery store where the Bingo is. This plaza is one of the few places we find things we need and will walk to. We were very happy to have Home Hardware down here. We can’t walk to the Home Hardware in Waterdown.
All that is in your description of intentions for this site is tear down residential – town homes and mid-rise condos, and of course the token retail. There seems to be nothing anything like the present commercial in this intention statement.
You will recall we had a Canadian Tire, which suffered the same fate. The token retail there is significantly empty and does not offer a lot to replace what was there in services. We can’t walk to Burlington Mall or to Clappisons Corner.
I need to remind you about the Drewloe development replacing the large commercial – grocery store, department store, bank, liquor store, small retail – and the controversy of the bylaw change escaping attention still irks people. No place to walk to the replaces this commercial.
The retail there still has a lot of empty. The Busy Bee from the Bell Motel, Foo Ho, parcel tear down moved in but there was already one across the street next to Hauser/Tim Horton.
The 24 hour fitness gym that moved in is across the street from The Fitness Firm, where you go. That building is also in waiting for a tear down.
I can see from the planning meeting the other night that this is just going to accelerate, sweeping everything away, and there will be no large enough parcels left to build anything commercially significant to replace what we lose. And given the spectacular rise in home prices, this residential conversion is developer irresistible, and I don’t see much resistance from city planning or you.
This is exactly what is terribly wrong with what is being done. The walk, transit, bike plan accompanying this is a farce and doesn’t fit with the reality, which like was also said the other night, it’s all going to be about cars and no place to park
 Plains Road – no longer just the highway to Hamilton but now a Main Street in a part of the city with an identity of its own The south side of Plains Rd meeting completely ignored a mention of the meeting on the same subject a couple of years ago You will recall my complaint then about rampant speculation going on then, that wasn’t even mentioned to the public when they were asked what they wanted, but all I got was a brush off.
At the recent meeting, the planning manager in attendance didn’t seem to know what was going on in this respect of land assembly. Does she really not know what’s going on?
And there was no mention at all of what people had said they wanted, and issues raised, at the meeting 2 years ago. What a waste of their time and my time.
I won’t go on further, as I find it very disturbing, and I’m starting to wonder more and more why I bother because I don’t see from my engagement over many years that city hall gives it attention in a respectful manner. I have been at several meetings where the staff in attendance look, first bored, then frustrated with questions and points, and then annoyed.
I really can’t blame them the way the reality is and it’s their job.
I can agree with more residential development, where it fits (three ten story building on Solid Gold does not fit with neighborhood right to the North), but the speculation and wholesale conversion and tear down of commercial to further this is too much.
Greg Woodruff adds to the discussion with:
I agree with this all.
Staff policies are de-commercializing Aldershot. Staff don’t care or want commercially viable stores, because the parking and space requirements of real commercial means less people on a lot.
 Greg Woodruff They have turned the place where we live into a math problem and the only problem is the human bugs that don’t quite act as they want.
From 5 years ago Aldershot has:
1) Less trees than ever
2) Less stores than ever
3) More traffic congestion than ever
If you think applying the same policies for the next 5 years reverses this I’d say you lack the ability to perceive reality.
Yes eventually you will get a handful more bikers and walkers, but this will be offset 25 to 1 with people who now have to drive for the basic commodities of living
Reversing this is easy: Put in the official plan the ground floor of any building must be all commercial, commercially vented, transport truck access and 1 square foot of parking for every 1 square foot of retail space.
Yes 10% or 15% less people will live in that building, but something will be around them.
If you think density alone makes a great place there are several shanty slums around the world with great densities you can move to.
Craven responds with:
Greg and Tom,
Thank you for your input.
 Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven digging out a business card for provincial Liberal leadership hopeful Sandra Pupatello. Craven at the time was considering a run for the provincial seat. I will not engage in an online debate with you since both of you seem to have more time than I do – and since the City has not received a formal redevelopment application yet.
Having said that – you should know that I personally met with the owner of the hardware store yesterday to discuss his situation. We all want to keep the hardware store if possible.
Otherwise, I find both your comments to be overly negative and lacking in long term perspective and vision.
Thanks again for writing.
Muir isn’t prepared to let the member of council for the ward off quite that easily – replies with: (Muir tends to write long – brevity is not his strength).
We all have the same 24 hour days and 7 day weeks.
I have so much experience dealing with this stuff I was able to write what I did in 20 minutes. Greg likely wrote his piece in 10 minutes, as he has been telling you this for years, as have I. I have large file folders with many such attempts to be heard.
 Tom Muir The city, Mayor, Planning, and you are always soliciting comments and engagement in all kinds of things, and that takes time, lots of it and more, but you complain if we take the time to respond, because you say you don’t have time?
So like I said, respectful listening and attention is not something I expect to receive from you, so thanks for proving my point.
Since you are not on for an on-line debate – frankly, I’m not either, as what we are telling you, and much more, is factual, and is beyond debate – I suggest we all get together, especially to debate your personal long term perspective and vision. I would like to do a reality check of your assumptions.
I hear vagaries about it at every meeting, as you tell us what you say is going to be done regardless of what we think, but these don’t provide an opportunity to have debate and discussion between us all. As I recall from many meetings, you don’t have many people who aren’t concerned about the same things, have similar views, and they express them.
So how about a real debate on this?
Anyways, regarding long term perspective, and vision – this is philosophy of science. The long term perspective, or future, is what the present becomes as we make our decisions and actions real concrete step by step.
Using our capacity for conscious foresight, our ability to logically simulate the future in imagination, is what we are using to tell you what we think is happening in concrete terms, and where it will logically lead.
We don’t lack a long term perspective, we have a very well founded one, based on fact based reasoning, logical outcomes, and where this leads to. Where is your reasoned argument?
You say we are overly negative, but we are telling you facts about reality, proposed changes, and how they are being lined up, and what they lead to.
This leads to something negative in our minds, different from what you say, and not a future we want.
But when we look for you to show the same kind of thinking, you don’t get past the more people part, forget the past consequences as concrete examples of our concerns, like what Greg and I wrote about, and you just tell us it will all work out, so don’t worry, be happy.
The staff do the same thing – they say; remember the plan goes to 2031 or 2040, so who knows how things will happen, they say. No comfort at all.
 It’s a 25 year plan that sets out the strategy for our growth. To get to 2040 we have to move through all the years between here and there, where you say the good things we already have, that we are going to lose along the way, will somehow mysteriously re-materialize, in ways you have no explanation for.
Well, we know that if you do certain things, other things will logically follow. We can see that it happened in the recent past, and the same mechanisms are still in action and will lead to more of the same. Greg said, and I agree, that If you think applying the same policies for the next 5 years reverses the negative trends he cites, I’d say you lack the ability to perceive reality.
Greg suggests several constructive and practical things, including requiring fully functional commercial on the first floor of every new building, as he describes, and has provided more details on elsewhere. This is not about opposing development, but making it work for all functions, and for all people, not just the landowner and developer.
If we really are, as staff emphasized, in a paradigm shift, then let’s internalize and generalize it all across the plan. Not just density of people, on every parcel, but accompanying density of uses and functions.
Not just more people, more density, less meaningful commercial and retail, less trees and green – try for that on the south side of Plains when condos in the pipeline and more want to sprout – and more traffic congestion, because more people density means more car density, and the walk-able necessary commercial spaces, frequented often, are gone.
It’s elementary. So how about a real debate on these things, face to face? The meetings we have are not enough.
Where will all this go?
Nowhere but Craven must have begun to realize that these two are not going to let this issue die a quiet death.
Stand by.
By Pepper Parr
June 10th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington Ward 3 and 6 Halton District school Board trustee Andrea Grebenc released a statement on her Facebook page setting out why she voted the way she chose to vote at the Board of Education meeting on Wednesday when trustees decided to approve the recommendation to close two of Burlington’s seven high schools.
 Andrea Grebenc in conversation with Director of Education Stuart Miller “It has been a tough few months” she said “and I know many of you are upset with the outcome of the Program Accommodation Review (PAR). I wanted to let you know that I explored a number of options myself and I was willing to go down the road with respect to a dual campus/one school concept and getting community partners to help fill space in the school.
“I could see the Bateman campus as a truly vibrant community hub. I believe in community hubs and schools should be an integral part of them. I think in this day and age, few people even know their neighbours, therefore providing gathering spaces to provide a true sense of community is important.
“The special education students at Bateman would have had the opportunity to integrate even more with a broader community setting. The north has three community centres. South East Burlington has one community room along with scattered amenities (pools, ice rinks, stadium and park). I believe community hubs should be cradle-to-grave types of places with programming for pre-natal and pre-school, through school ages, youth, adult and seniors programming.
“I took information provided to me from your community and spoke directly with administrators at two dual campus schools in the west. Both schools had similarities and differences to the Nelson/Bateman situation. The administrators were frank about the experience. It wasn’t a perfect solution, it took extra work, but both schools were successful.
“Unfortunately, my colleagues could not see this happening. Community partners were not forthcoming which was the linchpin to make this work. They would take up the On the Ground capacity to make financial sense. I was hoping the city would have stepped up during the final weeks with some possibilities as they are a natural partner and have partnered with us in the past(Hayden/Haber/Alton Library and Kilbride/Public library and community room).
 Bateman high school parents demonstrate to save their high school – it wasn’t enough to change six minds. “When Trustee Collard’s substitute motion about exploring dual campuses failed, I had to support a closure. As I mentioned during statements later in the meeting with regards to Pearson, my research informed me that schools need 1000 students to provide students decent course choices and extracurricular experiences. Without putting Nelson into the same lower enrollment state, Bateman needed to close.
“I care about the students in special education placements residing at Bateman. I promise to hold the Director accountable in his statements that situation at Nelson will be better for those students than what they have now at Bateman and that special care is take with each student transition. It is my duty to make it so and my commitment to the community.”
Bateman high school is scheduled to close in September of 2020.
By Pepper Parr
June 9th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Andrea Grebenc is one of the first term trustees on the Halton District School Board representing wards three and six. M.M. Robinson high school, which has been designated as a “composite” high school that is going to take on the French Immersion students who are currently at Hayden high school.
 Andrea Grebenc, did her high school years at Pearson and found herself voting to close the school after looking at all the options. Grebenc did her high school education at Lester B. Pearson and in her comments at the Board meeting this week that decided that school should be closed she waxed both eloquently and emotionally with a solid dose of hard common sense.
In the comments she made Grebenc said she knew “families are upset with my decision to vote with the Director’s recommendation to close Pearson.
“To watch my school, at which I basically lived for 5 years, being proposed to close, put me in a unique position when considering the Director’s recommendation.
 Grebenc went to all the public meetings and listened to anyone who wanted to talk to her. Hear she is with Halton Hills trustee Jeane Gray. “I know that school. I was there when the portapack went in. I played the oboe in the huge band and sang in the choir directed under the late Peter Purvis and I sang and danced on stage in three school musicals. I played midget volleyball. Our boys Basketball team was the team to be beat in the area and I remember most of the school going to regionals to cheer them on.
“I had a passion for photography, so I was one of the head photographers for the yearbook. I was in Student Auxiliary, I was on the Lighting and tech crew, I was on the Student Technology Assistance Committee. I was in the stage make-up and Tai Chi clubs. There was something for everyone and I never had a course conflict.
“I was there when the school had about 1000 students in it. I know this because I went through my yearbook and counted every face. At its current enrollment of 380 students, I can’t imagine the students’ experience.
 Grebenc sat in one every one of the PARC meetings. Her she gets some writing done along with Leah Reynolds, a fellow Burlington trustee. “There seems to more course scheduling conflicts than students in the school. Without alternative learning opportunities like online courses, summer and night school and travelling over to MMR, some of these kids would have a hard time exploring any passions or interests outside of the typical curriculum. School Information Profiles show that football, hockey, band and choir are all shared with MM Robinson.
“When I went on tour at the school, I didn’t feel the buzz that you would expect in a high school. We could walk into many empty classrooms without a problem. The locker bay is basically gone.
“So, I sat down and played with the numbers to fill the school. I figured that there should be a way to make it work. I pulled this feeder school and that into Pearson. I pulled from both Hayden and from MM Robinson. I tried shifting programs and even grades, but I still could not get the numbers high enough.
“I’ve talked to former administrators and retired administrators whose job it was to timetable classes and oversee the health of the extracurricular student experience. The conclusion I have reached and the opinion that I have formed is that a school needs more than 1000 students to give decent academic and extracurricular choices and to reduce course conflicts.
Trustee Grebenc confers with Director of Education Stuart Miller during one of the seven PARC meetings. “I apologize if this sounds melodramatic, but a small part of my heart died when I came to the conclusion that I agreed with the recommendation that Pearson should close.
“Now I sit grieving, feeling like I was a pallbearer at an old friend’s funeral. I know many will be grieving as well. I am sorry for this pain, especially for those students that will bear the burden of transitioning, some in their last year of high school, but in my heart and in my gut, I feel that it was the right decision for future students.”
 By Pepper Parr
June 8th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
With the decision to close Bateman high school a done deal, albeit a decision that won’t get implemented until 2020, finding a way to make the culture at Nelson at least hospitable to the students arriving from Bateman becomes very relevant.
While less than two km apart the culture of the two schools is significantly different.
 Oakville trustee Joanna Oliver Joanna Oliver, an Oakville trustee asked a question last night that put an uncomfortable issue on the table where it couldn’t be ignored.
“The community has shared with us concerns about transitions and safe and welcoming school environments” said Oliver. “ I would like to reflect on the comments made about the unaccepting culture at Nelson.
“Such comments have been made in various delegations and shared with us by email. They have almost assumed a life of their own and that’s one of a threat and fear” on the part of the students at Bateman who will be transferred to Nelson.
“I feel that staying silent on this matter helps to potentially, though inadvertently protect such a culture and it does a huge disservice to the Nelson students who are inclusive, compassionate and adaptable”, said Oliver.
She added: “Given HDSB’s efforts at anti-bullying and fostering inclusive and safe school environments – I find it hard to believe that staff and other students at Nelson would actively protect a culture of intolerance.
 Nelson high school – sen by many as the premier high school in the city, will now see a $12 million addition to its facilities and an influx of students that will, over time, change the culture of the school. “Unfortunately, there may always be individuals who are not accepting and who do engage in various forms of bullying but they are not the majority.”
While there were many mentions of a rude environment awaiting the students from Bateman at Nelson, with Social Media crawling with comments that would stun many parents, Director of Education Stuart Miller said the Board had not been able to identify the kind of behaviour that was being talked about.
It is a concern – how it gets handled is what bothers parents who have students in the Community Pathways Program.
 By Tom Muir
June 6th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
I cannot delegate personally at the June 7 Board meeting, so please accept this written delegation for the record.
Accountability of the Trustees and Board
 Tom Muir You know the time is coming for the Trustees to make decisions about the Board Director’s recommendations about Burlington’s community of schools. In this, it is time to treat the parents, residents, students and community with respect and truth.
It is time for the Trustees, as democratically elected officials, to be accountable to your constituents. The Education Act provides clarity about the responsibility of individual trustees to bring to the board the concerns of parents, students and supporters of
the board.
It provides for the responsibility of the trustees to work with the values, priorities, and expectations of the community to translate them into policy. It is incumbent on trustees to act with integrity, which means with honesty and strong moral and ethical principles.
All the trustees are responsible for the best interests of all students – this means that all trustees are accountable for their actions in regard to Burlington schools, not just schools in their area.
Trustees play an essential role in creating the conditions for: achieving excellence in student learning; ensuring equity and promoting well-being and; enhancing public confidence in publicly funded education.
Enhancing public confidence means ensuring accountability for the use and effective stewardship of resources and public school assets.
My expressions of comment and concern
You also know that I have written you extensively, and provided a great deal of information about the PAR context and process, and my concerns that arise from the factual nature of that, and how the Board actions and behavior is reflected by that body of evidence.
Based on this evidence I have provided over the history of the PAR, and events emerging, it is quite clear that the Board has created an outcome of systematic, conflict-based crisis in Burlington schools and community. There has been an evident failure to enhance public confidence throughout the PAR process.
There have been record numbers of complaints, delegations to the Board, picket lines, demonstrations, protest marches to the Board office, delegations to provincial parliament, complaints to the local MPP and the Minister of Education, testimonials to Burlington schools, and the list can go on as you know.
It seems clear that the failure of the Board to manage and achieve the critical goal of effective utilization, by building what are almost all surplus seats at Hayden, is seen as the root of the present crisis, and conflict, by a large majority of people.
This is the unhealthy, even pathological, consequence of the predominantly defensive strategy used by the Board to control, manipulate, deny, and distort the reality underlying the emergence of the conflicts.
This defense, as offense, is based on the theme of redefining truth, and sticking to the script.
The fact that I had to resort to a Freedom of Information request to get any information at all speaks loudly to the controlling and obstructive manner with which the Board and the Director chose to communicate with residents.
Directives, based on the Education Act, and Guidance documents, state that in carrying out its accountable responsibilities, a board must engage in effective communication with school staff, students and their families, community members, and others. In my experience, and that of others I know of, there was a deliberate failure to engage and communicate on critical matters of facts and truth.
I never received any reply from anyone to my several sets of correspondence and requests for information (other than my FOI), except acknowledgements of receipt and thanks from one trustee to all memos, and similar replies from one trustee to just one memo.
The only effective outcome for the Board was to continue a cover up of the problems asked about for as long as possible. Even my FOI request and response was obstructed, in information provided, and timing.
What is the correct and truthful source of the crisis and conflict?
As I have shown conclusively, with official data, the crisis we face was caused by deliberate and knowing actions by the Board to build the NE Burlington school (now named Hayden) capacity that was not needed based on enrollment trends and utilization expected. The data prove that this is the planned and only cause of the current utilization issues in Burlington schools.
There was no business case in the normally applied manner based on sufficient need for pupil places in excess of seats available, and growing for the foreseeable future.
And on top of that, the Board is now redefining this truth, by using the resultant low utilization, or surplus seats, caused by these past actions, to support the present PAR now, as Condition 1, having failed to act on the foreseeable consequences of the plans they made to build surplus seats, at the time of the planning.
And compounding this, the logic of PAR Condition 2, “that reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities” is rationalized to follow the lower utilization, as the Board states now, in the present, but failed to, in the past, when it was first created in the plans for Hayden.
This, in fact, reflects another failure to act, by the Board, on the additional foreseeable consequences of the plans made at the time of the planning – failures to act in a responsible, transparent, and accountable manner, pure and simple.
The board is responsible for setting policy relating to facilities, including: maintenance, acquisition and disposal of sites; building renewal plans; and site operation. All policies relating to facilities must first take into consideration requirements related to the achievement and well-being of students of the board.
Despite repeated comments and requests for explanation, I was never able to get the Board to provide such an explanation as to how it included in the Hayden planning such “consideration requirements related to the achievement and well-being of students of the board.”
This means that the decision to build Hayden, and the surplus capacity that it entailed, creating lower utilization in Burlington, would also lead to diminished program delivery and learning opportunities, reduced equity and well being, and less achievement of excellence.
Clearly, if it does this now, then logically, it would have done so then, as part of the plan.
More to the point, these impacts were perfectly predictable, as they would follow from the utilization effects built into the Hayden plan, which they did clearly, and are now present.
As well, and doubly ironic, nowhere does the Board acknowledge the predicted overcapacity occupancy of Hayden now, as a problem in its own right, but contributing to the lower utilization of the other schools, and thus an option to partially relieve that situation.
These outcomes are what the Board is telling us now, through this PAR, will emerge from the lower utilization caused by building Hayden, and so we have to close two schools to correct the surplus they created.
This is used as rationalization for the PAR, and to further entrench the fabricated alternative reality created by the Board, that is creating the conflicts and crisis, and to try and evade being accountable for these actions.
This is the redefinition of truth that the PAR is based on, and this is reflected throughout the trustee debate meeting minutes.
Does the crisis and conflict continue despite knowing the buried truth? What’s happening now?
So what is being discussed in the current PAR debates by trustees is the same thing as would have been discussed if anyone had done their job and considered what such outcomes might be when Hayden was being planned and pushed forward, which would knowingly build surplus seats.
The fact is the Board created comparable loss of equity, opportunity, well-being and excellence to students, in the same measure as they claim now as one reason for the PAR. Before Hayden there was no problem with low utilization, and none in the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately, no one, except one or two trustees back in 2008, took their responsibility and accountability seriously, and no one to this day has been called to account for this, and to explain their actions.
Not even in the two debate meetings of trustees was anyone called to account for this. And I have provided a great deal of official evidence to all the trustees, and Director, on this matter, but there is still no mention.
It is on this basis of disavowal of the truth that this PAR process has acquired the potential to be pathological in its impact as an outcome of this deep rooted denial.
Closing two schools in Burlington is certainly pathological. No doubt.
This fact set has been continually repressed, or buried, like a painful and unacceptable thought, and source of anxiety, in a vain attempt to remove it from the PAR awareness.
The Director himself told me that bringing up the Hayden planning and execution would be too dangerous for him politically.
Whatever happened to Ministry guidance about not having conflicts of interest, or letting personal, political motives enter the decisions?
And further, in the debates, the question of why the Director changed his mind about closing Central was raised, and he claimed there was nothing personal or political in that decision.
Then he invoked the untruth that Pearson and Bateman had declining enrollment and utilization trends, when in fact it was the Board building of Hayden that targeted these schools, and others, as the source of students and feeders and programs to fill the surplus seats they built at Hayden, to gross overcapacity.
The declining enrollment and utilization in Burlington schools was created by the Board, and is being sustained for their purposes.
Overall, from the delegate evening I attended, and the minutes of the two evening Board meeting debates on the Director’s final report, the Trustees still appear to be rejecting the fact that they are debating an untruthful reality, provided to them by the Board and sustained by the Director.
The buried truth I described appears as an unacceptable idea altogether, that is incompatible with their image of the PAR, and their anxious struggle to deal with the crisis and conflicts emerging from their distorted reality, refusal to be openly accountable for that, or hold responsible parties accountable by asking for explanations.
They apparently behave as if this defensive denial of the facts, that actually happened, never occurred, and appear as though they are stuck in a Director provided alternative reality and set of alternative facts.
The Director and senior staff are inflexible and intransigent in the debate, sticking to the script of their redefined reality.
What stands out in the debates?
In the minutes of the trustee debate meeting these few, but telling instances emerge.
1. The very first point raised in the debates was;
“A. Collard asked about ways to reinforce programming and boundaries at Robert
Bateman High School. S. Miller indicated initial discussion around the original
recommendation should precede any additional options requiring further
investigation. G. Cullen commented on the surplus that would still exist with a
twinned school concept.”
Mr Cullen was part of the senior management team back in 2008 and forward on the Hayden plan. He knew all about the consequences built in, and flowing from that plan, but there is no record that he ever warned about the surplus seats results built into the plan, or the utilization and program impacts that might flow from that.
But here he is now, making the “surplus” the very first, and only, thing he says in answer to the trustee’s question. No mention of past actions.
I was also surprised that a senior staff member, Steven Parfeniuk, that was also closely and chiefly involved with the Hayden plan and the Ministry on that file in 2008 and forward, as then Superintendent of Business for HDSB, and would know about everything I have raised, was not questioned, or otherwise revealed as present at the meeting.
This suggests to me that the trustees are in denial with staff, and there was no serious effort to get to the truth of how this crisis and conflict happened, and to call out those responsible to be accountable.
2. Much of the May 17 debate content is about implementing the recommendations and school closures, and how the integration, transitions, and general impacts of closures would be handled.
Of course, in a mechanical sense, movements, integration, and transitions, under closures are forced, and are managed as matters of fact – you just do it. Staff and Director replies were rationalizations of what they will do, and generally, everything sounded as if without harm.
With a very few notable exceptions, although they are in there I must say, I did not sense any real effort to explore adaptive and innovative options to recognize the significance of every school, and how each contributes to the excellence, equity, and well-being of all the students.
I saw no mention of how closing any school does not in any way enhance public confidence, which, along with Board credibility, has been sorely lost in this PAR.
The continued refusal to admit that past Board actions created this crisis and conflict, and so there is a need for appeasement and righting of this egregious wrong, is notable.
This is particularly disturbing given that the Trustees have been provided with all the official and factual information that I was able to collect, and parent and public debate and information, that conclusively prove this, but yet the debate never mentions it, explains it, or accounts for it..
As I said before, enhancing public confidence means ensuring accountability for the use, and effective stewardship, of resources and public assets for the delivery of a strong educational system attuned to individual needs.
I do not see how closing Bateman, in particular, home of the most needy, and apparently an international success story, is attuned to individual needs.
I sensed from some trustee comments, that they take low utilization schools as somehow deficient in their service to students. To me this signifies the trustees are deliberately blind to the fact of Hayden causing the utilization crisis they are in, and that staff and the Board didn’t think about this at all when Hayden was planned and built.
And for sure, they aren’t going to tell anyone about that now.
3. A very notable exchange on the central problem causing the crisis, and the continued rigid and closed approach of the Director is as follows:
“A. Collard provided her perspective on the transportation issues at Hayden. She
also spoke to catchment area for Robert Bateman High School, suggesting
expanding the area to include more than Frontenac Public School. D. Renzella
and S. Miller spoke to the existing catchment area and feeder schools that are
11 directed to Robert Bateman High School. S. Miller commented on the impact of
reversing decisions made by previous Boards of Trustees, specifically redirecting
students or changing catchment areas to move approximately 200 students from
Nelson High School to Robert Bateman High School, and/or moving students from
the Orchard community from Dr. Frank J. Hayden to Robert Bateman. He
commented this does little more than shuffle the deck, and does not address the
underlying issue. Currently five of the six Burlington secondary schools have low
enrolments; boundary changes as described would perpetuate the issue and may
result with all six of the schools underutilized”.
I find that this personifies the Board created source of the crisis and conflict stemming from their alternative reality explanation of what caused it, and continues it.
Again, he ignores that building Hayden caused the surplus seats, the utilization issue, and any program issues that are asserted to result.
The Directors view is, that’s a mistake, but too bad, so the best he can offer is to sweep this accountability under the rug in the name of, “we can’t just shuffle the deck”, and because, as he said to me, it’s too political for him to handle.
Then the Director reverses this political abstention by telling the trustees that reversing decisions made by previous boards, to change boundaries/catchments, feeders, program locations, and other student shifting, is somehow problematic, and he cautions against it.
I repeat again, this is exactly how all the students in Burlington were reallocated, or shuffled like a deck, to fill Hayden to gross overflowing, with no current plan to do anything about that, whatever the consequences.
I don’t see anything wrong with underutilization – gross overutilization at Hayden seems to be okay with the Board and Director.
Shuffling the deck can work if it’s tried, because the underlying issue to everyone I know is that the closing of schools he recommends is a crisis for Burlington schools, and he offers nothing else.
So the Director, in my opinion, is getting subtly but frankly political in advising trustees that this power, which is a key tool in their kit, should not be used as an option to alleviate the crisis, and stop the conflict.
In other words, don’t solve the crisis by doing what others before you did to cause it.
That would recognize and acknowledge it happened, by digging up the truth.
If the Director and trustees want to be inflexible and intransigent, it will be impossible to get enhanced public confidence again.
I suggest that if schools are closed with no accountability for how it was caused and done, the conflict will not end.
Those who are rigid and closed will succeed only in isolating themselves.
Board credibility depends on coming clean and being contrite.
It will not come from actions by some Trustees congratulating the Board and Trustees for “due diligence”, or defensively mentioning that some people emailed support for the recommendations.
Conclusion
This delegation turned into another long one for at least two reasons.
First, the end of the PAR is near, as are whatever decisions trustees are going to make. So this is my last chance to communicate with you before this process comes to a close.
Second, my delegation reflects all the pent up frustration, and conflict-induced outrage, that I have seen in many others, and experienced myself, in this PAR process, and in interacting with an unresponsive, but one-time to me, frankly manipulative, Board staff and Director.
So you are again, as the elected and accountable decision-making body, justifiably on the receiving end of my analysis and opinion.
My final advice to you today is the following.
In your decisions to be made, Trustees are ill-advised to follow recommendations from people who have consistently been wrong about, well, everything. That’s a natural consequence of the redefinition of truth. The whole truth always wants to get out into the light.
And most of all troubling, this is by design from the start.
 By Pepper Parr
June 5th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Right from the very beginning Ward 5 Halton District School Board trustee Amy Collard was paying very close attention to what was being said about high school closures in Burlington. While the Robert Bateman high school was not recommended for closure by the Director of Education in his initial report, Collard was acutely aware that its distance from Nelson high school – less than 2km to the west – made it a closure possibility.
 Bateman principal Mark Duley could not have know he was going to have to sound an alarm and tell parents that there school was at risk. Dudley was using a fire alarm during a student cook off against Burlington fire fighters The Bateman parents didn’t have their ears to the ground but Principal Mark Duley knew his school was vulnerable.
Because they didn’t feel at risk – the Bateman parents did next to nothing as the Program Accommodation Review Committee wound its way through the seven meetings they held. There were exceptions: Sharon Picken and Lisa Bull, the Bateman members of the PARC, worked very hard to get the Bateman story out. They didn’t realize Bateman was going to end up on the PARC list of schools that could be considered for closure until the third PARC meeting when Bateman was added to the numerous options that were before the PARC.
When the Director of Education revised his initial recommendation and took Central high school off the list and added Bateman, a community that was not ready for the fight of their lives had to pull together. Unfortunately, the Bateman community turned on the Central high school people and accused them of “throwing Bateman under the bus” when what they needed to do was get their story out.
 The PARC met on seven occasions and turned out to be a lot more deliberative than Board staff expected. Two parents from each high school served the community very well. With the PAR committee disbanded the trustees got to hear the delegations – there were 51 of them delivered over two long evening sessions. The Bateman story was very effectively told – what no one could tell for certain was – were the trustees listening; more importantly were they hearing?
 A single parent, deaf, mother of two using sign language to communicate. Her daughter, a severally disabled child takes part in the Community Pathways Program at Bateman high school. Each delegation had five minutes to tell their story and an additional five minutes for the trustees to ask questions – there just weren’t that many really good questions from the trustees.
The public learned Bateman had an auto body paint shop that was close to world class – the equipment had been donated by Toyota; students from that program had gone on to win competitions on the other side of the world.
There was a welding program that was getting excellent reviews and a culinary program that was very popular. The biggest plus was the Community Pathways Program (CPP) that educated, nurtured and cared for exceptionally vulnerable students.
During the delegations there was a single parent who was deaf and used sign language to communicate with her daughter who was unable to control her bodily functions – but her mind seemed to be sharp. Watching the delegation was a heart wrenching experience. There were other parents with children in the Community Pathways Programs (CPP) who delegated very effectively,
Other than the parents of these children and other students at the high school few knew they were there. It was a truly amazing delegation to watch.
 Diane Miller, a Pearson high school parent, reminds trustees of the Board’s purpose. Denise Davy, a skilled advocate brought her experience to the fight – and it was a fight. She got decent CHCH television coverage and delegated very effectively at city hall as well.
But nothing changed.
The response from the Board staff was that these were all programs that could be replicated at Nelson high school where much of the Bateman program was headed if Bateman was closed in 2019
The auto body paint shop – the one at Nelson would be even better; welding – same thing – the Board staff told anyone who asked that the move would give the Board a chance to upgrade everything. They were a little weak on the details.
The transformation from Bateman to Nelson – not a problem – every time the Board staff did a transformation they got better at it, they said.
It was a trust issue and the public, at least for those who were involved in the school closing issue, just did not believe senior staff or the Director of Education.
Board staff seemed blissfully unaware of the depth of that distrust. There were parents who went over the top emotionally – they were the exceptions.
There were also some solid, fact filled delegations that pointed up serious flaws in the way the Board staff had created catchment area boundaries and the selection of the feeder schools.
The Board Planning department seemed prepared to give out whatever information they felt would serve their immediate purpose – then later give significantly different information to an almost identical question.
It struck many as a level of manipulation designed to give the Board staff what they wanted rather than what was best for the community. The Board staff philosophy seemed to be larger high schools offered better program opportunities for students. Much of the evidence from the Board’s research didn’t support that contention.
 Ward 4 trustee Amy Collard held Director of Education Stuart Miller\s feet to the flames and didn’t give an inch with her persistent questioning during the Board information session. When the Director’s second recommendation came out with Bateman on the list of schools to be closed, the activists at Bateman accused the Central parents of throwing them under the bus and things got very nasty.
The issue was now before the trustees and Amy Collard was now able to do what she had been wanting to do – get some ideas on the table and find the solutions that would prevent the closing of a school.
There was a public hungry for information but there wasn’t much the trustees could do up to this point.
They had created a Program Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) then they had to stand back and let that committee do its work.
Collard, along with all the other trustees, had to sit on their hands, while two parents from each of the seven high schools discussed the options that were before them and began narrowing a long list down to a short manageable list.
The PARC did a lot more than Board staff expected – while they didn’t disband with a consensus they did narrow down the options – from the 30 they were given, to which they added a dozen or so – got narrowed down to five.
The surprise for the people at Bateman was that they were now on the list of schools that were being considered for closure.
When the PARC came to an end it was time for the public to delegate. There were 51 of those heard over two public meetings.
For the first time the public got a sense of what Bateman was really all about. The depth and significance of their programs had not been discussed openly. The parents with children in the school knew the story – the public hadn’t heard it in so much detail.
Bateman had a superb story that wasn’t told until public delegations were heard; by that time they were fighting an uphill battle.
 Rory Nisan on the left exchanging contact information with George Ward, a parent who was active when Lester B. Pearson was created as a community school – an experiment that worked but which the current school board administrative leadership does not appear to want to continue, Lester B. Pearson had a story as well– about how they had been stiffed by their Board with hardly a word from the trustees and less than a peep from the ward trustee.
Pearson had had the bulk of its feeder school taken away from them and given to Hayden high school where the overcapacity was approaching the 140% level.
The delegations ranged from some rather silly ideas to emotive pleas from parents to not close “their” school. There were also a number of very good delegations – excellent as a matter of fact.
Each of the trustees reacted differently to the delegations – some had strong relationships with the schools they were responsible for and they worked their connections. Others clearly didn’t understand what their job was and others failed to reach their potential as trustees.
The public isn’t at all aware of how hard these women work. While they grapple with a very significant closing schools decision, they are working their way through the budget – the school board is the biggest employer in the Region.
They meet weekly, which we don’t see at the municipal level. They are for the most part diligent and struggling to fully understand the longer term impact of what they decide to do on the June 7th.
 Hayden High, Burlington’s newest high school built as part of a complex that includes a Recreational Centre and a public library with a skate park right across the street. It was a decision to create the Hayden high school in Alton made in 2008 that started a series of events that put the Board of Education in the position it is in now.
To add to the really messy situation is the way the Board of Education communicates with its public. Director of Education Stuart Miller has been very direct and said on more than one occasion that the Board doesn’t do a very good job at communicating with the public.
Add to that some parents whose emotions got the better of them and made statements that were just not true.
It has been a very difficult story to cover
 Trustee Amy Collard. Collard who has more Board experience than the other three Burlington trustees, has been very proactive in looking for solutions. She hasn’t always gotten the attention many of her ideas deserve but that hasn’t deterred her in the least,
Following the delegations was an “information” meeting of the Board during which Staff set out to defend the recommendation that the Director had presented the trustees.
Collard was the first person to put a question to Director Miller when the information session started – which he basically said he wasn’t going to answer.
Miller was surprised and caught off guard – he was expecting to be able to explain his decision and position now that the PARC had done its job and the trustees had heard all the delegations.
Miller was there to defend his recommendation which Collard wasn’t buying. Each trustee had many opportunities to ask questions of the Director’ recommendation and to pepper him with questions based on the material that came out of the PARC and the 51 delegations.
How did they do? They asked a lot of questions and Miller along with his Planning manager Dom Renzalla and PARC Chair Scott Podrebrac handled them reasonably well.
The “information” session went much longer than many expected – they were still at it when the Chair chose to recess the meeting for a week – and come back at it again.
During each of these session Collard kept hammering away at what could and should be done with Bateman.
The senior Board staff kept giving the trustees smooth assurances that the transition from what is in place now to what they will end up will go just fine.
A number of the trustees weren’t buying that line.
 Gerry Cullen, Superintendent of Facilities, explaining why much of the data he provided kept changing. Gerry Cullen, Superintendent of Facilities was already measuring Nelson for the influx it was going to experience with the number of programs that would be transferred from Bateman to Nelson in 2019.
Collard’s objective is to keep the Robert Bateman high school open – and she has put two possibilities on the table.
1) Develop a partnership between Bateman and Nelson
Students from both schools could attend classes at either school. This would increase the breadth of program offered to all students.
Students in Essential, Community Pathways and
International Baccalaureate programs would continue at Bateman without disruption.
The commercial grade kitchen facilities at Bateman would continue to be viable.
Centennial Swimming Pool would be accessible to all students at both schools.
The auditorium and stadium at Nelson would be accessible to all students at both schools.
The OYAP and SHSM programs offered at each school would be available to students at both schools.
Collard said the operationalization of this idea would need to be determined. Her preliminary thoughts as to how it might be accomplished included:
Each school continuing to offer the full suite of required courses – as well as the specialized programs that are already in place – to the students in their current catchment area. Students wishing to participate in courses offered at the alternate campus could decide to take their entire course load or half of their course load (morning or afternoon) for that semester at that campus. Regional programs would continue to be offered at their current locations.
 Centennial Pool, which is attached to Bateman high school will become a bit of an orphan if the high school is closed. Each school might offer specific courses – for example Students in Grade 9 regular English program could have Physical and Health Education and French at Bateman in the morning periods and Math and English at Nelson in the afternoon periods. This would give all Grade 9 English program students at both schools access to Centennial pool for their Physical and Health Education program.
Shuttle bus – it is about a 20-30 minute walk between Bateman and Nelson, so they may want to provide a shuttle service between the two schools.
Collard argues that this approach increases equity of access to program for all students at Bateman and Nelson and it increases equity of access to facilities, including the Commercial Grade Kitchen, Automotive and Welding Shops, Auditorium, Greenhouse for all students at Bateman and Nelson. It also does away with the emotionally difficult transitions for students in Essential or Community Pathways Programs
 Bateman International Baccalaureate students delegating before Board trustees This approach also eliminates the need to move the International Baccalaureate Program from Bateman to Central high school – problem with that is Central needed those IBL students to get its enrollment numbers up – and – the IBL has a certain cachet to it that Central would like to acquire.
Collard pointed out the her suggestion reduce renovation costs at Nelson which were set at $12 million. The suggestion preserves the ability to maintain the YMCA Daycare at Bateman and ensures the viability of Centennial Pool and increases access to extracurriculars for all students.
Collard does concede that the suggestions does require some creative logistical efforts – especially in the first year of implementation
Transportation might be required to ensure students can attend classes at both campuses – these costs might be mitigated since students living in the eastern area of the Bateman catchment (who would be redirected to Nelson if Bateman were to close) would not require transportation to Nelson.
Creating community partnerships:
Collard also saw some significant opportunities for real Community Partnerships. The unique specializations offered at Bateman have considerable community appeal. The Commercial Grade Kitchen at Bateman could be used in a partnership with the Halton Multicultural Council (HMC) to help newcomers to Canada learn hospitality skills that can lead to gainful employment. Collard had a conversation with the Executive Director at HMC who happen to be seeking a space in which to provide this type of program.
Bateman offers skilled trades that aren’t currently available at The Centre for Skills and Development; specifically automotive and culinary. A partnership with The Centre could be beneficial to the community.
Collard has done what parents have a right to expect from their Board of Education trustees. She has been both proactive and innovative. One cannot say as much for the ward 4 trustee. The high school in that ward, Lester B. Pearson, has gotten more support from the city Councillor who has zero clout on the high school closing issue.
Collard is not a popular trustee. She doesn’t expect to win a popularity contest; she wants to do the job she was elected to do. She was acclaimed as the ward trustee during the past two municipal elections. She served one session as vice chair of the Board and has sought the votes of her peers to serve as Chair – that has not been forthcoming.
Collard is abrupt, she is direct. She tends not to get into much of the chit chat with the other trustees.
But – and this is important – she is the only trustee who has put a solution, an alternative, on the table. Her fellow trustees may not follow her lead – but they can and should give her ideas full debate and consideration. If they cannot accept her approach they might want to look at option 7 – don’t close any of the schools – until there has been a more fulsome and through debate.
Denise Davy made a very significant point when she noted that the city of Burlington spent more time and debate on deciding where to put the Freeman Station than the school board has spent on closing two high schools
 By Staff
May 22nd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Jeremy Skinner, a Ward 5 resident with three students enrolled at Robert Bateman delegated to the Halton District school Board trustees and set out before them what his view of the issue before them was: “The challenge before us is how to maintain student equity in the delivery of programs and opportunities when student enrollments change.”
 Jeremy Skinner “I believe that the question before us is whether we have sufficient capacity amongst MM Robinson and Dr. Frank J. Hayden to permit the closure of Lester B. Pearson and whether we have sufficient capacity below the QEW to close Robert Bateman?”
Skinner said he felt “obligated to suggest that we “punt” by partitioning some or all remaining Secondary Schools to include students in Grade 7 and 8 like Aldershot and Burlington Central. This will have a positive affect on each Secondary School’s utilization rate which will buy us sufficient time to validate what our ultimate Elementary & Secondary School Network should look like and how best to transition to it.”
The benefits doing this include:
protects capital and staff investments which have already been made at Robert Bateman and Lester B Pearson.
provides flexibility in the board’s capacity response to spikes in future enrollments in Burlington North by enabling three Secondary Schools to respond.
Benefits Grade 7 & 8 students through exposure to a wider range of programs and opportunities such as the technical trades at an earlier grade.
Implications:
Current elementary school catchment boundaries will need to be reassessed and redrawn as required.
Current secondary school catchment boundaries will need to be reassessed and redrawn as required.
Elementary schools may result in underutilization and thus may have to close.
Skinner added that “In the case of Lester B Pearson, I believe that the short-term risk for closure is too high because too much is dependent upon redirecting student enrollments associated with Dr. Frank J. Hayden to other Burlington-North Secondary Schools. I believe that this risk could be mitigated through Trustee led community discussions to seek agreements for student enrollment to Burlington-North Secondary Schools.”
Skinner then enlarged his field of view and said: “We need to consider the City of Burlington’s revised Official Plan, currently in draft, which identifies 8 major areas of intensification. They are:
 The city’s latest approach to directing growth. the Downtown Core and related Downtown Mobility Hub;
Uptown Centre located at Appleby and Upper-Middle Road;
Mobility Hubs which surround the Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby GO stations;
The Fairview St. Corridor, and
Most major plazas
The intent is to provide for mixed-use of residential, retail and commercial development of these lands. This will likely take the form of:
relocating the bulk of ground level parking underground or into multilevel purpose built parking towers;
locating retail and/or commercial on the ground and lower floors which comprise the podium of mid-height and high-height residential buildings; and
integrating townhomes and/or stacked townhomes.
An illustration as to what is envisioned, can be found on the east side of Appleby Line from Corporate Dr. to Iron Stone Drive, just below Upper-Middle Rd. Please note that most of these areas of intensification are in South-Burlington. Regardless as to location, they must be considered in future Long Term Program Accommodation (LTPA) plans.
 Appleby Line from Corporate Dr. to Iron Stone Drive, just below Upper-Middle Rd Given the information above, Skinner “questions as to whether we will have sufficient capacity in South Burlington in the longer term to warrant the closure of Robert Bateman which is best positioned to serve the proposed Appleby GO Mobility Centre.
He suggests “Partitioning Secondary Schools permits us to restore some of the Secondary School catchments back to what they were prior to the erection of Frank J. Hayden which covers North-East Burlington. Then we would adjust each Secondary School catchment to accommodate our best forecast of student enrollments from new residential neighbourhoods.
 Should the Boar of Trustees go along with what the Director of Education has recommended Bateman high school would be closed, demolished and the programs they deliver would be distributed to other high schools. “Regardless as to which, if any, Burlington Secondary Schools are to close, I believe we are dependent upon HDSB to ensure that current students who are most vulnerable to change and those who seek a career based upon Technical Trade Skills.
“Accommodation of these students and their programs will require significant investments to any Secondary School which is to receive them.
 Many of the programs currently offered at Bateman high school would be transferred to Nelson high school. New facilities would have to be built – at a cost of $12 million “I seek clarification for the statement made that “ Nelson will need to add technical shops and special need facilities to accommodate students transitioning from Robert Bateman.”
Skinner concedes that “that we have some uncomfortable decisions to make. The decision to even contemplate the closure of one or more secondary schools has a significant impact to the community fabric.”
By Staff
May 18th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The provincial government announced today the release of four significant reports that will impact the lives of everyone within the provinces border.
They are referred to as Land Use Plans.
 Does the province still want to ram a road through the Escarpment? They are changes to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan
The Golden Horseshoe plan and the Niagara Escarpment plans are the ones that impact on Burlingtonians are the latest step in the government’s reform of Ontario’s land use planning system.
The government’s announcement has these four documents solving every problem known to man – and given that they are heading into an election in 2018 they will put a significant spin on this.
 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The four plans work together to:
Build compact, complete communities with a diverse range of housing options that better connect transit to where people live and work
Retain and attract jobs
Support a thriving and productive agri-food sector
Strengthen protections for our natural heritage and water resource systems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Provide public open spaces for recreation and enjoyment
Help municipalities better prepare to minimize the negative impacts from a changing climate, such as more frequent and intense storms and flooding.
These updated plans, said the provincial government, will help ensure growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe that is sustainable by making more efficient use of land, resources and infrastructure to reduce sprawl, protect farmland, water and natural resources, and promote better-designed communities that support a high quality of life for everyone living in the region.
 Greenbelt Plan “Building complete communities and protecting the Greenbelt is part of the government’s plan to create jobs, grow our economy and help people in their everyday lives.
“The Greater Golden Horseshoe is forecasted to grow by approximately 4 million people over the next 25 years and will be home to more than 13.5 million people, working in 6.3 million jobs by 2041.
“The updated plans build on the Provincial Policy Statement to establish a unique land-use planning framework for the GGH that supports complete communities, a thriving economy, a clean and healthy environment and social equity.
“Other reforms to the land use planning system include releasing an updated 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, reforming the Planning Act and Development Charges Act through the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act and proposed reforms to the Ontario Municipal Board.
There are a lot of changes taking place and people with very significant interests are deeply involved. The objective is to ensure that the public voice is clearly hard.
By Pepper Parr
May 18th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
With two evenings of delegations behind them the 11 trustees began their own deliberations and Amy Collard headed straight for the recommendations that were put forward by Stuart Miller, Director of Education who was a bit taken aback – he thought he was there to defend his report and here was a trustee wanting to change it before the meeting had hardly started.
Trustee Amy Collard was not happy – Director of Education Stuart Miller was not all that interested in answering her first barrage of questions – he anted to defend his report. If looks could kill! It was that kind of a night – one that began at 7:00 pm and adjourned at 11:15 after agreeing that it wasn’t going to be an adjournment but rather a recess until May 24th.
Trustee Danielli had had more than enough, Collard said she could go until 6:00 am if she had to.
There was a point in this process where the recommendation the Director put forward to close Bateman and Pearson high schools had momentum; that is no longer the case.
That doesn’t mean what Miller recommended is lost – but these trustees are asking some hard questions and they want answers.
Wednesday evening they did engage the six delegations that were heard and they had a lot of questions.
One point that was made clearer – a decision to close a school does not mean that it gets sold. In order to sell a school there has to be a vote to declare it surplus – then it can be sold. While Miller didn’t spend a lot of time on that point he did say that Boards have been known to keep a school closed but as part of the asset inventory.
That might be the angle the trustees decide they can live with.
 Pearson PARC members Cheryl DeLught and Steve Armstrong were not on the demonstration line but they were very much in the public gallery Wednesday night. Armstrong has not given up on saving Pearson. Trustee Danielli asked Planning Manager Dom Renzella about the recently released 2016 Statics Canada numbers and he said that the Board doesn’t pay much attention to that data because it is a look at what has taken place – his concern was what was going to take place.
Later in the evening Renzella used Statistics Canada to support a decision made.
The trustees are finding the going quite heavy but they are clearly in for the long hall and are going to make a decision based on what they heard from the delegations and how the Director and his team of Superintendents answers the questions.
Early in this process – back in October, Bateman was a school that was not being considered for closure. That changed and the public began to see and hear the Bateman story that was unknown to most people except those directly involved.
Their was concern about how any transition might take place if the Bateman high school was closed. The trustees were told that the Board has gotten very good at transitioning students and they would do an even better job if they had to move vulnerable people from Bateman to Nelson.
This decision on school closing is far from a slam dunk – it is still very fluid.
 There was a rally outside the Board offices – bigger this time than anything else before it – maybe it was the warmer weather. This time it was just the Bateman parents; the Central parents won their case and they are staying right off the radar screen.
PARC member Marianne Meed Ward, also city council member for ward 2 put in an appearance.
Much more to report on.
By Staff
May 16, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Yesterday City Council approved the 2017 Tax Levy Bylaw that allows the Finance department to end you a tax bill on with payment dates of June 21 and Sept. 21, 2017.
Highlights of the budget which was approved in January include:
• The 2017 budget delivers a base budget increase that continues to invest in existing services and reflects the objectives of the city’s long-term financial plan.
• The budget maintains the $4.8 million annual contribution toward the Joseph Brant Hospital reserve fund to meet the city’s $60 million commitment to the redevelopment project.
• This budget continues City Council’s commitment to a dedicated annual tax increase to address infrastructure renewal based on the city’s Asset Management Plan.
• The city’s approved operating budget of $238 million for 2017 provides a wide range of services and programs, including the maintenance of roads, community facilities, fire protection, parks and transit.
 Tax chart – breaks out what the city spends and what it collects for other levels of government. Additional service investments for 2017 include:
$254, 000 for maintaining the urban tree canopy
$200, 000 for the maintenance of sports fields
$80,000 in enhancements to washrooms in waterfront parks
$30,000 to support ongoing community events.
The budget is made up of two parts –
Capital budget
Operating budget
The city provides an infographic setting out where those tax dollars are spent.
By Staff
May 12th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
There were 24 people nominated with eight of them named the city’s BEST in different categories.
The awards were presented at an event at the Royal Botanical Gardens – a positive shift in venue for the event.
Burlington’s Best Awards are managed by a citizen’s committee established in 1965 with the mandate of recognizing Burlington residents who bring honour to the city and make a difference in the community.
The Burlington’s Best categories include:
• Heritage Award
• Community Service Award
• Environmental Award
• Arts Person of the Year
• Accessibility Award
• Junior Citizen of the Year
• Senior Person of the Year
• Citizen of the Year
The Citizen of the Year Award is given to a person whose volunteer activity has made a significant and sustained contribution to the vibrancy and wellbeing of the Burlington community.
 Dorothy Borovich: 2016 Citizen of the Year Dorothy Borovich has been a community builder for more than 15 years. She co-founded Youthfest, an initiative that brought together community not-for-profit agencies, city, business and youth leaders to promote youth philanthropy and engage in volunteerism.
Borovich encouraged youth to take on community involvement and volunteering as a lifestyle in order to gain a sense of belonging. Through her fundraising efforts, a permanent endowment fund with the Burlington Community Foundation was established and continues to assist youth in their community endeavours. Borovich also founded the Crystal Ball, a significant source of annual funding for Joseph Brant Hospital, and the Healthy Reflections event which raises funds to assist women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer.
Borovich is described as an inspiring leader; her commitment and passion has made Burlington a better city.
The Heritage Award went to Jim Clemens. He is no longer a Burlington resident but the city owes him a huge debt of gratitude for heading up the Citizen Heritage Advisory committee that solved the problems and did what the city had not been able to do.
 Jim Clemens given the 2016 Heritage Award. The award is sponsored by Heritage Burlington, a City of Burlington citizen advisory committee made up of 14 volunteers who provide advice to City Council on issues related to the conservation of Burlington’s cultural heritage.
The award goes to an individual who has demonstrated a long-term commitment to the preservation of Burlington’s heritage, and has volunteered his or her time to support the preservation of Burlington’s heritage.
Clemens has been a leader and supporter of heritage and culture in Burlington for many years. He has a deep knowledge of the issues and legalities that influence Burlington’s capacity to preserve its heritage. As a past member and Chair of Heritage Burlington, he was instrumental in the development of the document “A New Approach for Conserving Burlington’s Heritage” resulting in the implementation of the Burlington Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program. Through his work with the Burlington Historical Society and Heritage Burlington, Jim has demonstrated an ongoing commitment and dedication to maintaining Burlington’s heritage for future generations.
The Community Service Award, sponsored by COGECO, is given to an individual or group whose volunteer activity has contributed to the betterment of the Burlington community.
 Marion Goard given the 2016 Community Service Award. Marion Goard was chosen for this award – she believes a better community is the responsibility of every individual and she strives to find ways to contribute to Burlington. She is the co-founder of 100 Women Who Care Burlington, an organization of 100 women who donate $100 four times a year to four different charities – $10,000 per charity.
The Environmental Award is sponsored by Walker Environmental Group, a leading waste management company that develops solutions for environmental challenges.
Kale Black was chosen for this award.
 Kale Black, upper right given the Environmental Award for 2016. He is described as a shining example of how one person can truly make a difference. His journey to champion the environment began while attending Aldershot High School and since then, he has dedicated almost nine years of his life striving to create a better planet and benefit the community.
Black has hand-sorted more waste at Burlington festivals and events than any other individual in the city and his active participation and team leadership at 44 community events has resulted in the diversion of 61 tonnes of waste from the landfill. Black is best known in the community for his extensive contributions to inspiring and engaging local youth to grow up green and has taught fun-filled, educational workshops to 7000 Burlington children. Black is an environmental and community champion who actively leads and serves as a steward for our environment and the youth of Burlington.
His hard work and dedication to environmental initiatives in Burlington, including protecting the rural environment and valuable green space, has touched many lives. Black has pushed for environmentally sustainable policy and decision-making and has led the BurlingtonGreen team to grow as an effective, impactful organization through various programs, services and advocacy campaigns.
The Arts Person of the Year Award, known as the K.W. Irmisch Award, went to Margaret Lindsay Holton, a woman who has made a significant contribution to the arts and as an activist she has stood up and spoken out about environmental issues and where the city was getting it wrong.
This is a woman who does not want to understand what no means.
It is interesting to note that two people who have made significant contributions at the cultural level have been recognized. Kudos to the selection committee for seeing things through
 Margaret Lindsay Holton: 2016 Arts Person of the Year Holton is a well-known Burlington born artist and activist who has made significant contributions to the community. Her 25 minute short film called “The Frozen Goose” had a cast made up of local cast and crew – keeping the production “grassroots” and grounded in this area. Accessibility Award
The Accessibility Award went to the Tetra Society, an organization that recruits skilled volunteers to create customized assistive devices for people with physical disabilities and enhances the health and quality of life for thousands of people with disabilities.
 A chair being built by the Tetra Society They design and build a wide variety of “gizmos” such as communication adaptations, eating and drinking utensils and educational and recreational aides for people of all ages and abilities. The Tetra Society is a hidden hero in the Burlington community that is invaluable in enriching the lives of others.
Mehr Mahmood founded Youthfest in 2002 and was named the Junior Citizen of the Year last night. They avidly promote the importance of youth in our community; developing youth responsibility and action in the community by connecting youth to meaningful volunteer opportunities and available supportive service. The winner receives a $500 bursary, courtesy of the Bank of Montreal, which has been a leading and supportive partner since the inception of Youthfest.
The award is given to a high school student, 18 years of age or younger, who has made a significant contribution to the Burlington community.
 Mehr Mahmood, on the right with Burlington MP Karina Gould. Mehr has made significant contributions to the Burlington community through her volunteer work as a volunteer. She has contributed her time, energy and talents to many organizations including Burlington Public Library, 3 Things for Burlington, Halton Mosque and the Compassion Society. Mehr has been an inspiration and natural leader on the Library’s Teen Advisory Board in the development of a program called Fusion, which brings teen volunteers and teens with developmental disabilities together.
Mehr a compassionate young woman and is dedicated to growing acceptance and inclusivity in our community.
Dave Page was named the Senior Person of the Year Award that is given to a Burlington resident aged 55 years or older who has advocated on behalf of seniors and/or made a significant contribution to the Burlington community.
 Dave Page: 2016 Senior Person of the Year Page has been an active volunteer with the Age Friendly Housing Committee for more than five years and demonstrates his passion for the need for affordable, accessible and safe housing for older adults living in Burlington.
He played a vital role in the development of the Halton HomeShare Toolkit, a guide to support older adults to stay in their home and share it with a home seeker who can help with household responsibilities.
In addition, Page is responsible for the creation of a conversation circle where Halton Multicultural Council’s newcomers and refugee groups can practice their English speaking skills. Burlington is richer for having a man like Page who silently goes about supporting the health and well-being of the community through his volunteer activities.
 By Staff
May 4th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The School Board trustees are going to get an earful from Tom Muir when he addresses them sometime next week – which assumes that Muir will be allowed to delegate.
Chair Kelly Amos asked each person who wanted to delegate to provide a 250 word outline. Muir gave her 1594 words.
Here is what Muir sent the Chair who now has to decide if what Muir wants to say meets the criteria for selection, which is: ” to have a “varied perspective” of delegations”
Notes for a Delegation to HDSB on Burlington PAR. May 2017
I note that 5 minutes to delegate limits the scope of the perspective and the topics that can be covered. My presentation will follow these notes suitably reorganized to fit the time allotted.
Summary
The perspective of my delegation will be an overview of the context of the PAR, and provide analysis of various aspects and criteria of the PAR planning data basis, recommendations, and options available to the Board.
 Four of the eleven school board trustees listen carefully at a public meeting. I will cover points related to planning, financials, fiscal, risk, future planning outlooks and needs, demonstrated student benefits from enhanced academic offerings as opposed to known negative impacts, the real net economic and money effects looked at closely with prudence, and the expressed views of the overall school community.
I will discuss the roots of the criteria and justification of the PAR as results of Board planning decisions in LTAPs, future enrollment projections, and so-called “business plans” done in the period 2008 to 2013, and now currently.
I will discuss the origins and makeup of the utilization justification criteria of the PAR.
I will also consider data on financial and fiscal impacts of options to deal with this situation.
Another topic is the increased and better program selection that constitutes the second criteria for having the PAR.
Other points cover how school closures reflect what the community and students have expressed as their wants.
Concluding points cover summary of perspective and points on the data and evidence offered in terms of Trustee responsibility and decision options on schools.
Presentation Outline.
I did not see anything in writing describing what the Board and Ministry had in mind about what a business case is, or what the thinking behind the business case was, as contained in the Capital Priorities Template sent to the Ministry in 2009. This seems to be the way business is done. Either there’s nothing in words, or it’s not available publically.
 Hayden high school – Muir questions why it was built. My first point is that Hayden was built with no seeming regard or public disclosure for the consequences that were built right into the plan from the start – surplus seats in the other Burlington high schools, and Hayden bursting at the seams. Data show this was done by the Board in their planning, boundary and feeder changes, and construction.
In the 2009 plan, submitted to the Ministry, it showed Hayden overflowing with students within 3 years of opening, and continuing this trend. In planned consequences, back in 2009, MM Robinson utilization was planned to decline, by 2022, from 93.7% to 53.4%, and Bateman to decline from 99.2% to 43.9%, by 2018/19. Nelson declined from 108.7% to 95.6%. Most of these declines coincided with Hayden’s projected opening in 2010. By 2022, 1567 students were in these declines, many transferred to Hayden.
The more recent data, shown by the Board, at the November PAR public meeting, and titled in a slide as, “Current Situation: Low Utilization”, paints an even worse picture of what has been done by the Board and only made public in this PAR. This data clearly shows Hayden continuously overfilled grossly with students transferred largely from the other schools, as part of the plan. And this is being facilitated with portables, part of the plan too.
From no students on 2010, Hayden goes to 129% UTG in 2016, and projected at 159% in 2020 and 141% in 2025. At the same time, the other schools continue the planned decline, but now there are 4 schools that are in that situation, not just the 2 schools identified in the 2009 plan, as I noted above. This data is as follows;
– From 112% OTG in 2010, Pearson declines to 61% in 2016, and projected to 55% in 2020, and 50% in 2025.
– From 87% OTG in 2010, Robinson declines to 53% in 2016, and projected to 47% in 2020, and 46% in 2025.
– From 107% OTG in 2010, Nelson declines to 75% in 2016, and projected to 83% in 2020, and 79% in 2025.
– From 95% OTG in 2010, Bateman declines to 59% in 2016, and projected to 55% in 2020, and 50% in 2025.
Looking at the option 23e, in Miller, and the overall plan for Hayden from 2009, and you can see that according to that option outline, Robinson is also overfull by 2020, as Hayden is now to the end of the planning horizon.
So why are we closing schools?
This is the actual data showing how building Hayden created new seats that then became surplus seats for the rest of Burlington schools. We now have a situation of overutilization and underutilization, the main cause of which is building Hayden and then over-utilizing it using boundary, feeder, and program policies.
This is the cause of the “Current Situation – Low Utilization, but this is being ignored and never mentioned, despite being obvious in the data as consequential to the year Hayden was opened.
I will also consider data on financial and fiscal impacts of options to deal with this situation.
The Ministry is not telling the Board to close schools – it’s our call how we spend that part of the money they give us for accommodation costs – keeping all buildings open. That’s a little more than $100 million of a $700 million total budget for 2015/16.
 Director of Education Stuart Miller preparing to speak to parents at Central high school. According to Miller’s report, it costs $564,000/yr to operate Pearson, and $764,000/yr for Bateman. Closing these 2 schools saves only about $2 million a year, when added busing costs, lost revenues, and staff reduction cost savings, are all accounted for (See Miller; busing costs noted there are incorrect – the report says 226, 286, and 96 more students bused, but only costs the 96). Transportation is a concern as student busing increases, and Hayden already has 580 students bused and is the second most costly in Burlington.
Whether schools close or not, all the rest of the Board budget (except admin and transportation) is for instruction, and this nets out to null savings. So closing 2 schools saves only $2 million, but more than $12 million alone is needed to replace Bateman equipment, somewhere else.
Then there is the cost of decommissioning buildings, mothballing, needed ongoing maintenance, what about the pool, day-care, and so many other transition costs that are just ignored.
So what kind of fiscal savings is $2 million out of a $700 million budget (0.003%), to be so concerned about?
And the fact is, the Director’s recommendation calls for the most expensive option of two closures, and this cost is uncertain, likely underestimated, and doesn’t account for planning errors and risk.
Given the provincial Growth Plan saying Halton must grow by 500,000 people by 2041, and the planning enrollment forecasting error and uncertainty, already experienced for Hayden enrollment, this seems to be a reasonable cost to invest in risk management for planning errors. There has been no risk assessment and management done by the Board. Having all our schools open and functioning provides this risk management as a low cost reserve.
The only other maybe money in this fiscal picture is the PODs, from any surplus asset value that may be realized in the future, and that is only a one-time cash-in, partly chewed up by transition and transaction costs. This will not go far for new schools in Burlington.
Another topic is the increased and better program selection that constitutes the second criteria for having the PAR. Since there is no increase in budgets for instruction, more programming cannot come from there, and more generally, there is no information provided by the Board indicating any details of the delivery of this aspect, and only abstract assumptions, but nothing convincing, that larger enrollments allow for this.
The closures impact students negatively for sure, and the impacts on Bateman students affect them in life-altering ways, as special needs students who have been bumped around in the system.
 Parents listen intently to the PARC members as they look at the more than 40 options discussed during the seven meetings held. Other points cover how school closures reflect what the community and students have expressed as their wants. Obviously everyone wants their own neighborhood school kept open. But more generally, when asked for opinions, on two occasions, the public expressed their preference for the Board to spend the money, and implement measures needed, to keep schools open. However, the Board has more or less discounted these results showing public preferences, and it does not appear to have been given any formal consideration.
As it turns out the overall costs of keeping all schools open are a small portion of the Board budgets – savings from closing schools are 0.003% of the Total ($700 M) and less than 0.02% of the more than $100M Accommodation component.
It all comes own to how the 11 school board trustees vote on June 7th. will they go with the Staff recommendation that Pearson and Bateman be closed or will they decide that none of the schools should be closed at this time. The Trustees do not have to close schools, and it appears that on planning, financial, fiscal, risk, student benefits from significantly enhanced academic offerings that are not documented as opposed to known negative impacts, the real net economic and money effects looked at closely with prudence, and the overall school community, it makes no sense.
The PAR Policy statement says that; “Decisions that are made by the Board of Trustees are in the context of carrying out its primary responsibilities of fostering student achievement and well-being, and ensuring effective stewardship of school board resources.”
I argue that based on demonstrated benefits to student achievement, and stewardship of school board resources, now and in the foreseeable future, there is no case to close any schools. The trustees have within their authority the means to move boundaries, feeders, and programs in order to undo the skewed enrollment caused by building Hayden without considering the consequences.
Hayden was built and filled with students by transfers from existing schools that can just as easily be undone.
 By Pepper Parr
April 28th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
There were about 60 – maybe 70 people gathered around 10 tables. They were a pretty representative bunch; there were the professionals, the practitioners and the volunteers – the people in the trenches.
They were there to talk about poverty – something they want to be able to ensure that by 2026 all residents will have a livable income and as a result have access to opportunities, resources and supports to thrive and to fully participate in an inclusive Halton community.
They have their work cut out for them.
Burlington is a city that will admit that there are some serious pockets of poverty in the city and that something should be done – but social welfare is a Regional responsibility. The longest serving city council member wasn’t prepared to try free transit service for seniors on Monday’s on a trial basis.
He was prepared to let them have discounted bus tickets – but there was a sort of means test to get into that program.
The chatter around the city council horse shoe is about everyone getting in on the purchase of property – you can’t lose in that game. Get a starter property and move up the value ladder.
 Michael Mikulak, Community Food Network Manager Halton Food Council, Leena Sharma Seth, Director, Community Engagement Halton Poverty Roundtable, Colleen Mulholland, President and CEO Burlington Community Foundation, and Brenda Hajdu Executive Director Food for Life. This city council doesn’t really understand or appreciate the eco-system that gets food into the hands of people who just don’t have enough money to pay for the food they need.
With housing prices rising – rents tend to rise as well – and the scarcity of rental properties owned by landlords that have no qualms about jacking up the rent as much as they can and then making life miserable for any tenant who chooses to fight back.
Getting to that 2026 target is a challenge indeed.
Some of the ground work took place at St. Christopher’s United Church where the group gathered under the auspices of the Halton Poverty Roundtable.
Each participant was given a sheet of paper with a number of questions on it. How would you have answered these questions?
How do you define poverty? How should it be measured? Are there data gaps that need to be addressed to help improve our understanding of poverty in Canada?
What will success look like in a Poverty Reduction Strategy? What target(s) should we pick to measure progress?
Which indicators should we use to track progress towards the target(s)?
On which groups should we focus our efforts?
Which Government of Canada programs and policies do you feel are effective at reducing poverty? Are there programs and policies that can be improved? What else could we do?
 Leena Sharma Seth, Director of Community Engagement for the Halton Poverty Roundtable These people were meeting during the week that the provincial government announced that 4,000 people in Ontario would be put on a guaranteed income program for a period of time to see if with an income that they know is going to be there for a period of time – can they rise out of the poverty they have to lie with?
The Gazette wants to follow what Leena Sharma Seth, Director of Community Engagement for the Halton Poverty Round Table does with this group of people.
By Pepper Parr
April 24th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The Mayor opened up the event with a short overview of the changes taking place in the city and how the need to intensify and create an Official Plan that would deliver on the promises made in the Strategic Plan.
The audience of something under 100 people on a very rainy night filled the Lions Hall where people were told that what people enjoy about living downtown is:
1.The Waterfront (29.85%)
2.Restaurants and Cafes (18.62%)
3.Walking (18.11%) …
Research told city planners that the first transportation choice was Walking (37.78%)
The meeting was to have people take part in a Downtown Mobility Hub Visioning Workshop.
Mobility hubs were defined as:
Neighbourhoods within a 10 minute walking distance of major transit stations that will support new residents and jobs in a transit, pedestrian and cycling focused environment.
 With those pieces of data in front of them the audience was asked to use small hand held devices they would record their responses to questions shown on a large screen.
There were interesting with surprising results.
Appreciate that these were ward 2 people for the most part answering questions about the downtown core.
The Planners intend to take this road show into every community that will have a mobility hub. The workshops will see a return visit to each community once the Planners have had a chance to evaluate the data they collect.
The initiative will take about six months to cover each of the four mobility hubs. The next session for the downtown hub is scheduled for June 21st.
 The event was framed as a visioning exercise during which ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward explained that developments pop up at the Planning department and they have to process every application that is filed. “You want to be in charge of that process” said Meed Ward.
 The strong agree support doesn’t appear to align all that well with the opposition to bicycle lanes on New Street.
 No surprises here.  Very mixed views on this question.  Vehicles were not included in the question.  The street names don’t show up on this map – the white box is the mobility hub area.  This view – from what was a ward 2 crowd contrasts with what the Bfast people think. More thinking to be done on transit matters.  Compare this with the question on more affordable housing.  A mixed view here.  This response comes as no surprise. Following the formal presentation the audience was invited to take part in the four information stations where planning staff were on hand to answer questions. The groups that clustered around the information stations were at times intense – in a positive way. They had a lot of questions and the planning staff took a lot of notes.
Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner and Anne McIlroy, the consultant the city has hired to guide this process watched and listened intently.
 All the charts and data set out got very close inspections. There are two parts to this feature article on the visioning exercise. The second part which will follow tomorrow reviews the visuals on the elements of the downtown core and what the planners have to work with.
Open Letter to the Board of Trustees About Closing Pearson High School: A line-by-line refutation of Recommendation 2 of the Director’s Final Report
By Rory Nisan
April 25th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Dear Trustees of the Halton District School Board,
This has been a long process, now coming to a head with the Director’s Final Report recommending closing Pearson and Bateman high schools. As a Pearson alumnus, I am writing to refute the arguments made for closing Pearson in the Director’s Final Report. I have addressed every argument in Recommendation 2 below.
The Director’s Final Report portion is shown in red bold italics, my comments are in standard type.. I have aimed to present Recommendation 2 in full without any deletions or other changes.
Rationale: Recommendation 2 – Lester B. Pearson High School
“Lester B. Pearson High School has been experiencing a decline in enrolment for several years and that is projected to continue to 2026 and beyond.”
This is an unfair, obtuse characterization of enrollment at Lester B. Pearson High School. The Director’s Final Report fails to mention the reason for this declining enrollment: a reduction in the number of feeder schools for Pearson, in order to prop up Hayden High School, leaving Pearson with only 1.5 feeder schools compared with seven for Hayden. This was not by accident, but a deliberate decision taken by the HDSB when Hayden opened.
One need only observe the change in enrollment since Hayden came online to see how this gutted Pearson’s numbers. Before Hayden opened, Pearson lost only 10 students from 2010-2011 (see Figure 1, from the Director’s Final Report). Furthermore, the change from 2015-2016 is only 11 less students, because the Hayden transition has ended. It is inappropriate to close a school on the basis of a reduction of 11 students year-over-year when there are many options available to boost utilization.
Recommendation 2 of the Director’s Final Report’s is wholly based on “low and declining enrolment” as the basis for closing Pearson, ignoring the fact that the low enrollment is entirely of the HDSB’s own making.
 Figure 1 English Programme enrollment at Pearson as shown in the Director’s Final Report, demonstrating that Pearson would not have an enrollment issue if not for students being sent to Hayden. “Lester B. Pearson High School is also the only school in the Halton District School Board that provides Extended French at the secondary school level. The students in this program begin extended French in Grade 7.”
This is correct but extended French is only one of several one-of-a-kind features of Pearson High School. The co-op nursery is correctly mentioned further below in the Director’s Final Report. The natural surroundings of the forest allow for unique learning opportunities. The third gymnasium increases sport opportunities. Pearson’s lower capacity gives it unique, well-established strengths, such as less bullying, better social bonds, more opportunities to play on a sport team and/or join other competitive clubs.
Indeed, the student survey (contained in the Director’s Final Report) indicated that Pearson ranked #1 for percentage of students who agreed that their teachers knew something about them (e.g. interests, strengths and how they learn best), #1 for having an adult they could connect with, and #2 in participation in extracurricular activities.
It is therefore no surprise that Pearson regularly punches above its weight in the Fraser Institute rankings of secondary schools. Pearson has the second highest average score over the past five years among Burlington public secondary schools. This is not despite its small size; it is because of it.
“The result of this low enrolment is a diminished ability for the school to provide the same breadth and range of programs for the students as other schools in Halton.”
Nobody doubts that Pearson has low enrolment (though its utilization rate is higher than that of M.M. Robinson). However, as explained above, the Director’s Final Report fails to properly explain how this came about.
Equally important is that he has not given the trustees simple solutions to this low enrolment that do not involve closing Pearson. The simple, obvious answer: redesign the catchments and feeder schools to ensure that (a) Pearson has its fair share of students, (b) Hayden, which is bursting at the seams, is brought down to a proper utilization of 90-100 percent, and (c) M.M. Robinson also sees an increase in students, including from Bateman High School should it be closed (though this is not being advocated), or through redistribution that allows students to go to their closest high school. Figure 3 shows the current feeder schools, demonstrating the imbalance that can be easily fixed.
 Figure 3 Feeder schools to the high schools in the north — note the lopsided distribution favouring Hayden while starving Pearson. (There is no figure 2)
“In order to take specific or desired courses, many students have resorted to online offerings.”
The Director’s Final Report contradicts itself here, as it references in an appendix the student survey which indicates that Pearson has the second lowest percentage of students among Burlington public high schools needing to take online offerings, well below the city’s average (see Figure 4).
 Figure 4 – percentage of students taking online courses Regardless, this argument is invalid as there are more than enough students in the north of Burlington to fill Pearson’s hallways and provide more course offerings.
“Second, this situation will be exacerbated as it is expected the number of students attending Lester B. Pearson High School will decrease by an additional 70 students by 2025.”
Once again, this assertion rests on the assumption that Pearson would not be given any more students while Hayden bursts at the seams and M.M. Robinson takes on students from Bateman and the Evergreen and Alton West developments.
Perhaps most worrying for parents and students in North Burlington is that the Director’s Final Report fails to take into account (a) turnover in North Burlington as more baby boomers sell their homes to young families; and (b) that there will be more development in the north than that which is noted in the report: the Adi proposed development is over 600 residential units, and the Valera road development is expected to have 400 residential units. Furthermore, North Burlington has seen a trend of multiple families moving into singly houses, leading to having twice or more the number of high school students per household.
“Another issue occurring as a result of low enrolment is the impact on the students’ pathways. At present, the numbers reflecting Lester B. Pearson High School students’ pathway choices are as follows:
 Figure 5 The Director’s Final Report emphasized low enrollment for applied students in Grade 9, neglecting to mention the reason why enrollment is so low: Grade 9 students being sent to portables in the Hayden parking lot. “Unfortunately the low number of students and staff has prevented the school from providing the same breadth of programming offered in other Halton District School Board schools. This is most evident given the low number of students in applied programming and subsequently the college pathway, resulting in these students having fewer options or little flexibility in selecting courses they can take.
“Schools are required to provide a pathway to graduation for all students. This means the school will have some smaller classes (for example, 11 students in Grade 9 Applied), and in order to be compliant with staffing formulas and provincial mandates, will have some larger classes to offset the smaller numbers. Consequently, not only is the range of course selection not available to students but there is also a greater disparity between class sizes.”
This entire section is based on the false assumption that there aren’t enough students available in North Burlington to bring Pearson back up to better utilization levels. The arguments made above make clear that this is not only possible, but an excellent option for managing overcrowding at Hayden and the new developments, as well as the fast rate of turnover in North Burlington communities.
Again this is likely to be exacerbated as the projections indicate a continued decline in enrollment.
Again, these projections are based on the inaccurate assumption that there aren’t any students available to bring to Pearson. The above statement seeks to create urgency where there is none.
“Lester B. Pearson High School is 1.9 kilometres from M.M. Robinson High School. Students who currently attend Lester B. Pearson High School are within the walking distance to M.M. Robinson High School. A closure of Lester B. Pearson High School will not result in an increase in bussing costs for the Halton District School Board.”
This is technically correct yet misleading. If Pearson were to stay open and the catchment areas appropriately reshaped, there would be less students bussing, meaning a cost savings for the Halton District School Board.
Regardless, HDSB representatives have stated on several occasions that it’s about the students, not the money.
“At present there is a nursery school located in Lester B. Pearson High School. This is a longstanding relationship between the City of Burlington and the Board, and since the mid-1970s has become part of the fabric of the Lester B. Pearson High School community. If the recommendation to close Lester B. Pearson High School is approved, the Halton District School Board will engage with the appropriate municipal partners to investigate available options for a continued relationship with the Halton District School Board.”
The promise to “investigate available options” should be interpreted as the Board has not undertaken sufficient consultation on this important issue up to this point, and is not making any commitment to maintain the co-op nursery.
Furthermore, the Director’s Final Report is recommending keeping Hayden as an over-capacity mega school, and turning M.M. Robinson into an over-capacity mega school (see Figure 6 below). It does not take into account new growth in North Burlington, nor the aggressive turnover in Headon Forest and Palmer neighbourhoods, which will take Hayden and M.M. Robinson to unsustainable levels.
Given that these schools will be filled to the brim, are we to believe that there will be space to maintain the co-op nursery?
 Figure 6 – Mega schools projected for the north if Pearson closes (before taking into account increased enrollment due to new developments and residential turnover)
“Lester B. Pearson High School has served its students and community very well for the past 40 years; however, its enrolment has been in decline for some time. It is currently less than 65% of capacity, and by 2025 it is expected to decline to 55%.”
Having read this far, trustees already know that Pearson would only decline to 55% if catchments weren’t appropriately reshaped. To assume that Pearson would decline to 55% is to assume that Hayden would be at 140%, which is the status quo prediction for that school in 2025. Everyone knows that Hayden’s over-utilization is unsustainable, and that Pearson has space to accommodate those students. Therefore, the conclusion of Recommendation 2 of the Director’s Final Report is misleading.
“Based on the two identified criteria for a program and accommodation review (PAR):
“1. The school or group of schools has/have experienced or will experience declining enrolment where on-the-ground (OTG) capacity utilization rate is below 65%.
“AND
“2. Reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities.
“Lester B. Pearson High School meets the criteria for a PAR, and subsequently is recommended for closure.”
Pearson would not have met the criteria for a PAR if it weren’t for the redistribution of its students to Hayden High School.
In conclusion, trustees must question the validity of the evidence brought forward through the Director’s Final Report to support a closure of Pearson High School.
Two final questions for trustees as they make their decision on whether to close Pearson:
(1) Is it in the best interests of students and the community to close Pearson, leaving North Burlington with two schools with over 1300 students, already over capacity before taking into account new developments and residential turnover?
(2) If trustees decide to close Pearson high school, will they, in 10 years’ time, receive a Director’s Final Report requesting $35 million to open a new school in north Burlington, and on what land will that school sit?
I respectfully submit that you must, given the evidence, decline Recommendation 2 and ask the Director to provide options for redistributing Hayden’s student population to Pearson and M.M Robinson.
You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by delaying a decision on closing Pearson until the true enrollment figures are clarified after a redistribution of Hayden (and possibly Bateman) students, and the new developments in the North are completed.
The Director’s Final Report has not met the burden of evidence for a closure of Pearson High School.
Thank you,
Rory Nisan
Lester B. Pearson Alumnus (class of 2001)
rnisan@gmail.com
 By Pepper Parr
April 23, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Few will differ with the Director of Education on the decision that lets Central high school remain open.
This will be third time that Central has overcome a decision to close the oldest school in the city.
The evidence the school parents brought forward was evidence that was already there – the Board staff either didn’t see it or didn’t want to see it.
 Meed Ward went to Queen’s Park – as a lifelong Liberal she nevertheless stood beside the Progressive Conservative leader to make her point. The words on that T shirt would serve her well in the 2018 municipal election. Some have suggested that Ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward choosing to accept the parent request that she sit on the PARC was what made the difference. Meed Ward wasn’t all that effective – a better way of putting that is to say that she has been much more effective at city hall than she was during the PARC process.
Did Meed Ward save Central? Certainly not. She has had to put up with a lot of undeserved political heat for the decision she made. This isn’t the first time she has had to put up with the small mindedness of her city council colleagues. She has prevailed.
The Central parents put out a statement earlier today saying:
“We strongly support a no school closure option and are disappointed that any schools have been named; we feel for the Bateman and Pearson communities as well as the Hayden FI community as we know first hand what it feels like to sit in this position.
 The Central parents held a silent auction – raised $14,000 and had a war chest to dip into. “We do acknowledge that the Board is in a position where the Ministry leaves little choice but to close schools in order to maximize funding. We feel that the director and staff have done their best to ensure that the new recommendation considers the best interests of students in all of Burlington. Maintaining schools in every community will benefit the greatest number of students by providing maximum opportunity to allow students to walk, bike and participate in extra- curricular activities as well as keep busing to a minimum which is also fiscally and environmentally responsible.
“From day one we have stressed that impacting the least number of students negatively should be a primary focus and feel that this option does reflect that goal. We also stressed the impact on the students in grade 7 and 8 who are currently housed at Burlington Central and who were not being considered as part of the process.
“We took effort and care to prove that Central was not the problem beyond a shadow of a doubt. The new recommendation outlines all the reasons that Burlington Central should never have been named in the first place. We will continue to delegate and push forward to remind the trustees of this until the final vote on June 7th.
“We want to thank all of the Central Strong Community for the support and commitment over the past few months, with a special thanks to our PARC representatives as this was no easy task. This has been an emotional roller coaster and we wouldn’t have had this success without the help of each and every one of you.”
Meed Ward herself was not available for comment
The Director’s report chose to say that the overflow into Nelson made it necessary to keep Central open. A specious argument if there ever was one.
Closing central would have left such a huge hole between Aldershot and Nelson that would require hundreds of students to be bussed at a cost that was estimated to come in at $400,000 a year forever.
 The strongest argument Central had was this map. The picture was worth more than one thousand words. While city council wasn’t prepared to take a position on the evidence that was on the table Meed Ward was. The political blow back on that Meed Ward choice will continue for a while but longer term the public will see that she not only was capable of walking into turbulent political water she actually did just that. Not something the current Mayor is inclined to do.
On this occasion Meed Ward didn’t just “talk the talk” – she “walked the talk”. The city is the better for that choice.
The closure of Robert Bateman High School and the associated redirection of the English program students to Nelson High School, as well as the relocation of the Regional Essential, LEAP and CPP programs, will result in a substantial increase in enrollments at Nelson High School. In order to provide some accommodation relief at Nelson High School, a review of the existing boundaries was undertaken to determine if there were any opportunities to redirect some areas out of the Nelson High School catchment area.
The existing Tecumseh Public School Grade 8 cohort is split between two high schools: those students residing east of Guelph Line attend Nelson High School, while those west of Guelph Line attend Burlington Central High School. In order to ensure the Tecumseh Public School Grade 8 cohort would remain together, the entire Tecumseh Public School catchment area is designated to be redirected and included within the Burlington Central High School catchment area. Unifying the cohort would provide accommodation relief to Nelson High School, and enhance Burlington Central High School enrollments by providing additional students to that school’s population.
In order to ensure an appropriate transition, grand parenting will occur. This will result in the redirection of all Tecumseh Public School students entering the Grade 9 English program in September 2018 to Burlington Central High School, including those east of Guelph Line. As of September 2018, Grade 10, 11, and 12 English students currently attending Nelson High School from the Tecumseh Public School catchment area will be grand parented to remain at Nelson High School until they graduate.
Now – what does the Board of Education do with the Central facilities? The school was neglected for so long that its condition was terrible. The students put up with a lot. It was a little like a slum landlord letting a property deteriorate to the point where it had to be demolished.
 Could an indoor swimming pool be placed on this site? Could the high school be designated as an historical site? Can Central be brought back to the condition it should have been put in 15 years ago. The set up on the property at the corner of Brant and Baldwin includes everything from junior kindergarten to grade 12. The addition of the International Baccalaureate will make the school complex just that much more complete.
The facilities need to be upgraded to the level that exists at Hayden. The property to the west of the school – now a playing field owned by the city, is just the kind of location for an indoor swimming pool where there is a more than dense enough population to ensure very heavy use.
While the decision was the right one – the question Lisa Bull, a Bateman parent asks – is still very relevant.
“I am extremely curious about his (Miller’s) change from recommending Central (and Pearson) for closure in his first recommendation to Bateman (and Pearson) in today’s report. I question the influence of a sitting City council member on the PAR Committee and want to better understand the role this played in Director Miller’s change of heart.”
 Was it the power of prayer that brought about the change in the Director of Educations final recommendation? Lynn Crosby at a PARC meeting. What was it that brought about the change in the minds of the Board staff and the Director of Education (it certainly wasn’t a change of heart) that resulted in the decision to keep Central open?
That is a question the trustee’s will have to determine when they confer with the Director; it might well be an issue that the Bateman parents delegate on as well. The matter is in their hands.
The Central parents are breathing a huge sigh of relief however this is not the time for them to rest on their oars. The building is in poor shape – it needs the treatment the old Laura Secord property on Lakeshore Road got (now the Paletta Mansion) that brought it back to what it was intended to look like.
Is the high school a heritage site? Should it be one? The parents might want to go after that designation as they work towards that point in time where the school is never threatened with closure again.
Part 1 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
Part 2 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
Part 3 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
By Pepper Parr
April 22, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 3 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
Rationale: Closing Robert Bateman High School
Friday was a very tough day for the parents of students at Robert Bateman high school. The Director of Education has recommended to the trustees that the school be closed effective September 2019
Some background:
In 2004, Lord Elgin High School was consolidated with General Brock High School forming a new school named Robert Bateman High School in the original Lord Elgin facility.
 Bateman principal Mark Duley ringing a fire siren during a cooking contest with fire department staff. The consolidation, in part, was undertaken to address declining enrollment in both schools at the time. There were also significant facility enhancements made to the newly consolidated Robert Bateman High School. The enrollment in the Robert Bateman catchment area has continued to decline. As a result of declining enrollment in the catchment area, the school offers and houses many regional programs including International Baccalaureate, Regional Essential program, LEAP, and the Community Pathways Program.
 Bateman student population by year and by grade. These regional programs have improved the diversity and inclusive nature of the school, but there are still great challenges with low enrollment in the catchment area that impacts regular English programming. This is projected to continue. The school is currently at 59% utilization, below the 65% Board criteria, and is projected to decline to 50% by 2026.
 Burlington fire fighter explaining the fine points on ingredients to be used during a cook-off contest at the school. Currently there are 283 students in the English program within the catchment area of Robert Bateman High School. There are an additional 51 students in the International Baccalaureate Program and 36 students in Essential and Special Education programs within the catchment area.
The total number of students in the English program (including 87 students in regional programs) is
370. This is the lowest enrollment number within a Burlington high school’s catchment area.
This utilization factor includes the regional programs, as Robert Bateman High School is the site for students from the entire city of Burlington. The students in north Burlington attending some of these regional programs are being bussed to the south.
M.M. Robinson High School and Robert Bateman High School are similar facilities and both are experiencing low utilization rates and this is projected to continue.
 The utilization for both Robinson and Bateman were falling off – putting the two schools together seemed to be a solution. The right one? In addition, students currently residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 in Burlington are bussed to Robert Bateman High School to attend regional programs there. The creation of a regional Essential Program at M.M. Robinson High School will allow students to attend a school in closer proximity to their homes and also provide the added benefit of continuity of program with the existing CPP program at the school.
Clustering regional programs into one school site disadvantages students as they must travel greater distances to meet their program needs and interests. The students in Burlington would be better served by establishing a school site in both the north and the south that provide similar regional programs. Students would have the same opportunities and be closer to their homes. It also enhances the diversity and inclusiveness in more than one site in Burlington.
Regional programs have been moved successfully each year, from school to school. Our history has proven these programs are transferable and our transition approaches have proven effective in support of students.
Although Robert Bateman High School has had facility enhancements to accommodate regional programs, the declining enrollment in the catchment area and in these programs is problematic.
The two criteria which triggered the PAR are based on students and program:
1. The school or group of schools has/have experienced or will experience declining enrolment where on-the-ground (OTG) capacity utilization rate is below 65%.
AND
2. Reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program delivery and learning opportunities.
Nelson High School is 1.9 kilometres from Robert Bateman High School and has an enrolment within its current catchment area of more than 1,000 students. This number, although fluctuating slightly, is projected to remain above 1,000 through 2026. The utilization rate in the same time period ranges from 75% to 87%.
 Nelson’s utilization numbers become possible if Bateman students move in. Was this the only resolution to the problem?
The close proximity of Robert Bateman High School and Nelson High School within walking distance of each other, posed a challenge in determining the most advantageous site in which to house regional programs. The combined catchment areas of the two schools (excluding regional programs) is within the on-the-ground (OTG) capacity of either Nelson or Robert Bateman High Schools.
The parameters used for the PAR, however, are related to utilization and enhancement of program.
Recommending a closure of Nelson High School would result in the relocation of more than 1,000 students in the foreseeable future. Facility enhancements and purpose-built facilities can be accommodated at Nelson High School. The regional programs of south Burlington can be housed in Nelson High School. This does not require the relocation of more than 1,000 students or a recommended closure of a school with a catchment area of up to 84% utilization. Subsequently, it allows the Halton District School Board to have vibrant regional programs in the northwest and the southeast of Burlington.
If the recommended option is approved, it will also result in the relocation of the International Baccalaureate (IB) program to Burlington Central High School. Like other regional programs, the International Baccalaureate program can be relocated to another school.
There are requirements for its site relocation as defined by the IB International governing body which will be strictly adhered to.
Presently there are 174 students in the International Baccalaureate track (Grade 9 and 10 pre-IB and Grade 11 and 12 IB) at Robert Bateman High School. By contrast, White Oaks Secondary School in Oakville has 507 students in its pre-IB and IB program. The IB program has been housed at Robert Bateman High School since January 2001 and the enrollment has fluctuated and has presented a challenge. Moving the IB program to Burlington Central High School may enhance uptake of this program as it is in a more central location.
Finally, consolidating Robert Bateman High School and Nelson High School will allow program enhancement for students currently in both schools, offering them now, and in the future, greater equity of opportunity as a result of the broader range of courses and programs. With a greater number of staff and students, there will be more opportunities for co-curricular activities.
 Fireman and students whoop it up when the winners of a cooking contest are announced. Implications of Closing Robert Bateman high school.
Closure of Robert Bateman High School, and the resulting movement of the English program to Nelson High School
Program Changes that will take place should Robert Bateman High School be closed:
• September 2019, the International Baccalaureate (IB) program will move to Burlington Central High School.
• September 2019, a second Essential Program site will be established in Burlington; Nelson High School will serve students residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403, while students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
• September 2019, two sites for the Community Pathways Program (CPP) will continue to be offered; students residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School, and students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
• September 2019, the LEAP program will be offered in two locations; students residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School, while students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
 Bateman high school students staged a protest when they were told that there wouldn’t be a football team that year. Spunky bunch. Student Movement with the closure of Robert Bateman High School:
• September 2018, English Program students entering Grade 9 will attend Nelson High School.
• September 2019, English Program students entering Grades 11 and 12 will move to Nelson High School.
• September 2018, Grade 9 students entering the International Baccalaureate Program (pre-IB) will attend Burlington Central High School.
• September 2019, students entering into Grades 11 and 12 (IB program) will move to Burlington Central High School.
•
• September 2018, Essential Program students entering Grade 9 and residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School.
•
• September 2018, Essential Program students entering Grade 9 and residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M Robinson High School
•
• September 2019, Essential/Workplace Program students entering Grades 11 and 12 currently attending Robert Bateman High School will move to Nelson High School.
•
• September 2018, all Community Pathways Program students (Grades 9 to 12) attending Robert Bateman will continue at Robert Bateman High School.
•
• September 2019, Community Pathways Program students attending Robert Bateman HS will move to Nelson High School.
•
• September 2019, LEAP students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
•
• September 2019, LEAP students residing south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School.
•
• September 2018, students entering into Grade 9 in the Gifted program who reside south of the QEW/Hwy 403 will attend Nelson High School, while students residing north of the QEW/Hwy 403 and entering Grade 9 will attend M.M. Robinson High School.
•
• September 2018, students in existing Grades 10 to 12 Secondary Gifted Placement at Nelson High School will be grandparented at Nelson High School until graduation.
•
• September 2018, Grade 8 students from Pineland Public School will move together to Nelson High School as a cohort (English and French Immersion)
Other Considerations:
• Facility enhancements or additions to address program needs at Nelson High School re: Community Pathways Program (CPP) and technological education programs
• Aldershot High School will be explored as a magnet or themed school
• IB training and certification for administrators and staff at Burlington Central High School as mandated by the IB governing body.
 The parent turn out at the public meeting during which Board staff were on hand to explain what the Program Accommodation Review (PAR) was all about drew less than five parents. There is no nice way to explain this closure. When the original recommendation to close Central and Pearson high schools Bateman and Nelson seemed to take the position that they were safe – they would not be closed.
But as the PARC process rolled out and the Central parents mobilized themselves and asked a lot of questions closing Central no longer seemed like such a good idea.
Lisa Bull, one of the two Bateman PARC members did all she could to get the Board to think about innovative ideas – she wasn’t wrong, but it was a little too late in the game to get the Board to look at things differently.
This experience is probably one of the most disappointing in Bull’s professional career – the woman holds a Master’s degree in Education.
Does Bateman have a case they can take to the trustees? So far they have not managed to bring forward any solid evidence. There are students that are very vulnerable and any change is going to disrupt their lives.
The task for the Bateman parents at this point is to ensure that their student population is not harmed by a closing and a move.
There are some really fine programs at that school – they will be missed. The cooking programs should not be lost in the shuffle – and some way has to be found to ensure that the swimming pool is not lost to the community.
The Bateman parents have a lot of work to do to ensure that they are well taken care of during what is a very difficult time.
Lisa Bull said she was “devastated and shocked by Director Miller’s recommendations. I am also extremely curious about his change from recommending Central (and Pearson) for closure in his first recommendation to Bateman (and Pearson) in today’s report. I question the influence of a sitting City council member on the PAR Committee and want to better understand the role this played in Director Miller’s change of heart. Most importantly I will continue to work closely with the Robert Bateman community on creating impactful delegations for the Board of Trustees.”
“There are far too many vulnerable students who would be impacted by the closure of our school so we will not stop fighting.”
Part 1 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
Part 2 of a series on the recommendation to close two Burlington high schools.
|
|
