By Pepper Parr
February 10th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
What began as polite meetings that went from 7 pm to 9 pm have become meetings that go beyond 10 pm and have some pretty stiff comments about how the process being used is working out. There are parents from schools that are at risk who aren’t very happy.
With close to 30 different options before the PARC Scott Podrebarac, the PARC chair knew that there was some whittling down to be done – and the Thursday evening meeting was the beginning of that process.
Fourteen options are put up on the walls of the meeting room – PARC members begin to reveal what they like and what they don’t like.
There were 14 different option put up on the walls of the meeting room Thursday evening.
Each PARC member was given three round red stickers that they could place on whichever option they wished.
The PARC members were being asked to decide if the option met or did not meet the “criteria”
Every question asked by embers of the PARC and the decisions they make has to fit into the Framework.
With 14 PARC members having three dots each – there were 42 of the things to be distributed.
Some of the options got nothing. Option # 19 – the one that would close two of the three high schools in the city got the most – however its total was less than the total of the dots given to the other options.
PARC members were asked to first write down which criteria were met and which were not met and then to indicate which option they supported.
Option 7 – to close none of the schools – did well – and option brought forward by the parents at Central high school also did well – but not as well as the option to close Central and Pearson
There are a lot of questions to be asked:
Where does Pearson high school stand in all this and how do the people at Aldershot feel about a bunch of portables being put on their property if Central is closed?
And is Bateman really at risk?
The board has said repeatedly that the decision is not a money decision – it is what is best for the students.
However the cost of getting the high schools up to AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) standards is high. The matter of lead based paint in some of the older schools – and the probability that some of the older schools may have asbestos in them is an AODA issue that is going to add to the cost of getting schools to that standard.
At some point the trustees, who do have a fiduciary responsibility, are going to balk at the suggestion that school board taxes be increased to cover the AODA expenses.
There is a massive 150 + page report on the AODA condition of the schools that was presented to the PARC committees.
Add to the mix – the views of the students which Director of Education Miller though important enough to have him meet with a group of high school students and then bring one of them to the PARC meeting where he asked that the students be listened to.
While the members of the PARC were getting into some serious deliberations the principals from every high school gathered at a table at the far end of the room on standby to answer question – there were none for then at PARC meeting # 3 but there were several significant questions asked at PARC meting number 2 held on February 2nd. .
Principals or vice principals from each high school sat as advisors.
With two people from each high school sitting on the PARC we are beginning to see their interests coming to the surface.
The pair from Aldershot are probably the two best speakers. Ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward, who is at the table representing Central high school (she has a son at Central and was chosen by the parent council) worked well with Ian Farwell the oher parent representative. Meed Ward continued her practice of asking a lot of questions.
The pair from Bateman are certainly active in pressing their case. Little is heard from the Pearson high school pair. Even less from the Nelson and M.M. Robinson pair – their schools appear to be safe from any closure plans.
Parents from high schools were able to listen to the conversation but were not allowed to participate in the deliberations. Several came close to accosting the Director of Education after the meeting. He may want to leave earlier at future meetings.
It is a busy process – one that requires more time than originally planned. The board added an additional meting for February 16th – the day after the Central high school parents hold a meeting at the Lion’s club to update their community.
To make the whole process even more interesting – the first phase of census data showed that Milton had a population growth of 30% between 2011 and 2016 – and that is certainly going to call for new schools.
The trustees have their hands full. All four Burlington trustees have been on hand for the meetings – so far none of the other trustees have attended PARC meetings. One of the Burlington trustees explained that there was some concern over the impact their attendance might have on the process – given that all the trustees can do is sit and listen – it was difficult to understand why there is any concern. Burlington has four of the 11 votes that are going to be cast. Six are needed to determine what the decisions are going to decide. Where are the Burlington trustees going to get those two additional votes?
And are the Burlington trustees going to vote as a block.
If one of the choices put before the trustees is to close Bateman – will trustee Collard vote for that choice?
In a follow up article we will drill down into some of the data that got put on the table.
This is the time table that has been followed. May 17th is decision date.
The time line is getting tighter. The PARC report will go to the trustees on March 29th and then a final vote by the trustees on May 17th.
Why would anyone consider closing Pearson High School?
It ranks the best school in Burlington according to Fraser Insitute….https://www.moneysense.ca/spend/real-estate/buying/best-schools-ontario-secondary-schools/
Pearson is the “SECOND NEWEST” public high school in Burlington having been built in 1976.
It is located within the mature areas of Palmer and Headon Forest with original home owners now selling their 3 and 4 bedroom homes — who do you think will buy them…yes young families! It is ideally located within these communities and makes it a walkable school- promoting excercise and healthly lifestyle for our young people. The lack of need for buses/driving is directly inline with the City Of Burlington’s environmental initiative.
With the majority of Burlington’s growth being mainly in the North area…a school closure makes no sense. Pearson is the solution to the overcrowding at Hadyen. Pearson was built as a small school meant for pilot programming such as the Co-op Nusery.
If money is not the true issue here then lets focus on readjusting boundaries and enlarging the catchment for us as currently we have only 1 1/2 feeder schools while Hayden has 7 ….and 12 portables which are rumoured to increase in the coming year. Doesn’t sound like an area that should be closing schools?
If the board’s numbers and planning is so accurate and we now have 1800 empty seats… why did they build Hayden? Did they not forsee this as a potential problem before spending 31.6 MILLION DOLLARS– money which could have been invested in the existing schools and programming– which would have put student’s and communities first.
It is true that the HDSB made a huge error in building Hayden High. If I add up all of the available (vacant) pupil spaces in the six schools excluding Hayden, I get 2107 spaces. Hayden’s current enrollment (with portables) is 1408. So if Hayden didn’t exist, those 1408 students could be spread to the other Burlington high schools and there would still be 699 available spaces in Burlington. Hayden High should never have been built (and at such a high cost to taxpayers).
To add insult to injury, Hayden took students from MM Robinson and thus created the need for the PAR by sending its enrollment down below 60%, “justifying” the need for the PAR. It also took students from Pearson. Hayden created the over capacity in Burlington and now one or two schools will have to close to justify this costly mistake. No wonder parents and citizens have little faith in the HDSB to correct a wrong with something right.
MM Robinson was built for the expanding Burlington north of the QEW and the Baby Boom. It is the key school in the area. Pearson was built as a later stage measure for the growth and the late stage Boomers. We are now stuck with Hayden and the catchment areas of Robinson and Hayden overlap in Headon Forest. They both together however overlap in a major way Pearson’s catchment area. If one school had to be closed north of the QEW. just looking at this overlap of catchment areas seems to me to point to Pearson as that school.
I’m not saying I favour Pearson closing, but unfortunately the logic north of the QEW does not favour it.
Timing of this student talking to the PARC last night is curious, but is just one more change mid-way in the process – since the process began, the PARC and other parents/volunteers have been told that no one should speak with students, so as not to worry them, nor influence them. To that end, the Board sent out a Student Questionnaire at the end of October, and since then have stated that this was a good enough reflection of the student voice. Now, all of a sudden, the PARC learns at last night’s meeting that not only has the Board opinion on this changed, but already the Board has met with a group of students, one of which attended the meeting last night (totally of his own accord, we’re sure) and also was asked impromptu to speak to the PARC. The speech included an impassioned plea to the PARC to ‘please listen to us students’. Unfortunately, the Board neglected to mention to this student that it was the Board’s directive to the PARC NOT to speak to students; it was not the PARC’s wish to exclude the student voice. Rather, when the committee was formed in late November, members asked the Board if students could also participate on the committee. The answer was no. So the new directive as of last night is that committee members are now encouraged to reach out through each school’s principal to make contact with students.
As for accosting the Director post-meeting, the general consensus was that the decibel level was on an equal par between both him and the parents.
The entire “process” is nuts.
It’s completely obvious to anyone that 28 story buildings proposed everywhere – no one knows what the student base will be for central in 10 years. No one knows how many families will end up living in these buildings. Plus it’s pretty obvious that Aldershot and most of South Burlington is resetting with young families.
Why then would you not just close Person – let that settle out. Then revisit central in 5 years when a clearer picture emerges?
The problem with the “PARC frame work” is that is doesn’t really do things that are good for students. Anyone noticed the diabetes rate for kids lately? Well if they WALK to school they are going to have friends that are LOCAL and walking will continue. If you bus them in then their friends will be scattered all over the place and they will learn that they have to drive everywhere to see anyone.
See how the PARC “frame work” thinks a group of kids with an increased diabetes rate – but had access to some optional programs is preferable to healthy kids that might not have.
I think parents have a pretty good idea what is good for their kids – that’s why the local school is important to them. Sorry parents a “time with kids” or a “community” didn’t make the “PARC” criteria list.