You are here: Home / Archives for Education

Ward 4 boundary review once again fails to listen to community

March 10, 2012 By 1 Comment

The recommendations tabled by the Halton District School Board (HDSB) are not what many BRC members recommended during the latest Ward 4 boundary review and come as a devastating confidence blow for many. For many it just represents a community once again ignored.

Having participated in the latest Ward 4 boundary review, advocated for sanity in the delivery of education in Halton for years, reported on what many are saying is complete biased delivery of programming and services in Oakville that seems to protect French Immersion and Gifted students only, and involved in the last elementary fiasco boundary review for Palermo only a few years ago, I sadly have to agree with what I am hearing from the community – that once again the HDSB ignores the will and needs of the majority of students in Ward 4.

I personally sat and advocated or commented on, along with others, the following during this latest BRC caused by overcrowding of the FI program and the complete refusal to put either caps or policy to deliver the program in a fair and manageable method:

1. Policy had to be included for any school going dual that would protect the enrollment balance of mandated programming at local schools – the board refused to include this as part of the exercise and to date has refused to confirm whether they will ever include such protection.

2. Neighbourhood schools must remain that – including optional programming where and if it fit and that no local school should become a dual school and taken over by FI – again no protections have been included in the process or recommendation.

3. Process was too rushed and biased – at times we could literally not keep track of what scenarios we were even reviewing. With the introduction of several scenarios the last night that protected Forest Trail as single track – many felt those were rammed through on the final vote night. Many left the meeting stating openly they had been ‘out politiced’. What a sad outcome for an exercise that many reps tried to protect.

4. Many dual schools should be introduced within the ward. The BRC members wanted many dual schools to even out the demand, allow the program to be offered locally, reduce busing, allow siblings to go to school together, etc. The final recommendation is not what was advocated by many BRC members as again it includes only 1-2 additional dual track schools that could easily be taken over by FI if policy is not developed by the board.

5. Forest Trail should be dual as well. Single track delivery of FI has according to the board’s own consulting report done only a few years ago no academic advantage, yet the entire ward is now forced to accommodate without any protections this optional program. At the same time the FI community once again is protected and feels no pain. This is absolutely not what many on the BRC wanted.

6. Popularity of the program was debated although the stats themselves clearly show the majority of children do not take FI. It would seem that the HDSB ignores its own stats as it PRs the merits of this program.

7. Grandfathering would not solve the immediate issue of overcrowding – the very reason the BRC was forced on the community yet the final recommendation has an outrageous amount of grandfathering and protection for yet again the FI community. They don’t even seem embarrassed by the obvious protection they provide only one side.

8. The need to have such a rushed process considering the Planning Dept has warned the board since Palermo opened of the need to review their method of delivering FI and the crisis at Palermo. For many BRC members, they believe the entire process and recommendation should be scrapped. It was too rushed, had inconsistent objectives or criteria, was not transparent and the final recommendation does not reflect the values, outcomes or objectives of the BRC.

9. Ward 4 trustee Kathryn Bateman-Olmstead’s motion that seemed to many residents to not consider the future impact of the Palermo community was discussed as being one of the possible causes for the current crisis yet the new proposal seems to once again protect the FI. Now, once again the HDSB proposal seems to allow absolutely no protection for the schools going dual because they have refused to include enrollment guarantees. To many residents, it would seem this new proposal is a repeat of the last review forcing us again and again into boundary changes and many feeling left out.

10. A recent board meeting included a discussion on whether Pilgrim Wood’s numbers for FI were enough and whether the program should only go to Heritage Glen only once again causing fears that the board may make HG the next target for a single track school to accommodate this runaway program.

11. Ward 4 trustee stating openly that if 90% of families wanted FI then they would deliver it was very offensive to many BRC members who feel they need to remind our trustee that the majority of the families she is supposed to be representing do not take this program – it would seem to many that it time for a change at the board table for maybe trustees who serve all children.

12. Leadership who during public meetings did not know facts about French education delivery, seemed far too eager to ship out English families from their neighbourhood schools and the constant reminder of the popularity of an optional program that is not taken by the majority of children was beyond offensive to many BRC reps.

13. Stable boundaries are a must. Now that community members are hearing talk by FI families that Heritage Glen will be the new single track school south of Upper Middle – does the board not feel it time to review its delivery methods.

With an FI community and many trustees who favor single track delivery, why on earth would any community school want this optional program to come to their school. Has every trustee, Director, Super and every management personnel forgotten that they are supposed to deliver fair education for all children not just the select groups they have decided to protect.

As a member of the BRC I cannot argue with what I am hearing from many who served on this committeee – shame on all of you for once again because many of us believe you have made a complete mockery of the process, wasting our time, leaving out most children in our Ward and letting us all know why we have to finally unite and make a very ugly vocal fight to win back the education our children deserve and our taxes pay for.

Let the Ministry know that our community has absolutely no intention of sitting back while the HDSB tables a motion that will potentially steal another local school in a few years for what many believe is an optional elitist program because you refuse to control and manage it and discriminate against so many children in our community.

Do we have any faith in this board to do the right thing for all children in Oakville. Most are saying NO!

Look out community – once the final recommendation is tabled that force FI onto maybe 1 or 2 schools we want to make it clear that this is not what many BRC members wanted, recommended or intended. The destruction of our local schools as our children are bused out for an optional program was not our fault but we will fight to get some sanity back to our community.

It is once again a sad day for our community!!!!!

Filed Under: Halton Public Board Schools

Public Ward 4 boundary meeting on Monday

February 11, 2012 By 1 Comment

The three boundary review recommendations for Ward 4 are being presented to the public at Abbey Park High School in the gym starting a 7 p.m. and it is very important residents attend this meeting.

We encourage all residents to attend to see how the elementary schools are being affected, what scenarios were picked and voice their opinion on the choices.

BRC members worked hard at an unprecedented speed to come up with these recommendations. Although two representatives were chosen for each of the elementary schools affected to represent the interests of their school, the main object was to find a long term solution for the entire ward. Members voiced their opinions not only on the scenarios but vision, history, policy and conduct of the board and its trustees. They stressed that the community needed a long term solution that provided stable boundaries, fair delivery models and financial responsibilities.

Wary of past BRC outcomes after recommendations are tabled, concern regarding how the trustees will interpret and vote on their recommendations was made clear.

Proximity of local schools was one of the main objectives heard over and over again. Members made it clear – stop busing kids out and allow them to go to neighbourhood schools.

The sceanrios selected took enrollment, programming, portable density limits, program viability, etc. into account when coming up with the final recommendations.

Two of the scenarios ask for multiple dual track schools (including Forest Trail) while one scenario keeps the Single Track French Immersion model at Forest Trail.

The scenarios affect all schools and the comments stated clearly that even if the changes are sweeping, let this be it. Make responsible choices now for stable boundaries which is something this ward has not experienced for a long time. Our community needs local schools available to community children without biased decisions made to ensure centralized French Immersion programming.

It is extremely important that you attend the Monday meeting to not only find out what is being proposed but to make it clear to our trustees that we expect fair/responsible programming, boundaries and vision in our community using the scenarios that share the pain, opportunities and issues equally.

The community needs community based schools, less busing, co-existing and responsible management regarding programming, decisions for all representing all children.

Filed Under: Halton Public Board Schools

Ward 4 thrown into another accommodation/program review

December 13, 2011 By 3 Comments

As previously reported, families in Ward 4 have once again been thrown into another accommodation/program review after a decision was made by the Halton District School Board trustees to move forward.

Other Halton communities are also going through similar exercises as well so Ward 4 is not alone.  Yes, it seems mismanagement and community schools not remaining a priority are causing grief to other communities.

Ward 4 just completed the same exercise for the new high school but this latest round of displacing children is specific to the many elementary schools in Ward 4.

Having approximately 500 empty seats, the Ministry of Education refused funding for an addition to the single track French Immersion school. In addition, the newest elementary Palermo Public School is seeing its population reach the ‘crisis point’ in about 1 year of opening when measure to cap the optional program were refused by trustees and/or board management as well as a forced 5 to 1 FI boundary imbalance.

So we believe that the board needs to hear from the community on why they are truly exhausted, frustrated and outraged that their local schools/communities keep getting these reviews forced on them, schools taken, kids bussed everywhere and optional programming not managed in a way that ensures stable boundaries.

 

Let us know what you think.

 

 

Filed Under: Halton Public Board Schools

Ward 4 boundary review – What should happen!

December 1, 2011 By 2 Comments

The Halton District School Board trustees decided last night to include a motion in next week’s board meeting about initiating a Ward 4 boundary review.

Two old sayings struck me last night as I listened to the discussions around the HDSB table.

1. Don’t shoot the messenger.

2. Play to the crowd.

 

Don’t Shoot the Messenger

The report produced and submitted by the Planning Department for board consideration was included as supplemental information – and yes it is too important to leave as that.  How it was presented does not, however, remove the responsibility from the trustees for getting the community into this crisis in the first place.

The Planning Department over the last year or more has brought time and time again warnings to the board that some Ward 4 schools are in crisis and that the board needs to  ‘review the method in which French Immersion is delivered’.

Making it appear that the timing and method used to deliver this report, statistical methods used to devise the Ministry statistics used for  school build funding, language used in the report, timing of letting trustees know about the report, and method of communication with the public should in no way allow the trustees off the hook for the mess they have created by being program centric.

 

Play to the Crowd

Trustees did bring valid concerns regarding how this information plays to their residents and how it can be perceived by the Ministry when providing funding but the  rather obvious ‘play up our concerns about how our communities perceive this latest threat’ could not go unnoticed or unreported.

Kathryn Bateman-Olmstead, Ward 4 trustee, was correct in noting public sensitivity to the wording of the report but didn’t mention the fact that the wording ‘Palermo preference to FI’ was a major issue.  If specifics were provided, it would have been put in the public record and might have lead to  board discussions. Will this offensive wording be removed because the forced 5 to 1 boundary is the only reason FI numbers will overtake English at this school.

She was also correct in noting that titling the issue ‘accommodation only’ and not ‘accommodation and program review’ was misleading. To many Ward 4 residents, she has been  instrumental in making this a program issue due to her continued support of voting in favour of French Immersion programming at the expense of mandated programming. Clearly, she is not the only trustee involved in programming decisions so the entire board must take credit for creating this unmanageable mess.

 

Method of Gathering Statistics

The Planning Department uses approved techniques to determine the numbers submitted to the Ministry for funding. Review could be helpful but the main issue with the inaccuracy (especially for Ward 4) cannot be fixed by any automated method. It is human choice that changes the outcome and if human choice regarding programming has no limitations then it is very hard to predict. To many residents, HDSB has actively promoted FI as a superior program. They have allowed community schools to be put on the chopping block above the needs for optional programming.

 

Death of the Community School

When your methodology does not support the community school as the basis, all protections and benefits are lost. Research shows the need and benefit of having a local school as the hub yet time and time again this board opts to vote in favour of programming first. In addition, single track delivery and the lowest percentage FI concentrations in the country take community schools away, bus neighbourhood children out, and bus children in. Boundaries are constantly amended (thus forcing chidren’s relocation) when you are dealing with revolving program numbers.

 

No more Capital Funding

The Ministry did not fund the Forest Trial extension. The Ministry seems to have sent a clear message to this board that the physical chairs are there but not necessarily where our trustees may want them.

Centralized hubs for FI has overcrowded buildings and taken children outside of their communities.

The message is clear – no more $$$ to do this if you want capital dollars. You need to send these children back to their local schools and figure out how to deliver optional programming within these schools.

 

What could be done

In a perfect world, a responsible board would do the following:

 

1. Reduce the FI 5 to 1 boundary limit. It is obscene as is causing overcrowing and overbusing.

2. All schools would be community based. In the perfect world, that would mean converting schools back – including Forest Trail. This school was funded for a community but later taken by the trustees for Single Track throwing out many of the homes that were used to obtain the funding in the first place. The previous Director admitted in open session in front of the public that the board had ‘its wrists slapped and that funding may not be approved if Palermo went after a Single Track school because of what they did re: Forest Trail’. Clearly the Ministry was angry that they funded a community school and it was taken away from the community. So we now ask if we are going to do a boundary review, all schools should be up for review and should be available to the community.

3. The methodology used for FI must be reviewed and changed to ensure it is  sustainable and fair for both FI and English. It should be delivered and managed so that it fits in local schools.

4. Busing should be used based on distance from local schools not to ship out kids because of programming.

5. Local dual track schools must have limitations set that forbid any optional program from taking over a school. If number exceeds spots, then new locations must open or limits must be put into place.

6. Testing, requirements and/or limits must be placed on all optional programs. Methods would need to be developed with analysis of how other board’s manage these programs.

7. Core French should be improved, updated and available to all children instead of focusing programming choices only on FI.

8. Policy must be developed by the Ministry of Education to control and manage education. These policies need to address program decisions, trustee actions, conflict of interest and financial restrictions. Having all programming decisions made at the board level with no such policies is obviously not working.

Clearly the financial implications, public outrage, number of school moves, public mistrust and  boundary upheaval is an absolute indication that the method in which boards operate/vote,  powers they possess, program centric delivery and Minister oversight needs a complete shakeup.

Let us know what you think.

 

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , , , , ,

Attend the HDSB meeting on Wednesday unless you don’t mind losing your local school

November 29, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Do you care if your children are sent to another school next year? If you do you may want to consider attending the Halton District School Board meeting tonight (Wednesday, Nov. 30th).

The Halton District School Board is holding a special meeting  to discuss initiating an accommodation review for  Ward 4 even though this area had the same activity occur only 2 1/2 years ago.

What this means is up for debate but many parents believe this is not good news for their families. It means the potential of community schools being taken, students being sent to other schools and mandated programming being again affected because optional French Immersion programming is not managed in Halton by any limitations or conditions of entry (e.g. caps, entrance exams, etc.).

Many residents are also asking how long the Ministry of Education will allow the HDSB to manage an optional program in such a way that keeps threatening local schools and neighbourhood children with the potential of them being relocated again and again to schools outside their community.

According to the board’s own documentation, many schools are going to be affected and/or considered and in the material it notes the Ministry of Education’s refusal to allow a STFI building expansion and the overcapacity of the new Palermo Public School (dual school) as being some of the need for this forced Ward 4 review.

To many residents it means again not capping or controlling the FI program and pushing it as a superior program is causing great numbers to initially enter the program thus overcrowding schools, forcing boundary reviews, relocating children, taking schools away from communities, and wasting financial resources on busing children in and out to accommodate an optional program at the expense of others.

Here is an the information provided by the Board that relates to Ward 4:

 

The 2010 LTAP identified a number of enrolment issues within various review areas in Halton (refer to TABLE 2). Even though some of these issues would have become boundary review initiatives in the 2011 LTAP, it has been concluded that they needed to be initiated sooner. Of particular concern is the following:
OAKVILLE – Elementary Review Areas

1. ERA 114 – Captain R. Wilson, Emily Carr and Palermo Public Schools

The Board opened Palermo PS in September 2010 as a dual track school (JK to Grade 7 English Program and Grade 1 to 4 French Immersion). The school also opened as a school providing full day JK/SK. In the 2010 LTAP, it was indicated that the review area would continue to exhibit ongoing accommodation pressures as enrolment increases due to demographic factors (young school aged population), French Immersion preference and new residential growth. As well, ERA 114 would continue to see enrolment growth over the next ten years.

Utilization would increase from 91% in 2010 to 125% in 2020 (half-time JK/SK). With the implementation of full day JK/SK, this utilization would increase to 133% in 2020.

Report 11175 page 2 Enrolment at Captain R. Wilson and Emily Carr Public Schools would continue to be sufficiently accommodated in their respective building and portable capacities.

The 2010 LTAP indicated that enrolment at Palermo PS would exceed building and portable capacity by 2013.

The 2010 LTAP also identified that there are no available elementary school sites in the review area that the Board could access to construct another facility. Moreover, there was a comment that an addition could be considered at the school. Although given a projected enrolment of 1216 pupils by 2020, an elementary school of that size (over 1200) is problematic in terms of having sufficient space to provide program (i.e. library, gymnasium, computer lab, outdoor play space). Moreover, the LTAP did indicate that consideration should be given in terms of revisiting the potential delivery of the French Immersion program in schools within thisreview area, as it would appear that French Immersion enrolments at Palermo PS are projected to be at 560 pupils (by 2013) and 690 pupils by 2020.

Given that the school required more portable classrooms than was initially projected for the 2011/2012 school year, due to class organizations and distribution, there was a need to assess whether Palermo PS could accommodate all students within its building and portable classroom capacity for September 2012. Based on initial enrolment projections, classroom requirements for the 2012/2013 school year were developed byPlanning staff. The analysis indicates that there will be the need for potentially 4 additional portable classrooms at Palermo PS for September 2012. This will result in the school potentially having 13 portable classrooms on site, which exceeds the total capacity of 12 portable classrooms allowed. Therefore, there is a need to undertake a boundary review for this area to address the accommodation pressures.
2. ERA 115 – Abbey Lane, Forest Trail, Heritage Glen, Pilgrim Wood and West Oak Public Schools

As outlined in the 2010 LTAP, the area in question would see an overall enrolment decline over the next ten years. Utilization would decrease from 107% in 2010 to 86% in 2020 (half-time JK/SK). With the implementation of full day JK/SK, this utilization would decrease but to only 92% in 2020. However, Forest Trail PS would continue to exhibit accommodation pressures over the next 10 years. The school currentlyexceeds its building and portable capacity, with 15 portables on site to accommodate students. Projections indicated that there will be no enrolment relief over the next ten years. The 2010 LTAP proposed an 8-classroom addition at Forest Trail PS for 2012/2013, subject to funding from the Ministry of Education (Capital Priorities Template). This funding was not approved by the Ministry of Education.

At the same time that staff was reviewing portable classroom requirements at Palermo PS, Planning staff undertook a similar exercise for Forest Trail PS for the 2012/2013 school year. Based on initial enrolment projections and classroom requirements, there will be the need for at least 1 additional portable classroom at Forest Trail PS for September 2012. This will result in the school having at a minimum 16 portable classrooms on site for the upcoming school year.

It should be noted that in the 2010 LTAP, enrolment for schools in the Glen Abbey Community (area south of Upper Middle Road) would continue to decline over the longer term. Enrolment would continue to be below building capacity, resulting in a number of empty pupil places. It is projected that even with the implementation of full-day JK/SK, there would be 495 empty pupil places in the Glen Abbey Schools. The introduction of the early Gifted Program at Pilgrim Wood PS will utilize pupil place capacity, but the full extent and amount will not be confirmed until the program is fully operational for a number of years and trends are established.

Any review of boundaries for Palermo PS should include this review area as well in order to ensure that elementary pupil accommodation needs are sufficiently addressed for the North-West Oakville community.

Source: http://www.hdsb.ca/BoardroomTrustees/Pages/BoardAgendaMinutes.aspx and select Board Agenda November 30, 2011 link. We encourage you to review this link for the entire document as we have only referenced the section in this publicly available document that pertains to this article.

 

Why is this happening again in Ward 4?

 

The Ministry did not approve funding for the Forest Trail extension and Palermo has been forced a 5 to 1 French Immersion boundary allowing the board to incorrectly tell the world that Palermo has a preference for FI.

Palermo does not have an FI preference within its community. It has been forced on the community by a board that buses in children from outside of Palermo to this school. Do the math – when you have 5 to 1 of anything the larger one is going to appear dominate. Even a kid can do the math.  The board refused to put any safeguards to ensure that both streams (English and French) were equal. By making the boundary 5 to 1 the board could grow the school from the ground up into a singe track French Immersion school and force out the English – if they are allowed.

 

What would FI safeguards do?

They would ensure the following:

  • Any school that had FI could accommodate it.
  • Boundaries would remain the same.
  • Community schools would remain and serve their local community.
  • Children would not be thrown out of their local schools.
  • Property owners buying and selling would have a consistent  local school.
  • Children entering the FI program took an entrance test to ensure they could handle the program and are not later uprooted.
  • People entered the program for the right reasons not just streamed education.
  • Reduce busing costs by not busing vast amounts of children in and out of their local community.
  • Provide equitable, fair and morally sound education for all children.
  • Send a clear message to individuals running for trustee positions that their own personal agendas and favorite programming was not the moral reason to sit in a board chair and manipulate all children’s education.
  • Finally heal the wounds of pitting families against each other.

 

Why should you attend tonight’s meeting?

You should attend tonight’s meeting to send a loud message to the HDSB that the way optional programming is delivered is too disruptive and is unfair to all children. If you care and want stable and consistent boundaries you need to attend. If you care about having your child remain at your local community school you need to attend.

If you want to know that the school your kids are in now will be the same going forward or that they won’t be stuck in a portable or your local school will be overcrowded – or that your child will be sadly getting up early and looking out the window at the school they once attended only to be leaving the neighbourhood and all their friends – you should plan to be at the board meeting tonight at 7 p.m. at

2050 Guelph Line
Burlington, ON
Canada L7P 5A8

 

Looking forward to seeing all residents that want stable education for the kids at the board meeting tonight.

 

Send this to as many friends and neighbours as you can!

 

 

 

Filed Under: Education

Halton District School Board misleads public about French Immersion preference at Palermo Public School

November 29, 2011 By Leave a Comment

It does appear that once again the Halton District School Board is misleading the public about a French Immersion preference at Palermo Public School as they push Ward 4 again into another boundary review because they refuse to control how French Immersion programming is delivered.

Many in our community are telling us that their belief is that the board’s  complete refusal to properly manage this optional program puts the community school at risk and ensures the mandated English programming students are once again treated as second class citizens.

Halton  residents have been demanding for years honest and fair management of how education is delivered in Halton.

It comes as no surprise to the many who have participated in boundary reviews, attended meetings or are part of the rarely supported English community that the HDSB seems to be once again pushing their FI agenda by inaccurately portraying communities’ support for French Immersion.

The latest recent claim again that Palermo Public School is overcrowded because the community has a preference to French Immersion is to many an absolute distortion of the figures and facts.  The boundary for FI is 5 times greater than that of the English for this school. To the community that is the only reason it appears that this community favours the optional program. The continued misrepresentation of how ‘favoured’ this program is is completely offensive to those living in Ward 4.

When the motion was tabled by the Ward 4 trustee Kathryn Bateman Olmstead it did not include any protection for balanced numbers for both streams of education.  As the trustees discussed where the boundaries would exist, the board was fully aware that they were forcing a 5 times larger boundary for FI taking kids outside the Palermo community and busing them to this school.

The entire board knew because the Director also noted publicly that they would not force equal enrollment protections and would not include a method to ensure protection even when the community demanded the protection even though all acknowledge the 5X greater FI boundary.

Since that time, a new Director has come to the board. Ward 4 residents have warned all members of the board, press, Ministry of Education and anyone else who would listen that the overcrowding was being deliberately forced onto this school by an unfair FI boundary.

 

Here are only some of the questions community residents are asking the Halton District School Board:

 

When will this board stop forcing FI into the local community schools in such an unethical way?

When will this board implement fair and manageable methods of delivering an optional program?

How may boundary reviews will be forced onto the same community before the Ministry of Education finally does something about a board that seems to advocate for only a select few?

When will the mandated English population be protected above all other optional programming?

When will community schools be protected and remain community schools?

When will money stop being wasted busing kids out and in because they are forced to go to schools other than their own community schools?

When will new communities that pay surcharges when purchasing new homes actually get the schools they have funded instead of being shipped out to other schools?

When will the HDSB stop pitting families against families by delivering English programming first?

When will caps and/or controls be put on French Immersion like most other boards so that it can be properly delivered without destroying the fabric of all other education?

When will our trustees start representing the majority of the taxpayers instead of the few who advocated for streamed education?

When will the Ministry of Education finally step in and do something about how education is delivered in Halton?

Let us know what you think.

Filed Under: Halton Public Board Schools Tagged With: , , , , , ,

New Minister of Education – will it make a difference?

October 23, 2011 By Leave a Comment

With the recent appointment of a new Minister of Education many are asking will real change occur, will someone actually listen, will school boards be held accountable, will changes occur that no longer allows trustees to push their own agendas, will kids actually be the ones served not the teachers and their union or the politicians?

Will our most vulnerable finally get equal representation instead of the ‘best and brightest’ getting the funding for the latest popular program that pushes French Immersion needs before the basic mandated education requirements?

Will our neighbourhood schools be given back to ‘the neighbourhood kids’ or will we continue to bus our kids out to bring in the ones we have deemed worthy because they have chosen the program the politicians think are important?

Will our rules really demand inclusive education not exclusive segregated modelling?

Will our oversight committees, audit committees, directors and all those who are supposed to report, manage and ensure rules are followed, actions are transparent and the public have their due course in demanding fair elections, honest votes, no back door dealing, no real conflict of interest exists when delivering education and all the decisions that affect it ….finally be held responsible?

Will personnel be held accountable, be expected not to be writing porno material while overseeing ethics for our kids and the hiring/firing of bad/corrupt teachers?

Will disgusting teachers who abuse our kids verbally, sexually or suggestively be held accountable for their actions and not secretly protected by the very entities that are supposed to deal with them?

Will our kids bullying be finally dealt with regardless if a publicly funded Catholic board agrees with their sexual orientation? Will our public boards stop hiding behind ‘tribes’ and other methods of appearing to promote a safe environment for our children? Will this great nation finally stop acting like a 3rd world country burying its head as our child kill themselves because adults have failed them so miserably by not delivering their educational needs or acting on their pleas for help while gangs of thugs torment them in the school hallways, buses, or in cyberspace.

Will our native communities get the decent and proper education including its housing instead of it being an absolute ethical embarrassment for our country.

Will our new Minister of Education Laurel Broten care any more and react any better than our last pathetic minister who sent out robo messages to communities that screamed for change, oversight and new rules changing the existing method of delivering education that served a select few while leaving behind the majority.

Our Prime Minister did not seem to care to make change until he got a minority government. Lets see if labour unions, politicians and their lawyers still rule the day or if finally a new sheriff is in town and our children and taxpayers will have their rights restored!

Let us know what you think.

Filed Under: Education

Bad teachers get a free pass

October 1, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Word is out that bad teachers get a free pass even as rules for children in school intensifies.  After the Toronto Star ran a 2 page article outlining the types of disgusting actions ‘protected’ by the unions, one must ask what politicians running in this year’s election will do about the secrecy and coverups.

The actions as outlined in this article many are calling for legal action.  Why can a teacher insult, hit, provoke and in some cases sexually lure our youngsters while our government stand silent.

The article outlines over the last few years the trend is to protect the teachers even more by concealing their identity and charges. Why are these individuals not being fired immediately?

In business and the ‘real world’ you would be fired and possibly charged. Why again is being in the educational system a guarantee protection?

For full details of this outstanding piece of journalism, go to:

Now I am the first to say that teachers should be respected. We don’t want to become like other countries that treat them like the enemy, pay them dismal wages, etc. but really….this is disgusting.
Taxpayers must demand that politicians and elected officials start to provide safe, respectful and effective education. The school boards, teachers, and teachers unions do not have the right to spew out rhetoric while violating our rights.
Filed Under: Education

Will parents fundraise if funds taken?

September 12, 2011 By 1 Comment

Will parents fundraise for the children’s school with the ‘split the pot’ changes being proposed in Ontario?

The fuss about fundraising was raised after it became evident that the discrepancy of the amounts raised varied so greatly from school to school across the province.

Some believe some schools do not have the affluent parents to raise large funds while others scream laziness. For this reasons it has been suggested that changes be made to pool all fundraising into a collective pot and split amongst all schools.

This is a drastic change from how fundraising occurs and many state it will stop the vast majority of money being donated by parents who contribute knowing that their child and community benefit.

Others state is another form of taxation.

Here’s what we would like politicians to consider.

1. Amount of money varies greatly for many reasons. It would seem that the economic capability of parents and the community must be a factor not just the lack of will by some to participate.

2. No discussion has been made other than the financial incentive and sacrifice made by parents. Comments never seem to suggest the amount of energy and creativity also demanded on the part of those organizing and participating in fundraising events. Will parents be willing to work a second ‘part time’ job volunteering if the funds are not local? Never …ever…. underestimate the effort of those creating events to raise money.

3. Fundraising is not just about writing a cheque as noted above yet all discussions seem to be about the parents simply giving the money. Most money raised from our experience is when events (usually large scale) are put on at a school.

4. For other schools less fortunate, why not consider holding a particular event to benefit that school or why  not have a school partner with another school. Why not get creative to encourage schools to help those less fortunate without taking the control away from the school on the money raised by its parents.

 

We believe that there are huge discrepancies between the have’s and have not’s not just in fundraising but in every aspect of education and life. We encourage our children to participate in giving back but to have a generalized ‘take it away and split it up’ is counter productive.

We believe that such an approach will be the ‘death’ to local school fundraising.  Without these funds will the government provide all the things that once were provided that now depend on fundraising?

Let us know what you think.

Filed Under: Education Tagged With: , ,

Oakville school boards raising education development charges

July 10, 2011 By Leave a Comment

With the latest round of Education Development Charges (EDCs) increases by both the Catholic and Public boards despite construction industry and government objections, does this mean the very communities paying for new schools will actually get the schools being built.

Many question the very boards that give schools and pupil spots to those outside the community especially in light of the fact that the new charges are paid for by those purchasing new homes.

Lets face it, builders don’t absorb these charges. Charges like these are passed on to the purchasers yet in the past some schools have been given away to others outside the community.

Let us know what you think about costs being passed down to residents that may not even be allowed into local schools or should some protection be included to ensure those paying for these schools are actually allowed in.

 

 

Filed Under: Education, Planning and Development