You are here: Home / Archives for Education

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 1 Comment

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

Halton gifted students again receive pilot programming

June 22, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Although the Halton District School Board (HDSB) heard a lot of public criticism last June when its trustees implemented the controversial primary gifted program based on a measly 2 month pilot during their final board session, HDSB trustees don’t seem to shy away from once again providing motions to only one exceptionality under the Special Education Act.

Yes, G. Tuck Kutarna, Halton Hills trustee’s motion pushed forward a self-contained gifted pilot for math for later grades at Gardiner Public School. In addition, discussion occurred regarding expanding this pilot potentially to other subjects at a later date for this chosen group of privileged children.

Why do we say ‘privileged’? Although we have absolutely nothing against gifted children and do agree some programming and consideration needs to be provided for these students, many of those advocating for other needy kids left to dwindle as services are denied to them believe gifted is the only exceptionality getting specialized programming or consideration at the HDSB board table.

One might ask why the original title wording of this motion was changed from Self-Contained Gifted Pilot to Subject Acceleration Pilot. Could it possible be due to the sensitive nature of having the programming once again geared to gifted students only?

Now lets not kid ourselves that this new pilot seems to be anything other than what it is ….another pilot for gifted students only. In fact, discussion about including other students capable of handling the material but not identified as ‘gifted’ was quickly ruled out by the Director after he noted the importance of trying to keep the pilot controlled.

Although keeping any pilot controlled/manageable would seem reasonable when you are trying to have a measurable pilot to base future decisions on, that didn’t seem to stop the trustees when they rolled out funding for SK students ahead of …700 students in need who waited for years based on a lousy 2 month trial period. Don’t ever let facts get in the way of ‘want’.

So now, G. Tuck Kutarna, Trustee, Halton Hills brings forward this new pilot motion. Seems Halton Hills has publicly acknowledged that the primary gifted pilot rolled out in her area had very low numbers. We are a bit confused regarding the numbers as some indications suggest 32 kids were tested – netting 3 gifted young student and 1 who was privately tested while other indications suggest the net amount was 1 tested for gifted and 2 were privately tested. We are trying to confirm the exact numbers but either way it seems approximately 3-4 children passed. The numbers, yes, do seem rather appalling to many considering how much of our tax dollars were spent for only some while leaving the needy to wait at the back of the line.

To help the same area that just could not ‘find’ enough gifted youngsters they so desperately needed to rollout the primary gifted pilot, it seems the trustees now come to the rescue by offering this new accelerated math program pilot.

So where does it end as this group of trustees vote all together to provide for the best and brightest?

Why does not a single trustee break rank and question why they keep providing to one group only?

Which trustee will ever have the guts to suggest piloting ….maybe new self-contained classes for some other needy groups or maybe just some additional funding to help all those other kids that may feel unrepresented by the HDSB?

In case they all have forgotten, including the trustees who participate on SEAC, a review of the Spec Ed Act that clearly identifies other exceptionalities may be a good activity. Maybe a refresher coarse on who actually is supposed to be protected under this Act would be helpful as they all pat themselves on the back it seems about providing for all and being so proactive.

Maybe some of our elected trustees who don’t seem to motion for any extra services or considerations for other needy children could familiarize themselves with all the other issues these kids suffer from and maybe then…they can raise their hand and push through some motion that gives some services to all the other kids who academically and emotionally suffer not only from their exceptionalities but also from the fact that it appears to many they have no representation at the board table or anyone advocating for their needs.

Do you think the HDSB trustees are representing all exceptionalities equally at the board table? We are interested in hearing from you.

Here’s to being gifted in Halton – because to many taxpaying residents you are the only exceptionality that seems to gets any special recognition, services and for now pilots to provide for your needs.

Filed Under: Halton Public Board Schools

HDSB decision for new Ward 4 high school

June 16, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The much anticipated decision regarding the new Ward 4 high school was passed yesterday to a rather crowded room of residents after months of accommodation review committee meetings, letter/email campaigns and public outcry regarding the honesty and transparency of the process.

The community heard the board pass the Director’s recommendation but not before several trustees tried to slip in ‘recommendations’ for optional FI attendance.

Because these were presented only as recommendations and not motions, they are not binding but the public must be aware at any time trustees could bring forward a motion to allow optional attendance and/or flexible boundaries.

To many such a change would represent not only potential overcrowding for the English and mandated programming at the school but a complete disregard as to the wishes of the 75% mandated community.

The Director explained his rationale for changing the Option 5 that was presented by the BRC. He qualified his change that allowed FI years early if ‘numbers warranted’ (i.e. 2 classes existed) as being a product of the BRC recommendation. This explanation would seem important because the board has been publicly criticized not only from the community members but also BRC members themselves for misrepresenting their support regarding his changes as being their recommendation.

The BRC Superintend acknowledged last night that community members had contacted the board and/or him to voice their anger and that residents had asked for the Ministry of Education to conduct an investigation regarding the process itself.

For some residents, the board and FI trustees have again hijacked the process because FI could potentially go in years early if 2 classes exist. For some, however, they feel a temporary victory has been met because optional attendance was not part of the decision (at least for now).

In addition, the Palermo community was given the same protection that was afforded T.A. Blakelock and White Oaks – allowing grade 11 and 12 students to remain at their current schools until graduation. Although discussion from trustees centered around this being included only for consistency purposes, for many it needed to be included to afford this community the same consideration as others. Community members have been demanding the board revise Palermo Public School’s FI boundaries and enrollment imbalance forced on the new school after the Ward 4 trustee’s approved motion did not include any enrollment balancing protections. As such, many residents are particularly sensitive to the fact they feel completely unprotected regarding English/mandated programming. They felt their high school students had to be provided grandfathering protection just like the other two protected schools. Although Trustee Amos did insist on a specific amendment stating their grandfathering be included, the fairness of such an addition seemed to be lost on the crowd.

At the end of the day, the school will open, FI could go in early and yes, many still believe a FI supporting trustee will try to hijack the original BRC intended recommendation by motioning a measure allowing FI students outside the current boundaries to attend the school earlier, and Palermo high school students were afforded the same protection as everyone else.

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