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.

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.

D-Day is today…well actually tonight as the much anticipated vote for who goes to the new Ward 4 high school occurs.

Have you been here before? Does it ring a bell?

Did you participate in the Palermo accommodation committee sessions to have what paid consultants and taxpayers recommended ignored and replaced by a 10:30 motion that ruled the day? Do our trustees reflect on how that very motion protected FI leaving the English stream to be potentially crowded out of their own community school? Any reflection or regrets on passing a motion that seemed to have no due diligence done by the trustees who said ‘Yes’ without any further research other than taking the ‘presenters’ motion at face value. What business would ever implement a product line or service without background financial research to prove proposed statements.

Did you participate in the now famous south east accommodation PARC that resulted in signs all over south east with a militant community thumbing its nose at the HDSB, threatening legal action, and having the Ministry come in to review the transparency of the process and the conduct of the HDSB? Cyberspace can be so beautiful as the now famous critical Cooke Report is out there for all to see.

Were you one of the participants for those session or are you just one of the Ward 4 high school BRC members who now tell us and state publicly that they feel the effort was ‘a waste of time’, ‘a con’, ‘a hijack you always predicted’?

For all of you who have ever participated in what to many seems an ongoing charade that the public will have input or matter, we thank you. Without your efforts and participation we all could not be so openly critical because we would not have facts to base the outcry on.

D-Day is now, however, upon us, so we are asking…..what are your predictions on who will be protected or provided for, will a motion be presented to change the revised Option 5 recommendation allowing optional or flexible boundaries, will there be a hero or villian, and will trustees go with party lines or break rank?

Looking like a bit of a ‘deer in the headlights’ our trustees need to know, especially the new ones, that voting record is history in the making. Voting record is what is used by many to base public decisions and perceptions on. Voting record is what can help or hurt you when you seek reelection.

Maybe it won’t matter! Maybe the decision has already been made. Maybe it is just the fine line details that are still being worked out to specify what streets should be included as ‘optional’ or ‘flexible’. We have no idea because of course we are not part of the process.

So let us remind our trustees that just like the letter above and all the permanent records that now exist on the Internet serving as a historical record for the famous D-Day, so too will your decision today on what you support and how you conduct yourself.

Let us know what your predictions are on how our trustees will vote tonight.

Here is another letter sent to us for publication that was sent to the HDSB Director. We encourage all sides to send their correspondence for the public to see as the vote happens on Wednesday evening. Many are extremely disappointed and angry once again as to how this process has been concluded. It was and is an opportunity for the HDSB to show us it is not business as usual. For many, however, it is turning out to be a very similar experience.

Enjoy!

————

Dear Mr. Euale,

After reading the article regarding Kathryn Bateman-Olmstead’s comments on French Immersion and Special Education in Inside Halto http://www.insidehalton.com/news/news/article/1023842 and posted on the ‘West Oak Family of Schools’ website, http://wofos.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/new-nw-oakville-high-school-in-the news/#comment-3618 I feel compelled to ask you a few questions and share our families experience with the HDSB over the past 10 years.

Was the Board aware that Batman-Olmstead was going to the press with this article trying to defend the Boards position on some of the most contentious issues? Issues, which are increasingly gaining public scrutiny?

Was this article sanctioned by the Board prior to its release?

Is this considered appropriate conduct for Trustees elected to represent all students?

These questions need to be answered because, the article has been reported as ‘News’ rather than Opinion or as a Letter to the Editor, consequently it is being perceived by the public as an official HDSB statement.

It appears, to many, to be an underhanded manipulative manoeuvre to justify a recommendation which is viewed by many outraged Ward 4 taxpayers as another example of promoting an Optional program for the minority, contrary to the Board’s responsibility to provide a quality education for ALL students.

The Option 5 recommendation with amendments proposed and the ‘possible improvements’ glaringly favours the WANTS of the French Immersion lobbyist. It is expected that at the meeting on June 15th, there will be motions and amendments introduced and pushed through which will result in exceptions, such as starting the FI program with Ecole Forest Trail students when the school opens, flexible boundaries for FI and optional attendance allowing FI students the choice to attend either TA Blakelock or the new High School. Creating the demand needed to guarantee the implementation of the FI program, when the school opens and before it becomes over crowded with the Mandated English Track students within the school boundaries. A very familiar tactic used by the HDSB to artificially create a demand for Optional FI program.

It is also expected that some Trustees will push hard to introduce a Grade 8 French Immersion program which would help to alleviate the overcrowding at Ecole Forest Trail. Overcrowding which was created by accommodating the demands of FI lobbyist for a Single Track school. This will also be a useful tool to try to reduce the attrition rate from FI elementary to high school, especially with the grade 8 program already in the high school.

At the beginning of this process there were very high hopes that finally we would have an honest, responsible, fair and transparent process. Obviously it was far too much to hope for. If it was not so sad it would be laughable that the entire boundary and accommodation process and the inevitable results are so predictable. Once again the cost of pandering to an Optional program will come at the expense of all other students. Students should have programming options, but in an overcrowded High School with a stacked optional FI program there will be precious little, if any room to offer other optional programming to most of the students.

Many ward 4 parents are of the opinion that some statements made by Kathryn Bateman-Olmstead are ground work to justify, once again, giving preferential treatment to the FI program. It has been said in delegations to the board during the last accommodate process, that Kathryn Bateman-Olmstead does not now or ever has represented English Track students. Unfortunately, nothing changes.

Many Ward 4 parents of English track students have had to comfort our children who have suffered from emotional bullying by this Board’s unfair policies and practices, for most of their school years. Of course we are angry about the total disregard for the impact that these elitist policies and favouritism has on the English Track students in Oakville, a factor which has been completely ignored by the decision makers of the past decade.

Members of the HDSB and trustees cannot possibly believe that the recommendation presented for the new High School is the optimal solution to reunite this community. Adopting the modified Option 5 will actually result in a bigger wedge between the two sides. This process has already galvanized those of us who are fed up with our children’s rights being marginalize to facilitate an Optional program, into uniting in a more determined campaign to fight for those rights.

Understanding that you are new to Halton and learning under fire what a highly charged and divisive issue this is, I hope that you will try to steer this Board into focusing on providing a quality Education for all of our children in the future.

Thank you for taking the time to read and acknowledge my email.

Sharon Baroni
Ward 4 parent

Here is one of several letters/emails that have been sent by residents of the community that we have been asked to share with you.

Great job. We have been hearing a lot these days from residents who are very upset regarding how education is delivered in Halton.

With the vote happening on Wednesday evening to determine who goes to the new high school in Ward 4 it seems perfect timing to include some of the letters

——-

Dear Director Euale and Gail Gortmaker, General Secretary and Chair of Trustees, Don Vrooman:

I am reading a flurry of e-mails and comments regarding the recommendation for an ‘ad-hock Scenario 5′ to be what occurs for programming and boundaries at the new high school to open in 2012. I am also reading your responses to some personal letters of concern that have been forwarded to me.

I believe your answer regarding an inclusive neighbourhood school is something that most of the people you are currently hearing from is exactly what they have been fighting for over ten years in the single track versus dual track debate in Ward 4 and other areas of Oakville. You are in fact hearing from dual track, inclusive school supporters that believe in community schools serving the neighbourhood surrounding the school. This reduces bussing, provides a variety of program, course options and pathways, also is inclusive of special education programming, diverse in cultures and second languages and new Canadians, balanced in gender and most importantly creates a really strong sense of community surrounding a local, physical building and its associated fields. Everything we believe in that STFI does not embrace to anywhere near what dual track schools can offer a community.

In actuality, this group would fundamentally agree with this recommendation, if it were not for a long history of Single Track French Immersion supporters who have disagreed with this philosophy on every level.

Why did they disagree, until now? For fear of reduced resources, attracting qualified and diverse teachers, reduced courses within a poorly supported program with lower (than single track) numbers. The staff needed “team teaching” with minimum number of classes. This information can be found on countless delegations and from the resources of trustees such as Don Vrooman and Kathryn Bateman Olmstead and even HDSB documents from staff.

Oh the irony.

These same people (strong single track supporters) in article after delegation after trustee motion who said FOR YEARS “program over location”. A direct quote from Gillian Tuck Kutarna when she voted for Palermo to be a single track French Immersion school in April 2009. Just go to the ‘Oakville Beaver – Inside Halton’ website and search under ‘Ward 4 and dual track’, and you will find quotes from familiar names of why strong programming and numbers is essential for proper French Immersion delivery and that in reduced numbered dual track schools, this was an impossibility to attain in Ward 4. Schools south of Upper Middle supported dual track schools, but with reduced FI boundaries to maintain equal balance of programming. “No way”, we heard. Over and over again. This “washes out a program, reduces daily French exposure, resources and makes the FI students feel like a minority program within a school”.

Why the fight for ridiculously low numbers of FI students in the new high school in 2012 or sometime sooner than 2016? Why is location more important than program now? It simply doesn’t add up to all the arguments made over the years that FI parents would prefer bussing, would prefer crammed schools and portables, would prefer all of this in order to receive strong delivery of French Immersion in the single track setting.

Perhaps coming into this late Director Euale, after years of heated debate, dual track schools squeezing out the English Track so that they may be relocated and bussed out of their neighbourhood school, hearing over and over again that 50% delivery of an FI program could only be effective in an exclusive setting, regardless if this was in a young growing neighbourhood… You simply cannot understand how ridiculous it is to hear French Immersion supporters fighting to get into a new school with paltry numbers, which will ultimately lead to reduced course selection, fewer resources, teachers and exposure to immersion that would be received at Blakelock, until 2016.

It is in fact, simply too much to bare after all we have been through. The ‘inclusive’ adjustment to Scenario 5 – really? Now you want location over quality programming? It is actually laughable if we all weren’t so cynical and jaded.

We actually knew this would come and we even know what it is to come next. You see, we know our trustee well. Prediction: A motion to make the FI numbers significant enough to have the program start in 2012. Flexible boundaries? Grade 8′s making up the short fall? We KNOW that our Ward 4 Trustee will work as hard as she always does for her French Immersion constituents to have what she hears they want next. Despite not knowing how over crowded this school may be without any FI, she’ll get that foot in the door before the school has no room. Harder to get kicked out than not let in at all. It is all so clear.

If suddenly location is more or as important than programming, then I hope to see reduced FI boundaries at all dual track schools in Halton to even out the skewed numbers. I hope to see more dual track schools with less children in the FI program rather than eject the ET from uncontrolled FI growth. I hope that more FI parents will understand that going to an inclusive neighbourhood school can have good programming and so many other benefits.

But I have little faith I will see any of those changes at the elementary level.

See you Tuesday,

Lesley Dalgarno

Ward 4 parent/teacher and supporter of dual track schools with FI cap for balanced programming for ALL students.

The following is the letter sent by some BRC members to the HDSB. We have included it as sent to us. We will comment in a follow up article as we believe the content of this letter is best left in the words of those who wrote it. Names have been removed to protect those who had the courage in our opinion for sending this email in light of the changes made to all their hard work.  As a community we have nothing but gratitude for those who took the time and participated in good faith to come up with recommendations that benefited the community. Here is their response to the revised recommendations.

Letter to the Halton District School Board Trustees Regarding the SRA103 Boundary Review Process

We would like to express our grave concerns regarding the outcome of the Boundary Review process for the new northwest Oakville high school (SRA 103). The original goal of the Boundary Review Committee (BRC) was to recommend one consensus boundary scenario to the Boundary Review Steering Committee (BRSC) based on the objective decision criteria established by the BRSC. These criteria were discussed at length, modified and priority-weighted by the BRC during its initial deliberations so as to objectively and consistently evaluate the various scenarios toward selecting a single boundary scenario. At the end of the BRC process, the BRSC felt that there would be no unanimous decision, so the BRC was not permitted to establish a consensus recommending one boundary scenario. “Possible improvements” and “points to consider” for each of the final three scenarios were put forth to the Director of Education and embellished in Report # 11090 entitled “Secondary School Boundary Changes –Oakville Secondary Schools” (Report).

We would like to outline our objections to the Director’s report and the recommendations contained therein.

1. The BRC does not endorse these “possible improvements” or “points to consider” from members and trustees as summarized in Appendix K of the Report;

• None of this information was thoroughly evaluated, deliberated, and scrubbed by the BRC when it was amassed at the May 10 2011 BRC meeting. Members and trustees were allowed to put forth whatever views they wished without critical examination by the BRC against the established criteria. For example, the section in Appendix K regarding Scenario 10 lists the attributes both “most balanced between high schools” and “imbalance between high schools” which are obviously entirely opposing statements.

2. The modified Scenario 5 in Appendix L of the Report is presented as “Scenario 5 (as recommended)” without attribution. This modified scenario was not recommended by the BRC as the amendments were not discussed nor evaluated against the criteria in the same fashion as all other prior scenarios had been assessed.

3. Two of the reports initial recommendations are entirely inconsistent with the directives included in Appendix L detailing the modified Scenario 5 enrollment projections;

• “Be it resolved that consideration be given to initiating the Grade 9 French Immersion program prior to September 2015, in the year that sufficient enrolment exists within the SRA #103 French Immersion boundaries, for two Grade 9 French Immersion classes.”

• “Be it resolved that SRA #103, provide Grade 9 French Immersion Programming in September 2015 with an additional grade added in each successive year. “

do not align with the more specific statement in the modified Scenario 5 summary stating;

• “SRA103 #1 opens Sept 2012 with a Gr9‐10 FI program; Gr11 FI added Sept 2013; Gr12 FI added Sept 2014”

Again, both statements cannot be correct. More importantly, how can an FI program be initiated at SRA103 with a projected enrollment of just 26 students in 2012 and only 57, and 91 in the successive 2 years. Program viability was held up as a priority criterion in the BRC’s deliberations so it is disingenuous to suggest that a program can be viable with just 26 students, in addition to this projection not being sufficient to justify 2 Grade 9 FI classes.

4. Initiating FI programming in 2012 is not supported by the criteria, and was neither discussed nor agreed upon by the BRC, and is not justified as described in the Report. The rationale expressed in the Report for “the decision to attempt to provide French programming earlier than 2016 is recommended because:…“ is indicated as;

• “French Immersion graduates of Palermo will not exist until the 2015-2016 school year. An earlier start up of French programming (2012-2013) will ensure the existence of both English and French programming at SRA #103.”

This is tantamount to saying that “starting French programming will ensure that French programming exists”. If there are no FI Palermo graduates until the 2015-2016 school year and there is insufficient enrollment to justify FI programming, then FI programming should only commence at the time it is needed and justified against the established criteria.

The concluding comment in the Report “Scenario 5, including the potential addition of Grade 9 French Immersion programming starting in the 2012/2013 school year, does address most of the criteria as identified during this boundary review process. “ is simply untrue since “addition of Grade 9 French Immersion programming starting in the 2012/2013 school year” was simply not discussed nor deliberated by the BRC.

Recommendations

It is our understanding that Director Euale has recommended Scenario 5. We also recognize that this recommendation is only provisional at this time and would therefore like to take this opportunity to state both our concerns and recommendations.

1. We do not support Scenario 10 based on the established criteria;

a. In this scenario, the FI students from Palermo are allowed to attend the new high school, while the mandatory program English students living west of Bronte Road have to walk or be bussed past SRA103 to Abbey Park High School. We strongly believe that the Palermo English students should be allowed to attend their neighbourhood school. In addition, Scenario 10 does not change the boundaries for Abbey Park High School, resulting in severe overcrowding at Abbey Park. Next year Abbey Park’s enrolment will be 143% of on-the-ground capacity and will gradually decrease to 117% (excluding optional attendance) by 2020. For the first six years, Abbey Park’s enrolment will be much greater than that of SRA 103, despite the fact that Abbey Park’s capacity is almost 300 students less. Alleviating overcrowding at Abbey Park was one of the goals of the new high school, as stated in the Board’s 2010 Long Term Accommodation Plan.

2. We support Scenario 1 as the preferred option based on the established criteria;

a. Scenario 1 achieves the BRC goal of no negative impact on other schools and the 2010 Long Term Accommodation Plan goal of alleviating overcrowding at Abbey Park High School and White Oaks Secondary School. It fits all of the criteria that the BRC rated as most important: all programs at all schools are viable, there are stable, long-term boundaries, and there is the best balance of enrolment at all high schools. Aside from the above criteria, Scenario 1 has the most logical boundaries for the English program. All cohorts are kept together. There are no additional costs (bussing, French Immersion start up) to this scenario and this was the scenario most preferred by the public, as per the feedback forms from the April 7 meeting.

3. We support Scenario 5 in its original form with French Immersion starting in 2016;.

a. We are concerned with the Director’s suggestion to start FI earlier than this. The projections for Scenario 5 indicate that there are not enough students to fill two classes of FI per grade within the Scenario 5 boundaries which would not make a viable FI program as noted previously. Our accompanying concern is that the Board of Trustees may take this as an opportunity to beef up the FI numbers by adding optional attendance or flexible boundaries. Without caps, these options, in turn, could result in the FI program at SRA 103 ballooning and would worsen future overcrowding at SRA103 as well as the viability of the FI program at T.A. Blakelock. Lastly, the revised enrollment projections for the modified Scenario 5 proposed has SRA103 at 124% of its OTG capacity by 2020 versus T. A. Blakelock at only 90% of OTG by 2020. In the same vein, T. A. Blakelock will be at only 85% of total capacity in 2020 while SRA103 will be at 101% of total capacity in 2020 with a sizable 12 portables to accommodate enrollment. In every sense of the established criteria, including balance enrollment, program viability, stable boundaries and the minimal use of portables, the modified Scenario 5 makes no sense whatsoever.

In general, we strongly oppose flexible boundaries for many reasons. Planning would be even more difficult if there were a group of students who every year had a choice of which school to go to. If just 15 students change their mind about which school to attend it affects the teacher requirements of the school creating additional instability. Cohorts would be split if students had the choice of where to go. Moreover, many parents make deliberate, informed and expensive choices about where to purchase a home based on school boundaries and therefore would like their choices respected.

During this week’s Halton District School Board meeting the public was told that the decision to pick Option 5 (and we can only assume that means amended the way it was) – allowing French Immersion programming into the new Ward 4 high school on day 1 (assuming numbers are met) – was made to heal the community.

Now it does remind me of a few things. Didn’t that crazy Jones guy tell his followers that drinking the Kool Aid would be good for them. Turned out that was a lie. It was not good for them. No in fact it killed them. Wasn’t communism in theory good but guess what it too turned out to be B.S.

So guess what, no matter how hard the HDSB tells the community they are not being screwed once again and ignored,…..taken for a nice long joy ride after participating in what was to be a transparent and honest process – telling them now this revised reality will be good for them is just that ……polarizing politics and B.S …….as usual.

You see the board seems to forget its own road show when it publicly told the community that the single biggest, most controversial and difficult decision they had to deal with during these sessions was about French Immersion programming being allowed at the school and when if approved. It was assumed by the public that meant would FI programming get in, when and how many FI students would be allowed. Oh yes, we were also told that all 3 scenarios took FI in the school completely into consideration when the BRC arrived at for ‘the good of the entire community – getting beyond any biases any members came to the table with’ recommendations.

So now, to completely reverse the will and intent of Option 5 as presented by the BRC and reverse the single most debated criteria and then tell us it will be good for us…will heal us…..will make us come together as one is like being at a cult meeting. Seems to make as much sense as what would be presented at such a meeting – not what one would expect at a school board meeting.

Come on…drink the Kool Aid. Your memory is not serving you well if you think you that the majority of the community is not enraged by their belief that schools being taken away and given to only those worthy of support by our trustees, previous consultation sessions hijacked by brand new unseen motions at 10:30 p.m. and this latest one that clearly specified that FI had to wait to be put into the school only after several years. We can only assume that the BRC recommended the delay to ensure the community actually got the room they needed once and for all at one of their local schools.

To say it will heal us is like telling us a rat bit us but we will get healthier. Seriously what Kool Aid have you drank.

Now the big questions is what motion will those telling us they plan to break the rules they just implemented in order to ensure their motions can be voted on in the same meeting they are raised (contrary to the new rules put in)….mean for us as a community. Will these involve changing something more about this high school’s recommendation that will ensure even more FI families go there – expanding boundaries, allowing flexible boundaries…..or whatever….

Come on the fun has just started as the community gets attacked from the back but is told they should like it and oh yes…it will be good for them because they will heal.

Shovel it somewhere else…..no one is biting…