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!!!!!

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.

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.