In April 2010, a paper titled “Town of Halton Hills School Sites Background, Issues & Options Paper” stated the value of community schools and clear guidelines as to where they should be located. Time and time again, however, some HDSB trustees vote in favour of taking away the option for communities to have a local school and opt for busing children away from where they live, play and socialize. So many are now asking…why does the HDSB ignore official report recommendations?
Regardless of whether or not the trustees take a local school away prior to opening or through refusal to ensure enrollment remains balanced through reasonable FI boundaries or enforcing caps, their very vote results in local school takeover. Why?
You don’t need to be a genius to know that most community residents want a local school, home values go down substantially when a local school does not exist, children are healthier and the community is more connected and engaged when their local school is nearby.
Is common sense used when your vote seems to indicate you are supporting and/or promoting segregated optional programming? What is even more shocking is how some trustees vote to take community schools literally or by enrollment away from local children.
So many are now asking how can these very same trustees claim to support all children in their ward and not just a select few?
“Town of Halton Hills School Sites Background, Issues & Options Paper” stated the value of community schools and clear guidelines as to where they should be located.
This report covered issues and options for boards in light of either expanding or shrinking enrollment, disposal of property or land, polices needed to protect communities and various options for ensuring local schools stayed opened and serviced the very communities and families for which they were intended.
Nowhere in the report did it support any notion that took a local school from the families surrounding it. No program or conditions warranted such a takeover.
So now, another official document states clearly that neighbourhood schools are essential and that policies need to be put in place to actually protect neigbourhood schools, create walkable communities and provide public transportation.
“Libraries, places of worship, parks, hospitals, schools and other institutions provide valuable services, education, recreational opportunities, gathering/meeting places and other benefits that contribute to the establishment, growth, stability and vibrancy of communities. …Schools, in particular, are integral parts of most communities providing residents with more than basic educational services; schools provide indoor facilities for community group usage (e.g. adult night classes, meeting space) and outdoor space for active and passive recreational opportunities.”
The report stated concern with:
- Time horizons and demographic analysis used by the Ministry of Education and School Boards for school planning which significantly differ from the approaches used by the Province, Region and local municipalities;
- Elimination of smaller neighbourhood elementary and community high schools in favour of larger “Big Box” elementary and secondary schools in urban growth communities;
- Adverse impact of eliminating the “neighbourhood schools” concept as the primary focus for community activities in newly planned complete communities;
- Institutionalization of “busing” as a “way of life” for transportation to “Big Box” urban schools, instead of encouraging school size and location based on the desirability of walking or bicycling to school for their environmental benefits and for physical activity;
- Institutionalization of portables as part of any new school site to ensure that any new school site can provide space for new students, pending the achievement of the 80% student enrollment needed for another new school, instead of portables being used only as an interim measure; and,
- Adverse impact on parks and open space planning when the usual requirements of neighbourhood schools and neighbourhood parks being co-located (i.e. – no longer seen as a key component in school planning).
Developing Policies to Promote Healthy, Liveable and Safe Communities
The report stated neighbourhood school policies accomplished this by:
- Creating walkable and transit supportive communities by having neighbourhood schools thus reducing household vehicle travel;
- Moving away from the trend towards larger but fewer schools which results in greater number of children being bused or driven to school;
- Ensuring children live within 1,500 metres of a school so they could walk to school;
- Acknowledging that fewer than 4% of children who lived over 2,500 metres from school walked to school [referenced study by Schlossberg, Greene Phillips, Johnson and Parker (2006];
- Setting aside land for elementary schools within 1,500 metres to residents to maximize the number of students walking;
- Setting aside lands for secondary schools within 3,000 metres of residents and locate those schools on local transit routes; and,
- Declaring surplus lands by the School Boards in Halton have public value and consideration should be given to purchasing these lands for public use.
It is clear to many in Oakville and Halton that official reports clearly support a model of delivering education opposite how education is being delivered in our community.
Will the Ministry of Education listen to the many officials who have spent resources producing these recommendations and provide oversight, rules and policy to ensure the very recommendations being proposed are actually adopted?
We look forward to hearing from both the Ministry and the HDSB on how they plan to improve the delivery model in Halton incorporating the recommendations outlined in the above report.
Let us know what you think.
