You are here: Home / Archives for Halton District School Board

Ward 4 boundary review – What should happen!

December 1, 2011 By 2 Comments

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

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

1. Don’t shoot the messenger.

2. Play to the crowd.

 

Don’t Shoot the Messenger

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

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

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

 

Play to the Crowd

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

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

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

 

Method of Gathering Statistics

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

 

Death of the Community School

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

 

No more Capital Funding

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

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

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

 

What could be done

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us know what you think.

 

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

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: , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , ,

For many in community HDSB once again proves to be dishonest with the new high school consultation process

May 31, 2011 By 2 Comments

So now that the Halton District School Board has finally posted its recommendations for the new high school on its web site many in the community are stating the board has once again proven itself dishonest. For those wishing for anything different than what the public has come to expect, community members are stating openly that you will be sadly disappointed. For them it is simply business as usual at the HDSB.

Although the recommendation made by the board addresses some of the concerns raised, we are being contacted by outraged community members and participants of the BRC committee who state they feel they have once again been completely deceived by the HDSB. Although the committee expected some minor changes to any option they recommended to have Option 5 so drastically changed allowing the timing of FI entry to be exactly what they championed against and presented as if it was recommended is meeting with outrage.

Lets be honest here this entire process was really about programming not accommodation. By name it suggests it is about accommodation but most in the community believe nothing is done in Halton that is not about programmming these days – namely English against French. Although schools in our country are supposed to be community schools (thus for a specific community) the public believes they often don’t end up that because for many the HDSB is completely obsessed with optional French Immersion programming. Although FI programming is delivered across the country, in Oakville the delivery consists of trying to make the method single track.

So now for the new high school in Ward 4 the BRC process which took many parents and community members out of their homes and away from their families to work collectively in what was to be a transparent and honest process which was to take 3 final recommendations and have the Director present them to the board trustees for final approval, the vast changes to Option 5 goes against everything the process was suppose to be.

The main raging debate for this new high school was the fact that the community of mandated education desperately needs the physical spaces and that the optional FI program as it is delivered in Halton has no caps or management, deliberately typically provides an unfair enrollment boundary (for elementary say Palermo it has been provided a 5 to 1 sized boundary) thus crowding out the community for optional students. The community feared the same fate would occur at the high school level if the board was allowed to conduct itself in the same manner. It was the general belief that mandated programming was not properly represented at the board table that led to such public and heated public debate. Essentially it is the complete distrust the community has for this board on protecting and represented mandated education that has led to the community being so vocal about this high school.

The BRC final recommendation did in Option 5 allow for FI programming but it was delayed thus ensuring that room for the community had been met.

Now returning to the complete distrust the community has for how decisions are made at the board, many believed any option presented would have the final decision hijacked just like Palermo was at the 11th hour of voting.

What was not expected was that those wanting FI would it seems to many go behind the process and get their way even before the recommendation was tabled. It was also supposed to be presented to the board trustees and the public by the Director.

Option 5 firmly stated that FI programming had to wait several years before being introduced at the school. This delay allowed the board to determine spacing for the community. It was absolutely essential to ensure the community school was given to the community.

Oakville (and especially Ward 4) has a long history of taking away either community schools completely from the community (remember the West Oak Trail elementary school that was funded by the Ministry as a community school only to have the trustees vote to kick out the entire community other than FI students and make it a single track school). The next fiasco was the Palermo Public School that had its last minute motion tabled at 10:30 by the Ward 4 trustee replace all motions developed and put forth replaced by an unseen and uninvestigated motion. This motion as we have reported has absolutely no enrollment balancing protections thus the school is quickly being taken over by FI programming. To date, no recommendation or work has been put forth to address this brand new school’s crisis situation.

So now this latest accommodation review has become once again about programming because the trustees that were bent and determined to provided FI programming into the new school on day one have once again gotten their way. The only difference this time it is does appear to many that a last minute ‘pull a rat out of your hat’ doesn’t have to occur at the vote table. Instead their will has been forced into the recommendation even though this was deliberately never intended to be part of Option 5.

Let it be clear that the BRC’s community recommendation clearly stated and put forward that French Immersion programming had to wait for several years. This has been once again completely ignored in order to provide for the optional programming that consistently for many gets representation at the trustee vote table.

So a board that has been publicly humiliated by the Cooke Report that produced an extremely critical report on how this board handles public consultations and the honest behind them (read it online to see how critical it was about how this board dealt with the public – remember this was an official report produced by the government when it was forced to investigate this board once before) and the fiasco that occurred with the Palermo process, we are hearing the following from the community.

Community Comments:

1. This process has been completely violated. It has turned out dishonest and not transparent as promised as Option 5 has been modified in a way never recommended by the committee.

2. FI backed trustees have once again influenced the process forcing the exact opposite timing of FI enrollment into the school upon the immediate opening of the school.

3. People want to know what back door dealing occurred at this board to radically amend the recommendations made by this community.

4. The government needs to once and for all come in a properly investigate this board that time and time again seem to violate the very process they present to the community.

5. Why is the recommendation being presented by anyone other than the Director. The public was not only notified verbally but in writing that this would be presented by the Director and only the Director to the trustees.

6. What is the Minister of Education going to do when the process has again violated by this board.

7. BRC committee members feel deceived by the HDBS.

We are hearing from the community in record numbers that they do not trust this board, they believe this board is dishonest and their processes do not follow their own procedures.

Why many are asking does this board not represent any other children except those in the optional French Immersion program that they keep forcing down the community’s throats, that they do not manage properly and is absolutely destroying education in our community.

If the HDSB ever believed this process would restore its credibility …they can think again.

The public is screaming about how dishonest this board is again.

Now the only question for the community is what the hell will the Minister of Education do about this. Again we are hearing from many in the community they have no faith that what they believe is an incompetent Minister will step in and make a change.

Here’s hoping to some honesty and transparency for mandated programming in Halton.

So now that we have presented what we are hearing from the community let us state clearly that Oakville Chit Chat challenge national media to get on this story and make it visually impossible for Halton to once again it seems ignore the will of the people and put optional programming ahead of mandated programming. Force for once a system that funds this programming based on rational and managed methods.

Will the Liberals be the government to restore sanity to education in Halton or do we collectively have to make this such a political issue that we ensure the Liberals are once and for all thrown out this fall. Maybe a change of government is needed to standardize the way in which education is delivered in our province.

Let us know what you think.

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

HDSB feedback form contains ‘room for error’

April 11, 2011 By 1 Comment

The much debated Northwest Oakville High School Boundary Review Feedback Form is causing quite a stir in the community not only for the added 4th option noted in our previous article but what appears to many to be a lack lack of controls to ensure forms can be tracked back to community members. Without such tracking methods, many are saying duplicates could be submitted thus not accurately reflecting the community preference.
[Read more...]

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

Is Halton school board sensitive to the appearance of ‘Conflict of Interest’?

April 9, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Is the Halton District School Board (HDSB) reacting to community complaints that conflict of interest is occurring when trustees vote in services and benefits to select groups? Could this explain why during this week’s board meeting, that the normal declaration of ‘Conflict of Interest” was noted instead as a ‘Pecuniary Conflict’.

Complaints have been sent not only to the board, discussed openly within the community but have now reached even the Ministry of Education.


Pecuniary Conflict is defined as an adjective as:

1. of or pertaining to money: pecuniary difficulties.
2. consisting of or given or exacted in money or monetary payments: pecuniary tributes.
3. (of a crime, violation, etc.) involving a money penalty or fine.


School board meetings usually start with a ‘Declaration of Possible Conflict of Interest’. It is standard for the board to ask if any conflicts exist. In fact, the Agenda even notes it as such.

Why is this so important to state this when a school council meeting begins?

For residents, it shows that vested interest does not exist when decisions are made and voted on. For trustees, however, it refers to a monetary connection.

Based on the Education Act, most do not realize the narrow definition allowed under Conflict of Interest is related to only money and not the trustees’ ability to represent their community based on relationship or influence.

Many community members who have contacted Oakville Chit Chat do not necessarily mean ‘conflict of interest’ exists only based on money exchange. Rather, most believe that decisions they see as being biased and siding with optional programming or most recently the Primary Gifted programming rollout may have been based on trustees having a preference to the groups based on their children or family members being part of the group, affiliations with that community, etc.

HDSB critics state that far too often extra benefits or services are provided by trustee votes that do not serve the mandated or majority of the residents the trustees are supposed to be representing. Their objection is the narrow scope to which the conflict of interest term refers and what they believe is the manipulation of the HDSB trustees to work around that very definition.

So now we must ask, is the HDSB and its trustees sensitive to the appearance of conflict of interest based on the distrust of the public as noted above and could that explain the sudden switch to amend the verbal wording at their meeting contradicting the paper Agenda/Minutes distributed at the meeting and general tradition?

Could the new wording have resulted in the implementation of Bill 177 and its changes regarding trustee behaviour and conduct?

Does other areas of government, business and life not have the obligation to disclose the fact that outside relationships or interests exist that could affect one’s ability to provide objectivity. Is it not fair to expect the same to be included in the education system’s definition of conflict of interest?

Do you believe the Ministry of Education should amend the Conflict of Interest rules to include guidelines that factors in a bias based not only influence of money but that of family connections to the subject being voted on or discussed, etc.?

Many community members are stating the limited definition of Conflict of Interest as defined in the Education Act is no longer acceptable and should be changed to include what has become a standard within business, government and society today.

Let it be noted that school board trustees may have stated Conflict of Interest exists regarding issues being presented even when monetary compensation is not the issue but rather they too have seen the issue to include influence or relationship to the subject that could be interpreted as their objectivity to an issue or item being voted on could be questioned. Let it be noted, however, that many in the community believe when it comes to key programming decisions regarding French Immersion and Primary Gifted conflicts based on non monetary connections have not been noted even when relationships and influences could be argued.

Let us know what you think?

Other Related Stories

Burlington names its new school

Teacher association funds election campaign

New high school scenarios






Shop Celebrity Style at Singer22.com


Check Out New Arrivals at DesignersImports.com


PoshTots - extraordinary children's furnishings!

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

HDSB boundary review meeting conflicts with school fundraiser

April 5, 2011 By 1 Comment

The HDSB boundaries review meeting for the new Oakville high school on April 7th conflicts with Abbey Park High School’s ‘Pasta Night’ fundraiser.  This fundraiser is to benefit the Cancer Society.

We were notified about the conflict this week by upset parents who said the HDSB should have reviewed the calendars of affected schools to ensure no conflict existed before scheduling this important information night for parents.

The following issues were raised by community members.

1. This event is run by the students with donations from the community for a very worthy cause. What message is it giving the students who have worked hard and are trying to be charitable when the board hosts a meeting where parents should attend. This could affect the number of people attending this event and thus the amount raised for this charity.

2. Parents who have already bought tickets or still want to attend this worthwhile event will either miss out on the important update meeting or will be scrambling to get there (assuming there is even room for their late arrival).

3. Abbey Park is one of the high schools affected by the scenarios and information being discussed and thus the schedule should have been checked. Students attending this school may be affected and thus their families deserved to be part of the update meeting without sacrificing supporting the fundraising effort.

4. Abbey Park is only English programming so many are crying foul stating they believe it could be seen as a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of English families attending the update meeting.

5. Scheduled in front of a PA day, it has also been noted any families going away for the weekend may impact attendance.

 

Please let anyone you know who is attending the Pasta Night fundraiser to also try to attend the high school boundary update meeting after the fundraiser.

Let us know what you think.



Shop Celebrity Style at Singer22.com


Check Out New Arrivals at DesignersImports.com


PoshTots - extraordinary children's furnishings!

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

Oakville Long term accommodation questions must be sent by today

April 3, 2011 By 2 Comments

Today is the last day to ask questions about the 2010 Long Term Accommodation Plan (LTAP).  The LTAP was presented and approved at the HDSB January 19, 2011 meeting.  The LTAP defines existing and projected accommodation needs of students in elementary and secondary schools in Halton. It identifies new capital project initiatives (e.g. new schools).

This plan, what is stated in it, the numbers provided and the issues and discrepancies shape what education is delivered in Halton, to who, where, etc. It is extremely important that the public provide feedback on issues on this.

The entire Long Term Accommodation Plan can be reviewed online.

Questions relating to the 2010 LTAP are the only questions being publicly answered at the moment on the Halton District School Board that is why considering some of the issues being faced by Halton it is so important to get your questions in. We hope that questions sent regarding the new Oakville high school will be answered and posted on their site as soon as possible.

Send questions to plan@hdsb.ca with the subject “LTAP 2010”

Some of the sections sent to us by readers are as follows. We will update this as we are given more information.

Ward 4 – Oakville

Issue 1:

Some of the 2010 actual numbers for school do not match the numbers provided to the recent Boundary Review Committee for the new high school. How is this possible? We need the HDSB to explain the discrepancies and why the numbers provided in this report were not used during the high school sessions.

Issue 2:

How can the HDSB state there is a French Immersion preference at Palermo Public School when they forced a 5 to 1 larger French Immersion boundary on the school (that means English are outnumbered potentially 5 to 1) without any method of controlling the enrollment numbers going forward with either a revised boundary, caps, opening up additional schools to the program, etc.? Considering the Ward 4 trustee herself stated she preferred a Single Track FI school at the beginning of the accommodation and then presented a motion at the last minute on vote night that did not protect the English stream by including any measures to ensure balanced enrollment for FI and English  how can the board now state the community prefers this? Delegation after delegation from community members asked for controls to ensure the school truly remained dual for both groups of children. Here is the piece where Planning talks about the numbers as related to this issue.

From the Cover document -

3. 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. The review area will continue to exhibit ongoing accommodation pressures as enrolment increases due to demographic factors (young school aged population), French Immersion preference and new residential growth. The area in question will continue to see enrolment growth over the next ten years. Utilization will 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.

Enrolment at Captain R. Wilson and Emily Carr Public Schools will continue to be sufficiently accommodated in their respective building and portable capacities. However, enrolment at Palermo PS is projected to exceed Report 11001 page 4 building and portable capacity by 2013. There are no available elementary school sites in the review area that the Board could access to construct another facility. Although there is no current need for an addition, there may be a need to consider this at Palermo PS, 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). Consideration should be given in terms of revisiting the potential delivery of the French Immersion program in schools within this review 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.

Issue 3:

The numbers as noted above for Palermo without some controls and revisiting the delivery of FI in schools in this area has been noted as an issue by Planning. What is this board going to do to make this a more manageable optional program.

4. ERA 115 – Abbey Lane, Forest Trail, Heritage Glen, Pilgrim Wood and West Oak Public Schools

The area in question will see overall enrolment decline over the next ten years. Utilization will 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 will continue to exhibit accommodation pressures over the next 10 years. The school currently exceeds its building and portable capacity, with 15 portables on site to accommodate students. Projections indicate that there will be no enrolment relief over the next ten years. As a result, the 2010 LTAP proposes an 8-classroom addition at Forest Trail PS for 2012/2013, subject to funding from the Ministry of Education (Capital Priorities Template).

It should be noted that enrolment for schools in the Glen Abbey Community (area south of Upper Middle Road) will continue to decline over the longer term. Enrolment will 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 will be 495 empty pupil places in the Glen Abbey Schools. The introduction of the early Gifted Program at Pilgrim Wood PS may 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.

Issue 4:

French Immersion needs to be managed differently than is currently being done by our trustees. I say trustees because it is their vote that has developed Single Track French Immersion schools. In doing so they have jammed children into locations that clearly cannot accommodate the numbers. They need to consider manageable methods of delivering it by either opening up more schools, putting caps on it, stop promoting it on its success based primarily on entry numbers and not those graduating, etc. What will this board and its voting trustees do to develop a long term sustainable French Immersion program that does serves mandated programming and optional programming?

Make sure to also post your questions here so that we can determine what questions were asked and/or answered by the board.

Let us know what you think.



Shop Celebrity Style at Singer22.com


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

New Oakville high school scenarios

April 1, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The HDSB boundary accommodation committee for the new high school has now voted on their final 3 scenario choices. This was decided during last night’s meeting in what could be deemed “meeting of the minds”. The scenarios and criteria have now been added to the Halton District School Board’s site. [Read more...]

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

HDSB holds meeting to discuss new high school scenarios

March 31, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The public is being invited to an information night with the Halton District School Board to discuss the remaining boundary scenarios for the new high school being built in Ward 4.


This newest school referred to by the board as SRA 103 (the new high school in Oakville located at 2820 Westoak Trails Boulevard). The meeting is to share information about the boundary review process and update the public on the 5 remaining options.

The meeting will take place on:

Thursday, April 7, 2011
Iroquois Ridge High School
1123 Glenashton Drive, Oakville
7- 8:30 p.m.

The board’s website is stating it is the public’s opportunity to provide feedback on the scenarios.

Meetings have been held at affected elementary schools to update parents on how the process is going and to discuss concerns. Representatives have often met with parents who have openly expressed outrage and distrust at the HDSB, its handling of these types of processes, the board’s motivations and transparency regarding the final outcome, and the issue with programming again being factored into sessions that are supposed to be about accommodation.

The scenarios are supposed to be posted as early as this Friday on the board site for the public to review.

The public has also been encouraged to submit questions/concerns on their site.

Send your questions to plan@hdsb.ca. Make sure to label them SRA 103 Boundary Review Question





Shop Celebrity Style at Singer22.com

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