Monday 26 May 2014
On Monday, May 26, 2014 by PWSParents
Public Meeting
School Boundary Review—Presentation of Interim Report:Grosvenor-Wentworth Park and Park West Schools
The Halifax Regional School Board is currently conducting a boundary review for Grosvenor-Wentworth Park Elementary School and Park West School. The boundary review has included the following schools: Burton Ettinger Elementary, Clayton Park Junior High, Duc d’Anville Elementary, Fairview Heights Elementary, Fairview Junior High, Grosvenor-Wentworth Park Elementary, Halifax West High, Park West School, Rockingham Elementary, Bedford South Elementary, Charles P. Allen High and Rocky Lake Junior High.
The Boundary Review Committee Interim Report recommends changes and the suggestions can be found at the following link:
Boundary Review Interim Proposals
Visit www.hrsb.ca to view maps of the proposed boundaries.
The Boundary Review Committee will hold a public meeting to explain the Interim Boundary Proposal and provide an opportunity for public input or other possible suggestions.
This meeting will be held:
June 2, 2014
Bella Rose Theatre, Halifax West High School
7-9:30 p.m.
Please make sure your voice is heard by attending the meeting and sharing your opinion. The Committee will benefit from hearing all points of view.
Persons or groups wishing to make presentations are requested to limit their time to 3 minutes. Written submissions to accompany oral presentations would be appreciated. Presenters wishing to email written submissions to the Boundary Review Committee may address them to dec2013boundary@hrsb.ca .
On Monday, May 26, 2014 by PWSParents
Community Complaints Park West Boundary Review - Overview
• Designing the January 27th “public consultation” meeting as a 35 minute staff presentation to impede public input;(6)
• Failing to provide information and documentation requested by community members;
• Failing to submit community suggested scenarios to committee members;
• Recommending Board members not communicate with their constituents;
• Recommending Board members deny a parent’s request to speak at February 26th Board meeting;
• Directing school staff not to obtain proof of address as part of March registration;
• Recommending committee members format their “Workshop meeting to review proposals” in a café format to impede public input;
• Recommending Board members limit public input to 5 minutes at its monthly board meeting after committee releases recommendations.
Board members have refused to meet with community members and inform themselves of their constituents’ concerns about the review and its process.
On March 17th, the Board member representing the Park West community explained to a parent that that she could not discuss the review and directed the parent to the volunteer review committee:
I cannot interject at this point in the process. Any concerns, must be sent to the committee, and if that is not sufficient, then when the meeting is scheduled for the public to have their say, this is when you address the whole board.
I am 1 voice and 1 vote. If at anytime I interfere, I could be asked to excuse myself and then not have the chance to listen to your concerns as well as the others or vote.
To another parent, on April 5th, she similarly equated an opportunity to become informed by a constituent with wrongdoing:
[Y]ou will need to let the boundary review continue with its process. Once the review's recommendation comes to the board for a decision, then you will be able to address the board as a whole. I cannot meet with every parent 1 on 1. I am not allowed to interfer with the process or I could as your board member, lose my right to speak to the matter as well as lose my right to vote.
On April 17th, on The Rick Howe Show, the Board Chair said that in response to correspondence:
[F]rom parents from from that community and I’ve written back to them and said that we have a - - you know - - we have a boundary process currently right now ... the process demands or the process says that [the boundary review committee members] need to finish their work …
The Chair explained that meetings with constituents would not “be open and transparent”. He added that if Board members met with their constituents that “we would be disrespecting the work” of the boundary review committee.
Board members are content to simply wait for the results of the boundary review process – even with knowledge of the complaints about the process employed to generate the results and community upset.
The Board members are aware of the complaints about the review and its process but refuse to investigate or take any action. They refuse to meet with their constituents. In February, they refused to allow a Park West parent to speak at their monthly public Board meeting.
With an apparent mistaken understanding of their governing role and responsibilities and a disregard for policy noncompliance, review process complaints, community input and community upset, the tenure of Board members should be in jeopardy and their review stopped.
___________________________________________________
(6) There was no opportunity for meaningful community input.
12. Impeded community input
Community complaints include impeded community input:• Designing the January 27th “public consultation” meeting as a 35 minute staff presentation to impede public input;(6)
• Failing to provide information and documentation requested by community members;
• Failing to submit community suggested scenarios to committee members;
• Recommending Board members not communicate with their constituents;
• Recommending Board members deny a parent’s request to speak at February 26th Board meeting;
• Directing school staff not to obtain proof of address as part of March registration;
• Recommending committee members format their “Workshop meeting to review proposals” in a café format to impede public input;
• Recommending Board members limit public input to 5 minutes at its monthly board meeting after committee releases recommendations.
13. Board inaction
The Board is responsible to ensure that its policies are followed in a fair and transparent manner at all times. The current boundary review is not being conducted in such a manner and is causing great upset in the community. The Board members have knowledge of these complaints and are obligated to inform themselves of the process flaws and take action.Board members have refused to meet with community members and inform themselves of their constituents’ concerns about the review and its process.
On March 17th, the Board member representing the Park West community explained to a parent that that she could not discuss the review and directed the parent to the volunteer review committee:
I cannot interject at this point in the process. Any concerns, must be sent to the committee, and if that is not sufficient, then when the meeting is scheduled for the public to have their say, this is when you address the whole board.
I am 1 voice and 1 vote. If at anytime I interfere, I could be asked to excuse myself and then not have the chance to listen to your concerns as well as the others or vote.
To another parent, on April 5th, she similarly equated an opportunity to become informed by a constituent with wrongdoing:
[Y]ou will need to let the boundary review continue with its process. Once the review's recommendation comes to the board for a decision, then you will be able to address the board as a whole. I cannot meet with every parent 1 on 1. I am not allowed to interfer with the process or I could as your board member, lose my right to speak to the matter as well as lose my right to vote.
On April 17th, on The Rick Howe Show, the Board Chair said that in response to correspondence:
[F]rom parents from from that community and I’ve written back to them and said that we have a - - you know - - we have a boundary process currently right now ... the process demands or the process says that [the boundary review committee members] need to finish their work …
The Chair explained that meetings with constituents would not “be open and transparent”. He added that if Board members met with their constituents that “we would be disrespecting the work” of the boundary review committee.
Board members are content to simply wait for the results of the boundary review process – even with knowledge of the complaints about the process employed to generate the results and community upset.
The Board members are aware of the complaints about the review and its process but refuse to investigate or take any action. They refuse to meet with their constituents. In February, they refused to allow a Park West parent to speak at their monthly public Board meeting.
With an apparent mistaken understanding of their governing role and responsibilities and a disregard for policy noncompliance, review process complaints, community input and community upset, the tenure of Board members should be in jeopardy and their review stopped.
___________________________________________________
(6) There was no opportunity for meaningful community input.
Friday 23 May 2014
On Friday, May 23, 2014 by PWSParents
Your Attendance and Support for the Presentation of this Motion is Essential!
Sheryl Blumental-Harrison will present the following motion at the May 28, 2014 regular scheduled HRSB board meeting:
9. ITEMS FOR DECISION
9.1 Board Member Sheryl Blumenthal-Harrison’s motion:
That due to the "Fowler report" and a lot of its concerns and
recommendations; I am moving the motion that the boundary review be halted or
deferred until a new policy can be updated and approved as is the decision to
develop a new policy for a school review.
Please make every effort to attend:
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
6:00 PM
Halifax Regional School Board
33 Spectacle Lake Drive
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
Wednesday 21 May 2014
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 by PWSParents
The Chronicle Herald has published an article today as a result of last nights public meeting.
Parents battle to keep Park West Primary to Grade 9
Be sure to like the article by clicking on the stars, and provide a comment.
Paul Bennett has a great article on School Boundary Reviews -site- educhatter.wordpress.com.
School Boundary Reviews - Who Controls the Process - and for What Purpose?
Parents battle to keep Park West Primary to Grade 9
Be sure to like the article by clicking on the stars, and provide a comment.
Paul Bennett has a great article on School Boundary Reviews -site- educhatter.wordpress.com.
School Boundary Reviews - Who Controls the Process - and for What Purpose?
Saturday 17 May 2014
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 by PWSParents
12. Impeded community input
Community complaints include impeded community input:
·
Designing the January 27th “public
consultation” meeting as a 35 minute staff presentation to impede public input;[6]
·
Failing to provide information and
documentation requested by community members;
·
Failing to submit community suggested
scenarios to committee members;
·
Recommending Board members not
communicate with their constituents;
·
Recommending Board members deny a
parent’s request to speak at February 26th Board meeting;
·
Directing school staff not to
obtain proof of address as part of March registration;
·
Recommending committee members format their
“Workshop meeting to review proposals” in a café format to impede public input;
·
Recommending Board members limit public
input to 5 minutes at its monthly board meeting after committee releases
recommendations.
Tuesday 13 May 2014
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 by PWSParents
How is the current Boundary Review Process for Park West School working for you? Does it need improvement? Please take the opportunity to provide your input.
You can fill out a survey on line or call 1-800-424-3777
Minister's Panel on Education
Capturing Nova Scotians’ Views on Education
The Nova Scotia government wants everyone—students, parents, educators, and community members—to help in setting a bold new direction for our public schools.
News ReleasesEducation Review Update (March 19, 2014)
Minister Names Education Review Panel (February 19, 2014)
Panelist biographies
Minister Names Education Review Panel (February 19, 2014)
Panelist biographies
We want to hear from you.
What is working well in our school system? What needs to improve?
The Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development has appointed a six-member panel to help gather public input.
The panel is chaired by the Honourable Myra Freeman, former Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia.
What is working well in our school system? What needs to improve?
The Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development has appointed a six-member panel to help gather public input.
The panel is chaired by the Honourable Myra Freeman, former Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia.
This website gives you a few ways to connect with the minister’s panel.
You can share your ideas as an individual or as part of a group:Individuals can complete an online survey, send comments by e-mail or post, or call and leave a message.
Groups can download a discussion guide and return the response form provided. They can also provide a summary of their group’s comments by e-mail or post.
The last day for completing a survey or sending a submission to the panel is FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2014.
Thursday 8 May 2014
On Thursday, May 08, 2014 by PWSParents
Community complaints Overview
Community Complaints # 1
Community Complaints # 2
Community Complaints # 3 & 4
Community Complaints # 5, 6 & 7
Community Complaints 8 & 9
• Initiating the boundary review process rather than a school closure process without disclosing the reason not to pursue a closure was to avoid a community backlash;
• Providing erroneous information to Board members;
• Withholding relevant information from Board members;
• Representing to Board members that staff met with community members on January 27th “to develop an understanding of the issues”;
• Recommending to Board members that they not communicate with parents until after the committee has put forth its recommendation;
• Advising Board members that speaking with parents could disentitle participation in board debate and vote;
• Advising Board members to refer community requests for meetings with Board members to the Superintendent;
• Recommending Board members deny a parent request to speak at the February Board meeting;
• Recommending Board members limit parents’ time to speak at the elected Board meeting to 5 minutes;
• Acknowledging there is no intention to correct erroneous information (provided in the process, including to Board members).
• Directing committee members to recommend a change (without regard or evaluation of the best possible learning environment for children living in the community);
• Directing committee members that they are not permitted to submit or consider a scenario recommending that staff recognize the school catchment area;
• Advising committee members that they have authority to close the junior high portion of a school and send students to another community (without regard to the mandate set out in their Terms of Reference and as explained in their Information Pamphlet);
• Directing and controlling committee meetings, including topics, scenarios, resources, materials, discussions, recommendations and community communication;
• Precluding committee members from meeting separately as a committee;
• Failing or refusing to provide information and documentation to the committee as required by policy or requested by committee members;
• Failing to advise committee members of available information and documentation;
• Failing to present information to committee members in a fair manner;
• Failing to correct erroneous information presented and/or discussed;
• Directing and controlling information to be provided by committee members to their school communities;
• Directing committee members not to disclose committee discussions with their respective school communities prior to subsequently disclosed Minutes – with the exception of three key messages determined by HRSB staff;
• Directing committee members not to disclose committee discussions with their respective school communities after disclosure of Minutes – with the exception of the contents of the Minutes;
• Selecting and submitting four scenarios to the committee members on February 10;
• Failing to submit to the committee members the scenario suggested by many parents to keep Park West as it is. (It was added at the insistence of a committee member on March 3);
• Failing to submit to committee members other scenarios suggested by parents;
• Failing to advise committee members to report staff interference.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Community Complaints # 1
Community Complaints # 2
Community Complaints # 3 & 4
Community Complaints # 5, 6 & 7
Community Complaints 8 & 9
10. Interference with elected Board members
Community complaints include interference with elected Board members:• Initiating the boundary review process rather than a school closure process without disclosing the reason not to pursue a closure was to avoid a community backlash;
• Providing erroneous information to Board members;
• Withholding relevant information from Board members;
• Representing to Board members that staff met with community members on January 27th “to develop an understanding of the issues”;
• Recommending to Board members that they not communicate with parents until after the committee has put forth its recommendation;
• Advising Board members that speaking with parents could disentitle participation in board debate and vote;
• Advising Board members to refer community requests for meetings with Board members to the Superintendent;
• Recommending Board members deny a parent request to speak at the February Board meeting;
• Recommending Board members limit parents’ time to speak at the elected Board meeting to 5 minutes;
• Acknowledging there is no intention to correct erroneous information (provided in the process, including to Board members).
11. Interference with volunteer committee members
Community complaints include interference with volunteer committee members:• Directing committee members to recommend a change (without regard or evaluation of the best possible learning environment for children living in the community);
• Directing committee members that they are not permitted to submit or consider a scenario recommending that staff recognize the school catchment area;
• Advising committee members that they have authority to close the junior high portion of a school and send students to another community (without regard to the mandate set out in their Terms of Reference and as explained in their Information Pamphlet);
• Directing and controlling committee meetings, including topics, scenarios, resources, materials, discussions, recommendations and community communication;
• Precluding committee members from meeting separately as a committee;
• Failing or refusing to provide information and documentation to the committee as required by policy or requested by committee members;
• Failing to advise committee members of available information and documentation;
• Failing to present information to committee members in a fair manner;
• Failing to correct erroneous information presented and/or discussed;
• Directing and controlling information to be provided by committee members to their school communities;
• Directing committee members not to disclose committee discussions with their respective school communities prior to subsequently disclosed Minutes – with the exception of three key messages determined by HRSB staff;
• Directing committee members not to disclose committee discussions with their respective school communities after disclosure of Minutes – with the exception of the contents of the Minutes;
• Selecting and submitting four scenarios to the committee members on February 10;
• Failing to submit to the committee members the scenario suggested by many parents to keep Park West as it is. (It was added at the insistence of a committee member on March 3);
• Failing to submit to committee members other scenarios suggested by parents;
• Failing to advise committee members to report staff interference.
_________________________________________________________________________________
[5] Source: Superintendent’s Report to the Halifax
Regional School Board, January 2014. The January 27th meeting was a
35 minute presentation. There was no opportunity for meaningful community
input.
Tuesday 6 May 2014
On Tuesday, May 06, 2014 by PWSParents
Parent and Community Meeting Date Confirmed for Tuesday May 20, 2014
Saint Benedict Auditorium - Basement Level45 Radcliffe Drive7:00 PM
1) The Parent/community Meeting Tuesday May, 20, 7:00 PM,
2) The Boundary Review Public Meeting(date TBD) and finally
3) Halifax Regional School Board, Board Meeting (date TBD) at the end of this process.
We will need to show a strong voice to the Halifax Regional School Board (HRSB) and The Minister of Education that the Boundary Review Process must be stopped and needs to be changed to include the best interest of the students, allow for community consultation and follow a democratic governance process.
It appears the process for Boundary Reviews by HRSB operates on erroneous information, allows for interference, exceeds mandates, etc., and is an acceptable practice for this process. It seems as if the process is unethical, manipulative and does not allow for democracy to play a role, we cannot allow it to continue.
In my opinion we need to stand up against the BULLYING from HRSB. We must not allow our students educational interest to be sacrificed to meet HRSB facility management utilization numbers.
If you are concerned about loosing our Junior High School, please attend to provide support. Let your neighbours, and friends know what is happening to our Community School and the potential impact that this change could have on them, businesses in the community and potentially the negative value of real estate properties for the area.
Come and support your School and Community, don't forget to bring a friend.
Diana Whalen - MLA for Clayton Park West has been invited to attend and speak to the initiates she is taking to help our community preserve our school.
Thank you.
Tweet to Save Park West School
On Tuesday, May 06, 2014 by PWSParents
Community Complaints #1
Community Complaint #2
Community Complaints Con't 3 & 4
Community Complaints Con't 5,6 & 7
8. Withheld information
Community complaints include relevant information withheld from Board members, volunteer committee members and the community:• Imagine Our Schools recommendations - In 2008, HRSB hired Maureen O’Shaughnessy, an independent consultant, to provide a ten year facility master plan. In her June 18, 2009, public presentation, Ms. O’Shaughnessy cited special cultural and demographic attributes of the school community and recommended that the school be maintained as a P-9 school;
• Model school - Park West is a model school in the Province;
• Full slate of programming and activities - Park West offers a full slate of programming and activities;
• High achievement - Achievement of Park West students is among the highest in the Province;
• Community support - The Park West community, including teachers and parents, overwhelming support the P-9 configuration;
• Stability for New Canadians - Park West School students speak 50 languages and come from 70 countries, many from families who moved to the community so their children could attend the school. The stability provided by the P-9 configuration is important to both new and established Canadians. The school is a draw for new Canadians to move to and settle in Nova Scotia;
• Current enrolment - Current enrolment includes a significant number of out of area students, many without permission. The presence of out of area students inflates the number of students who live in the school’s catchment area. It also provides false data; which is used by staff to make projections;
• Recognition of boundaries - Staff does not follow the Student Registration Policy and thereby allows a significant number of out of area students. Following this policy would be the least disruptive means to reduce enrolment - if a reduction is needed;
• Capped enrolment - Staff does not cap enrolment. It too, is a least disruptive means to reduce enrolment;
• FOIPOP request - Staff’s refusal to provide information has forced community members to make a FOIPOP request. The results of which confirmed inaccuracy of information provided by staff;
• Community “backlash” - There is significant underutilization of schools in Fairview and Clayton Park. On March 12th, the Superintendent advised that although he has the ability to close a school he would not do so because closing schools is not popular with the public and would create backlash in Fairview and Clayton Park.
9. Exceeded mandate
The Terms of Reference regarding this boundary review state that it is to “develop a report regarding catchment areas.” This is the governing document regarding the mandate of the committee.The Committee is to provide a report regarding catchment areas:
The Boundary Review Committee will develop a report that will recommend the catchment areas for the above outlined schools and outline the opportunities and constraints of these potential boundaries. [Emphasis added]
Staff explained that the review pertained to catchment area in HRSB Boundary Review Information Pamphlet Grosvenor-Wentworth Park Elementary School Park West School January 2014:
What is a school boundary?
A school boundary refers to the designated geographic area around a school that includes residences ‘assigned’ for student enrolment at the neighborhood school.
What is a Boundary Review?
A Boundary Review is a process of assessing enrolment catchment areas for existing schools to determine the impact of changing a boundary, and to make recommendations based on the assessment to address potential overcrowding and underutilization of schools.
How are schools identified to be recommended for Boundaries Reviews?
As per Halifax Regional School Board Policy B.003, the Governing Board is authorized to periodically review any and all school catchment boundaries … [Emphasis added]
Staff have submitted scenarios to the volunteer committee members that fall outside its authority under its Terms of Reference. (Staff have submitted scenarios regarding grade configuration, and in particular, closing the junior high potion of the school and sending the students to another community.) Moreover, it is understood that staff are pressuring the volunteer committee members to recommend such a scenario – even though they have no authority to do so.
Friday 2 May 2014
On Friday, May 02, 2014 by PWSParents
Community Complaints Overview
Community Complaints Continued 2
Community Complaints Continued 3
Community Complaint Continued 4
The hallmarks of the current review are more disconcerting than unreliable information and lack of community input. The community has complained about staff’s refusal to follow Board policies and recognize school boundaries and cap enrolment. Community complaints about the review include lack of transparency, erroneous information, withheld information, exceeded mandate, impeded community input, Board inaction and staff interference with elected Board members and volunteer committee members. The review should be stopped.
On January 27th, staff presented the enrolments of several schools; which showed schools in the same neighborhoods (Fairview and Clayton Park) with significant underutilization – of the magnitude of 1,200 seats :
* Fairview Junior High and Fairview Heights Elementary are adjacent schools and have a combined underutilization of 627 (461+166). Burton Ettinger School has an underutilization of 226. It is 1.3 km from Fairview Heights Elementary;
* Clayton Park Junior High and Duc d’Anville Elementary are 500 m apart and have a combined underutilization of 369 (198+171).
All of the above schools are within 2.4 km of each other. If the underlying school population issue is actually an underutilization of facilities, the Board should stop the review and initiate a school closure process. In any event, with knowledge of the significant underutilization, the Board should be examining whether the best possible learning environments would be achieved by closing one or more schools in Fairview and Clayton Park.
On March 12, 2014, the Superintendent advised that although he has the ability to close a school (in Fairview and Clayton Park) he would not do so because closing schools is not popular with the public and would create backlash in those communities.
The Superintendent also advised that he refuses to determine the accurate student population in the Park West area by requiring proof of address, despite knowing that it could impact a current boundary review. He was also asked to provide the Boundary Review Committee with the accurate information on the functional capacity for Park West; which he refused. He stated that the information is available online to the Committee and they should be able to source it themselves. When asked why staff would not provide the Committee with the information required to perform their duties he stated that “it was up to the Boundary Review Committee members to request it”.
It is noteworthy that the Superintendent advised that he had or will be recommending to the elected Board members that they: (1) not communicate with Park West parents until after the committee has put forth its recommendation; and (2) limit Park West parents’ time to speak to the elected Board at a public meeting. It is also noteworthy that a Park West parent’s request to address the Board at its February 26th public meeting was denied.
• Historical enrolment: It was represented to the Board that “there is a positive migration pattern that has continued to cause increased enrolment for a number of years”;
FACT: The enrolment has not increased in the past several years.
• Current enrolment: It was represented to the Board that enrolment was 799 (September 2013);
FACT: The current enrolment is 783.
• Projected enrolment: It was represented to the Board that enrolment is increasing. In a January 26th email to the PTA Chair, the Superintendent stated there was “growing enrollment in the communities of Park West and Grosvenor-Wentworth”;
FACT: In her June 18, 2009, Imagine Our Schools public presentation, consultant Maureen O’Shaughnessy projected a decline in enrolment to 625 in 2018-19 and recommended short term accommodation by portable classrooms. In January 2014, the community projected a decline in enrolment by 30 students per year, providing an enrolment of 693 in September 2016. (Current enrolment in grades P-2 are 30 students per grade fewer than grades 7-9.) In February 2014, staff reported that enrolment is projected to decrease.
• School capacity: It was represented to the Board that the capacity had a “range of 630-660”;
FACT: In March 2014, the Superintendent acknowledged that “functional” capacity includes portables; which would provide for a school capacity of 730 - 810 (enrolment is within the range).
• Space utilization: It was represented to the Board that “a number of the specialty spaces are being used as homerooms”;
FACT: The art room was moved and is taught in another room. Its original room is being used as a homeroom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[4] Imagine Our Schools, South Central & South West HRM Recommendations to the Halifax Regional School Board (June 2009) at 75.
Community Complaints Continued 2
Community Complaints Continued 3
Community Complaint Continued 4
5. Complaints - transparency, information, mandate, interference, community input, etc.
The hallmarks of the current review are more disconcerting than unreliable information and lack of community input. The community has complained about staff’s refusal to follow Board policies and recognize school boundaries and cap enrolment. Community complaints about the review include lack of transparency, erroneous information, withheld information, exceeded mandate, impeded community input, Board inaction and staff interference with elected Board members and volunteer committee members. The review should be stopped.
6. Lack of transparency – Terms of Reference and a school closure by another name
Board and staff gave notice to the community that the boundary review pertains to school catchment areas (The Terms of Reference and Information Pamphlet are discussed in Part 9), but instead, are seeking to: (1) use the boundary review process to close the junior high portion of Park West School; and (2) send the students to Fairview and Clayton Park in which there are one or more underutilized schools.On January 27th, staff presented the enrolments of several schools; which showed schools in the same neighborhoods (Fairview and Clayton Park) with significant underutilization – of the magnitude of 1,200 seats :
* Fairview Junior High and Fairview Heights Elementary are adjacent schools and have a combined underutilization of 627 (461+166). Burton Ettinger School has an underutilization of 226. It is 1.3 km from Fairview Heights Elementary;
* Clayton Park Junior High and Duc d’Anville Elementary are 500 m apart and have a combined underutilization of 369 (198+171).
All of the above schools are within 2.4 km of each other. If the underlying school population issue is actually an underutilization of facilities, the Board should stop the review and initiate a school closure process. In any event, with knowledge of the significant underutilization, the Board should be examining whether the best possible learning environments would be achieved by closing one or more schools in Fairview and Clayton Park.
On March 12, 2014, the Superintendent advised that although he has the ability to close a school (in Fairview and Clayton Park) he would not do so because closing schools is not popular with the public and would create backlash in those communities.
The Superintendent also advised that he refuses to determine the accurate student population in the Park West area by requiring proof of address, despite knowing that it could impact a current boundary review. He was also asked to provide the Boundary Review Committee with the accurate information on the functional capacity for Park West; which he refused. He stated that the information is available online to the Committee and they should be able to source it themselves. When asked why staff would not provide the Committee with the information required to perform their duties he stated that “it was up to the Boundary Review Committee members to request it”.
It is noteworthy that the Superintendent advised that he had or will be recommending to the elected Board members that they: (1) not communicate with Park West parents until after the committee has put forth its recommendation; and (2) limit Park West parents’ time to speak to the elected Board at a public meeting. It is also noteworthy that a Park West parent’s request to address the Board at its February 26th public meeting was denied.
7. Erroneous information
Community complaints include erroneous information provided to Board members, volunteer committee members and the community:• Historical enrolment: It was represented to the Board that “there is a positive migration pattern that has continued to cause increased enrolment for a number of years”;
FACT: The enrolment has not increased in the past several years.
• Current enrolment: It was represented to the Board that enrolment was 799 (September 2013);
FACT: The current enrolment is 783.
• Projected enrolment: It was represented to the Board that enrolment is increasing. In a January 26th email to the PTA Chair, the Superintendent stated there was “growing enrollment in the communities of Park West and Grosvenor-Wentworth”;
FACT: In her June 18, 2009, Imagine Our Schools public presentation, consultant Maureen O’Shaughnessy projected a decline in enrolment to 625 in 2018-19 and recommended short term accommodation by portable classrooms. In January 2014, the community projected a decline in enrolment by 30 students per year, providing an enrolment of 693 in September 2016. (Current enrolment in grades P-2 are 30 students per grade fewer than grades 7-9.) In February 2014, staff reported that enrolment is projected to decrease.
• School capacity: It was represented to the Board that the capacity had a “range of 630-660”;
FACT: In March 2014, the Superintendent acknowledged that “functional” capacity includes portables; which would provide for a school capacity of 730 - 810 (enrolment is within the range).
• Space utilization: It was represented to the Board that “a number of the specialty spaces are being used as homerooms”;
FACT: The art room was moved and is taught in another room. Its original room is being used as a homeroom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2] Although there
are differences between school closure and boundary reviews, similarities of
stakeholders, interests, processes, impact and community complaints make
reference to school reviews relevant and instructive for boundary reviews.
[3] 627 + 226 + 369 = 1,222.[4] Imagine Our Schools, South Central & South West HRM Recommendations to the Halifax Regional School Board (June 2009) at 75.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search
Recent Posts
Popular Posts
- HRSB Staff TARGETS Park West School and Rejects Boundary Committee recommendation
- Why would a Boundary Review be initiated to Include Park West School?
- Interference - Elected Board Members & Volunteer Committee Members - Community Complaint Cont'd
- HRSB member Sheryl Blumenthal-Harrison will present a Motion to Halt or Defer Park West School Boundary Review
- HRSB Governing Board votes 6 to 4 in favour of Keeping Park West P-9
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(32)
-
▼
May
(10)
- Interim Report to be Presented at Boundary Review ...
- Impeded Community Input and Board Inaction - Commu...
- HRSB member Sheryl Blumenthal-Harrison will presen...
- Articles: Parents Battle to Keep Park West P-9 & ...
- Impeded Community Input - Community Complaint Con't
- A Chance to Express Your Views on Education - What...
- Interference - Elected Board Members & Volunteer C...
- PUBLIC MEETING Tuesday - May 20th 7:00 PM
- Withheld Information & Exceeded Mandate - Communit...
- Interference, Lack of Transparency, Erroneous Info...
-
▼
May
(10)
Powered by Blogger.