Jun 02 2014Minister remains silent
HALIFAX, NS – Progressive Conservative Education critic Pat Dunn is calling on Liberal Minister, Karen Casey to act now to ensure Park West students are treated fairly.
In November 2013, the Halifax Regional School Board approved a motion to complete a boundary review for Park West School. Scenarios proposed to the boundary review committee include moving grades seven to nine to other schools in the city.
Parents’ groups have also gone on record indicating that their concerns are not being addressed.
“I have heard the concerns of numerous parents who have become frustrated with this process,” Dunn said. “It is the Minister’s job to ensure accountability and transparency in the process.”
A complicated and emotionally charged issue, Dunn is calling on Minister Casey to facilitate a meeting between the department, the school board, and concerned parents. He suggests with open and transparent dialogue, the best decision can be made for the children attending Park West.
“Unfortunately, the children are the ones who are caught in the middle of a conflict like this,” Dunn says. “Letting this issue spiral out of control shows a complete lack of competence.”
Diana Whalen, MLA for Clayton Park West, has not been actively involved in promoting a solution to this issue.
Friday, 18 July 2014
Concerned
Parents of Park West School
July 2, 2014
Steve
Warburton
Chair,
Policy Review and Development Committee
Halifax
Regional School Board
·
Copied concurrently to Elwin LeRoux,
Superintendent of the Halifax Regional School Board
Re: Boundary Review Process
Dear Board Member Warburton:
We
were impressed with the Members of the Board at the meeting that took place on
June 25, 2014.
Board
members showed a commitment to good governance and the Halifax Regional School Board’s
mission, vision and values.
We
were pleased to hear discussion focused on educational outcomes of the
students, safety and the importance of listening to public input.
This
was a good outcome for Park West and a good result in building public
confidence in the Board.
However,
we believe there were significant issues with the Boundary Review Process and
would like to offer some suggestions for consideration. We understand the Superintendent is
considering a review of this process, so perhaps these comments will be timely
and helpful.
To provide some framework for these
comments we have broken them down into four categories:
1. Involvement of the Board in Boundary Reviews;
2. Formation and work of the Boundary
Review Committee (“BRC”);
3. Involvement of HRSB staff in Boundary
Reviews;
4. Input from the Public.
Involvement of the Board in Boundary Reviews
1.1 Evaluation of requests from staff
- Staff provided the Board with the following to support initiating the
Boundary Review: “there
is a positive migration pattern that has continued to cause increased enrolment
for a number of years”. Reporting,
such a broad statement with no additional information is not comprehensive enough
for Board members to make a decision on initiating a boundary review, it does
not support good decision making by the Board and breeds suspicion of the
resulting decision and the motives of staff.
Staff should be
required to provide supporting data and information prior to requesting the
Board initiate a Boundary Review – at a minimum this should include the past 5
years of actual enrolment and next five years of forecasted enrolment. At the same time Staff should be required to
provide information on other relevant inputs such as programming, safety, etc. This
would permit the Board to consider more closely whether the staff request is
inclusive and that it aligns with the Boards objectives and values.
1.2
Comments by Board Members – On April 25, 2014 Chairman Gin Yee
wrote an opinion piece in the Chronicle Herald indicating his personal opinion
that change must happen at Park West.
This was inappropriate as he made this statement in the absence of all
available information including public consultation. It was also inappropriate as, given Gin Yee’s
position as Chair of the Board, it would not be unreasonable to believe his
comments could have an impact on other Board Members.
Board
Members should not offer comments in public forums as to what they believe the
solutions to items currently under review may be, particularly when a process
is underway to confirm and suggest alternatives.
Formation and work of the Boundary Review Committee
2.1
Staff should provide the BRC with
adequate materials at the inception of the process - This should include the BRC’s written
mandate, contact information of the previous BRC Chair (so they can discuss
what worked/what didn’t work so as to promote continuous improvement), copies
of relevant HRSB policies, historic and projected information on schools
included in the review and info on other factors related to the included
schools.
In addition, the Facilitator is
required by Section 5.2 of the Creating School Populations Procedures to “provide
the Boundary Review Committee with data on enrolment patterns, demographic
trends, development prospects, transportation information, facility
assessments, and any other data considered relevant by the Facilitator.”
We have been advised that in a number
of instances, information requested by members did not materialize and in at
least one case was instead provided by community members after they received it
from HRSB though FOIPOP request.
2.2
The Board should maintain direct
oversight of the BRC
– A Board Member, possibly the Chair of the Policy Review and Development Committee,
should be appointed to be the liaison with the Boundary Review Committee and
the Chair of the BRC should report directly to that Board Member.
2.3
The Chair of the BRC should appoint his/her
own staff – including
the facilitator and the secretary. We recommend that these not be Halifax
Regional School Board Staff, or past HRSB employees such as Terry Wadden, so as
to limit conflicts of interest and perceived or actual bias.
In addition, the roles of the BRC Chair, the facilitator
and the secretary should be clearly defined.
2.4
Meeting organization – HRSB staff, principals and the
facilitator should not sit at the main committee table as they are simply there
to be a non-voting resource. The current
BRC saw open discussion from almost 30 people with staff having a significant
voice in swaying decisions. A committee of this size is almost guaranteed to be
ineffective and certainly frustrating to work within for its members.
In addition, BRC meetings should include an in-camera
session that excludes HRSB staff, principals and the facilitator to ensure the
voting members are able to speak freely in the event they do not feel
comfortable to do so in the open session.
This should not be optional as optional in-camera sessions can cause
undue concern and friction when they are called on an ad-hoc basis.
The BRC should hold its meetings in a venue that is
accessible to the public and provides for a recorded discussion similar to the
HRSB chambers. The meetings should also be open to the public. Sanitized committee minutes were a concern
with the most recent process and as with the HRSB meetings, recorded sessions
provide an added level of transparency.
2.5
Provision of information by Staff - Staff should be required to provide
additional information as requested. There
were problems in obtaining information requested from staff during the most
recent boundary review. To the extent
the information is not forthcoming from Staff, the Chair of the BRC should
contact their liaison at the Board and the BRC process should cease until the
information is provided.
2.6 Reports
from the BRC – Reports
should be provided with a set format and include comments on each of the
evaluation criteria in table form. Each of these criteria should be broken down
into specific sub-headings so the BRC members understand the definition, scope
and criteria of the various components and arguments that need to be
considered. For greater certainty this includes the requirements under Section
6.1 of the Creating School Populations Procedures:
6.1.1 Long-term viability;
6.1.2 Potential enrolment growth;
6.1.3 Use of space that
is disused due to enrolment decline;
6.1.4 The optimum
utilization of facilities;
6.1.5 The board’s policy
C.010 Race Relations, Cross Cultural
Understanding, and Human Rights in learning that promotes principles that value and celebrate
diversity;
6.1.6 The impact on the
affected students and communities;
6.1.7 The impact on the
delivery of programs;
6.1.8 The Family of
Schools structure of the board;
6.1.9 The clarity and
consistency of the proposed boundary;
6.1.10
Student transportation and safety.
However, as noted by Dave Wright during his comments to
the Board at the June 26, 2014 Board Meeting, the impact on the education of
the students should take paramount importance when evaluating options.
Finally, the final report of the BRC should be submitted
and presented directly to the Board.
2.7 Public
access to materials of the BRC
– all materials reviewed and received by the BRC (including but not limited to
minutes of the BRC and input letters from members of the public) should be made
public. Minutes should be made available within 1 day of being approved. All
relevant information related to the above criteria, student populations,
demographics, etc. should be made immediately available on the website in a
structured, easily accessible manner, to allow the public to perform their own
review. This is the best option to solicit quality public input for possible
scenarios while maintaining transparency.
Involvement of HRSB staff in Boundary Reviews
3.1 Provision of timely information –
Staff should be required to provide the information required to the BRC at the
start of the process.
3.2 Provision of consistent and well
explained information – Staff should be required to fully explain,
cite their sources and provide calculations of any information they provide on
capacity. This was not done during the
past review and in fact, staff provided revised capacity numbers on the night
of the final Board meeting, highlighting the need to provide this information
on a more timely, detailed and accurate basis.
3.3 Interference by HRSB
staff – Staff interfered with
the Boundary Review Committee to such an extent as to disable them from
performing their task. Some of these concerns were documented in a letter from a committee member that was provided to the Board.
Such interference included:
·
Directing
committee members to recommend a change (without any comparative analysis as to
whether a change was required or would be preferable to the current boundaries).
·
Directing and
limiting discussion, submitting scenarios to be considered by the committee
members which did not include certain scenarios submitted by the public (for example,
the scenario submitted by an overwhelming portion of the Park West School
community was not included in the HRSB staff scenarios purported to have come from the public);
·
Directing
which scenarios would and would not be considered by the committee members (for
example, staff would not permit the committee to consider a scenario that
included a recommendation that HRSB staff observe its policy by enforcing
existing boundaries);
·
Failing to
inform the committee members of available information and documentation;
·
Failing to
provide information and documentation required to be considered by committee members;
·
Failing to
provide information requested by committee members and directing committee
members not to disclose committee discussions with their respective school
communities – with the exception of three key messages determined by HRSB staff
(prior to subsequently disclosed Minutes).
3.4 Financial
impact of recommendations - board staff should be obligated to provide realistic cost
implications for any scenarios that a boundary review committee is considering
recommending.
We recognize that a balance is
needed between requiring too much up front, but sometime before a final
recommendation is formulated, the BRC and the Board need to know the cost
implications of recommendations.
Involvement of the Public
4.1
Public
input – Public meetings were heavily one-sided rather than promoting
productive dialogues. In addition, the exclusion of the public from the actual
BRC meetings is not a transparent process.
The purpose of public meetings should be made clear (i.e. is the meeting
for information only or is input being sought).
The BRC meetings should be made public as they are debates involving
public institutions.
4.2
Public
disclosure - Questions or comments sent into the BRC were not
published on the BRC website, nor were their
answers. This is in direct contrast to a pledge made early in the process
recorded in their February 10th minutes as "Questions
submitted are being answered and will be made public". Correspondence should be made public as it
involves comments on a publically funded institution.
Other Comments
Enrolment Policies
Halifax Regional School Board Policies regarding enrolment
in the Park West catchment area are not being enforced and they should be
by requiring that proof of residency in the boundary be requested via a power
bill or other definitive forms of documentation. This should be done every year, in
particular for schools that the HRSB has identified as having high enrolment.
It makes no sense to consider making changes to any
of the schools involved in order to address capacity issues if the effect of
the changes could be effectively overridden by families who chose to send their
children to schools outside their boundary areas.
Armed with that information, the community and HRSB
can have an informed discussion on capacity with the knowledge that if
decisions are made, and boundaries are enforced in the future, the resulting
school populations at the schools involved will be in line with expectations.
Timing of Repetition of Boundary Reviews
Given the high level of disruption that a Boundary
Review causes for a community we request that the motion with respect to
Park West be amended to note that there will not be any further Boundary
Reviews for Park West in the next four years unless there are
material increases to enrolments and/or the Province of Nova Scotia imposes
mandatory changes in grade configurations or class size caps resulting in the
impossibility of delivering the required curriculum.
Thursday, 26 June 2014
Dear Park West Parents,
Congratulations on
keeping your school community intact. I know this has been a long and
emotional process for many of you and I am glad the issue has been resolved.
Through your actions
and persistence, you have shown that Park West is more than bricks and mortar.
It is the center of an active and thriving community.
There are several
lessons to be learned from your experience with the boundary review
process. I am hopeful changes can be made to make boundary reviews less
divisive and more consultative.
Congratulations
again. Have a safe and happy summer.
Sincerely,
Hon. Jamie Baillie,
FCA, MLA
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Opposition
Park West School will remain P-9!
"It takes a village to raise a child" quoted by board member Kirk Arsenault as he spoke in favour of the community of Park West. We are fortunate to have such a village.
HRSB Member Sheryl Blumenthal-Harrison represented her constituents, our community, exceptionally with this Boundary Review.
We would like to extend a special thank you for all your support with this very difficult process.
Board Members, Kirk Arsenault, Sheryl Blumenthal-Harrison, Christy Linders, Cindy Littlefair, Steve Warburton and Dave Wright, voted the motion of staff down to result in Park West School remaining P-9.
The community can finally rest peacefully knowing their students will continue at Park West School and that the battle has been laid to rest.
Six months of upheaval, a battle that seemed like a marathon that would never end, but the effort aided in accomplishing a result for our children that our community can be proud of.
THANK YOU TO ALL WHO TOOK AN INTEREST IN OUR CHILDREN, STOOD UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN AND WAS HAPPY TO LEND A HAND WHEN A HAND WAS NEEDED.
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Superintendent Elwin LeRoux goes against all recommendations and public input to steam ahead with
the TARGETED Plan to dismantle P-9 Schools.
Late Friday night the HRSB posted the staff’s final report and
recommendations.
In a baffling and unprecedented move, HRSB staff is recommending to the
Board that the work of the Boundary Review Committee and all public input be
ignored.
Instead, they are recommending HRSB staff’s preferred approach to Park
West – the removal of Grades 7-9.
The HRSB staff report contains no detail to support staff
recommendations and fails to address
educational benefit, safety risk, financial impacts, transitional impact,
renovation requirement, etc. and yet Mr. LeRoux and his staff are willing to suggest students are to be moved to
Clayton Park Junior High with no good reasons provided. Why?
Why pretend that the Student Advisory Council (SAC) has a legitimate
role in this process, and waste 12 people’s time and good will for five months
to simply ignore what they have diligently worked towards
recommending?
It appears a decision was made well before the review proceedings began
so, why pretend that the Parents and the Community members actually have a
voice?
Is Democracy being followed? It doesn't appear to have a place
with the Halifax Regional School Board.
The report is buried in the June 25, 2014 agenda, for your convenience,
here is the direct link to the report\;
As parents we entrust our children to the Halifax Regional School Board
to provide them with a good education and to consider their best interests.
This is not happening; we must stand up, speak out and make a difference.
We need everyone out to the June 25th Board Meeting and to Protest if
needed. This is the most important of the three day meetings.
If you are willing to speak, please request a spot for either the June
23 or 24th date with Selena Henderson by calling 464-2000 ext. 2324.
You may need to insist that you wish to speak and Chair Gin Yee has
advised the community that anyone wishing to speak will get the opportunity to
speak.
Please email everyone you know and ask them to come
out and support keeping Park West P-9 and Protest changing the school to
P-6. We need everyone in attendance
on June 25th, @ 5:30 PM. HRSB – 33 Spectacle Lake Drive, Darthmouth.
Thank you and see you on June 25th to save Park West School.
Friday, 13 June 2014
Interested in Keeping Park West School P-9?
The HRSB Governing Board Needs To Hear From You!
Reserve your speaking spot with Selena Henderson - HRSB Corporate Secretary
902-464-2000 ext. 2324 by NO later than Friday June 20th.
Public Presentation Submissions will be on the following dates:
Monday June 23, 2014 - Beginning @ 6:00 PM
Tuesday June 24, 2014 - Beginning @ 6:00 PM
Final debate and VOTING will take place at the regular scheduled board meeting on:
Wednesday June 25, 2014 Beginning @ 6:00 PM
URGENT and IMPORTANT
The best way for you to ensure YOUR voice is heard and YOUR concerns are addressed is to attend, speak and show support for your child, our Students, our Community and our School.
Make your reservation today!
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
Last night at the final meeting of the Boundary Review Committee, the
members voted to recommend Status Quo for Park West School. The vote was
virtually unanimous with a 12 for the Status Quo and 1 abstention.
When the Students, Parents and Community members finally got their
chance to speak, the Committee was overwhelmingly convinced that the school
should not be subject to change. The risks to the student’s safety,
effects on academic achievements, leadership opportunities, after school
activities, etc. were far more important than removing the junior highs.
The Committee could find no good reason to propose change for Park West
School.
The opportunity to bend the ear of the Halifax Regional School Board
will happen on Monday, June 23rd, at 6:00 PM and June 24th @ 6:00 PM. These are the dates set for Public Presentation submission to the Governing Board Members. It appears the Vote will be on June 25th at the regular scheduled board meeting. All parents, students and community
members are encouraged to express the same and more positive messages that
they did on the night of the public meeting for the Boundary Review Committee.
We need to inform all board members of the importance of keeping the
junior high in the community. Mark the
date on your calendars, and register your name with Selena Henderson at HRSB,
and Save Park West P-9 by speaking up and having you positive messages heard.
A special thank you to Janet Lee and May Elsherif, SAC representatives.
A job well done!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)