Concerns About The Sector Review Process

Various aspects of the EPSB Sector Review process have caused us to be suspicious and alarmed about the process:

1. On Nov. 25, 2008, the Superintendent of Schools presented an Annual Implementation Plan for the 20082009 school year which mentioned some schools of concern but had not mention of inner-city CCEP schools. The report indicated that a Sector Review process would be established to focus on program needs, sustainability, space requirements, and schools that could be closed or shared with other partners. "Public engagement professionals" would be hired to host a consultation process with students, parents, staff, communities, non-profit groups, current and potential partners and the City of Edmonton. Consultation would take place from October 2009 to March 2010 with a report to be prepared. Recommendations and decisions would be made form April to June 2010. We have not yet seen the Annual Implementation Plan for the 2009-2010 school year.

2.Before the 2008-2009 plan was finished, the CCEP schools became a focus. We do not know when or where the CCEP schools got on the list but we were made aware of a planning process going on in the Spring of 2009. There was still an impression that there would be another year or two before any decisions were pending on these schools.

3. In the Fall of 2009 we got information that the CCEP schools were an immediate priority for the Sector Review process - along with schools that had been previously mentioned. We were assured that all schools in the system would eventually be reviewed and it was more-or-less a coincidence that we were the first to be reviewed. The consultation documents seem to put an emphasis on alternate uses for unused school space with a view to sharing or closure. By accident or design, we were at the top of the list with the least amount of time to react. Perhaps less resistance was expected from poorer areas - even though it disadvantages students who need the most consideration.

4. All CCEP schools became alarmed. Norwood parents met to discuss future action and participation. A number of parents attended a consultation session. Reassurances were given that no conclusions had been established, but the insistences that "change is coming" was still a theme of concern. Those present wanted more information about the decision process and the inputs of others who were involved. We are looking for ways to keep the schools in operation, not ways to close them and find alternate uses.

5. A little digging has established that this in not truly a "Sector Review". The School Board has divided the city into various sectors. The Central Sector runs from the northeast LRT line to Groat Rd./St. Albert Trail. and from the river north to 132 Ave. The CCEP schools are less than half the schools in the sector and less than half the space problem. Other schools in this sector are not involved in this "Sector Review" process. They only have the normal planning and feedback.

6. One reason for reviewing space is that new schools will be constructed in new areas of the city - which will take population away from the schools these students now attend, but in reality, this is not a valid reason to review our area.The inner-city schools are the farthest from the growing edge of the city and are likely to see little or no effect from this development so that reasoning doesn't apply to us.

7. The amount of unused space and the population trends in inner-city schools is often mentioned as a cause for concern. Some people have the impression that as many as 4000 unused spaces exist. Various "School Profiles" obtained from School Board records indicated that the Central Sector has 3245 vacancies. This number was the same on the 2009 profiles as it was on the 2008 profiles even though enrollments have changed. It makes one wonder which year is correct or if we can trust this number for any year. The CCEP schools make up less than half this problem.
Some student spaces are weighted because special needs classes are allowed smaller enrollments per classroom. In Sept. 2009, the total number of spaces in use (regular and weighted) in the CCEP schools seems to be 1599. When this is subtracted from the maximum available space (all schools full with regular students )the CCEP schools seem to have 1344 unused regular-student spaces. Some of this space has been leased to other organizations. This space is not available for students so the real unused space seems to be 600-700 regular-student spaces. It is an important number but perhaps less dramatic than 4000. Has the information been presented in a way that exaggerates the problem for various reasons?
A 5-year enrollment trend is shown on the "School Profiles". Almost all of these schools have shown a decline in enrollment. Potential EPSB students residing in the are is listed each year, but the 5-yr. trend of resident eligible students is not shown. What are the true demographic trends? Some of us have the impression that the area is undergoing renewal with more young families moving into an area which has a stock of more-affordable housing. If the City is pressing for urban renewal, closing the neighbourhood schools seems to be at odds with this objective. We do not know of any schools that have been re-opened after they have been closed. The School Board and the City seem to be working in opposite directions. City projections and plans for the area should be involved in the efforts to keep neighbourhood schools in operation if they want urban renewal.

8. School Profile sheets list "Unfunded Student Spaces". This number claims to be "weighted but appears to be a simple calculation of the theoretical maximum of regular spaces minus the students enrolled. Weighted space does not seem to be a factor in this number. A cost factor is assigned to this "Unfunded Student Space". This is probably a theoretical cost. All students are funded and the grants go to whatever school they attend. The unused space may result in building costs not covered by operation grants but some real building costs of the real unused space. It seems to show a scarier number than necessary and one hopes the Trustees are able to see through this.

9. This "Sector Planning" process and the School Profile date seem to refer mainly to space allocation, questions that are more about real-estate than education. Several of the viability standards are just ways of re-phrasing enrollment statistics. One might question whether all areas of the city should be measured with the same yardstick. They might have different needs and objectives which would justify different standards.