1. On Nov. 25, 2008 the Superintendent of Schools presented an Annual Implementation Plan for the 2008-2009 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. Requests for Proposals to dispose of property would also be prepared. The opening of new schools and spaces in new areas and the need to rationalize under-used schools was mentioned. “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 Marche 2010 with a report to be prepared. Recommendations and decisions would be made from 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 the schools that had been previously mentioned. We were assured that all schools in the system would eventually be reviewed and it was just luck-of-the-draw that we were the first to be reviewed. The consultation documents seem to put an emphasis on the 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.
4. All CCEP schools became alamed. Norwood parents met to discuss future action and participation. School profile data was mad available. A number of parents attended a consultation session. Reassurances were given that no conclusions had been established, but the insistence 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. We want to be informed and consulted at each stage of the process.
5. The “Dialogue Partners” representatives tell us that they will bring answers to our questions at the next stage of the consultation process. Time is short. We now have the impression that decisions will be made in January or February. Some feel the consultation process is designed to co-opt the public into decisions that are already contemplated.
December 1, 2009
B. Causes of alarm and suspicion:
1. We feel blind-sided by being jumped to the top of the list in a speeded-up process.
2. A little digging has established that this is not really “Sector Planning”. CCEP schools are less than half the schools in the sector and less than half the space problem. The Central Sector on the School Board sector map runs from the river north to 132 Ave. and from the northeast LRT line to Groat Rd. – St. Albert Trail. Other schools in this Sector are not part of this consultation process and have only the normal planning processes.
3. There seems to be some exaggeration of statistics to create the desired effect. One news report said we have 4000 spaces and only about 1300 students attending. The impression to the public is that we have 2700 costly unused spaces. The CCEP schools only have 2954 spaces in total if all schools are filled to the maximum with regular students.
The school profile sheets indicate that the sector has 3245 unfunded spaces (vacancies).
The same number of vacancies are shown on both the 2008 and 2009 profiles, even though enrolments have changed. It makes us wonder which year is correct or if the number is accurate for either year.
The number of unfunded (empty) spaces listed on the school profile sheets for the CCEP schools in 2009 adds up to 1589 (less than half the empty spaces in the Sector). The profiles indicate that this calculation is weighted but it appears to be a simple calculation of the difference between the maximum capacity (if all schools were full of regular students) and the number of students actually attending. No weighting for special students seems evident.
We have been told that special classes are allowed a weighting of 3-to-1 so they are considered a reasonable class size in a room with 10 students or less. The Sept. 2009 profile sheets list a total of 1599 weighted student spaces in the CCEP schools. Presumably this means that these are the spaces in use after weighting is considered. When this is subtracted from the theoretical maximum, we have only 1344 unused spaces.
The profile sheets list square metres of space leased to other organizations. The space seems to show that leased space uses up more than half of this unused space. It would seem that we are talking about some 600-700 available unused student spaces in the CCEP schools. It is still an important number but considerably different from the 2700 that we may have inferred at first.
4. The profile sheets seem to be a check list of viability ratings. Three of the 6 items are different ways of rephrasing the enrolment statistics. In Norwood’s case, and enrolment of 1 student less than a target number has cost us 2 viability ratings this year. It is debatable whether these ratings cover all important aspects of school planning. It is debatable whether “Sector Planning” should be as simplistic as drawing lines on a map and targeting “bums to seats”. The emphasis on space allocation and use seems to be more about real-estate than about education. It is debatable whether all sectors should be measured with the same yardstick. Different communities and student populations have different needs. Perhaps “Sector Planning” should be a little more sophisticated than uniform student-ratios. Different yardsticks and goals might be justified in different sectors or areas.
5. The Implementation Plan mentions that new school construction in new areas will require some schools to adapt as students attend school in their home areas instead of the next closest schools. This is probably not a reason for change in the inner-city. We are the farthest from the growing edge of the City and unlikely to be affected by these shifts.
6. We know we live in an older area of the city. We feel we are being taken advantage of because we may be able to mount less resistance. We feel our students need the special help and affirmation that can be given when they are well-known by staff in a smaller neighbourhood school. They may not have the advantages of students in other parts of the city and seem in danger of being further disadvantaged by this process. Consolidation would see them get less individual attention and require them or their parents to travel further through complex neighbourhoods.
7. The City talks about re-vitalizing older areas. We feel this process is underway in this area and more young families are moving in because of our stock of affordable housing. Closing the schools seems counter-productive to this goal. The City and the School Board should work in harmony.
2. A little digging has established that this is not really “Sector Planning”. CCEP schools are less than half the schools in the sector and less than half the space problem. The Central Sector on the School Board sector map runs from the river north to 132 Ave. and from the northeast LRT line to Groat Rd. – St. Albert Trail. Other schools in this Sector are not part of this consultation process and have only the normal planning processes.
3. There seems to be some exaggeration of statistics to create the desired effect. One news report said we have 4000 spaces and only about 1300 students attending. The impression to the public is that we have 2700 costly unused spaces. The CCEP schools only have 2954 spaces in total if all schools are filled to the maximum with regular students.
The school profile sheets indicate that the sector has 3245 unfunded spaces (vacancies).
The same number of vacancies are shown on both the 2008 and 2009 profiles, even though enrolments have changed. It makes us wonder which year is correct or if the number is accurate for either year.
The number of unfunded (empty) spaces listed on the school profile sheets for the CCEP schools in 2009 adds up to 1589 (less than half the empty spaces in the Sector). The profiles indicate that this calculation is weighted but it appears to be a simple calculation of the difference between the maximum capacity (if all schools were full of regular students) and the number of students actually attending. No weighting for special students seems evident.
We have been told that special classes are allowed a weighting of 3-to-1 so they are considered a reasonable class size in a room with 10 students or less. The Sept. 2009 profile sheets list a total of 1599 weighted student spaces in the CCEP schools. Presumably this means that these are the spaces in use after weighting is considered. When this is subtracted from the theoretical maximum, we have only 1344 unused spaces.
The profile sheets list square metres of space leased to other organizations. The space seems to show that leased space uses up more than half of this unused space. It would seem that we are talking about some 600-700 available unused student spaces in the CCEP schools. It is still an important number but considerably different from the 2700 that we may have inferred at first.
4. The profile sheets seem to be a check list of viability ratings. Three of the 6 items are different ways of rephrasing the enrolment statistics. In Norwood’s case, and enrolment of 1 student less than a target number has cost us 2 viability ratings this year. It is debatable whether these ratings cover all important aspects of school planning. It is debatable whether “Sector Planning” should be as simplistic as drawing lines on a map and targeting “bums to seats”. The emphasis on space allocation and use seems to be more about real-estate than about education. It is debatable whether all sectors should be measured with the same yardstick. Different communities and student populations have different needs. Perhaps “Sector Planning” should be a little more sophisticated than uniform student-ratios. Different yardsticks and goals might be justified in different sectors or areas.
5. The Implementation Plan mentions that new school construction in new areas will require some schools to adapt as students attend school in their home areas instead of the next closest schools. This is probably not a reason for change in the inner-city. We are the farthest from the growing edge of the City and unlikely to be affected by these shifts.
6. We know we live in an older area of the city. We feel we are being taken advantage of because we may be able to mount less resistance. We feel our students need the special help and affirmation that can be given when they are well-known by staff in a smaller neighbourhood school. They may not have the advantages of students in other parts of the city and seem in danger of being further disadvantaged by this process. Consolidation would see them get less individual attention and require them or their parents to travel further through complex neighbourhoods.
7. The City talks about re-vitalizing older areas. We feel this process is underway in this area and more young families are moving in because of our stock of affordable housing. Closing the schools seems counter-productive to this goal. The City and the School Board should work in harmony.
C. Some questions:
1. Has the School Board issued any “Requests for Proposals to dispose of property” and have any proposals been received for this area?
2. The School Profile sheets show statistics for the previous 5 years showing declines in enrolment. They also show the number of EPSB students living in each area for the year. However, they do not show 5-yr. statistics for the number of resident students available. What are the true demographic trends in recent years for potential students and pre-school population? Maybe the trend line is turning up.
3. Most of these schools have enough EPSB students residing in their areas to be viable. The School Profile statistics for Sept. 2009 show 1394 EPSB elementary students living in the area served by the 7 CCEP schools. This should be enough to provide 199 Elementary students for each school – enough for at least one classroom per grade for each of the 8 levels from Pre-K to Gr. 6. However only 651 of these students are attending their local schools. The other 52% (743 students) are going to schools outside their school boundaries. We gain 389 students who come in from other areas to our schools. This gives a net loss of 354 Elementary students in this exchange.
We have 668 EPSB Jr. High students living in the area – enough for 233 Jr. High students in each of our 3 Jr. High programs. This should be enough to provide 2 or 3 classrooms per grade in each school offering Jr. High programs. However, only 190 of these attend our local Jr. High Schools. The other 478 (72%) go to schools outside their local school boundaries. We gain 135 Jr. High students who come in from other areas but we have a net loss of 343 students on the Jr. High exchange.
Open boundaries make this transfer possible. Charter schools in the system also draw students to special programs. What programs and policies would reverse this trend and give us a fair outcome in the exchange? What policies and factors have led to the attractions being located in other communities? Surely it is more cost-effective to maintain existing schools than to have students attend elsewhere and increase the pressure for new schools in other areas.
4. The Implementation Plan mentions consultation with a variety of groups. Have they really been consulted or have they just been sent notices of discussion sessions which they may or may not attend? Who has been invited to participate? Who did participate? What has their input been? What other forms of consultation have occurred?
5. When, where and why were the CCEP schools jumped up the priority list to become the focus of special planning in a speeded-up process?
6. Which local community leagues, social agencies, non-profit groups, cultural groups, education partners, friendly societies, and business groups in the area have expressed informed opinions and what opinions do they have?
7. What do City planners and demographers see for the area? What are their plans for revitalization and their estimate of future populations? Are the construction permits for replacement or renovation of older homes showing a noticeable trend?
2. The School Profile sheets show statistics for the previous 5 years showing declines in enrolment. They also show the number of EPSB students living in each area for the year. However, they do not show 5-yr. statistics for the number of resident students available. What are the true demographic trends in recent years for potential students and pre-school population? Maybe the trend line is turning up.
3. Most of these schools have enough EPSB students residing in their areas to be viable. The School Profile statistics for Sept. 2009 show 1394 EPSB elementary students living in the area served by the 7 CCEP schools. This should be enough to provide 199 Elementary students for each school – enough for at least one classroom per grade for each of the 8 levels from Pre-K to Gr. 6. However only 651 of these students are attending their local schools. The other 52% (743 students) are going to schools outside their school boundaries. We gain 389 students who come in from other areas to our schools. This gives a net loss of 354 Elementary students in this exchange.
We have 668 EPSB Jr. High students living in the area – enough for 233 Jr. High students in each of our 3 Jr. High programs. This should be enough to provide 2 or 3 classrooms per grade in each school offering Jr. High programs. However, only 190 of these attend our local Jr. High Schools. The other 478 (72%) go to schools outside their local school boundaries. We gain 135 Jr. High students who come in from other areas but we have a net loss of 343 students on the Jr. High exchange.
Open boundaries make this transfer possible. Charter schools in the system also draw students to special programs. What programs and policies would reverse this trend and give us a fair outcome in the exchange? What policies and factors have led to the attractions being located in other communities? Surely it is more cost-effective to maintain existing schools than to have students attend elsewhere and increase the pressure for new schools in other areas.
4. The Implementation Plan mentions consultation with a variety of groups. Have they really been consulted or have they just been sent notices of discussion sessions which they may or may not attend? Who has been invited to participate? Who did participate? What has their input been? What other forms of consultation have occurred?
5. When, where and why were the CCEP schools jumped up the priority list to become the focus of special planning in a speeded-up process?
6. Which local community leagues, social agencies, non-profit groups, cultural groups, education partners, friendly societies, and business groups in the area have expressed informed opinions and what opinions do they have?
7. What do City planners and demographers see for the area? What are their plans for revitalization and their estimate of future populations? Are the construction permits for replacement or renovation of older homes showing a noticeable trend?
D. The search for solutions:
1. We are reluctant to participate in discussions about alternate use of space which may lead to closure of schools. We don’t want a sanitized third-party report which says we were the source of these suggestions. We want to know that all efforts have been made to keep the schools in the area open and be convinced on education and social grounds before we agree that closure is the right solution for our children.
2. In spite of the recession the Alberta Government seems to have billions of dollars to benefit corporations by paying for high-voltage power lines and expensive carbon-sequestration systems. We hear that the deficit is only going to be about half of what was projected. The Premier has taken credit for having set aside contingency funds for leaner times. With a lower deficit, there should be more money left in these contingency funds to re-establish reasonable education funding that would avoid these cutbacks.
We have had a petition presented in the Alberta Legislature on Nov. 26 with about 1300 names gathered by our Norwood parents. The petition asks that the Alberta Government do more to help inner-city schools. What has the School Board done to arguer the case with the Alberta Government?
3. Our students mostly come from hard-working, low-income families. These families my face greater barriers and have less opportunities. We would like to see “Sector Planning” that sets lower-enrollment targets and more resources for inner-city schools so they would be considered funded and viable at a different level than the system average. This would help compensate for other disadvantages and allow more individualized help. This investment would probably pay off in a fair chance for more successful lives and fewer social costs in the future. A variation from the average standards would result in a calculation that there was less unused space in our schools than is now claimed.
We also think the traditional 1.6 km (one mile) walking distance is not a reasonable standard in modern times. We are no longer walking along country roads with cows in the fields and grasshoppers in the ditches. Student time and effort is not the sole criteria for a reasonable distance these days.
4. We would like to see educational goals and policies that result in programs which would retain and attract our fair share of the student population and take the pressure off our existing schools.
5. We would like the City to take an interest in the school question if they are serious about neighbourhood renewal and affordable housing for families. Perhaps they have small-function offices or area programs that could be sited in vacant school facilities without disrupting school operations. Perhaps they could find low-cost recreation staff to run programs that would essentially and beneficially provide after-school care to students of working parents until the end of the workday. Perhaps they could offer attractive student transit-pass rates to inner-city attendees so we would draw as many students into the area as we have travelling out of the area and thus keep our schools viable until renewal of the area is completed.
6. Our school programs and benefits may not be known to new families moving into the area. We should see that our local families are circulated with the best information that we can devise so they will give serious consideration to the local schools at registration time.
7. We would like the School Board to accurately identify the space available and attempt to solve it without closing schools or programs that a better plan would consider desirable for the inner-city education needs and objectives. We are not the ones who are able and qualified to spearhead that effort but we would like to be kept informed of plans and proposals.
8. Neighbourhoods always go through cycles. New houses are built in new areas and families start clamouring for schools. By the time the schools get built there the older students have graduated. Soon the younger members of these families grow up and leave the schools with declining enrolments for a generation or more until mortality and moving of the first settlers starts to bring young families into the area again. The area never gets back to its first maximum student population.
City planning should see that enough affordable family spaces get built near schools to ensure that a viable quota of young families will inhabit the area at all times.
School boards might look to ways of making schools more flexible with a basic unit of 6 or 8 rooms plus a library, gym and resource room. Other wings or pods could be portable or designed to be converted to other uses when the class sizes diminish in the area.
The Community League might even be housed at the school with the gym providing community hall functions and the rinks and diamonds being available for both the school and the community. Let’s look for more co-operation and efficiencies in the future. Perhaps some of our current community leagues could move their operations to the schools and their grounds and facilities could be converted to other uses.
2. In spite of the recession the Alberta Government seems to have billions of dollars to benefit corporations by paying for high-voltage power lines and expensive carbon-sequestration systems. We hear that the deficit is only going to be about half of what was projected. The Premier has taken credit for having set aside contingency funds for leaner times. With a lower deficit, there should be more money left in these contingency funds to re-establish reasonable education funding that would avoid these cutbacks.
We have had a petition presented in the Alberta Legislature on Nov. 26 with about 1300 names gathered by our Norwood parents. The petition asks that the Alberta Government do more to help inner-city schools. What has the School Board done to arguer the case with the Alberta Government?
3. Our students mostly come from hard-working, low-income families. These families my face greater barriers and have less opportunities. We would like to see “Sector Planning” that sets lower-enrollment targets and more resources for inner-city schools so they would be considered funded and viable at a different level than the system average. This would help compensate for other disadvantages and allow more individualized help. This investment would probably pay off in a fair chance for more successful lives and fewer social costs in the future. A variation from the average standards would result in a calculation that there was less unused space in our schools than is now claimed.
We also think the traditional 1.6 km (one mile) walking distance is not a reasonable standard in modern times. We are no longer walking along country roads with cows in the fields and grasshoppers in the ditches. Student time and effort is not the sole criteria for a reasonable distance these days.
4. We would like to see educational goals and policies that result in programs which would retain and attract our fair share of the student population and take the pressure off our existing schools.
5. We would like the City to take an interest in the school question if they are serious about neighbourhood renewal and affordable housing for families. Perhaps they have small-function offices or area programs that could be sited in vacant school facilities without disrupting school operations. Perhaps they could find low-cost recreation staff to run programs that would essentially and beneficially provide after-school care to students of working parents until the end of the workday. Perhaps they could offer attractive student transit-pass rates to inner-city attendees so we would draw as many students into the area as we have travelling out of the area and thus keep our schools viable until renewal of the area is completed.
6. Our school programs and benefits may not be known to new families moving into the area. We should see that our local families are circulated with the best information that we can devise so they will give serious consideration to the local schools at registration time.
7. We would like the School Board to accurately identify the space available and attempt to solve it without closing schools or programs that a better plan would consider desirable for the inner-city education needs and objectives. We are not the ones who are able and qualified to spearhead that effort but we would like to be kept informed of plans and proposals.
8. Neighbourhoods always go through cycles. New houses are built in new areas and families start clamouring for schools. By the time the schools get built there the older students have graduated. Soon the younger members of these families grow up and leave the schools with declining enrolments for a generation or more until mortality and moving of the first settlers starts to bring young families into the area again. The area never gets back to its first maximum student population.
City planning should see that enough affordable family spaces get built near schools to ensure that a viable quota of young families will inhabit the area at all times.
School boards might look to ways of making schools more flexible with a basic unit of 6 or 8 rooms plus a library, gym and resource room. Other wings or pods could be portable or designed to be converted to other uses when the class sizes diminish in the area.
The Community League might even be housed at the school with the gym providing community hall functions and the rinks and diamonds being available for both the school and the community. Let’s look for more co-operation and efficiencies in the future. Perhaps some of our current community leagues could move their operations to the schools and their grounds and facilities could be converted to other uses.
E. Comments on Norwood:
1. Norwood is one of the smaller schools in the area and has less unused space than other schools. It seems to be the closes to being right-sized for the area it serves.
2. Norwood is difficult to partition for other uses for the small amount of space available. It might make sense to attract a few more students to Norwood and see about leasing-out spaces in other schools.
3. Upgrades and renovations a few years ago have given us a building in excellent condition.
4. Norwood is adjacent to transit routes which might be beneficial if attractive student bus passes could be provided.
5. Our parents are passionate about the teacher-student relationship, goals and benefits at the Norwood School. We have seen this in oral expression at meetings and the letters of support they have written.
6. Norwood has a long history and is well-regarded in the community. Well over 90% of the people who were home when contacted were willing to sign our petition for inner-city schools. Many residents thanked us for the efforts we were making for the community. Not all canvassers carried letters with them but those that did found that over 75% were willing to take the extra tine to sign a letter of support of Norwood School. Those signing come from many walks of life and different organizations. Some of our parents took petitions to their workplaces and easily got responses from people who lived in all parts of the city as well as in surrounding communities. Most people are willing to give a break to kids in the inner-city. The response over a short period of times indicates this is hot-button issue.
7. We feel that numerous agencies and entities who assist the school would support efforts to maintain the school and its programs for children.
8. The Norwood school area straddles two community-league areas who may feel a need to support other schools in their areas. We have to be prepared to speak for ourselves.
9. We have tried to contact other schools in the area with limited success so we cannot speak authoritatively for them but we suspect they want the same considerations for their inner-city students.
2. Norwood is difficult to partition for other uses for the small amount of space available. It might make sense to attract a few more students to Norwood and see about leasing-out spaces in other schools.
3. Upgrades and renovations a few years ago have given us a building in excellent condition.
4. Norwood is adjacent to transit routes which might be beneficial if attractive student bus passes could be provided.
5. Our parents are passionate about the teacher-student relationship, goals and benefits at the Norwood School. We have seen this in oral expression at meetings and the letters of support they have written.
6. Norwood has a long history and is well-regarded in the community. Well over 90% of the people who were home when contacted were willing to sign our petition for inner-city schools. Many residents thanked us for the efforts we were making for the community. Not all canvassers carried letters with them but those that did found that over 75% were willing to take the extra tine to sign a letter of support of Norwood School. Those signing come from many walks of life and different organizations. Some of our parents took petitions to their workplaces and easily got responses from people who lived in all parts of the city as well as in surrounding communities. Most people are willing to give a break to kids in the inner-city. The response over a short period of times indicates this is hot-button issue.
7. We feel that numerous agencies and entities who assist the school would support efforts to maintain the school and its programs for children.
8. The Norwood school area straddles two community-league areas who may feel a need to support other schools in their areas. We have to be prepared to speak for ourselves.
9. We have tried to contact other schools in the area with limited success so we cannot speak authoritatively for them but we suspect they want the same considerations for their inner-city students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)