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.