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?