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.
November 28, 2009
The Issues We Are Really Facing
To carry out an effective sector review, we should look at the greater issues of the community:
1. The needs of inner-city children, usually from hard-working low-income families, may be different. These families may face more barriers and may have fewer opportunities. Closer co-operation with social agencies may be desirable. These students probably need more attention and more resources if they are to have a fair chance with students in more affluent areas. A better chance will save money an improve lives in the long run if it reduces future social problems. Lower enrollments enable teachers to know the students better, affirm and support them better, and help their specific needs. A case can be made for different standards and objectives for inner-city school viability. Educational objectives and community needs should take priority over real-estate/property concerns. "Sector Planning: should be a little more sophisticated and customized than just drawing lines on a map and assigning spaces.
2. Nearby neighbourhood schools are important so inner-city children have less distance to travel through a more complex environment and so low-income parents don't have unnecessary transportation costs.
3. Most of these schools have enough resident students in the area to meet existing enrollment targets if local students attended neighbourhood schools. Some go to special-program schools for a variety of reasons. The open-boundary policy also sees students going in various directions. If local parents, especially new residents, had more information about programs offered at their local schools, more of them might choose to send their students there. Some of them probably think that the older schools might be inferior in some way.
4. The City and the School Board should be planning in harmony. If the City wants preservation of affordable family housing and renewal of older areas, they should be prepared to help preserve schools in the area. Perhaps they have neighbourhood functions or small project offices that could be sited at neighbourhood schools without disrupting school operations. They might even save money by renting space in the schools instead of building their own or leasing commercial space. Perhaps they could offer affordable bus passes to students at inner-city schools and thereby attract more students to fill the inner-city schools.
5. 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-capture and sequestration projects. 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 presented a petition to the Alberta government asking more help for inner-city schools. What has the School Board done to argue the case with the government and fight for a good education for our children?
6. The School Board should be in touch with various cultural groups to see if new Canadians have needs that could be met by customized programs at some of our inner-city schools.
7. Adequate daycare or after-school care might be a boon to many working families. They could drop the children off before going to work and pick them up after work, secure in the knowledge that their children were adequately cared for during the entire workday. Childcare facilities at affordable prices (perhaps on a non-profit basis) in or near enough to the schools might be explored as a way to make the schools more attractive.
8. All neighbourhoods go through stages. The community is built and the new families clamour for schools. Half the students are grown by the time the schools get built. The schools start facing enrollment declines and unused space problems for two generations until the original settlers start retiring and re-selling to young families. Things might be a little smoother if City plans included enough affordable and starter family housing near the school sites in each community to ensure basic school viability, and if the School Board had a plan for flexible school sizes: a basic permanent unit with a gym, library, resource room and 6 or 8 classrooms, and portables or wings that could be removed or easily converted to alternate uses. Community leagues might even be part of the equation with the gym doubling as a community hall and the recreation facilities (rinks, diamonds, etc.) being part of the school site.
9. We have more than enough children in our area and so the potential for increased enrollments exists. School Board statistics for Sept. 2009 show 1394 EPSB elementary students living in the area served by the 7 CCEP schools. This should be enough to provided 199 elementary students for each school - enough for at least one classroom each for the 8 levels from pre-Kindergarten to Grade 6. However, only 651 of these students are attending their local schools. 743 elementary students (53%) go to schools outside their areas. We have 389 students from outside our boundaries attending these 7 schools. We are out of balance by 354 elementary students in this equation.
We have 668 EPSB Jr. High schools. This should be enough to provide 2 or 3 classrooms for each Jr. High grade in each school. Only 190 of these students attend locally. 478 Jr. High students (72%) go to schools outside the area. We have 135 Jr. High students from outside our boundaries. We have a net loss of 343 Jr. High students in this exchange.
What policies or factors have led to us losing out in this open-boundary exchange? We should be focusing on how to get our students back or how to get programs that will attract enough other students to get a fair share of the inter-school traffic. It is probably more cost-effective to keep existing schools open than to have students attend elsewhere and increase the pressure for new schools in other areas.
1. The needs of inner-city children, usually from hard-working low-income families, may be different. These families may face more barriers and may have fewer opportunities. Closer co-operation with social agencies may be desirable. These students probably need more attention and more resources if they are to have a fair chance with students in more affluent areas. A better chance will save money an improve lives in the long run if it reduces future social problems. Lower enrollments enable teachers to know the students better, affirm and support them better, and help their specific needs. A case can be made for different standards and objectives for inner-city school viability. Educational objectives and community needs should take priority over real-estate/property concerns. "Sector Planning: should be a little more sophisticated and customized than just drawing lines on a map and assigning spaces.
2. Nearby neighbourhood schools are important so inner-city children have less distance to travel through a more complex environment and so low-income parents don't have unnecessary transportation costs.
3. Most of these schools have enough resident students in the area to meet existing enrollment targets if local students attended neighbourhood schools. Some go to special-program schools for a variety of reasons. The open-boundary policy also sees students going in various directions. If local parents, especially new residents, had more information about programs offered at their local schools, more of them might choose to send their students there. Some of them probably think that the older schools might be inferior in some way.
4. The City and the School Board should be planning in harmony. If the City wants preservation of affordable family housing and renewal of older areas, they should be prepared to help preserve schools in the area. Perhaps they have neighbourhood functions or small project offices that could be sited at neighbourhood schools without disrupting school operations. They might even save money by renting space in the schools instead of building their own or leasing commercial space. Perhaps they could offer affordable bus passes to students at inner-city schools and thereby attract more students to fill the inner-city schools.
5. 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-capture and sequestration projects. 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 presented a petition to the Alberta government asking more help for inner-city schools. What has the School Board done to argue the case with the government and fight for a good education for our children?
6. The School Board should be in touch with various cultural groups to see if new Canadians have needs that could be met by customized programs at some of our inner-city schools.
7. Adequate daycare or after-school care might be a boon to many working families. They could drop the children off before going to work and pick them up after work, secure in the knowledge that their children were adequately cared for during the entire workday. Childcare facilities at affordable prices (perhaps on a non-profit basis) in or near enough to the schools might be explored as a way to make the schools more attractive.
8. All neighbourhoods go through stages. The community is built and the new families clamour for schools. Half the students are grown by the time the schools get built. The schools start facing enrollment declines and unused space problems for two generations until the original settlers start retiring and re-selling to young families. Things might be a little smoother if City plans included enough affordable and starter family housing near the school sites in each community to ensure basic school viability, and if the School Board had a plan for flexible school sizes: a basic permanent unit with a gym, library, resource room and 6 or 8 classrooms, and portables or wings that could be removed or easily converted to alternate uses. Community leagues might even be part of the equation with the gym doubling as a community hall and the recreation facilities (rinks, diamonds, etc.) being part of the school site.
9. We have more than enough children in our area and so the potential for increased enrollments exists. School Board statistics for Sept. 2009 show 1394 EPSB elementary students living in the area served by the 7 CCEP schools. This should be enough to provided 199 elementary students for each school - enough for at least one classroom each for the 8 levels from pre-Kindergarten to Grade 6. However, only 651 of these students are attending their local schools. 743 elementary students (53%) go to schools outside their areas. We have 389 students from outside our boundaries attending these 7 schools. We are out of balance by 354 elementary students in this equation.
We have 668 EPSB Jr. High schools. This should be enough to provide 2 or 3 classrooms for each Jr. High grade in each school. Only 190 of these students attend locally. 478 Jr. High students (72%) go to schools outside the area. We have 135 Jr. High students from outside our boundaries. We have a net loss of 343 Jr. High students in this exchange.
What policies or factors have led to us losing out in this open-boundary exchange? We should be focusing on how to get our students back or how to get programs that will attract enough other students to get a fair share of the inter-school traffic. It is probably more cost-effective to keep existing schools open than to have students attend elsewhere and increase the pressure for new schools in other areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)