Public Meeting # 2 Clarkson/Erindale Accommodation Review May 19, :00 9:00 p.m. Erindale Secondary School

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Public Meeting # 2 Clarkson/Erindale Accommodation Review May 19, :00 9:00 p.m. Erindale Secondary School"

Horace Glenn
5 years ago
Views:

1 Public Meeting # 2 Clarkson/Erindale Accommodation Review May 19, :00 9:00 p.m. Erindale Secondary School Attendees: Trustee Brad Macdonald, Jane Mason (Chair), Louise Sirisko, Superintendent of Education, MWFO, Wendy Dowling, Superintendent of Education, SFO, Principals: Christine Simpson, Danna McFadden-Hillman, Jim Brooks, Robert Stancu, Bonnie Jaakkimainen, Ken Diana, Kathy Daoust, Jan Collins, Dana Boratto, Kelvin Dunne, Committee Members: Sophia Ramsey, Michael Tadgell, Chan Rampersaud, Lisa Nevins, Pauline Morgan, Sue Piotrowski, Brian Hudson, Randy Bourdeau, Lee Mirams, Julie Cuthbert, Tracy Beach, Craig Metcalfe, Jennifer Loreti, Theresa Edwards, Dianne Morgan, Julie Rahman, Paula Burns, Teresa Kerr, Paul Mountford, Dana Guterres, Kathy Moores (recorder) Regrets: Delight Greenidge, Alexa Barkley, Kavita McBain 1.0 Welcome o Trustee Brad Macdonald welcomed the community to the second Public Meeting of the Clarkson/Erindale Accommodation Review. He expressed appreciation to the community for their interest in the Accommodation Review, stating that it is a community-driven process and the public s attendance and participation at these meetings is vital to finding a community solution for all of the students in the review area. o The parents and community members were thanked for the questions and comments that were received since the first public meetings and he noted that all have been responded to. He invited the public to continue to contact the board via and to keep up-to-date with the progress of the Accommodation Review by viewing the Clarkson/Erindale Chicklet on o The ARC members were thanked for their dedication to the students and the process of the Accommodation Review. o Trustee Macdonald commended the community members, ARC members and school councils in submitting 54 possible scenarios for the ARC members to review. o At the first public meeting, Trustee Macdonald stated that details about the ARC and the declining enrolment numbers were the trigger for ARC. He stated that the purpose of this meeting is to explore all of these possible options and to ensure the feedback from the public is reviewed as the ARC members start to narrow the options down. He re-iterated that no decision has been made by the Board of Trustees. The ARC is responsible for presenting their recommendation to the Director. The process also requires that staff prepare a separate report outlining their recommendations. Both recommendations will come before the Board of Trustees in January o The public was reminded of the 2 additional public meetings that will take place on June 7 th and October 4 th. 2.0 Update from the ARC o Chair Mason thanked the public for attending the second public meeting of the ARC. She introduced and acknowledged the support of Associate Director of Operational Support Services, Carla Kisko and Associate Director of Instructional Support Services, Pam Tomasevic. o She stated that as the process unfolds, a wide range of emotions may be felt. Chair Mason acknowledged that uncertainty and the potential for change is sometimes harder to deal with than the actual change itself. o Chair Mason stated that although it is early in the Accommodation Review, this process will result in school

2 closures and that status quo is not an option for the ARC. o Chair Mason confirmed that the focus of the ARC is to find solutions that best meet the learning needs of all students in the review area. o Chair Mason also expressed her delight in receiving 54 scenarios that were generated by the public and school communities. She explained that the original purpose and focus of the second public meeting was to present the options that the ARC had narrowed down. However, in order to honour the community interest, commitment and dedication to the process, all 54 options would be presented. This will ensure that the Accommodation Review is a transparent and collaborative process with community-driven solutions being identified. o A review of the meeting agenda and logistics of the meeting took place. o Chair Mason cited that the purpose of the meeting is to share the work of the ARC and to invite feedback. The public was encouraged to continue to ask questions and note their comments and concerns. o Chair Mason reviewed the Mandate of the ARC. o The Valuation Checklist, which provides key criteria and guiding principles for the work of the ARC was reviewed and explained by Chair Mason. o Value to the student is the most heavily weighted area of the Valuation Checklist and Chair Mason highlighted the important points. Specifically, does the potential solution: enhance the teaching and learning experiences for students and staff? provide a staffing base to enrich a range of co-curricular activities? create a greater number of diverse social groupings of students? provide for increased resources? o Chair Mason summarized that these criteria are directly linked to the size and organization of a school. o She stated that the ARC had reached consensus regarding the key criteria of size and organization of a school. o Julie Cuthbert, School Council representative from Erin Mills Middle School and a voting ARC member addressed the community. o She explained that public feedback from the first public meeting was discussed and reviewed in detail at the May 12th ARC meeting. She highlighted that the ARC members noted that: the community valued small schools the feeling of a small school community was important feedback was positive for a K-8 school organization some wanted to keep the middle school organization o ARC member Cuthbert assured the community that their feedback will be present in all discussions and thought process as the ARC members begin to work through the scenarios created. o Touring the 10 schools in the review area allowed for hands-on look at the property Cuthbert explained. Classroom size, accessibility options, kiss and ride, parking lot size, special programs and technology at each school was noted. Cuthbert shared that the constant in these tours is that staff and students are proud of their school community. o She also stated that school organization models were discussed in detail at the May 12 th meeting with members sharing their personal experiences. o Cuthbert outlined the organizational tool of P, M, I (Plus, Minus and Interesting) that the ARC members will be using throughout the process to help sort, discuss and accomplish the review successfully.

3 o Cuthbert noted that Teresa Kerr, City of Mississauga planner and a non-voting member of the ARC, provided a summary of observations that she and the team of City employees noted when they visited the 10 schools in the review area. Cuthbert acknowledged that the ARC members found this information helpful and that it was necessary for the ARC to work in tandem with this information. o Cuthbert reinforced that the ARC is mindful of the one key goal in this whole process: What is best for the children. o Sue Piotrowski, School Council Chair of Hillside Middle School and a voting ARC member, shared that she is a resident of the Clarkson community and has a son attending Hillside Middle School and therefore has a vested interest in how the process will affect children and communities. o She reiterated the importance of the Valuation Checklist as a tool to ensure children are attending schools with populations conducive to a community environment but they must also able to provide valuable resources that will help them learn, thrive and grow. o ARC member Piotrowski stated that after much discussion, the ARC reached a consensus at the May 12 ARC meeting, that a school of (optimally 600) students would be what the committee would consider an ideal school size. o She shared that change was difficult for most and the concept of my school may close was also difficult to comprehend but noted that our children are resilient and whatever change the ARC recommends it will have the best interest of our children as a focus. o Piotrowski also stated how beneficial it was for the ARC members to visit each of the 10 schools and how important the City of Mississauga s input is as the ARC narrows its options. o Piotrowski summarized that after the P, M, I protocol was used at the May 12 th ARC meeting and feedback from the community reviewed in detail, the ARC would consider a K-8 school organization as an option to explore as it fits well with the ARC s consensus related to the size of the school. 3.0 City of Mississauga Site Observations Process o Associate Director Kisko noted that the key filter for the accommodation review is the improvement of program. o She explained that the ARC s collective responsibility is to make recommendations to the Director for viable schools with sustainable enrolments. o Associate Director Kisko stated that in addition to size and organization of a school, site is equally important. Changes made to a school can also change a neighbourhood, Kisko stated. She acknowledged that the Peel District School Board must work with the City of Mississauga and school communities to understand any limitations and issues involved. o Teresa Kerr, City of Mississauga planner and ARC member explained to the community that when the City reviewed the school sites involved in the Clarkson/Erindale accommodation review, they assumed that a consolidation would occur and that an addition would be required and thus more children would be coming to each site. o The team representing the various disciplines, including a transportation engineer, landscape architect, urban designer, parks planner and a member of the Traffic Safety Council, commented on each location. o She noted that a preliminary, high level site review was undertaken to establish: potential site constraints potential impact to the surrounding community potential safety issues such as vehicular access and pick up and drop off facilities o Kerr stated that it is important to note that the City s review is preliminary in nature and based on limited available information. Many of the posted comments focus on the salient limitations or constraints which should be considered as the ARC continues through the process. She noted that some of the limitations may

4 be mitigated while others are more severe. Comprehensive comments would be forthcoming once formal applications, including drawings, which illustrate actual development plans, are submitted to the City for approval. o Kerr offered that she would be available to answer any questions and that the City s observations were posted outside the cafeteria. 4.0 Feedback opportunity Gallery Walk o Superintendent Dowling explained to the community that the purpose of the gallery walk would be to garner their qualitative input related to the 54 scenarios created for consideration by the ARC. o The community members were invited to review the scenarios and provide input in the form of strengths, limitations and concerns or questions specific to each scenario. This information would be captured on a plus, minus, interesting chart attached to each scenario. o ARC members had been assigned to act as tour guides for the various scenarios. They would facilitate gathering the public s input and responding to questions related to the scenarios. o The community were encouraged to visit the data displayed in the front hallway on each school site and to view the posted summary information from the City of Mississauga related to the specific 10 sites. 5.0 Next Steps o Chair Mason thanked the community for their time and energy. She confirmed that the ARC would use the feedback from the information gathered at this meeting to revise and narrow the options. o Chair Mason reminded the community of the next public meeting scheduled for June 7 th at which time the ARC will present a narrower range of possible options. o She noted that feedback from the community regarding which options they believed would be in the best interest of the children in this community would be once again requested. o Chair Mason stated that the final public meeting would be held on October 4 th and the purpose of that meeting would allow the community an opportunity to review the ARC s proposed recommendations to the board and to voice any final input before the ARC s report is presented to the board s Director of Education on October 14 th. o She reminded the community that the board s planning staff is also required to prepare a staff response to the ARC s recommendation. At the Physical Planning and Building Committee meeting in January 2012, the board will discuss both the ARC s recommendation and the staff response. The final decision would be made at the regular board meeting in January o The community had an opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns. Q. We like having the visual solutions to consider with all the statistics, etc. There is a lot of information to take in and provide feedback. One hour is not enough is it possible to have the scenarios put on the website or in a pdf and then provide for people to post feedback or comments over the next week or two? A. All the scenarios have been posted on the board s website and feedback can be sent via , facebook or twitter. We would ask that you provide this input within the next week. Q. What would it cost to bus over 200 students to another school? Would it be comparable to keeping the school open? A. This is part of the analysis that the ARC will perform. Once the options are narrowed down, the ARC will ask the board s planning department to provide transportation circles. This information will provide detailed information of distance travelled, number of students and main intersections involved.

5 Q. What is the point of having a Clarkson Family of Schools if you look at a bunch of imperfect solutions based on 3 schools when Owenwood has only 120 kids? Rather than wait to offer closed properties to the separate school board or the City, solicit which schools they may be interested in before making closures? A. The Clarkson/Erindale ARC was created after an extensive review of schools, south of Highway #401, over the past year. The board s Annual Planning Document (APD) identifies those schools currently with less than 60% utilization and those projected to reach less than 60% utilization over the next 10 years. The committee concluded that a series of Accommodations Reviews may be required to address a number of geographic areas. Q. Building codes must comply to 2011 standards. Does the same apply to traffic patterns? Is it the same as when schools were built? A. Building codes and traffic patterns have likely changed during the past 30 years. A more detailed answer will be provided on the board s website. Q. Is there a process in place for the disposition of a building? Has Loyala Secondary School (DPCDSB) been offered to the Peel District School Board? A. The property has not been declared surplus, therefore it has not been offered to the Peel District School Board. School Boards are governed by the Education Act, Regulation 444/98 with regards to the disposition of surplus land. The Board must first offer surplus land to: Other school boards Post secondary institutions Local and Regional municipalities Province of Ontario Federal Government Land must be offered at fair market value. There is a 90-day period for response. If no interest from any of the above parties, then the land may be offered to any company or person. Q. What kind of budget expenditures are involved? A. It is the responsibility of the ARC to determine what option ensures a viable school with a sustainable enrolment. The extent of renovations would need to be considered. The Ministry states that the process of disposition of land must be used to offset the cost of renovations of existing schools. The board would need to offer, to the Ministry, a compelling reason to build a new school instead of renovating an existing building. Q. I am confused about the paper, with the graphs, that was distributed? Is this board information? A. This handout was not produced by the board. This information was distributed by a member of the community. He reviewed the scenarios on the board s website and the handout is his interpretation. Q. I am concerned that the last public meeting date falls 2 days prior to the election. Can the ARC public meeting date be changed? I want to ensure the public receives all important ARC information. A. The dates are set in accordance with the Ministry guidelines for Accommodation Reviews. We will continue to ensure that information regarding the public meetings is made available. o Chair Mason encouraged the community to stay informed and up-to-date on the Clarkson/Erindale Accommodation Review by visiting the board s website: or like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Questions can be sent via to the board s website. Information will continue to be included in school newsletters and school principals and bulletin boards will also be a source of information. Meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.

Questions and Advice. General Information

Questions and Advice. General Information Questions and Advice Once you are ready to begin the online grant application, start by clicking the Save my Work button at the bottom of the application page. Please use this button frequently to ensure