• We recognize the need to consolidate schools/rationalize services in the community.
• We take issue with the current process presented by the school board. 

• The mandate as outlined by the Board’s policy provides for the creation of a committee, known as PARC.  The committee is required to review the status of our schools, formulate a proposal for the future of the facilities and conduct 4 public hearings within a 90 days time frame. 
• The school board has been reviewing school closure in SE Oakville for over 15  years, yet expects the committee and community to make a decision in 90 days.
• 90 minutes before the final PARC public meeting, members of the PARC were given financial information and proposals for 4 scenarios. Many PARC members were surprised at the board’s decision to change their last meeting recommendations.
• We are asking for honest, timely, transparent disclosure
• We are asking for the opportunity to review several proposals that are realistic and well thought-out.
• The last proposal suggests the school board can sell the Brantwood property for $2,000,000 (at $850,000/acre).  We find this figure ridiculous –– when lots are being sold at $850,000 each.
• The final PARC public meeting on January 29th, provides the community 48 hours to provide any feedback before the committee formulates its final proposal.
• The PARC now must deliver its’ final report by February 5th to the School Board.
• The Board has a limited timeline to vote / recommend closure
• Schools will be closed following the current course and the decision will be made by the board not the community.
• Our own Trustee, Phillipa Ellis, stated at the final PARC public meeting, the PARC process is flawed, but it is what we have to work with ....  next time it will be better.
• There isn’t a next time!  Once the decisions are made, schools reconfigured, it is over!
• We don’t accept flawed decision making process as the basis of moving forward.

PARC Composition

Composition is determined by Board Policy

• 2 School Board Trustees
• School Superintendent
• Each school shall nominate 3 parents, principal, one teacher, one non-teaching staff
• Municipal councillor
• Business Community member
• After the committee has met, it may elect to co-opt additional members

Sound fair?

• Then how did a community (Clearview) without a school be allowed to have its ratepayers' association form a group on the committee?
• Why were other ratepayers' associations excluded?
• Why did the superintendent require each school with Clearview children to appoint 1/3 of its parent group to be a Clearview representative?
• The end result - 7 parent Clearview members vs. a maximum of 3 from any other community