My Oakville - The PARC process to date in Southeast Oakville

The PARC process to date in Southeast Oakville

Written by Editor

Tuesday, 25 March 2008 14:11

The first two public meetings concerned the valuation tool. A document attempting to numerically rate the value of each school, with relative weighting for various programs / facilities. The tool template is available here, a downloadable PDF.

We never hear about the tool in regard to any proposal offered.

February 19, 2008

PARC Committee members quickly got to work voting on the 2 + 1 or 3 + 1 option. The 3 + 1 option won a significant majority of 67.5% (27 votes for 3 + 1, 13 votes for 2+1) of the votes. This sends a very clear message about support for our 3 school model in our community, that we sincerely hope our Trustee and the other 10 Trustees will support this community’s decision.

A second vote took place to determine the school configuration options that would move forward as recommendations to the Board’s Administrative Councils. The committee cast votes on 4 options based on their first, second, third and fourth priorities, with each priority being relatively weighted (ie. a 1st choice was worth 4 points, 2nd choice 3 points, etc.) This ranked the top four options. There was some debate about another vote on these options but a motion was presented to recommend that the top 2 results form the basis of the committee’s recommendation. This motion was approved by secret ballot, with a simple majority required. Voting was 23 in favour, 17 opposed.

A sub-committee of PARC members were formed who will craft the final report for delivery to the Director of Education by March 5, 2008.

February 12, 2008

At tonight’s PARC working meeting, we were advised the Superintendent of Education has approved the committees request for a 30 day extension.

Staff from the Town of Oakville discussed the current Interim Growth Strategy, that calls for the building of 20,000-30,000 residential high density community bordered by the QEW, Cornwall, 16 mile Creek & Chartwell. The Town advised the Interim Growth Strategy detailing this area will be complete in the Spring. However, the projections are not included in the current projections on the Town’s website. It was questioned about the logic of school closure if we have such a huge increase in population –– doubling within 20 years. Superintendent Cullen, HDSB, advised they expect this to be couples only community.

It is hard to believe that with such a community there won’t be a few children. Even taking 5% for children aged 4-18 would bring 1,000 - 1,500 new children into our existing school community (The GTA average is 19% from the latest, 2006, census.

The school board’s drive to build in Clearview seems to provide no opportunity to consider these figures. Even discussing growth in our community (see How does ...) is discounted by presenting figures of the Town’s overall growth over the past 5 years and contrasting against school population in SE Oakville.

This is clearly comparing apples to oranges. Why didn’t they present growth in SE Oakville contrasting against our school population ? Why can’t the board present data of our actual school age population? Many have asked about our market share in public education in South East Oakville. Is the Board’s declining school population in SE Oakville a case of actual declining population in our community or a case of parental choice of private, catholic or public school? We need to find the root cause, not simply march forward with false assumptions.

It was asked about maintaining the status quo. Superintendent Cullen reported that it would be likely the Administrative Council would not support this decision and would make its’ own decision, as the PARC essentially would not have fulfilled its’ mandate. He went on to explain, if the committee, recommended a 2 English JK-6 school option + 1 French Immersion Grades 1-6, including 1 of the 2 English schools being built in Clearview, it would be supported by Administrative Council. A committee member questioned how financing for a new school could occur, as the Province does not currently fund new construction in zero or declining growth communities. Superintendent Cullen advised that if this was the decision of PARC, it was likely that Administrative Council would support the decision and recommend it to the Director. Further, they would make a business case to the Province, with the knowledge and belief it was supported by the PARC process and thus validated by the community.

This is highly prejudicial –– He is telling the committee support of their decision will occur if it meets the Board’s predetermined plan otherwise you will be taken out of the process if you support the status quo. Yet, the Board’s own PARC Policy clearly states the Administrative Council can elect for maintaining the status quo.

Members questioned further about at what student population he believes the Board would support building in Clearview. At first, they were told it wasn’t a population figure. Pushed if it was 300 students, he told them it would not be supported, but he was not willing to provide a figure where it would be supported. Surely, there must be a number that he feels is likely to be acceptable to the board or province.

As an outsider it seems incredible decisions will be made without a full business case for each decision. Financial consideration was again brought up, and Superintendent Cullen, advised this was not part of the values the committee agreed upon. Yet, the Board PARC Policy clearly states financial consideration must be reviewed.

If you recall from the last public PARC meeting the members were presented with 4 proposals from the Board. The PARC was reminded that these were board scenarios prepared with the valuation as interpreted by the Board not the committee. It is clear the committee is not satisfied with these 4 proposals as they requested for members to write any additional proposal they feel should be considered. Thus with the 4 scenarios, 2 additional scenarios on the Board’s website and tonight’s additions, the PARC is now ready to consider voting decisions.

So, here we are. One week away from voting to make a decision, the committee will entertain additional scenarios and begin voting.

2 school or 3 school English JK-6 Scenarios: This will be the first vote of the evening. Once this is determined, the committee will focus on the proposals that fulfill the voted recommendation. It was agreed that a 60% majority must be reached to take one of the options off the table, otherwise the voting will move to best of both scenarios.

A voting procedure was approved for the 2 vs. 3 school scenario, including sign in and private ballot. No procedure was approved for the next round of voting.

Also last night, it was brought up about the recent quotes on this web and on the Premier’s website regarding, schools as the hub of the community and heart of a neighbourhood. Superintendent Cullen, advised the committee that he believed both the Premier and Ministry of Education were strictly referring to community access to schools. We have emailed both the Premier and Minister of Education to clarify their sentiment. We don’t believe Superintendent Cullen spoke to either to ascertain the context of the message, but he commented as how he sees it fitting the Board’s plan.

February 5, 2008, PARC Committee meeting.The meeting was a working committee meeting, and like all meetings is open to the public to observe. Several decisions were reached at the meeting:

There will be no more public meetings with the PARC committee.
The committee will ask the director for a 30 day extension, until March 6, 2008 to reach a decision.
The voting process will be by secret ballot.
Proxy votes will be accepted by members who cannot attend the meeting.
The committee has requested that the HDSB provide all the pertinent information they have been seeking over the past few months.
Members also requested the board furnish the proposed borders for the catchment areas for each of the 4 proposals.

It was not clear whether the 4 scenarios circulated at the last public meeting will be the scenarios the committee will vote on in 2 weeks or whether additional proposals will be formulated. The Board presented a valuation rating for the 4 proposals. Is it not the PARC committee that is to assign the valuation, not the Board? A number of the valuation elements the Board used were not approved / agreed to by the committee.

Gerry Cullen, Superintendent of Facilities Services, stated that financial consideration is not part of the decision making model. This is confusing, since it would ignore the reasons for mandating PARC in the first place. If financial considerations were not relevant why not fund and renovate the existing facilities. We understand it’s about programming and sustainability but how do we get a viable solution without the financial impact or constraints on funding –– capital or operating.

Our Ward 3 Trustee, Phillipa Ellis spoke passionately about her priority to see a school in Clearview. She urged the committee to think outside of their community. In her view, we have no choice but to build in Clearview. She asked the committee to find a solution including a school for Clearview.

It is no surprise that the school board has presented 14 of 19 proposals for a school in Clearview and the last set of proposals, 50% called for a school in Clearview. After all, the board staff report to Phillipa and the other board members. This must put an undue stress on the school staff PARC members (teachers, principals, and non-teaching staff).

When questioned about boundaries, Superintendent Cullen advised the committee it is the last thing that needs to be considered. They would simply move the boundaries to reach the student population threshold for a school. It was commented that would mean drawing a line as far south as necessary to achieve Clearview viability. This is incredible that the committee has not been provided this, busing information or other pertinent information for ANY of the scenarios to date.

Making a decision without all the information invalidates the decision.

We were under the impression that PARC was an impartial process to discover the best solution for our community.

January 29th, 2008, final PARC public meeting. 4 new proposals [ icon PARC 14 - 4 Scenarios - Revised] are offered, much to the surprise of the PARC members. For the first time, some financial information is provided –– although incomplete. Board provides corrected figures only on the website.

Financial information seems suspect. Board advises they can sell real estate for $850,000 per acre in South East Oakville. We know, old homes are being purchased and demolished for lot value of $850,000.
No expenses are allocated to renovate existing facilities beyond the building of new resources. Our schools have been neglected by the board by years of closure discussions and need renovating to the existing.
Many frustrated parents, for the first time are given the opportunity to address the board members in a group public forum.

January 15, 2008, the Board presents 19 proposals for public input. The public is requested to write individual comments at tables around the room. No opportunity for questions is provided in a group forum. No financial information, business plan and limited rationale is offered to the community. Yet, the board requests the public write comments about these proposals. Please download for more details - icon PARC Secnarios - Jan 15, 2008