School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee
September 5, 2012
A meeting of the School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board was held on Wednesday, September 5, 2012, at the Limestone Education Centre, 220 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, at 6:00 p.m.
H. Chadwick, Chair
Ruth Bailey, PARC Facilitator
Krishna Burra, Supervisor of Safe and Caring School and Assistant to the Director
Jane Douglas, Communications Officer
David Fowler, Manager of Facility Services
Barb Fraser-Stiff, Superintendent of Education
Tammy Giles, Supervising Principal
Richard Holmes, Supervising Principal
Brenda Hunter, Director of Education
Darlene Kirkpatrick, Recording
Andre Labrie, Superintendent of Human Resources
Shawn Lehman, Supervising Principal
Norah Marsh, Superintendent of Education
Alison McDonnell, Supervising Principal
Roger Richard, Superintendent of Business Services
Wayne Toms, Manager of ITS and Planning Officer
Chair Chadwick called the meeting to order, welcoming those present to the meeting. She said that the purpose of this evening’s meeting is to receive the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools PARC Report. She said that the report will not be discussed until a later date. She said that Trustees may only ask questions for clarification this evening.
Declaration of Conflict of Interest
No Trustee declared a conflict of interest.
Approval of Agenda
MOVED BY Trustee Crawford, seconded by Trustee Goodfellow, that the agenda, as distributed, be approved.–Carried
Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools PARC Report
Trustee French stated that tonight, Trustees are receiving the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools Program and Accommodation Review (PARC) Report, noting that they have been provided with either a hard copy or an electronic copy of the main body of the report and eight appendices.
Trustee French reported that the Working Committee met 14 times and that there were also some subcommittee meetings outside of the official PARC meetings, along with four public meetings. She advised that both the Committee members and the general public were very active in providing input and demonstrated strong passion for and pride in the schools. She thanked those involved in the PARC process for their dedication and hard work.
Trustee French advised that Facilitator Bailey will walk Trustees through the report, and that she would present the recommendations of the PARC Report after Ms. Bailey has concluded her presentation.
Ms. Bailey reviewed the Central Kingston Intermediate & Secondary Schools PARC Report. She stated that the Limestone District School Board, through Policy 15 (School Accommodation) developed in accordance with the Ministry of Education guidelines, provided for the formation of a Program and Accommodation Review Committee. Ms. Bailey advised that the Committee is to be appointed by the Board with the assigned task to prepare a school valuation report and recommendations.
Ms. Bailey reported that at its regular meeting on Wednesday, May 28, 2011, the Board approved the following motion:
“That a Program and Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) for the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools be established and begin meeting in the fall of 2011.”
Ms. Bailey indicated that the schools to be included in the program and accommodation review (PARC) included: Calvin Park Public School, Module Vanier, Kingston Collegiate and Vocational Institute (KCVI), Loyalist Collegiate and Vocational Institute (LCVI), and Queen Elizabeth Collegiate and Vocational Institute (QECVI). She further indicated that the PARC was also to include the Limestone Community Education Centre/former Calvin Park building. She said that the Board, in arriving at its decision, took into account the following conditions that relate to the schools:
(iii) Reorganization involving the school or group of schools could enhance program and learning opportunities for students;
(vi) One or more of the schools is experiencing higher building maintenance expenses than the average for the system and/or is in need of major capital improvements; and
(viii) The consolidation of schools is in the best interests of the overall school system.
Ms. Bailey said that the specific mandate for the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools Program and Accommodation Review Committee was presented to the PARC at its first meeting on November 1, 2011. The mandate stated the following:
1. In working toward solutions that meet the criteria below, the PARC should consider the overall impact on all students in the review area and the Board. Recommendations put forward should also reflect the legislative requirements and the Board’s commitment to full accessibility for people with disabilities.
2. The PARC recommendations need to address the following criteria:
2.1 The enhancement, where possible, of the program and learning opportunities for students;
2.2 The reduction of building maintenance and operating expenses and the need for major capital improvements; and
2.3 The optimization of excess student capacity at the schools within the review.
Ms. Bailey indicated that the school boundaries for students attending the grade 7 and 8 core program at Calvin Park Public School are those associated with Centennial Public School, Lord Strathcona Public School and Polson Park Public School. She advised that Calvin Park Public School also houses the Choices at 7 programs, i.e. Challenge, LEAP and Atlas, and that these students come from schools across the city and other areas of the district.
Ms. Bailey reported that Module Vanier boundaries include the students living in the KCVI, LaSalle Secondary School, LCVI, QECVI and Sydenham High School catchment areas. She reviewed the boundaries for KCVI, LCVI and QECVI as shown in the map on page 2 of the PARC Report.
Ms. Bailey advised that in accordance with Policy 15 (School Accommodation), the following were asked to participate as members of the PARC:
- The area Trustee(s), as well as a Trustee from out of area, who will serve as the Chair of the PARC;
- The appropriate School Superintendent(s) or Supervising Principal(s) at the discretion of the Director of Education;
- From each affected school:
i. The School Principal
ii. One teacher
iii. One non-teaching staff member
iv. Three parents, one of whom will be the School Council Chair or designate.
Ms. Bailey stated that once the PARC was constituted, it invited a municipal councillor or delegate and a member of the business community to join the committee. No members of the business community responded to the invitation.
Ms. Bailey reported that throughout the process, there were some changes in the PARC membership for a variety of personal reasons. She reviewed the membership of the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools Program and Accommodation Review Committee, noting that asterisks beside PARC member names indicate that those people asked that their names be removed from the PARC Report. She said that those individuals provided a minority report, which is appended as Appendix 8.
Ms. Bailey commented that all of the PARC working committee meetings were open to the public to observe. Each meeting was advertised on the main Central Kingston page of the Board’s website, under the Accommodation tab. The agenda and minutes were posted on a second page accessed from the Central Kingston page and key documents used by the PARC were placed in the Documents section, and also accessed from the Central Kingston page. A list of dates and locations for all of the upcoming meetings was posted on the Accommodation section of the website and on the calendar under Tentatively Scheduled Meetings.
Ms. Bailey stated that the meeting dates, locations and key focus for each of the meetings are listed on pages 4 and 5 of the PARC Report. She indicated that the agendas and minutes of the working meetings are located in Appendix 1 of the PARC Report.
Ms. Bailey reported that the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools PARC held four public meetings. The meetings were advertised in local newspapers, on the Board’s website, in school newsletters and through flyers sent home with students.
Ms. Bailey stated that the meeting dates, locations and key focus for each of the meetings are listed on page 6 of the PARC Report. She indicated that the agendas and minutes of the public meetings are located in Appendix 2 of the PARC Report.
Ms. Bailey advised that Appendix 3 includes the School Valuation Frameworks. She said that pages 7-9 include the information and documentation that was presented to the PARC to review, understand and use. She said that this information is found in Appendix 4.
Ms. Bailey indicated that during the working meetings, presentations were given to the whole group and work and discussion sessions were done in school groups or mixed groups with five or six people to a table group. Some formal whole group sharing of ideas was also done. She reported that Superintendent Labrie made a presentation to the PARC on secondary school staffing, which can be found in Appendix 4, or on page 52 of the disc copy of the PARC Report.
Ms. Bailey reviewed the key areas that formed the work of the PARC, as listed in the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools PARC Report.
Ms. Bailey reported that at the PARC Working Committee Meeting on February 21, 2012, the Committee was presented with two options developed by Board staff on behalf of the Limestone District School Board as in accordance with the Ministry of Education Guidelines. She said that the ideas were intended as a beginning point for the Committee to work from in adding additional options. She indicated that the options and the corresponding rationale are provided in Appendix 5: Options – 5.1 Description of Options 1 and 2.
Ms. Bailey reported that at the March 22, 2012 Working Committee Meeting one of the PARC members made a presentation concerning the development and use of a criteria framework and scoring for use in evaluating the options. In groups the Committee discussed possible criteria. The criteria suggestions were posted on line for the committee members to view, revise and make additions. The revised on-line list was presented at the March 27, 2012 meeting and each member voted for his/her top 12 criteria. The criteria and the corresponding number of votes were reviewed by the whole group and any criterion receiving five or more votes was selected for the PARC’s criteria document.
Ms. Bailey advised that a subcommittee of one member from each school group and the Facilitator were charged with the task of organizing the criteria and recommending scoring for the items. The subcommittee met twice and presented the results of their work at the April 17, 2012 Working Committee Meeting.
Ms. Bailey stated that on April 17th, the PARC discussed the Criteria, Scoring and Rating Guide and made revisions to it. She said that the guide was finalized and may be found in Appendix 5: Options – 5.2 Criteria Guide for Evaluating Options.
Ms. Bailey indicated that since the initiation of the option phase of the PARC work, the number of options had been added to by PARC members. By May 1, 2012 there were 37 option concepts with several concepts having an A and B part (Appendix 5: Options, 5.3. Options as at May 1, 2012). At the May 1, 2012 PARC Working Committee meeting the PARC reviewed and discussed many of the 37 option concepts and agreed to set some aside. The options were set aside based on one or more feature that the majority of the group agreed was not desirable to pursue at this time (Appendix 5: Options, 5.4 Description of options presented to the Public Meeting #2, May 12, 2012).
Ms. Bailey indicated that on May 24, 2012, the PARC members discussed the remaining 19 options, in school groups and then in mixed groups. For the May 29th meeting, more options and revisions to options were added. The Work Committee decided to work in mixed groups with the focus of discussing and visioning around one three-school option and one or more two-school options. The result of this work was shared with the whole group.
Ms. Bailey reported that for the June 5, 2012 meeting, four more options were added. At the meeting an additional option was provided to the groups (Appendix 5: Options, 5.5. Description of the 47 options).
Ms. Bailey advised that the Committee discussed the 47 options in school groups and each group selected two options to present to the full Committee. It was agreed that the nine options coming forward from this process would be presented at Public Meetings #3 and #4, as options under consideration for inclusion in the final PARC Report.
Ms. Bailey reviewed the nine options under consideration by the PARC for inclusion in the final PARC Report as option preferences and that were presented at Public Meetings #3 and #4, as outlined in the PARC Report, pages 11 to 16.
Ms. Bailey advised that during the last three meetings of the PARC, prior to Public Meetings #3 and #4, some members raised ideas for possible recommendations. She said that at the meeting held on June 5, 2012, the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools PARC agreed on two recommendations to be included in the draft PARC Report going to the public meetings for input.
Ms. Bailey provided an overview of the key messages from the input received at the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools PARC Public Meetings #3 and #4, as outlined in the PARC Report, pages 17 to 22.
Ms. Bailey reviewed the estimated financial information for the preferred options, as listed on pages 24 to 26.
Ms. Bailey reviewed the Questions from Board Policy 15: School Accommodation section 2.6, as listed in the PARC Report, pages 28 to 31.
Ms. Bailey stated that the Minority Report is attached as Appendix 8 to the PARC report.
Trustee French presented the following three option preferences being submitted to the Limestone District School Board, with the first option having top priority and remaining two having no particular priority:
Option 1: That the Board explore a three school option that provides for effective programming.
Option 2: That the Limestone District School Board seek funding from the Ministry of Education for the construction of a new secondary school, at a site to be determined, while maintaining one of the three Central Kingston PARC secondary schools.
School 1 QECVI (Composite school including effective programming for:
- Locally Developed
- School to Community
- At-Risk Students
- Music and the Arts
- Alternative Education
- International Program
- Secondary LEAP
- Theatre Complete
- Creative Arts & Photography
- Culinary Arts
- Construction – BCIP
- Woodworking – Guitar Building
- Academy of Hair
- High Performance Athletics
- Referral – Crossroads
School 2 LCVI (Composite school including effective programming for:
- Locally Developed
- School to Community
- At-Risk Students
- Music and the Arts
- Alternative Education
- International Program
- International Baccalaureate
- French Immersion
- Studio LC – Media Program
- Radio Program
- Culinary Arts
- Cooks Internship
- Construction – Reno Plus (Referral)
- Maintain Calvin Park Public School at LCVI in self-contained hallways
- Move Module Vanier into newly renovated former Calvin Park building
- Move PASS program to an alternate site
- Move the Aboriginal Program to the Friendship Centre
- Move Nexus program to another secondary school
- Students attending KCVI, not registered in special programs, return to their home schools
- Close KCVI
Trustee French presented the additional recommendations, as follows:
That the Limestone District School Board study available partnership opportunities such as, but not limited to:
a) Partnerships with City of Kingston including cultural, recreational, sporting, youth engagement, social, affordable housing (surplus school property);
b) Partnerships with KCHC and other health care organizations;
c) Partnerships with Queen’s University;
d) Partnerships with business/Chamber of Commerce/KEDCO;
e) Space sharing/purchasing agreements/program and other collaboration with other school boards in City of Kingston (including Catholic and French boards);
f) RFP for private development opportunities which develop school sites in partnership with LDSB while maintaining school function
g) RFP for private development opportunities which redevelop LDSB 220 Portsmouth Avenue property as joint administrative office/residential property;
h) Partnership with other suitable Provincial government agencies;
i) Partnership with other suitable Federal government agencies (LINC);
j) Partnership with non-profit organizations such as Kingston Arts Council, Boys and Girls Club, FCCC, Kingston Literacy;
k) Partnership with Kingston Frontenac Public Library.
And further, that the Board, when considering specific partnership projects consider the safety of the students, the revenue generation of the project and the educational enhancement to the students and the programs;
- That the Limestone District School Board provide for the formation of a board-wide Immersion/Extended French program and accommodation review to include both the elementary and secondary schools that offer these programs;
- That the Limestone District School Board explore 21st Century Learning opportunities, including the use of technologies to enhance programming;
- That if the current QECVI building closes, the needs of the north end community, including walkability must be a priority;
- That if KCVI closes, the current IB Program must be preserved;
- That if KCVI closes, walkability must be a priority for those students living in downtown neighbourhoods;
- That in the event of a school consolidation, there would be facilitation to assist with the transition for one year.
MOVED BY Trustee French, seconded by Trustee Jackson, that the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools Program and Accommodation Review Report, be received.–Carried
PARC Public, Not-for-Profit and Private Partnerships Review Period
Chair Chadwick reported that at the June 20, 2012 Board Meeting, the following motion of Trustee Jackson and Trustee Crawford was referred to a future School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board Meeting:
“MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that the Limestone District School Board request the Director of Education to report and recommend to the Board of Trustees on a potential extended review period to allow time for a request for proposals and evaluation of major capital projects involving private, not-for-profit or public partnerships with respect to Board property, and provide an interim or final report to the Board of Trustees for the regularly scheduled August meeting of the Board.”
MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded by Trustee Crawford, that the above-noted motion be amended to delete the words “for the regularly scheduled August meeting of the Board.”--Carried
Therefore, the motion now reads:
“MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded Trustee Crawford, that the Limestone District School Board request the Director of Education to report and recommend to the Board of Trustees on a potential extended review period to allow time for a request for proposals and evaluation of major capital projects involving private, not-for-profit or public partnerships with respect to Board property, and provide an interim or final report to the Board of Trustees.”
Trustee Jackson stated that as Trustees are aware, the Limestone District School Board has been approached about possible major capital partnerships involving Board schools or other property. He said that the Board’s current AP 115 on Capital Partnerships, although a helpful starting point, is essentially geared to small scale service partnerships. The timelines needed for reviewing major partnership proposals need to be established and built into our review processes.
Trustee Jackson commented that a number of school boards across Ontario have already pioneered the key elements required to consider and evaluate such partnerships. He drew attention to the North Toronto Collegiate Institute Redevelopment. He advised that an extensive report and other documents on this project are available online from the Symposium held in 2011 that show the timelines for how this particular school redevelopment partnership project was planned and completed successfully (http://www.publicpropertyforum.ca/library/
Trustee Jackson said that he would like to recognize the initial work of our Board’s Senior Staff, who have begun to consider the timelines required to deal with major capital partnerships where sustainable partnership funding can be secured. He said that new sources of capital and programming funding opportunities could help us to improve both our public school infrastructure and the quality of services we offer to our students.
Trustee Jackson stated that as Ontario Education Minister Laurel Broten has said, “We look to the leadership of our school boards, and we will be there at the Minsitry of Education to facilitate the bringing together of community partners …”
Trustee Jackson stated that supporting this timeline motion this evening will send a clear signal to the public that our Board will provide sufficient time to review major partnership opportunities and specifically those that might have a significant impact on the direction of new capital expenditures. He said that it will signal to the public that we are clearly authorizing our Senior Staff to begin the planning process for engaging possible major capital partners for the Board. He asked that Trustees vote in favour of the motion so that we can begin this review process.
Trustee Ruttan asked Trustee Jackson what timelines he was talking about, and what are we looking to extend?
Trustee Jackson said that he was looking to Senior Staff to provide the timelines required. He said that Senior Staff have already begun the initial work, and that he was looking to Senior Staff to provide guidance on the timelines, so that we can adequately look at partnerships. He said that if Senior Staff believe they have sufficient time, so be it.
Trustee Goodfellow asked Trustee Jackson what timeline he was talking about, noting that there has been a request from the PARC to explore partnerships. She said that Senior Staff have already been doing this, and asked what timelines he wants extended.
Trustee Beavis said that we have to have some final date to work towards, or the work would go on forever. He said that if we go outside the timeline, would the province accept this.
Trustee French said that the wording concerns her – it says to extend the review period but the Trustee has referenced a review process. She said that Policy 15 (School Accommodation) defines only the minimum timelines. She said that she is not sure what we would be gaining by the motion, as we have already been clear that we are looking to Senior Staff to explore partnerships. She said that there is an administrative procedure around Requests for Proposal.
Trustee Murray said that as she speaks to this motion, it still puzzles her why this motion came forward as it did at the June 20th Board Meeting. She said that she did and still does see the PARC process as capable of examining potential partnerships, noting that she is confident that it will.
Trustee Murray said that she does not support the concept of a Request for Proposal that directs conversation, noting that she would like to see this PARC process evolve on its own. She said that there is still time for further conversations on the concepts outlined in the motion. She said that what has her supporting a portion of the motion, is the reference to “Board property” and “a potential extended review”.
Trustee Murray said that in the Central Kingston PARC Report, one sees that there are many recommendations and ideas, and she believes that in order to fully consider this recommendation, the Board must go beyond the boundaries of this mandate. She said that she believes the Board should consider all Board properties and the potential for our own amalgamation/partnerships of programs and properties before moving forward in the PARC process. She said that she believes this process will allow for that conversation further along, but as a member of the Board of Trustees, she believes it is necessary to look beyond the boundaries outlined in both the North and Central Kingston PARC Reports. She commented that the PARC process has highlighted that the issues we face are not
only educational decisions but community decisions.
Trustee Murray asked that Trustee Jackson, as mover of the motion, to consider amending the motion. She remarked that she is mindful that any extension to this process will continue to cause stress on our communities and she apologized for that, but said that she believes an extended review period is worth consideration – more importantly, to see what happens with our co-terminus boards’ ARC process in the downtown Kingston area.
Trustee Brown stated that in addition to the comments, she believes that a Request for Proposal at this time would be premature, saying that she thinks it would presuppose the outcome. She said that we need extra time to see what partnerships will be forthcoming. She said that we need to be cautious at this time before moving forward. She commented that she has concerns about the way in which the motion was put forth. She said that she believes that part of it is redundant, saying that a Request for Proposal could be sought at any time.
Trustee Jackson said that he worded the motion so that it was not so prescriptive. He said that he did not include a timeline or say how staff are to do the work. He indicated that there may be other methods for doing this, and that he was looking for guidance from Senior Staff. He indicated that he would like to start discussion on this, and leave it to Senior Staff to come back with their thoughts on the matter.
Director Hunter said that it is her intention to report fully to the Board on partnership ideas and discussions, which have already occurred and that continue to be in progress. She said that it is her intention to report on partnerships as an appendix, or subsection of the Senior Staff Reports regarding the two PARCs to the Board that are already required under LDSB School Accommodation Policy 15. She stated that it has been her expectation that the information regarding partnerships would be most meaningful in the context of the recommendations of the PARC Report and the Senior Staff Reports for both PARCs, rather than without such context.
Director Hunter advised that there is no maximum timeline in our current process, so if the Board directs a deeper exploration of specific partnership arrangements, either through an RFP or a request for staff to gather further information, then those processes can occur within the current timelines outlined in Policy 15. She said that she believes that the maximum timeline for all processes connected to the PARCs would be by the end of the Trustees’ term of office, i.e. the fall of 2014.
Trustee Crawford stated that she would like this to take place soon. She said that it was reported at Property/Operations Committee that there is excess capacity at schools because of declining enrolment. She advised that there is a public meeting at the end of this month at one of her schools, and she would like to have clear guidelines for the public meeting.
MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded by Trustee French, that consideration of the above-noted motion of Trustee Jackson and Trustee Crawford regarding Capital Partnership Timelines be deferred until after the presentation in November of the Senior Staff Reports with respect to the recent Kingston PARC Reports, and that will include advice or recommendations on possible partnerships.--Carried
Committee to Rise and Report
MOVED BY Trustee Goodfellow, seconded by Trustee Brown, that the School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board rise and report.–Carried
MOVED BY Trustee Goodfellow, seconded by Trustee Jackson, that the meeting adjourn at 6:50 p.m.–Carried