Your browser does not support JavaScript!
December 11, 2012 - School Enrolment/School Capacity Minutes
School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee
December 11, 2012

A meeting of the School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board was held at the Education Centre, 220 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
Present Trustees:
H. Chadwick, Chair
L. French, Vice-Chair
G. Beavis
H. Brown
E. Crawford
A. Goodfellow
D. Jackson
B. Milligan, Student Trustee
P. Murray
S. Ruttan
C. Yun, Student Trustee
Present Staff:
Ruth Bailey, Accommodation Review Facilitator
Myra Baumann, Manager of Financial Services
Krishna Burra, Supervisor of Safe and Caring Schools and Assistant to the Director
Jane Douglas, Communications Officer
Dave 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 Secretary
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
Karen Smith, Communications Officer
Wayne Toms, Manager, ITS        
Chair Chadwick called the meeting to order, welcoming those in attendance to this evenings School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board meeting

Conflict of Interest

        No Trustee declared a conflict of interest.

Approval of Agenda

MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, seconded by Trustee Goodfellow, that the agenda, as distributed, be approved.Carried

Chair Chadwick reminded Trustees that this evening’s School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board meeting was an added meeting, to provide Trustees with an opportunity to ask clarification questions about both the North Kingston Senior Staff Report and the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools Senior Staff Report, after receipt of them on November 22, 2012.  She said that Trustees, upon reviewing the reports more thoroughly after the November 22nd meeting, may have found that they had further clarification questions.

Chair Chadwick indicated that some questions were forwarded to Facilitator Bailey and Senior Staff in advance of this evening’s meeting.  She said that Trustees will also have an opportunity to ask further questions, once Ms. Bailey reviews the questions submitted in advance, along with the answers to them.

The Chair thanked Facilitator Bailey and Senior Staff for their work in preparing answers to the questions submitted in advance.

Minor Edits to the Kingston North Senior Staff Report

        Copies of the Minor Edits/Corrections to the Kingston North Senior Staff Report information were distributed to Trustees.  Superintendent Richard reviewed the information.

        The Chair stated that if Trustees, as they go through the reports, see other minor edits, to please forward them to Facilitator Bailey.

Clarification Questions

        The Chair stated that the answers prepared for the clarification questions related to both Senior Staff Reports were dealt with as they were received.

        The Chair stated that further questions could also be asked following Trustee review of the Senior Staff Follow-Up Reports, wherein Senior Staff will have responded to the public input received from the public meetings.

        Ms. Bailey indicated that in several cases Senior Staff, in responding to the questions, tried to ensure that it was clear that some information provided is dependent on decisions that Trustees will make in the future.  She said that in some cases, Senior Staff made sure that they said this is what is proposed, noting that it should be clearly understood that Trustees make the decisions on anything proposed or mentioned.  Any proposal is for Trustee consideration.

        Ms. Bailey stated that, as was mentioned by the Chair, staff tried to deal with questions in the order that they were received.  She indicated that the questions and responses were distributed to Trustees.
        Ms. Bailey reviewed the questions, as follows:

  • What will happen to Focus Programs located at QECVI?  Particularly the P.A.S.S. (Parents Attending Secondary School) Program?
The Focus Programs and their location(s) are reviewed yearly and changes are made, as appropriate.  If the Limestone District School Board decides to close QECVI, the Focus Programs, presently offered at QECVI, will be accommodated within the two remaining central Kingston schools, as possible.  Some may move to other schools in the City.  The P.A.S.S. program will be relocated to KCVI or LCVI, if the Limestone District School Board decides to close QECVI or relocated to the new KCVI or LCVI, if funding is received for a new secondary school.

  • What are ramifications to moving/relocating IB Program from KCVI?
The continuation of the operation of the International Baccalaureate Program (IB), if it is moved to a new location, is conditional on the following:

  • “That the new school facility will come under the same governing body of the old school. If the school comes under a different governing body or district, proof of support will need to be submitted together with budgetary requirements similar to those of the application process;
  • That the current Principal will move to the new facility.  If the Principal does not move, submit letter of new Principal showing support to the programme;
  • That the current IB coordinator will move to the new facility.  If the IB coordinator does not move, the school must submit proof of IB training for the IB coordinator designate;
  • That the current trained staff will move to the new facility.  If not all trained staff moves, the school must submit the percentage of staff that will be relocating.  If more than 2/3 of teachers move, the school must submit proof of professional IB training for new teachers. If less than 2/3 teachers move, IB Americas will assess whether a new authorization process will have to take place;
  • That the students will move to the new facility.  If not all students move, the school must submit the percentage of students that will be relocating.  If more than 2/3 of the students move, the school must submit proof of support of new parents and students to the IB programme.  If less than 2/3 students move, IB Americas will assess whether a new authorization process will have to take place.” (IB Americas: Conditions for the approval of relocation)
        Both the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools PARC Report and the Senior Staff Report recommended that the IB program be maintained.  (See PARC Report page 27 and Senior Staff report pages 62 and 65.) Should the Board decide to close KCVI and/or move the IB Program; the Senior Staff will take all possible steps to ensure that the IB Program continues to operate.

  • What is the difference between Ministry Designated and Board Designated and are there benefits or costs related to each designation? (Page 17 KN)
Facility Condition Index (FCI) is an industry standard asset management tool which measures the relative condition of an asset at a specific point in time.  The FCI is expressed as a percentage calculated by the costs of the backlog of identified ReCAPP renewal needs plus the projected renewal and upgrade costs in the next 10 years divided by the cost to demolish and rebuild the same school on the same site using Ministry of Education benchmarks for new construction costing.

FCI = Total of Building Repair/Upgrade/Renewal Needs ($)
                    Current Replacement Value of Building Components ($)

Prohibitive to Repair is defined by the Ministry of Education as a school having an FCI equal to or greater than 65%.

Ministry Designated ‐ In 2005, based on 2004 school facility information that was determined by a consulting firm hired by the Ministry of Education to review all schools in the province, schools with an FCI of 65% or greater were determined to be prohibitive to repair (PTR).

Board Designated ‐ In subsequent years, the Ministry of Education asked Boards to continue this operating with this model and designate additional schools as appropriate.

The Prohibitive to Repair (PTR) designation was used by Boards when submitting capital requests.  It was used by the Ministry of Education when considering a Board’s capital request and as a condition related to special capital funding grants, such as the first two years of the Good Places to Learn Grant program.  However, neither the Ministry of Education nor the Board presently uses the PTR designation in relation to capital funding.  The Board does use the FCI as one factor in evaluating the general condition of a school.

  • How will LDSB assist the community programs currently housed at Central PS to relocate? (Page 4 KN)
If the LDSB decides to close Central P.S., the following steps would be taken to assist the community programs:

  • Community partners will be informed, in writing, of the Board’s decision, as soon as possible following approval of the decision;
  • The PDD/LD Program is a Section 23 partnership between LDSB and Hotel Dieu Hospital.  Educational Services in consultation with appropriate partner personnel, will review which LDSB schools or partner agency locations have space for the program and make an appropriate location selection;
  • The Old MacDonald Day Care presently uses two classrooms at Central P.S.  The Planning Officer will consult with the Day Care concerning its location needs and offer LDSB space, as available and appropriate, including the possibility of the school that the Central P.S. students will attend.
Trustee Crawford indicated that the Frontenac County Child Care Centre uses two classrooms at QECVI.  She asked if the same procedure would be followed as for the Old MacDonald Day Care presently located at Central Public School.

Director Hunter indicated that the Ministry of Education (MOE) will pay for space in a newly constructed school.  She said that we would ensure that additional space is built in a new school where there is an existing daycare.  She said that would be dependent on the needs of the site.

Superintendent Richard stated that if a new school building is close to the other school and there is a need, then the process would be the same, in that the Planning Officer would work with the day care to come up with options that the daycare could consider, and we would try to facilitate the option the daycare chose.

Ms. Bailey indicated that questions 5 and 6 were put together, as the same information applies.

  • What are the proposed timelines and notification process should Central PS close?
  • What are the proposed timelines and notification process should QECVI close?
The timeline for the closure of a school is dependent on what decision is made by the Board and when the decision is made.  The earliest possible impact date is September 2013.  If the Board decides to wait for the results of a Board application for Ministry of Education funding for the construction of a new school, then the closure of either an elementary or a secondary school could be directed to be delayed.  The delay could be until at least September 2014, or possibly later if funding is obtained and a school is constructed.  Regardless of the Board’s decision or funding information, an interim plan for secondary regular programming would likely need to be put in place for September 2013.  Senior Staff and Secondary School Administrators will begin planning discussions for this in the new year (2013).  

Notification Process:
As per Board Policy 15: School Accommodation, section 3.4 “Parents/guardians, staff and school council members will be informed in writing as soon as possible, through their respective schools, of the Board’s decision, which will also be posted on the Board’s Web site.”  A letter from the Director of Education, on behalf of the Board, is sent home with the students to each family and provided to all staff members.  This is usually completed within a week of the Board’s decision.  A notice concerning the decision is placed on the Board’s web site following the meeting in which the decision is approved.  Past practice has also been to inform PARC members, by e-mail, following the approval of the final decision.  Internal communications with staff, school councils, and students, would also occur at affected schools.

  • How will LDSB address walkability for the students who currently walk to QECVI and will transfer to either LCVI or KCVI and do not live in the walkability radius? (Page 64 CK)
In developing materials for the Senior Staff Follow-up Report, the Senior Staff will review the areas that are within walking distance (3.2 km) of each of the remaining schools and recommend catchment areas for each of the schools that maximize, as much as possible, the walkability of students.  The students living outside the walking distance will be eligible for busing through Tri-Board Transportation.  The potential provision of Kingston Transit passes will also be reviewed, as well as other strategies to eliminate barriers to attendance. In determining the boundaries, it will be important to take into account the catchment areas of the elementary schools in order to avoid, as much as possible, dividing an elementary school between the two secondary schools. (See Senior Staff Report Table 9)

Ms. Bailey indicated that there is more about walkability in question 21.

21.     When will the proposed boundaries be identified for KCVI and LCVI if QECVI closes?

Senior Staff believes that each elementary school catchment area should be assigned, in its entirety, to one secondary school.  If funding for a new secondary school is received, the boundaries for the schools will be determined when the location of the new school is known.  Under Option 2 and depending on Board decisions concerning program distribution, Senior Staff proposes that:

  • The present feeder schools to KCVI and LCVI remain the same;
  •         The catchment areas for Central P.S., Frontenac P.S., First Avenue P.S. as well as Frontenac/First Avenue Option area and Frontenac/Central North and South Option areas be included within the KCVI boundaries; and
  •         The catchment areas for J.G. Simcoe P.S. and Rideau Heights P.S. be included within the LCVI boundaries.
This organization of the two catchment areas will maximize the number of students that are able to walk to school.  The secondary students living in the JG Simcoe P.S. and the Rideau Heights P.S. areas reside outside of the 3.2 Board walking distance to both  KCVI and LCVI.  Some of the secondary students in the Rideau Heights P.S. area are already bused to QECVI.

  • What defines regular programs and how do these credits differ from the specialized program credits in relation to credit accumulation toward an OSSD (18 compulsory/30 total)?  (Page 13 CK)
Credits earned in a regular or specialized program, are usually taken in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD), which is 30 credits.  Some students take additional courses for interest and/or as needed for a selected post-secondary destination.  At present there is no maximum number of credits that a student may acquire.

The credits for regular program students and specialized program students are sometimes the same but in other cases differ in one or more of content, teaching strategies, evaluation or language.  For example, students enrolled in the French Immersion program may take the grade 9 physical education course in French; while students in the regular program earn the same credit in a physical education course offered in English.  The grade 9 LEAP program students will earn the same English credit as the regular program students however, in the grade 9 LEAP English course some of the content, teaching strategies and evaluation products will focus on enriching and extending the students’ learning through the arts.  In some Focus programs, students will acquire 4 credits over the semester, while remaining in one specialized setting normally, under the supervision of the same teacher, such as happens in the Building Construction Internship Program. In other Focus programs, such as the Creative Arts and High Performance Athletics, students may leave the Focus program classroom to join regular program students to obtain a credit in a particular mandatory subject, such as English.

  • What are the rental costs for the alternate program sites?
The Annual rental cost for Street Smart is $80,110 and the annual rental cost for Second Chance is $106,319.

        Facilitator Bailey stated that the same principles apply to questions 10 and 11.

10.     What facility improvements are planned for Frontenac PS to accommodate the Central PS students and staff?  

11.     What facility improvements are planned for KCVI and LCVI to accommodate the QECVI students and staff?

Facility improvements at the school sites receiving new students will focus on accessibility needs, critical items such as repairs to roofs and heating and plumbing systems, renovations needed to accommodate the Full-Day Early Learning Program and Focus Programs and some cosmetic improvements such as painting.

The LDSB Capital Project List for 2012-2022 identifies the following capital projects, at this time:

  •         2014-15 KCVI    - Roofing  $300,000
                                - Energy Conservation (Controls Upgrade) $100,000
  •         2015-16 KCVI    - Windows (includes repointing of brick walls near windows)

The total amount of capital funding to be directed to the improvements will be dependent on the needs at the sites, as well as the needs in the remainder of the district’s schools and the available capital funding at the time.

The Superintendent of Business Services, on behalf of the Board, will apply for all available capital grants that may be used to improve the receiving school sites.  As well, the Director of Education, with the approval of the Board, will continue to pursue public and private partnerships that may provide additional funding that could be directed, by the Board, toward capital projects.

12.     Why is the Tell Them From Me (TTFM) Survey data not included in the PARC process or the Senior Staff Report?

LDSB uses the anonymous “Tell Them From Me” (TTFM) survey, produced by The Learning Bar.  This comprehensive survey captures more than school climate data: it provides schools with the opportunity to receive personal and insightful feedback directly from students.  The scope and depth of the questions go far beyond what appears in most school climate surveys including the one utilized by Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB.  While school climate is part of the TTFM survey, it is only a segment of this survey tool.  Questions address students’ behaviours, experiences and perceptions about several key areas including their social, emotional, psychological and physical health and well-being, inside and outside of school.  Staff and students then use that information to engage on-going dialogue focused on creating meaningful learning environments in our schools.

School climate surveys were not mandated by the Ontario Ministry of Education until February 2010.  Limestone has been using the TTFM survey at the secondary level since 2007-2008.  From inception, the agreement between the Board and OSSTF is that the survey results would only be used for school improvement within that school community.  A commitment was made in 2007-2008 with OSSTF that the purpose of the survey was for school staff to use the survey as a school improvement tool and not to be used by the Board for the purpose of comparing or ranking schools.
In administering the survey, we assure our students, staff, and families that collected data remains anonymous and confidential, and is only used for internal use within each school community.  School-specific school climate results and other components of the TTFM results are shared with respective students, staff, safe and healthy school teams (a Safe Schools team consists of a parent, a student, a teaching staff member, a non-teaching staff member, the school principal, and potentially a community member), and school councils.  Sharing the data beyond a school community has never been contemplated due to the highly sensitive nature of the information collected.  To do so would clearly breach the trust of survey participants and would run contrary to our communications to participants at the time the data was obtained.  Furthermore, the survey was not developed, or intended to be used, to rate or compare schools as part of its methodological design.  Variable response rates also make comparison of the school results very difficult.  Board-wide or aggregate results are shared with Trustees and this is understood by participants prior to administration of the survey.

The Board cannot in good conscience change the survey parameters after the fact or adjust its purpose beyond its intended methodological design.  Our commitment to school communities, staff, and students in particular, will continue to govern our use of the information.  If the purpose or use of the data collected changes, then we feel that students and school personnel deserve to know prior to administration of the survey.  It should also be noted that during the past two years, we have had several concerns expressed by parents about school-specific data being shared beyond the school community.

The purpose of the accommodation review is to address the programming needs of our students and the accommodation issues of a school or group of schools.  The TTFM data does not illuminate any factors connected to these two issues and are therefore not included in the Senior Staff Report.

13.     Can you clarify the idea for Health Clinic from Queen's University Department of Family Medicine that is referenced in the Central Recommendations?

A proposal was submitted by Queen’s University Department of Family Medicine for their staff to operate multi-disciplinary teaching medical clinics, where students would be treated during the school day by residents under supervision.  It would operate in one centrally located secondary school, with future potential to extend to other schools.  Each clinic would operate for one half-day a week per discipline, and potentially would include clinics in family medicine, pediatrics, orthopedics, physiotherapy, obstetrics/gynecology, and psychiatry, social work and clinical psychology.  Estimated space requirements are for approximately 1,100 square feet, and the required renovation of classrooms, at the University’s expense, would reasonably suggest a long-term leasing arrangement.  This partnership would provide adolescent clinical experience for residents. Prompt and easy access for students to specialty care, both prevention and treatment, could result in improved health and well-being of students, and therefore could contribute to increased achievement. Although the lease revenue would not be substantial, the Senior Staff believes this partnership would provide significant value to the students of the LDSB and therefore should be further explored.

14.     Why are there enrolment differences between the Kingston North PARC Report and the Senior Staff Report for Kingston North?

Enrolment data provided in the Senior Staff Report does differ from figures presented to the Kingston North PARC Working Committee.  Senior Staff were able to use more recent enrolment data than was available at the time the PARC was completing its work. At that time, the data used was based on 2010-2011 actual enrolment figures and the corresponding projected future enrolments.  

Specific mention has been made of the data presented for Central Public School and J.G. Simcoe Public School.  The actual October 31, 2010 enrolment for Central P.S. was 177 and J.G. Simcoe P.S. was 135.  When Senior Staff was completing its work, the relevant enrolment data used was based on 2011-2012 actual enrolment figures and the corresponding projected future enrolments.  The actual October 31, 2011 enrolment for Central P.S. was 158 and J.G. Simcoe P.S. was 179.  This reflects an 11% decline in total enrolment at Central P.S. between 2010 and 2011.  This change had a significant negative impact on the projected enrolments at Central P.S.   At J.G. Simcoe P.S., the 2011 total enrolment increased by 33%.   This significant increase is in part due to a 56% increase in JK/SK enrolments and the reintroduction of Grades 7 and 8 into the school.   These changes had a significant positive impact on the projected enrolments at J.G. Simcoe P.S.

        Ms. Bailey indicated that question 16 speaks to J.G. Simcoe Public School, and question 29 speaks to Central Public School.

16.     What is 2012-2013 enrolment at JG Simcoe P.S.?  Is the school on the path for the increase predicted? (page 5 KN)

The enrolment for J.G. Simcoe P.S.:

2010            2011            2012
135             179             188.5

2012 Enrolment by Grade for J.G. Simcoe:

 Gr. 1
 Gr. 2
 Gr. 3
 Gr. 4
 Gr. 5
 Gr. 6
 Gr. 7
 Gr. 8

In reviewing the enrolment above, the student cohorts from grades 5 to 8 are significantly smaller than the grade groupings from JK to Grade 4.  This pattern leads to the projection of a continual increase in the enrolment at J.G. Simcoe P.S.

The information concerning the City of Kingston planning to intensify housing in this part of the City has not been included in the projections to date.  When more information is known concerning the City’s plans, the data will be included in the information used for determining projections.

29.     What is the 2012-2013 enrolment for Central P.S.? Is the school declining as predicted?
The enrolment for Central P.S.:
        2010            2011            2012
        177                     158                     159.5                                                           
(.5 due to students in Special Education program only attending ½ time)

2012 Enrolment by Grade for Central P.S.

 Gr. 1
 Gr. 2
 Gr. 3
 Gr. 4
 Gr. 5
 Gr. 6

        In reviewing the enrolment above, the student cohorts in SK to grade 4 are smaller than in grades 5 and 6.  This trend, when combined with the significant reduction in enrolment from 2010 to 2012, results in a projected decline in enrolment over the next 5 years.  The increase in the JK enrolment compared to the projected enrolment will impact the projections that will be developed in February 2013.

15.     Was the Minority Report reviewed by Senior Staff?

Ms. Bailey indicated that the Minority Reports for both PARCs were reviewed by Senior Staff.

The Minority Reports for both of the PARCs are included as an appendix to each of the PARC Reports.  Reference to the reviewing of the Minority Reports by Senior Staff is included on page 9 of the Kingston North Senior Staff Report and on page 12 of the Central Kingston Senior Staff Report.  The PARC Reports including all of their appendices and input received following the publishing of the PARC reports was reviewed by Senior Staff.

27.     A Minority Report was submitted and referenced in the Central PARC, a Minority Report was submitted but not referenced in the North PARC, was this an oversight and information contained in that report considered?

As outlined in the response to question 15, the Senior Staff did review the Kingston North PARC Minority Report and did consider the perspective provided by the Minority Report authors.

The Central Kingston PARC report recommended that the Board look at a three-school model, if a suitable solution could be found for the programing issues.  The Central Kingston Minority Report also recommended a three-school option and outlined a specific strategy for resolving the program issues.  For this reason, Senior Staff needed to specifically reference the Central Kingston Minority Report.

The Kingston North Minority Report commented on the PARC process and the recommendations made by the Kingston North PARC and provided a viewpoint that differed from that of the PARC.

17.     Some of the individual school descriptions state 'useable' space (First Avenue). It excludes a district program in the description - Technology. Is that the same in the chart on page 11? If so does it include/exclude other programs? Which ones? (Page 3 and chart page 11KN)

A correction and a clarification were added for the First Avenue P.S.  The numbers differ depending on whether or not the portable was added to the capacity count.  The ‘Official Capacity’ number uses all classroom spaces in the count for student capacity spaces while the ‘Useable Space’ removes from the Official Capacity count the classrooms used for community and district programs.

18.     If Frontenac P.S. was to be considered for closure, how would the students be accommodated?

Relocation of Students, if Frontenac P.S. was to close, using 2011-2012 enrolments and used capacity:

The term ‘Useable excess capacity” listed below, leaves all district and community programs in each of the schools in place, as well as the student enrolment.
Frontenac P.S. capacity is listed as “0” because in this table the assumption is that the school is being closed.

Does not
include use
of portable

Does not
include use
of portable


Given the enrolment and capacity in the table above, the following observations were made by Senior Staff:

  • There is sufficient ‘Official’ excess capacity among the four remaining schools to accommodate the students from Frontenac P.S;
  •         There would be sufficient ‘Useable’ excess capacity if one district or community programs were removed from the four remaining schools.
  •         However,
  •         Since space would be limited in several of the schools, it would be important to ensure that there was sufficient space in each school to accommodate the students residing within the appropriate catchment areas.  Many students from out of boundary would need to return to their home school and re-apply for placement in their school of choice.  Table 10 of the Senior Staff report indicates the home school catchment area for students in each of the schools.
  •         First Avenue P.S. cannot accommodate any of the Frontenac P.S. students.
  •         J.G. Simcoe P.S. is projected to exceed capacity within 4-5 years and therefore Senior Staff believes that no additional students should be assigned to this school.
  • Therefore,
  • In order to ensure that as many Frontenac P.S. students, as possible, could walk to school, the day care and the district program would need to relocate to accommodate about 100 JK to 6 students from Frontenac P.S.;
  • The remaining 102 students would need to be relocated to Rideau Heights P.S.  About 35 students presently attending Frontenac P.S. live within 1.6 km of Rideau Heights P.S., an additional 8 grade 7 and 8 students attending Frontenac P.S. live within 3.2 km of Rideau Heights P.S.  Approximately 60 students would need to be bused to Rideau Heights P.S. due to distance.  Some of the walking students may need to be bused for safety reasons due to the high traffic roads in the area between Frontenac P.S. and Rideau Heights P.S.
  • Given that
  • At least 60 students would need to be bused to Rideau Heights P.S.;
  • The student excess capacity for the Kingston North Schools would only be about 60 student places.  This may not leave enough flexibility as the City moves forward with its plans to intensify housing in the Rideau Heights P.S. area; and
  • Five district programs, two community programs and two day cares would need to find alternate locations;
Senior Staff decided not to recommend the closing of Frontenac P.S. except in an option where a new school was built.

19.     Was the EMC information checked?  Also, the comment on same page right after article states "none of the above-identified areas of population growth fall within the Kingston North review area."  What is the predicted growth/housing starts for area around JG?  (page 23 KN)

Follow-up to EMC article:

On November 20, 2012 the Kingston City Council received a report from the CAO on the “Review of City of Kingston Electoral District (Ward) Boundaries: Options for Re-Dividing the Existing Boundaries (12-375)”. The quote below is taken from the opening of the report.

The City’s current electoral district (ward) boundaries have remained unchanged since amalgamation in 1998.  Continued growth in the northwest and east portions of the urban area, together with more stable populations in other areas of the City has combined to create an imbalance in the electoral district populations (e.g. the variance between the district with the highest population (District #2) and the average population of all electoral districts is +39.9% and the variance between the lowest population (District #8) and the average is -29%).  If the current electoral district structure is maintained, an even greater imbalance will develop over time.

Housing starts in Kingston North:
At present we are unable to obtain this information.

20.     What is the Ministry of Education policy for busing French Immersion?

The busing of all students, including French Immersion, is at the discretion of the individual Board. The Education Act - Section 190 indicates that “a board may provide” transportation. However, a student may be excused from attendance at school if,

“(2)(c)       transportation is not provided by a board for the person and there is no school that he or she has a right to attend situated,

(i)     within 1.6 kilometres from the person’s residence measured by the nearest road if he or she has not attained the age of seven years on or before the first school day in September in the year in question, or

(ii)    within 3.2 kilometres from the person’s residence measured by the nearest road if he or she has attained the age of seven years but not the age of 10 years on or before the first school day in September in the year in question, or

(iii)   within 4.8 kilometres from the person’s residence measured by the nearest road if he or she has attained the age of 10 years on or before the first school day in September in the year in question;” Education Act PART II School Attendance

This exclusion would not apply to students in French Immersion, since it is not a mandatory program.

22.     What is the proposed breakdown of regular and specialized programs in the new KCVI and LCVI in order to make each school a composite school?

The proposed location of students in the regular program is outlined in question 21 above.

Senior Staff has not finalized an allocation of the Focus and other specialized programs, between the two schools, as we feel strongly that the Secondary Administrators should be included in the determination of the division of programs and courses.  The Administrators’ input will help to ensure operational feasibility, appropriate space utilization and an effective balance between the schools.  The Senior Staff has reviewed the recommendations concerning program distribution outlined in the PARC Report and discussed several possible scenarios.  Some additional information on the proposed distribution of the programs will be included in the Senior Staff Follow-up Report.

23.     What is the relocation plan for the current School to Community and Second Chance programs at QECVI?

In developing two composite schools both schools will offer a School to Community Program.  As is current practice, students who meet the identified criteria for placement in the School to Community Program will continue to receive this special education service. Educational Services staff will work with the students and the families before and after the move to ensure that the transition is completed as smoothly as possible.

Second Chance, an alternate program site, is not impacted by the Board’s decision concerning the possible closure of QECVI.

A comprehensive review of all Alternative Site and Continuing Education Programs within the Board is currently taking place.  The review is expected to be completed by June 2013. Recommendations from this review may impact alternate sites.  However, given the requirement for an off-school-site location for alternate sites, we do not anticipate that the recommendations from the Alternative Site and Continuing Education Programs Review will impact on the Board’s decisions related to the Central Kingston Program and Accommodation Review.

The Alternative Sites in LDSB are not housed in the same locations as the regular day school programs.  This is based on the following:

  • Students who attend alternative sites frequently seek a “fresh” start and feel that a “new” location provides this opportunity;
  • A smaller environment provides less distractions for students in alternative sites and assists with a renewed learning focus;
  • An alternative learning environment provides flexibility of learning for students whose circumstances inhibit daily attendance;
  • Students in an alternative site often benefit from a cozy atmosphere and an independent learning model;
  • The location of off-site alternative programs assist students with special needs (e.g., anxiety) in continuing their education;  and
  • Students registered in an alternative site tend not to have achieved a high level of success in a regular day school.
Director Hunter stated that the above-noted answer is not the answer for Streetsmart or Second Chance, as there are different sorts of programming at those sites.

24.     Could part of Rideau Heights be repurposed for a proposed new library instead of building a new building?

At this time the Board has given Senior Staff approval to engage in discussion with the City of Kingston with regard to the Wally Elmer/Rideau Heights Redevelopment Project, which may include a new library.  The project is in the early planning stage and no specifics with regard to the features, including exact locations has been finalized.

If the Board decided to repurpose all or a portion of any school, it would need to declare the space surplus to the Board’s needs and work through the disposition process as outlined in Regulation 444/98.

25.     The Kingston North PARC report provides potential sites for an elementary school but the Central Kingston PARC does not provide potential sites for a new school. Are we to understand that if sites for an elementary school are not used then they may be considered as options for the Central PARC location?

26.     Was there any criteria provided to the North PARC in the decision making concerning site locations? If so, will this be applied to a potential new site of a secondary school?

The Kingston North PARC included site recommendations for a new school, if funding is received.  These site locations were included in the Senior Staff Recommendation 1.2 for reference.  However, Senior Staff is recommending to the Board that the QECVI grounds be considered as a possible location for a new elementary school.

In the Central Kingston program and accommodation review, neither the PARC nor the Senior Staff provided a specific site recommendation.  Senior Staff has proposed that if funding is approved, a new school be constructed as equidistant as possible between KCVI and QECVI.

No specific criteria were provided to the Kingston North PARC in the selection of the recommended sites.  No investigation of the availability of the PARC recommended sites was conducted by the PARC prior to the recommendation.

28.     Why does English program at KCVI drop 107 students next year?

Under 21 English enrolment for KCVI over the past 4 years

under 21
Total in

The table above indicates that the enrolment in the English program, which including IB and the Focus programs, has continued to decline.  Although the grade 12 enrolment remains stable the entry of grade 9 students has significantly decreased, which sets the base for the remaining grades and the trend for the overall enrolment.  The significant increase at the grade 12 level is due in part to students from other schools transferring to KCVI to take senior level academic courses not offered at their home school.

Projections are based on many factors, key among them are past enrolment trends, enrolment at the feeder elementary schools and retention of students.  A combination of these factors led to the projected decline for 2013.  However, since the decline for 2012 was not as great as projected (658), the new projections that will be developed in February 2013, will likely have a modified decline for 2013.

Director Hunter reviewed question 30, as follows:

30.     Would you clarify the paragraph regarding changes to the downtown core on page 5 of the Central Kingston Senior Staff Report?

The intent of that section of the report was to provide some preliminary context for Trustees, regarding the significant reduction in school-aged children in the downtown area, to provide background as to why in 2012 there are approximately 1,100 or 32% fewer students in the three area secondary schools than in 1995.  However, after presenting the Senior Staff report to the Trustees, this paragraph stood out, regretfully, as neither positively nor accurately reflecting the current reality of our downtown area, which we all know, Senior Staff and myself (B. Hunter, Director of Education) included, to be a vibrant residential, recreational, cultural  and commercial hub. On behalf of the Senior Staff, I apologize for the misconception. I have also spoken with Mayor Gerretsen and written to the Chair of the Downtown Kingston Business Association to apologize.    

The Limestone District School Board has always worked hard, and will continue to work hard, to foster positive relationships with the members of all of the communities that the Board serves, including the City of Kingston.  We will adjust our comments in the Senior Staff Follow-up Report to more accurately reflect the vibrancy of our City’s downtown business core.

        Trustee Murray asked if there was potential surplus space in other downtown schools, and she also asked about staff providing information as to where students attend what schools.

        Director Hunter stated that this information would be provided, once staff finds out the answers.

        Trustee Murray referred to question 5, and asked what particular programs would need special notification.  Ms. Bailey stated that it is not special programs that require different notification.  She said that what is intended in the answer was that when the Board decision is made, in Board policy it states who gets notified, and when.  She said that in secondary schools there is an issue about being able to provide regular programs to some students, and something needs to happen prior to making a decision.  She said that there will be some interim measures taken.  Ms. Bailey indicated that when Senior Staff and administrators decide what the measures may be or decide what students need to get required courses, parents and students are to be notified.

        Director Hunter said that the concerns do not relate to academic programming, for students need it.  She said that administrators are brainstorming about what they would do in transporting students or planning what could happen.

        Trustee French asked if that was not the normal process in any school, when staff makes decisions around programming.  Director Hunter indicated that this was the normal process.

        Trustee French referred to the second sentence in question 21, “If funding for a new secondary school is received, the boundaries for the schools will be determined when the location of the new school is known.”  She asked if the boundary piece had to be in our recommendations.  Director Hunter stated that once the location of a new secondary was known, the most logical catchment area could then be developed.

        Trustee Jackson stated that throughout both reports there are a number of references to data, noting that some are available in the appendices.  He stated that it would be helpful to have all of the data together.

        Trustee Jackson referred to assumptions.  He said that there have been references to other boards, when we may or may not use 7-12 schools or intermediate schools.  He said that where we put intermediate students will change the model and end results.  He asked about the underlying assumptions in not using a 7-12 school.  He asked if that would be clarified, where someone made these assumptions.

        Trustee Jackson asked what the optimal school size is for schools being built today.  He said some of these things are being driven by financial decisions by the Ministry of Education.  He asked about the underlying pressures.  

        Trustee Jackson stated that there are cross-over issues between the North Kingston and Central Kingston PARCs, in terms of what would be the ideal school site.  He said that the assumptions are in terms of balancing the two out.  He commented on putting an elementary school and secondary school on the same campus.  He said that we have not had a definite answer from the Algonquin and Lakeshore District School Board, if they are interested in working with us, and what that might look like.

        Trustee Jackson requested a consolidated version of the reports, including all amendments made.  Director Hunter stated that all of the information is on the disc provided to Trustees.  Trustee Jackson said that it would be helpful if the information could be posted on the Board’s website.

        Trustee French stated that both Senior Staff Reports reference an option around a new school, and she asked about the timeline for that.  Superintendent Richard stated that there is a very clear process set out by the Ministry of Education.  He said that the process is that once a year, the Ministry sends direction to boards, asking them to submit their capital priorities.  Superintendent Richard stated that currently the Limestone DSB has one request in for Kingston North, for a new school building.  He said that we have not heard back from the Ministry about this request.  He commented on the number of requests submitted to the Ministry and the total costs involved far exceeding the amount of funding they have available.  He said that we never know what we will receive from the Ministry until we get their official notice.  Superintendent Richard reported that normally we hear in September or October, but we have not heard as of yet.  He indicated that usually around this time we receive information from the Ministry asking about new requests going forward for the next year

        The Director advised that she has a CODE meeting soon, and that Directors of Education will ask more about the timelines this year and the process for next year.

        Trustee Goodfellow requested that the Kingston North and Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools Senior Staff Follow-Up Reports, be presented on two different evenings.  Chair Chadwick indicated that she would consult with the Director about Trustee Goodfellow’s request.

        Trustee Jackson stated that it would be easier to consider the reports in different sessions.  He requested that if there were cross-over pieces in the reports, that they be dealt with at the time the reports are presented.

        Trustee Murray stated that in the Kingston North report, it refers to proposed intensification in Kingston North.  She commented on planning intensification for Williamsville District, and stated that she would like that information included in the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools Senior Staff Follow-Up Report.

        Trustee Murray stated that she would like to know how much money for capital and maintenance was spent on the former Calvin Park building, as well as how much money was spent on KCVI, relative to other secondary schools in the Board.

        Superintendent Richard stated that at the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary School PARC meetings, it was explained that the Board received from $3.5 million to $4 million annually for capital renewal.  He said that by the year 2016, the Board will have a $330 million capital renewal backlog for all schools in the district.  He stated that the Board did receive special capital funding under the Good Places to Learn program; however, that funding was to be used only for urgent needs in schools and was not generally intended for schools that were designated as Prohibitive to Repair or involved in accommodation reviews.  Superintendent Richard reported that, at the PARC meetings, Facilitator Bailey outlined the renewal work that had been completed at KCVI, LCVI, and QECVI over a number of years.  He said that there is often a timing issue related to the allocation of work at the various schools.  For example, over the next few years there is approximately $1.4 million in renewal work, scheduled for KCVI and no work scheduled for LCVI.  However, LCVI has had some work done on the building over the last several years, while KCVI has had virtually no work done on the building during that same time period.  Superintendent Richard stated that money spent on renewal work at the various schools tends to even out over time.

        Trustee Crawford referred to question 16, and the information concerning the City of Kingston planning to intensify housing in the Kngston North area, and commented on the plan for a gated community on Conacher Drive.  She indicated that 75 single units are planned for that area, with the first phase being for 10 to 12 units.  She asked that this information be clarified also.

        Trustee French referred to questions 10 and 11, and asked if the 2012-2022 capital projects are based on current buildings and ReCAPP, and if the work that is underway is updated each year.  She asked if that list is adjusted, not just the projections.  Superintendent Richard indicated that is correct.

        Student Trustee Milligan referred to Table 14, page 35 of the Central Kingston Intermediate and Secondary Schools Senior Staff Report, and asked about the 77.7% of the KCVI building being utilized by secondary students only.  Director Hunter stated that the 77% would be secondary students, and the 99.8% refers to all students, both elementary and secondary, housed in KCVI.

        Chair Chadwick stated that answers to some of the questions will come in the Senior Staff Follow-Up Reports.  She asked if Trustees receive any input, to please forward it to Facilitator Bailey so that it can be part of the public session of the meetings.

Next Meeting Dates

        Chair Chadwick advised that a Kingston North public meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 8, 2013, from 6:30 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. at J.G. Simcoe Public School, 90 Wiley Street, Kingston.  The purpose of this meeting will be to receive input on the recommendations regarding accommodation at Central Public School, First Avenue Public School, Frontenac Public School, J.G. Simcoe Public School and Rideau Heights Public School.

        Chair Chadwick further advised at a Central Kingston public meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 2013, from 6:30 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. at Loyalist Collegiate and Vocational Institute, 153 VanOrder Drive, Kingston.  The purpose of this meeting will be to receive input on the recommendations regarding accommodation at Calvin Park Public School, Module Vanier, Kingston Collegiate and Vocational Institute (KCVI), Loyalist Collegiate and Vocational Institute (LCVI), Queen Elizabeth Collegiate and Vocational Institute (QECVI), and the former Calvin Park P.S. building located at 164 VanOrder Drive, Kingston.

School Enrolment/School Capacity Committee of the Whole Board to Rise and Report

MOVED BY Trustee Beavis, seconded by Trustee Jackson, 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 7:40 p.m. Carried