6C. Delegation: Jeff Elzinga, Leslie Park Public School Council

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

6C. Delegation: Jeff Elzinga, Leslie Park Public School Council 6c. Delegation: Jeff Elzinga, Leslie Park Public School Council Ottawa Carleton District School Board – Western Area Accommodation Review Leslie Park Public School Parents’ Council Second Written Submission January 2017 Dear Trustees, We mean no prejudice to the parents, staff and students of Briargreen Public School. However, we have strong concerns that the recommendation to close Leslie Park Public School (LPPS) will have perverse effects in terms of learning outcomes for a large cohort of LPPS students, and unnecessary additional capital costs and running costs for the Board. In anecdotal discussion with both Board Staff and individual Trustees, we have been told that we are one of the smallest single-track English schools in the Board, so we must be closed. We also are concerned that that Board staff have not accurately presented both school’s attributes for an acceptable side-by-side comparison of school options for Trustees. We have been direct in requesting the Board to implement your own walk zone policy in undertaking this accommodation review. We feel that there would be immediate substantial savings in bussing costs if school attendance boundaries were adjusted to reflect walk zones. For historical reasons linked to the former cities of Nepean and Ottawa, Grant Alternative, Leslie Park Public School, Pinecrest Public School and Briargreen Public School are all sited within a 2km radius from each other. In addition to the existing LPPS neighbourhoods of Leslie Park, Valley Stream and Sheahan Estates which are in our existing school boundary’s walk zone, the entire neighbourhood of Briargreen, the majority of Morrison Heights, half of Qualicum and a significant part of Craig Henry neighbourhoods also fall into the 1.6km walk zone area of our school. Unfortunately, the siting of Briargreen Public School is 750m deep into a closed neighbourhood bounded by large green spaces, including the Pinecrest cemetery, the large Craig Henry city park and Hydro Ottawa power line corridors. Only a limited amount of additional neighbourhoods have a small portion of their communities falling into the Briargreen Public School walk zone. While Centrepointe is a contiguous neighbourhood and the Board staff noted in their report that they anticipated that a walk path between Briargreen and Centrepointe would enlarge the school’s walk zone potential, the Board staff did not respond to our request to confirm how many Briargreen students from Centrepointe were bussing or walking. Trustees need to understand historic decisions on the Briargreen school boundaries from the past two previous accommodation reviews. Briargreen is not a community school for students being bussed in from Qualicum and Cedarhill Estates neighbourhoods, as they are not contiguous neighbourhoods (2.5km and 8km away respectively). After closing Qualicum and Christie Schools in previous accommodation reviews, there was a decision to bolster the size of the Briargreen student population given the small and static neighbourhood footprint of the Briargreen neighbourhood. Both the communities of Cedarhill and Qualicum were added to the school boundary to ensure a viable catchment for Briargreen, which has included a running cost for bussing of $100K per year. Over a ten-year period, this is has been a $1M subsidy by taxpayers to help keep that school open with a 67% utilization rate. In accepting the Board recommendations to close Leslie Park and redirect our students to Briargreen, the Trustees will be accepting an unnecessary additional running cost of $150k per annum ($750K over five years) in addition to the existing $100K per annum bussing costs when other options are available to redraw school boundaries to reflect walk-zones and reduce long- term bussing costs for the Board. No other neighbourhood school in the Sir Robert Borden family of schools (nor the majority of schools in the Western Area review) is seeing the strong neighbourhood renewal and densification like the communities in Leslie Park Public School walk zone. We have over 1000 new housing units being built or in advanced planning stages within our school’s walk zone. This includes tearing down existing housing and rebuilding at a higher density. We are directly on the new Baseline Rapid Transit Corridor and are targeted for densification under the City of Ottawa masterplan. This is not the case for the majority of mature neighbourhoods in West Ottawa. Verbal discussions with Board planning staff acknowledged a possible demographic yield of 50-70 students for the current builds, but staff were unwilling to adjust their overall numbers. We publically disagree with Board planning staff analysis that the demographic potential for Leslie Park Public School attendance is flat-lined, given that we were asked to be looking at 20-year demographic projections and all the changes we foresee in our communities. Similarly, we would like to remind Trustees that Leslie Park Public School has been identified for closure in the previous two accommodation reviews. While our school was kept open with no changes to its school boundaries, public debate on keeping our school open over these three rounds of closures has had a chilling impact on our enrollment rates as parents chose to enroll in other schooling options for their children due to the perceived uncertainties. In staff decisions to promote Briargreen over Leslie Park, Leslie Park parents raised concerns about sending their children to an open concept school. We asked Board staff to reflect on the educational outcomes in open concept schools as our parents were anecdotally aware of many studies questioning this model throughout the eighties and nineties. More recently, Shield, Greenland and Dockrell (2010) report in their review of a forty-year timeframe of related literature that noise in open plan classrooms in primary schools affects educational outcomes and as such, recommend specific abatements and modifications. Prain et al (2014) identify specific concerns for learning disabled and lower socio-economic status student populations in open-concept schools and need for distinct learning and educational approaches to ensure student success in such an environment. We do not accept that the delivery of an English program with Core French in an open-concept school is the equivalent to the delivery of this program in a regular closed classroom setting. Academic literature confirms that the pedagogical delivery is highly differentiated for these two dissimilar classroom spaces. We would like to remind Trustees that adding the LPPS student cohort to Briargreen will effectively double the special needs population. While Board staff have admitted the difficulty in physically placing two autism classrooms in addition to a kindergarten with the current Briargreen school floorplan and are now recommending to move the autism classes to Woodroffe Public School, there has been no clear communication or commitment to enclose classrooms or abate noise at Briargreen, nor what that might cost in terms of specific technologies, vinyl curtains, building of wall or use of portables. For our IPRC’d kids, the majority have already had multiple transitions from school to school because of their learning difficulties. It is unfair to force another transition on them and place them in an open-concept school with unclear support in a physical environment that is known to be not ideal for all learners. We have repeatedly asked Board staff to outline their plans for abatements and modifications, including the costs so that transparent decision-making can be made and parents of our special needs kids can understand whether supports will be provided. Board staff have demonstrated an inconsistent portrayal of capital investments to Trustees and the public. We have noted that major capital upgrades like roof repair and window replacement have already been concluded for Leslie Park Public School, which both represent sunk costs and reduces the forward capital costs of the property which are already very low in comparison to other schools. Similarly, we have not received recognition for the capital upgrades that have been put into the school property from other parties, including new fixed sports infrastructures from the community soccer association and the complete rebuild of the pedestrian bridge across to access the school property by the city. We have experienced dismissive attitudes when challenging the positive characterization of Briargreen School attributes versus overlooking similar or better site characteristics at Leslie Park, which also represent diverse teaching opportunities and student life enhancement. Comparison of Attributes - Leslie Park Public School and Briargreen Public School Leslie Park Public School Attributes Briargreen Public School Attributes Building size: 2406m2 Building size: 3,910m2 Year built: 1966 Year built: 1970 Size of school property:2.3 ha Size of school property: 2.1ha Play area: 2.06ha Play area: 1.71ha School property attributes: School property attributes: Two mini soccer fields Soccer field One full size soccer field Five tether ball stations Jogging Track Enclosed Kindergarten play structure Enclosed Kindergarten play structure Junior play structure ($60K funds available, construction deferred) Number of regular classrooms: 8 Number of regular classrooms: 0 Number of kindergarten rooms: 2 Number of kindergarten rooms: 3 Number of open-concept rooms: 2 Number of open-concept rooms: 1 Currently divided with vinyl curtains into 4 Currently used to house
Recommended publications
  • 1 Canfield Road Planning Rationale for Zoning By-Law Amendment – Second Submission
    1 Canfield Road Planning Rationale for Zoning By-law Amendment – Second Submission April 23, 2020 Prepared for: St. Mary’s Coptic Orthodox Church Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1.1 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ............................................2.1 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT ....................................................2.1 2.1.1 Community Context ..................................................................................... 2.6 2.1.2 Transportation Network ............................................................................... 2.6 2.2 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ......................................................................................2.3 2.2.1 Operations & Maintenance .......................................................................... 2.6 2.2.2 Public Consultation ..................................................................................... 2.6 3.0 POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .............................................................3.6 3.1 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT ...........................................................................3.6 3.2 CITY OF OTTAWA OFFICIAL PLAN ............................................................................3.8 3.3 ZONING BY-LAW .......................................................................................................3.16 3.3.1 Proposed Variances
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome Home! Gallery MLS# 880186
    Welcome Home! Gallery MLS# 880186 Pride of ownership in this well maintained home. Cozy up beside the fireplace or cool off by taking a swim in the large inground pool. Well maintained and many recent upgrades. Set in a family neighbourhood close to all amenities this home offers it all! Property Details: 3 bedroom, 3 bathrooms single family home with an in New hardwood floors on main floor (Spring 2012). ground pool and fully fenced yard in the sought after Craig Henry area. Master bedroom with renovated en-suite. Interlock pathway to front entrance with new front door Main bathroom recently renovated. complete with decorative glass pattern. Main floor half bath, main floor laundry room. Inside entry to garage. Finished basement. Spacious living, dining room and family room all on main floor. Oversized lot, private yard with interlock patio. Family room with wood fireplace and patio doors to yard. Renovated kitchen with ceramic floors and eat in area, new window (Spring 2012) and custom trim. Take a look inside - Virtual Tour: For more details and pictures visit: http://www.chantalnephin.com/listings/36-conover-street-ottawa/ http://www.myvisuallistings.com/vt/119766 www.chantalnephin.com www.chantalnephin.com The above information is believed to accurate but not warranted 36 Conover Street, Ottawa, ON. You couldn’t want anything more! MLS# 880186 Craig Henry Craig Henry is a residential neighbourhood in Ottawa, Canada and part of the former city of Nepean. It is a mature residential subdivision in the west/central part of Ottawa, developed from 1971 onwards. Bordered by Woodroffe to the east, Greenbank to the west, Knoxdale Road to the south and the CN railroad separating it from Centrepointe to the north, Craig Henry is a neighbourhood close to many major roads.
    [Show full text]
  • Ottawa Neighbourhoods
    Ottawa Neighbourhoods 29 33 39 1 Barrhaven 55 Island Park 40 96 68 2 Bayshore Kanata Lakes - Marchwood Lakeside - Morgan's Grant - Kanata 35 3 Beacon Hill South - Cardinal Heights 56 North Business Park 40 58 103 4 Beaverbrook 57 Katimavik - Hazeldean 21 6 Bells Corners East 58 Kinburn 20 94 7 Bells Corners West 59 Laurentian 48 8 Billings Bridge - Alta Vista 61 Ledbury - Heron Gate - Ridgemont - Elmwood 9 Blackburn Hamlet 62 Lindenlea - New Edinburgh 98 10 Borden Farm - Stewart Farm - Parkwood Hills - Fisher Glen 63 Lowertown 30 43 11 Braemar Park - Bel Air Heights - Copeland Park 64 Manotick 64 89 64 66 12 Briar Green - Leslie Park 65 Merivale Gardens - Grenfell Glen - Pineglen - Country Place 13 Bridlewood - Emerald Meadows 66 Metcalfe 14 Britannia Village 67 Munster 67 81 15 Byward Market 68 Navan - Carlsbad Springs 70 16 Carleton Heights - Rideauview 69 New Barrhaven - New Development - Stonebridge 18 Carlington 70 North Gower 19 Carlingwood West - Glabar Park - McKellar Heights 72 Orléans Avalon - Notting Gate - Fallingbrook - Gardenway South 85 20 Carp 73 Orléans Central 0 10 20 21 Carp Ridge 74 Orléans Chapel Hill ± km 22 Carson Grove - Carson Meadows 75 Orléans Chapel Hill South 23 Centrepointe 76 Orléans Chatelaine Village 24 Centretown 78 Orléans North West 0 5 10 25 CFB Rockcliffe-NRC 79 Orléans Queenswood Heights km 26 Chapman Mills - Rideau Crest - Davidson Heights 80 Orléans Village - Chateauneuf 76 27 Skyline - Fisher Heights 81 Osgoode 78 72 28 Civic Hospital-Central Park 82 Old Ottawa East 73 29 Constance Bay 83 Old
    [Show full text]
  • Trend Arlington Tennis Club C/O George Bentley 24-280 Mcclellan Road Nepean, on K2H8P8
    Trend-Arlington Tennis Club Annual General Meeting – Agenda Package TACA Community Building, Bellman Drive 5:30 PM – September 18, 2010 1.0 Opening Remarks & Roll Call – Mary Lou Hagan called for the roll. There were 56 members represented, 11 by proxy. Ms. Hagan declared a quorum was present and opened the meeting. Those present agreed to approve items via consensus unless there was controversy, in which case a formal vote would take place. Ms. Hagan welcomed TATC members and invited guests A. Cuenco of PTI and J. O’Grady from TACA. 2.0 Approval of Agenda – Ms. Hagan asked if there were any more items for the proposed agenda. None were proposed so the agenda was approved as is by consensus. 3.0 Last Year’s AGM Minutes 3.1 Approval of Minutes – Ms. Hagan reviewed the minutes from last year (see Appendix A). After review, the minutes from 2009 were approved by consensus. 3.2 Action Arising - Ms. Hagan noted that the only action from last year was a suggestion to extend supervisory hours. In 2010, supervisory hours were extended. 4.0 Club Reports 4.1 Treasurer’s Report – Dave Green thanked Louise McCutcheon for her hard work in keeping the bank books. He then referred members to Appendix B (TATC Actual Expenditures and Proposed Budget) and Appendix C (Club Reports). Revenues were up about 33% to over $11,000 and exceeded the budget of $8,000. This was attributed to an increase in membership. Next year’s budget shows a small profit with more funds being allocated to enhance member services and beginner and youth tennis programs.
    [Show full text]