Public Meeting Agenda Board of Education

PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA BOARD OF EDUCATION

WEDNESDAY, December 11, 2019 – 7:00 pm

Telephone 604 668 6000 Fax Secretary Treasurer at 604 233 0151 Fax Superintendent of Schools at 604 233 0150 Visit our Web Site @ www.sd38.bc.ca

The Richmond Board of Education acknowledges and thanks the First Peoples of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ (hun-ki-meen-um) language group on whose traditional and unceded territories we teach, learn and live.

1. Recognition of Visitors, Announcements and Updates from Trustees

(a) Recognition of Visitors

(b) Announcements

2. Adoption of Agenda

3. Presentations, Special Recognitions, Briefs and Questions from the Public

(a) Presentations

(i) Steveston-London Secondary School Choir under the leadership of their teacher, Michael Mikulin, will entertain the meeting with festive songs.

(b) Special Recognitions

Nil.

PAGE 1 Agenda of Public Board Meeting, Wednesday, December 11, 2019

(d) Questions from the Public

Members of the public are invited to come forward with questions regarding agenda items.

Communications Break

4. Executive

5. Approval of Minutes

(a) Regular meeting of the Board held Wednesday, November 13, 2019 for approval. (b) Organizational meeting of the Board held Wednesday, November 13, 2019 for approval. (c) Record of an in-camera meeting of the Board held Wednesday, November 13, 2019.

6. Business Arising

(a) RECOMMENDATION: Proposed Boundary Revisions Memorandum from the Executive Director, Planning & Development

(b) Emergency Preparedness Update Memorandum from Assistant Superintendent Wendy Lim and Mike Charlton, District Administrator, Emergency Preparedness & Seismic Upgrade Liaison attached.

7. New Business

Nil.

8. Questions from the Public: Tonight’s Agenda

Members of the public are invited to come forward with questions regarding agenda items.

9. Standing Committee Reports

(a) Audit Committee Chair: Donna Sargent Vice Chair: Debbie Tablotney

The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 6, 2020 at the school district offices.

PAGE 2 Agenda of Public Board Meeting, Wednesday, December 11, 2019

(b) Education Committee Chair: Ken Hamaguchi Vice Chair: Norman Goldstein

(i) For Information: Minutes of meeting held October 16, 2019 attached.

A meeting was held Wednesday, November 20, 2019. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 6pm at the school district offices

(i) For Information: Minutes of meeting held November 6, 2019 attached.

A meeting was held Wednesday, December 4, 2019. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5pm at the school district offices.

(d) Finance and Legal Committee Chair: Ken Hamaguchi Vice Chair: Richard Lee

(i) For Information: Minutes of meeting held October 16, 2019 attached. (ii) RECOMMENDATION: Budget 2020-2021 process and timeline

A meeting was held Wednesday, November 20, 2019. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 11am at the school district offices.

(e) Policy Committee Chair: Sandra Nixon Vice Chair: Donna Sargent

(i) For information: Minutes of October 21, 2019 and Special Meeting Minutes of November 4 2019 attached for information. (ii) NOTICE OF MOTION: Policy 504.4 & 504.4-R: Menstrual Products (iii) RECOMMENDATION: Policy 704 & 704-R: School Closure and/or Consolidation (iv) RECOMMENDATION: Policy 704.1 & 704.1-R: Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements

A meeting was held on Monday, November 18, 2019. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 20, 2020 at 10:30am at the school district offices.

PAGE 3 Agenda of Public Board Meeting, Wednesday, December 11, 2019

10. Correspondence

(a) Email from Judie Schneider regarding Boundary Catchment received December 6, 2019.

(b) Letter from Jon Vegt regarding Boundry Catchment received December 3, 2019.

11. Board Committee and Representative Reports

(a) Council/Board Liaison Committee

A meeting was held Wednesday, December 4, 2019. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at Anderson Hall, City of Richmond.

12. Adjournment

PAGE 4 Agenda of Public Board Meeting, Wednesday, December 11, 2019

BOARD OF EDUCATION

Telephone 604 668 6000 Fax Secretary Treasurer at 604 233 0151 Fax Superintendent of Schools at 604 233 0150 Visit our Web Site @ www.sd38.bc.ca

THE NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD IS SCHEDULED FOR: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2020

Contact Persons regarding agenda items:

Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Scott Robinson – 604 668 6081 Deputy Superintendent, Mr. Rick Ryan - 604 668 6081 Assistant Superintendent, Ms. Lynn Archer – 604 668 6093 Assistant Superintendent, Ms. Wendy Lim – 604 668 6087 Secretary Treasurer, Mr. Roy Uyeno – 604 668 6012

• Please address any item for an upcoming Agenda to the Chairperson, Board of Education (Richmond) at: 7811 Granville Avenue, Richmond, BC V6Y 3E3. • Items are to include your name and address. • Items received at the office of the Secretary Treasurer by 9am the Thursday preceding a meeting of the Board will be included on the Agenda. • Items arriving after the 9am. Agenda deadline will be reserved for the next meeting of the Board. • For further assistance, please contact the office of the Secretary Treasurer at 604-668-6012.

PAGE 5

COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2019 AUDIT EDUCATION FACILITIES AND BUILDING FINANCE AND LEGAL POLICY

Chair Donna Sargent Ken Hamaguchi Debbie Tablotney Ken Hamaguchi Sandra Nixon

Vice-Chair Debbie Tablotney Norman Goldstein Sandra Nixon Richard Lee Donna Sargent

Member Heather Larson Richard Lee Norman Goldstein Debbie Tablotney Heather Larson

Alternate Norman Goldstein Heather Larson Donna Sargent Norman Goldstein Richard Lee

Senior Leader Roy Uyeno Lynn Archer Roy Uyeno / Roy Uyeno Scott Robinson Rick Ryan The Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of the Board is the alternate to all standing committees in the absence of appointed Trustee. All Trustees are encouraged to attend standing committee meetings as they are available. Cambie Coordinating Aboriginal Education Child Care Development Council/Board Liaison Richmond Sister City Enhancement Agreement Advisory Committee Committee Advisory Committee Advisory Committee Chair/Rep(s) Richard Lee Sandra Nixon Heather Larson Ken Hamaguchi / Heather Larson Sandra Nixon Alternate Donna Sargent Norman Goldstein Norman Goldstein Debbie Tablotney Donna Sargent

Senior Leader Wendy Lim/Roy Uyeno Richard Steward Richard Steward Scott Robinson / Lynn Archer Roy Uyeno Reports To Finance and Legal Com. Education Com. Facilities and Building Board of Education Education Com. Com.

BCPSEA BCSTA Prov. Council ELL Consortium Vancouver Coastal Health Authority

Chair/Rep(s) Norman Goldstein Debbie Tablotney Donna Sargent Norman Goldstein

Alternate Sandra Nixon Heather Larson Richard Lee Richard Lee Senior Leader Laura Buchanan Scott Robinson Jane MacMillan Scott Robinson

Reports To Board of Education Board of Education Education Com. Facilities and Building Com.

PAGE 6

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 38 (RICHMOND) 7811 GRANVILLE AVENUE, RICHMOND, BC ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 AT 7:30 P.M.

Present: Chairperson K. Hamaguchi Trustees S. Nixon N. Goldstein H. Larson R. Lee D. Sargent D. Tablotney Superintendent of Schools S. Robinson Deputy Superintendent R. Ryan Secretary Treasurer R. Uyeno Director, Communications & Marketing D. Sadler Director, Instruction, Student Services & Analytics R. Steward Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary) C. Cleary

The Richmond Board of Education acknowledged and thanked the First Peoples of the hən̓ q̓ əmin̓ əm̓ (hun-ki-meen-um) language group on whose traditional and unceded territories we teach, learn and live.

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:38pm.

1. Recognition of Visitors, Announcements and Updates from Trustees

(a) Recognition of Visitors

The Chairperson welcomed the gallery to the meeting.

(b) Announcements

2. Adoption of Agenda

194/2019 MOVED BY H. LARSON AND SECONDED BY D. TABLOTNEY:

THAT the Wednesday, November 13, 2019 regular agenda of the Board of Education (Richmond) be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

3. Presentations, Special Recognitions, Briefs and Questions from the Public

(a) Presentations

Nil.

1 PAGE 7 Regular Meeting, Wednesday, November 13, 2019

(b) Special Recognitions

Nil.

(d) Questions from the Public

Liz Baverstock, President of Richmond Teachers’ Association offered congratulations on the elections results from the Organizational meeting. Ms. Baverstock then thanked Trustees for their hard work and advocacy over the past year.

Ms. Baverstock spoke about a Staff Day she had recently attended, that focused on connection, reflection and inspiration. Ms. Baverstock noted how positive the day had been and a privilege to attend. Ms. Baverstock’s question was “what makes our school and our District the best?” For the upcoming Strategic plan sessions, she also asked how this theme could be incorporated.

4. Executive

The Superintendent of Schools thanked the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for their leadership, wisdom and hard work over the past year that is much appreciated on behalf of the staff. The Superintendent reported that the upcoming Strategic Planning Workshops will include plans to reach out to students as well as employees to ask them what makes our District successful.

5. Approval of Minutes

(a) Regular meeting of the Board held Wednesday, October 9, 2019 for approval.

195/2019 MOVED BY D. TABLOTNEY AND SECONDED BY N. GOLDSTEIN:

THAT the Board of Education (Richmond) approve the Minutes of Wednesday, October 9, 2019 Regular meeting as circulated.

CARRIED

(b) A record of In-camera meetings of the Board held Wednesday, October 9, 2019 and Monday, November 4, 2019 were included with the agenda package for information.

PAGE 8 Regular Meeting, Wednesday, November 13, 2019

6. Business Arising

(a) Board Meeting Pilot

The Superintendent spoke to his memorandum providing an overview of the Board Meeting Pilot of one meeting per month. Following consultation with stakeholders, review of staff time, and a pilot time length that has been ultimately favourable regarding one meeting per month, it is recommended that the board permanently move to one scheduled Board meeting per month and reserve the alternate Wednesday evening for Board workshops, in-camera or public meetings when deemed necessary.

Trustees had questions and comments and said they appreciated the flexibility for scheduling additional meetings or workshops. Trustee Tablotney noted that it is encouraged for staff, trustees and stakeholders to attend the public Committee meetings. Trustee Nixon added that at public policy meetings it is good motivation to look at the District processes and our timelines.

196/2019 MOVED BY H. LARSON AND SECONDED BY D. TABLOTNEY:

THAT The Richmond Board of Education (Richmond) revise its meeting schedule from two meetings to one meeting per month to be held on the second Wednesday of each month;

AND FURTHER THAT The Richmond Board of Education reserve the fourth Wednesday evening of each month for board business which may include trustee workshops, additional public or in-camera meetings or a combination thereof.

CARRIED

(b) Board Authority Authorized Courses (BAA)

The Director of Instruction, Student Services & Analytics provided an update on the Board Authority Authorized Courses attached for information and approval. The Director provided background on the locally developed courses that allow Boards of Education to provide courses that are relevant to the community and meet the needs and interests of students. These courses must be authorized by Boards of Education according to requirements set by the Ministry of Education.

197/2019 MOVED BY N. GOLDSTEIN AND SECONDED BY D. TABLOTNEY:

THAT the Board of Education (Richmond) approve the proposed Board Authority Authorized (BAA) Courses as attached.

CARRIED

7. New Business

Nil.

PAGE 9 Regular Meeting, Wednesday, November 13, 2019

8. Questions from the Public: Tonight’s Agenda

Nil.

9. Standing Committee Reports

(a) Audit Committee Chair: Donna Sargent Vice Chair: Debbie Tablotney

The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 6, 2020 at 4 pm at the school district office.

(b) Education Committee Chair: Ken Hamaguchi Vice Chair: Norman Goldstein

(i) For information: Minutes of the meeting held September 18, 2019 attached.

A meeting was held on Wednesday, October 16, 2019. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 6pm at the school district offices.

(i) For information: Minutes of meeting held October 2, 2019 attached.

A meeting was held Wednesday, November 6, 2019. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 5pm at the school district offices.

(d) Finance and Legal Committee Chair: Ken Hamaguchi Vice Chair: Richard Lee

(i) RECOMMENDATION: Trustee Expenses for three months ending September 30, 2019

198/2019 MOVED BY S. NIXON AND SECONDED BY D. SARGENT:

WHEREAS the Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond) is paying for expenses incurred by the Trustees in the discharge of their duties,

BE IT RESOLVED that in accordance with the School Act, the Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond) approves Trustees’ expenses paid during the three-month period ended September 30, 2019, in the amount of $720.00.

CARRIED

PAGE 10 Regular Meeting, Wednesday, November 13, 2019

A meeting was held on Wednesday, October 16, 2019. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 11am at the school district offices.

(e) Policy Committee Chair: Sandra Nixon Vice Chair: Donna Sargent

(i) NOTICE OF MOTION: Policy 704 & 704-R: School Closure and/or Consolidation

In accordance with Board Policy 204: Creation and Revision of Policy and Regulations, this is a Notice of Motion that a RECOMMENDATION will be presented at the December 11, 2019 Public meeting of the Board of Education (Richmond) to approve proposed changes to the current Retirement of School Facilities policy.

(ii) NOTICE OF MOTION: Policy 704.1 & 704.1-R: Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements

In accordance with Board Policy 204: Creation and Revision of Policy and Regulations, this is a Notice of Motion that a RECOMMENDATION will be presented at the December 11, 2019 Public meeting of the Board of Education (Richmond) to approve a new policy regarding Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements.

(iii) RECOMMENDATION: Policy 602.9-R: Funds Raised for Schools

199/2019 MOVED BY S. NIXON AND SECONDED BY D. SARGENT:

In accordance with Board Policy 204: Creation and Revision of Policy and Regulations, this RECOMMENDATION to the November 13, 2019 Public meeting of the Board of Education (Richmond) is to approve the attached draft revised Regulation 602.9-R: Funds Raised for Schools.

CARRIED

10. Correspondence

The letter from Karina Reid regarding water bottles and tetra paks was read by the Chairperson who asked for Trustee feedback, comments and questions. Discussion ensued. Trustees noted that we have a Richmond Sustainability Action Committee (RSAC) and whether the letter should be reviewed by that Committee. It was noted that there may be other issues to be considered outside of the “green” issue and that the letter should be referred to the Education Committee.

200/2019 MOVED BY D. TABLOTNEY AND SECONDED BY H. LARSON:

THAT the letter from Karina Reid be forwarded to the Education Committee and placed on a future meeting agenda. CARRIED NEGATIVE: LEE

PAGE 11 Regular Meeting, Wednesday, November 13, 2019

11. Board Committee and Representative Reports

(a) Council/Board Liaison Committee.

A meeting was held on Wednesday, October 2, 2019

12. Adjournment

201/2019 MOVED BY N. GOLDSTEIN AND SECONDED BY R. LEE:

THAT the regular meeting of Wednesday, November 13, 2019 of the Board of Education (Richmond) be adjourned at 8:16 pm.

CARRIED

______K. HAMAGUCHI, R. UYENO, CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY TREASURER

PAGE 12

MINUTES OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 38 (RICHMOND), 7811 GRANVILLE AVENUE, RICHMOND, BC WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 AT 7:00 P.M.

Present: Chairperson K. Hamaguchi Trustees S. Nixon N. Goldstein H. Larson D. Sargent R. Lee D. Tablotney Superintendent of Schools S. Robinson Deputy Superintendent R. Ryan Secretary Treasurer R. Uyeno Assistant Superintendent L. Archer Director, Communications & Marketing D. Sadler Director, Instruction, Student Services & Analytics R. Steward Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary) C. Cleary

The Richmond Board of Education acknowledged and thanked the First Peoples of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ (hun-ki-meen-um) language group on whose traditional and unceded territories we teach, learn and live.

In accordance with Board Policy the first meeting in November is the Annual Organizational meeting of the Board. The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:04pm and the gallery was welcomed to the meeting.

Next, the Chairperson asked the Superintendent of Schools to introduce the students, who spoke and performed a traditional welcome.

Following the traditional welcome, the Superintendent of Schools presented a gift of appreciation to May Shaw from Musqueam and McRoberts Grad 2018, in her second year at UBC; and Kaylee Wolflinger, Richmond Secondary grad 2019 and first year student at UBC.

1. Adoption of Agenda

189/2019 MOVED BY N. GOLDSTEIN AND SECONDED BY R. LEE:

THAT the Board of Education (Richmond) approve the Wednesday, November 13, 2019 Organizational Meeting agenda as circulated.

CARRIED

1 PAGE 13 Organizational Meeting, Wednesday, November 13, 2019

2. The Year in Review

The Chairperson reflected on 2019 year noting: this past year can be characterized as one of change and moving forward.

Change

There were a number of significant changes to our senior staff and management team: • We were sad to see Superintendent Sherry Elwood leave us. But we were also happy for her, as she entered retirement after many years of distinguished service in the field of education. Taking over the Superintendent position, is Scott Robinson. Scott has made a seamless transition, having worked previously for the district and having already earned the respect and admiration of our staff. • Filling Scott Robinson’s role of Deputy Superintendent, is Rick Ryan. Rick was the former Deputy Superintendent in Surrey, and brings a wealth of experience, new ideas and energy to our district. • Long-time Executive Assistant to the Board of Education, Senior Staff and Governance, Gail Hackenbruch, also left us for retirement. Although she is missed, Catherine Cleary has stepped into this most challenging position, and is doing a great job. • Former principal Rob Laing, moved into the newly created position of Executive Director of Learning and Business Technology – a most welcome addition to our team.

Moving Forward

The Board has been busy moving forward with a number of initiatives including:

• The pace of seismic upgrades to our buildings took off this year as 3 more schools (Mitchell, Manoah Steves and F.A. Tomsett) were approved funding by the Ministry of Education for seismic upgrades/partial replacements, to go along with the 4 current approved schools (William Cook, Hugh Boyd, Robert Tait and W.D. Ferris). • We are pleased to announce that all our schools and works yard have Emergency Bins on each site. The Emergency Bins contains water, food, and medical/survival supplies. • In an effort to manage our time more effectively, a pilot program was introduced that saw the board reduce the number of public board meetings from two to one meeting per month. The change seems to be well received and a final decision will be made in November as to whether this change will become permanent. • In June the board gave approval to our Long-Range Facility Plan – an important plan that will help guide us in how we manage our facilities. • Work is now under way to develop the district’s Strategic Plan – another important document that will identify key strategic priorities and goals for the next five years. • In February, our SOGI Advisory group held their first meeting • The Board approved Nov. 5 to be proclaimed “Support Staff Recognition Day” • We are pleased to announce that we have reached a contract agreement with our CUPE local and the Richmond Teacher’s Association (for local issues). We are still waiting for the Ministry of Education and the BC Teacher’s Federation to negotiate the provincial contract, and we are optimistic that it will be done in a timely manner.

Thank you,

Ken Hamaguchi

The Chairperson thanked fellow trustees for all their hard work and commitment. He noted special thanks to staff, students and parents for all that they do to make the Richmond School District “the best place to learn and lead”

PAGE 14 Organizational Meeting, Wednesday, November 13, 2019

3. Appointment of Returning Officer and Scrutineer

At this point, Chairperson Hamaguchi turned the Chair over to the Superintendent of Schools. Chairperson Robinson assumed the Chair and recommended Secretary Treasurer Uyeno be appointed Returning Officer and Deputy Superintendent Ryan be appointed Scrutineer.

190/2019 MOVED BY D. SARGENT AND SECONDED BY R. LEE:

THAT Secretary Treasurer Uyeno be appointed Returning Officer and Deputy Superintendent Ryan be appointed as Scrutineer for the election of the Board Chairperson, Board Vice Chairperson, BCSTA Representative and BCPSEA Representative.

CARRIED

3. Election of Officers

(a) Board Chairperson

Nominations for the Chairperson of the Board for 2019 proceeded. The Scrutineer distributed and collected the nomination ballots. The Returning Officer and Scrutineer left the room.

During the times that the Returning Officer and Scrutineer were out of the room, the Superintendent of Schools presented an update and overview of the last month’s activities in the District.

The Returning Officer and Scrutineer re-entered the room and the Returning Officer announced that Ken Hamaguchi Trustee had been unanimously nominated for the position of Chairperson. Trustee Hamaguchi accepted the nomination and was declared by acclamation as Chairperson of the Board for 2019.

Trustee Hamaguchi assumed the Chair for the election of the Board Vice Chairperson.

(b) Board Vice Chairperson

Nominations for the Vice Chairperson of the Board for 2019 proceeded. The Scrutineer distributed and collected the nomination ballots. The Returning Officer and Scrutineer left the room.

The Superintendent continued his update.

The Returning Officer and Scrutineer re-entered the room and the Returning Officer announced that Trustee Nixon had been unanimously nominated for the position of Vice Chairperson. Trustee Nixon accepted the nomination and was declared by acclamation as Vice Chairperson of the Board for 2019.

4. Election - BC School Trustees Association Provincial Council Representative

The election of a BCSTA provincial council representative and appointment of an alternate proceeded. The Scrutineer distributed and collected the nomination ballots. The Returning Officer and Scrutineer left the room.

PAGE 15 Organizational Meeting, Wednesday, November 13, 2019

The Superintendent continued his update.

The Returning Officer and Scrutineer re-entered the room and the Returning Officer announced that Trustee Tablotney and Trustee Larson had both been nominated. Trustee Tablotney declined the nomination as representative but offered to be the alternate. Trustee Larson then accepted the nomination and was declared by acclamation as BCSTA provincial council representative for 2019. Trustee Tablotney will serve as the alternate.

5. Election - BC Public Schools Employers’ Association Representative

The election of a BCPSEA representative and appointment of an alternate proceeded. The Scrutineer distributed and collected the nomination ballots. The Returning Officer and Scrutineer left the room.

The Superintendent continued his update.

The Returning Officer and Scrutineer re-entered the room and the Returning Officer announced that Trustee Goldstein had been unanimously nominated for the position of BCPSEA representative. Trustee Goldstein accepted the nomination and was declared by acclamation as BCPSEA representative for 2019. Trustee Nixon agreed to serve as the alternate.

7. Destruction of Ballots

191/2019 MOVED BY R. LEE AND SECONDED BY D. SARGENT:

THAT the ballots of the November 13, 2019 organizational meeting be destroyed.

CARRIED

8. Authorized Signatories

The following recommendation is a requirement for signing authority.

192/2019 MOVED BY N. GOLDSTEIN AND SECONDED BY D. SARGENT:

THAT the approved signing authorities of the Board of Education (Richmond) effective immediately and until they are so changed, shall be the Board Chairperson, and the Secretary Treasurer, except for the issuance of cheques when the required signatures shall be:

Any one of: Board Chairperson: Ken Hamaguchi Board Vice-Chairperson: Sandra Nixon Superintendent: Scott Robinson

And any one of: Secretary-Treasurer: Roy Uyeno Assistant Secretary-Treasurer: Maria Fu Manager Financial Services – Pramod Chauhan

Such signatures may be affixed by hand, or by cheque-writing facsimile machine in accordance with established Board policy.

PAGE 16 Organizational Meeting, Wednesday, November 13, 2019

CARRIED 9. Committee Appointments

A list of Committee Appointments was included with the organizational meeting agenda package for Trustees to consider and return their requests for specific committees to the Chairperson via email by Monday, December 2, 2019. These appointments will be provided to the January 9, 2020 meeting of the Board.

10. School Liaison Trustee Assignments

The current Trustee liaison assignment list was included with the agenda package. These assignments will remain in place until November 2020.

11. Adjournment

193/2019 MOVED BY S. NIXON AND SECONDED BY D. SARGENT:

THAT the Wednesday, November 13, 2019 organizational meeting of the Board of Education (Richmond) be adjourned at 7:37pm.

CARRIED

______K. HAMAGUCHI R. UYENO CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY-TREASURER

PAGE 17

DATE: December 11, 2019 FROM: R. Uyeno, Secretary Treasurer SUBJECT: Record of an In-Camera Board Meeting held November 13, 2019

The Board of Education School District No. 38 (Richmond) would like to report that the following was discussed at an in-camera meeting of the Board held November 13, 2019.

(a) Briefs and Presentations: Nil. (b) Business Arising out of Minutes: Administrative and personnel items were discussed. (c) New Business: Nil. (d) Executive: Administrative items were discussed. (e) Standing Committee Reports: Nil. (f) Board Committee and Rep. Reports: Nil. (g) Correspondence: Nil. (h) Record of Disclosure: A Trustee declared a conflict with an agenda item and left the meeting for the discussion.

Below find an excerpt from Board Policy which outlines those matters that constitute In-Camera material.

Pursuant to Board Policy 201, unless otherwise determined by the Board, the following matters shall be considered in-camera;

To protect individual privacy and the Board’s own position, in-camera meetings may be conducted to discuss issues such as:

- individual student matters; - individual employee matters; - legal concerns; - negotiating collective agreements; - negotiating contracts; - the sale or purchase of land.

Trustees will not disclose to the public or employees the proceedings of an in-camera session unless a resolution has been passed at the closed meeting to allow such disclosure.

PAGE 18 Report to the Board of Education (Richmond) PUBLIC

DATE: 11 December 2019

FROM: Frank Geyer, Executive Director, Planning & Development

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Catchment Area Boundary Review (Phase I)

RECOMMENDATION THAT the Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond) approves the school catchment area boundary revisions contained in Appendix A for the 2020/2021 school year.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Not applicable

BACKGROUND The Richmond Board of Education adopted its Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) at a public meeting held 26 June 2019, which contained a number of strategy recommendations to be undertaken over the next few years. During the past summer, Planning & Development staff worked to develop an action plan and proposed timeline for addressing the priorities and recommendations in the LRFP. Section 5.35 - Enrolment Management of the LRFP states: “A number of school catchments no longer reflect the original population patterns that existed when the boundaries were last adjusted. This issue is contributing to capacity issues in a number of schools. The School District will need to review and potentially adjust school catchment area boundaries by 2021-2022 school year as an outcome of the Long Range Facilities Plan. All boundary move recommendations identified in Chapter 9 for communities of schools regions are for consideration only, and implementation must follow the normal boundary review process, including public and stakeholder feedback opportunities from affected school communities. The Boundary Review Process is summarized in Subsection 5.3.6 of this Plan. The Board of Education is ultimately responsible for establishing and making amendments to school catchments, pursuant to the School Act.”

As such, a Board Workshop was held 25 September 2019, where staff recommended that the LRFP Action Plan commence with a proposed three phase comprehensive school catchment boundary review: • Phase I – 2020-21 Boundary Revisions • Phase II – South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review • Phase III – South Central Region and West Region Elementary Boundary Review, Integrated with Seismic Upgrade Strategy, Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review

PAGE 19 Phase I consists of three types of boundary revisions: A. Improving existing boundaries to align with the centreline of major roads as a safety measure (i.e. minimizing student crossings of busy thoroughfares to get to/from their catchment school), and to simplify the District catchment map. B. Aligning school catchments within the new communities of schools regions established in the LRFP (North Central, South Central, East and West):

As discussed in Chapter 9 - Strategy for Communities of Schools Regions of the LRFP: “To effectively analyze the current conditions of the Richmond School District’s facilities, the District has been separated into four (4) “Communities of Schools Regions” (referred to as “regions” in this plan) including North Central Region, East Region, South Central Region and West Region as illustrated in Map 9.1 below. Schools have been categorized into communities based on current school catchments and the District’s geography. Assessing capacity utilization through the lens of communities of schools regions improves the District’s ability to undertake catchment area boundary reviews and to better understand unique socio-economic characteristics leading to program placement locations and facility decisions.”

Aligning schools within these regions in a timely manner is particularly important in areas of enrolment growth where school capacity expansion will be required (i.e. the North Central Region). Developing successful business cases for capital funding of these expansions hinges on justifying the need based on the regional capacity/utilization rather than the default lower “District as a whole” capacity/utilization.

PAGE 20 C. Reducing/eliminating split-feeder catchments, whereby one elementary school feeds more than one secondary school. Subsection 5.3.5.3 of the LRFP states: “A family of schools would be defined as the secondary school and its feeder elementary schools. At present, in Richmond, there are a number of cases whereby an elementary school catchment is split between more than one secondary school: • Grauer and McKay - both split between Burnett [north portion] and Boyd [south portion] along Blundell Road • Blundell - split between Richmond [north portion] and Steveston-London [south portion] along Blundell Road • Lee - split between McRoberts [west portion] and McNair [east portion] along Garden City Road • Westwind - split between McMath [west portion] and Steveston-London [east portion] along Railway Avenue Appendix D in this Plan summarizes the current families of schools groupings and the historical split secondary feeder flow information for students from the affected elementary schools. A review as to the importance of maintaining cohorts all the way from Kindergarten through to graduation should be considered, and whether a catchment area boundary review is necessary.”

A total of 35 potential boundary revisions were developed by Planning staff (refer to Appendix C for the diagrammatic representations). The process proposed to be followed for the boundary reviews is contained in the LRFP, Subsection 5.3.6. Phase II currently consists of a review of all space optimization strategies and alternatives identified in Section 5.4 - Optimizing the Utilization of School Assets to address the surplus capacity issue of secondary schools in the South Central Region discussed in Section 9.4 of the LRFP. Phase III currently consists of a review of all space optimization strategies and alternatives identified in Section 5.4 - Optimizing the Utilization of School Assets to address the surplus capacity issue of elementary schools in the South Central Region discussed in Section 9.4 of the LRFP and in the West Region discussed in Section 9.5. Phases II and III would follow the same consultation process used for the Long Range Facilities Plan development and the Phase I boundary review. The timing of these phases has yet to be determined.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS (PHASE I) On 21 October 2019, District staff initiated the engagement plan for Phase I supported by Trustees at the workshop held 07 October 2019 (refer to Appendix B for the Consultation Summary, prepared by the Director, Communications & Marketing): • meetings were held with the executives of our stakeholder groups; • the Let’s Talk SD38 Proposed School Boundary Revisions website was launched, with on-line feedback received up to 15 November 2019 - over 4,400 visits were made to the website, with 133 visitors providing written feedback and eight comments received via e-mail; • letters were sent to all families of affected schools by the School Principal advising them of the proposed boundary revisions with instructions on how to provide feedback;

PAGE 21 • information was shared with local media outlets, real estate board, Richmond City Council, Richmond MLAs and others on the engagement list; and • enhanced engagement was conducted with school communities as required. Planning staff also met with District Transportation staff to discuss the potential impact on existing student bussing resulting from proposed boundary revisions. After reviewing all feedback received and looking ahead to future phases of the comprehensive school catchment boundary review, staff compiled a list of 27 revisions recommended to be implemented for the 2020/2021 school year (refer to Appendix C for more detailed rationale and comments received) under Phase I:

Proposed Boundary Revision Rationale for Recommendation

A. Boundary Alignment Revisions to Improve Student Safety 1. Mitchell Elementary (Caithcart Road) to Tait • No impacted students (current commercial area) Elementary • No comments received

2. Tait Elementary (East of Shell Road) to Mitchell • No impacted students (current industrial area) Elementary • No comments received 3. Blundell Elementary (South of Francis Road) to • 4 potentially impacted students Errington Elementary • No comments received 4. Thompson Elementary (South of Granville Avenue) to • 4 potentially impacted students (1 K-7, 3 8-12) Boyd Elementary • No comments received. 4a. Burnett Secondary (South of Granville Avenue) to Boyd Secondary 5. McNeely Elementary (West of No. 3 Road) to Mitchell • No impacted students (current industrial area) Elementary • No comments received 6. Kingswood Elementary (East of Graybar Road) to • No impacted students (current industrial area) Hamilton Elementary • No comments received 7. Westwind Elementary (East of Gilbert Road) to Maple • No impacted students (current agricultural area) Lane Elementary • No comments received 8. Kidd Elementary (West of No. 3 Road) to Maple Lane • No impacted students (current agricultural area) Elementary • No comments received 8a. McNair Secondary (West of No. 3 Road) to Steveston- London Secondary 9. Bridge Elementary (South of Steveston Highway) to • No impacted students (current agricultural area) Kidd Elementary • No comments received 9a. McRoberts Secondary (South of Steveston Highway, west of Garden City Road) to McNair Secondary 10. Whiteside Elementary (South of Steveston Highway) • No impacted students (current agricultural area) to Kidd Elementary • No comments received 10a. McRoberts Secondary (South of Steveston Highway, east of Garden City Road) to McNair Secondary 11. Mitchell Elementary (South of Cambie Road) to • Approximately 50% of regular students living in McNeely Elementary the move area currently attend McNeely • 2 comments received

PAGE 22 Proposed Boundary Revision Rationale for Recommendation 12. Blundell Elementary (West of No. 2 Road) to McKay • No comments received Elementary 12a. Richmond Secondary (West of No. 2 Road, north of Blundell Road) to Burnett Secondary 12b. Steveston-London Secondary (West of No. 2 Road, south of Blundell Road to Burnett Secondary 13. Ferris Elementary (South of Francis Road) to • One comment received Errington Elementary 13a. Richmond Secondary (South of Francis Road) to Steveston-London Secondary 14. Byng Elementary (North of Steveston Highway) to • One comment received Steves Elementary 14a. McMath Secondary (North of Steveston Highway) to Boyd Secondary

B. Boundary Adjustments to Reflect New Regions Defined in the Long Range Facilities Plan 16. Tait Elementary (West of Highway 99) to Talmey • No impacted students (current commercial/ Elementary industrial area) • No comments received 20. Cambie Secondary (West of Highway 99) to MacNeill • No impacted students (current commercial/ Secondary industrial area) • One comment received C. Secondary School Boundary Adjustments to Reduce Elementary School Split Feeder Catchments 22. Richmond Secondary to Steveston-London Secondary • Eliminate the split feeder catchment for Blundell [Blundell Elementary, north of Blundell Road] Elementary in order to keep student cohorts together in secondary school • Reflects new regions defined in the LRFP • 4 comments received 24. Burnett Secondary to Boyd Secondary [Grauer • Eliminate the split feeder catchment for Grauer Elementary, north of Blundell Road] Elementary in order to keep student cohorts together in secondary school • 3 comments received 25. Boyd Secondary to Burnett Secondary [McKay • Eliminate the split feeder catchment for McKay Elementary, south of Blundell Road] Elementary in order to keep student cohorts together in secondary school • One comment received.

It is important to note that families who have a child currently attending a school within a catchment area boundary revision will: • not be affected by the boundary revision; • have the choice to remain at the school in their current catchment or transfer to a school in their newly proposed catchment; and • have the choice to enroll any siblings in their current catchment or their newly proposed catchment.

PAGE 23 A total of eight (8) proposed boundary revisions are being recommended by staff to be deferred to Phase II (South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options), as further analysis is required to determine implications on student transportation for those in the proposed move areas (including possible additional bus routes) and the reduced catchment area for McNair and McRoberts requires additional consultation and analysis:

Proposed Boundary Revision Description/Rationale for Deferral 15. Whiteside Elementary (North • Boundary alignment improvements of Williams Road) to Lee • Improves student safety by reducing a major road crossing (Williams Elementary Road) 15a. McRoberts Secondary (North • 19 potentially impacted K-7 students of Williams Road) to McNair • No comments received, however the reduced catchment area for Secondary McRoberts requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review 17. Kingswood Elementary (East • Boundary adjustment to reflect new regions defined in the LRFP of Highway 99) to McNeely • 22 potentially impacted K-7 students Elementary • No comments received, however further analysis is required to determine implications on student transportation for those in the proposed move area • Connected to revision 21 18. Woodward Elementary (East • Boundary adjustment to reflect new regions defined in the LRFP of Highway 99) to McNeely • 4 potentially impacted K-7 students Elementary • One comment received, however further analysis is required to determine implications on student transportation for those in the proposed move area • Connected to revision 21 19. Westwind Elementary (West • Boundary adjustment to reflect new regions defined in the LRFP of Fentiman Place) to Byng • 45 potentially impacted K-7 students Elementary • No comments received, however, this revision is connected to revision 26, which requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review 21. McNair Secondary (East of • Boundary adjustment to reflect new regions defined in the LRFP Highway 99) to Cambie • 18 potentially impacted Grade 8-12 students Secondary [Kingswood and • 4 comments received Woodward Elementary • Further analysis is required to determine implications on student catchments east of Highway transportation for those in the proposed move area. The reduced 99] catchment area for McNair requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review 23. McRoberts Secondary (Lee • Boundary adjustment to eliminate the split feeder catchment for Lee Elementary catchment, west Elementary in order to keep student cohorts together in secondary school of Garden City Road) to • 69 potentially impacted Grade 8-12 students McNair Secondary • 71 comments received. Significant concerns were expressed, predominantly with a perception that the proposed move is signaling a future secondary school closure process • The reduced catchment area for McRoberts requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review

PAGE 24 Proposed Boundary Revision Description/Rationale for Deferral 26. McMath Secondary • Boundary adjustment to eliminate the split feeder catchment for (Westwind Elementary Westwind Elementary in order to keep student cohorts together in catchment, east of Fentiman secondary school Place) to Steveston-London • Reflects new regions defined in the LRFP Secondary • 85 potentially impacted Grade 8-12 students • 45 comments received. Significant concerns were expressed, predominantly with respect to proximity to McMath vs. Steveston- London • The Long Range Facilities Plan recognized that Westwind Elementary could remain a split feeder catchment due to potential neighbourhood issues and other considerations • Requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review

Frank Geyer, PEng, FMA Executive Director, Planning & Development

Attachments • Appendix A: List of Recommended School Catchment Area Boundary Revisions for the 2020/2021 School Year • Appendix B: Public Consultation Summary • Appendix C: Technical Appendix

PAGE 25

APPENDIX A LIST OF RECOMMENDED SCHOOL CATCHMENT AREA BOUNDARY REVISIONS FOR THE 2020/2021 SCHOOL YEAR

1. Mitchell Elementary (Caithcart Road) to Tait Elementary 2. Tait Elementary (East of Shell Road) to Mitchell Elementary 3. Blundell Elementary (South of Francis Road) to Errington Elementary 4. Thompson Elementary (South of Granville Avenue) to Boyd Elementary 4a. Burnett Secondary (South of Granville Avenue) to Boyd Secondary 5. McNeely Elementary (West of No. 3 Road) to Mitchell Elementary 6. Kingswood Elementary (East of Graybar Road) to Hamilton Elementary 7. Westwind Elementary (East of Gilbert Road) to Maple Lane Elementary 8. Kidd Elementary (West of No. 3 Road) to Maple Lane Elementary 8a. McNair Secondary (West of No. 3 Road) to Steveston-London Secondary 9. Bridge Elementary (South of Steveston Highway) to Kidd Elementary 9a. McRoberts Secondary (South of Steveston Highway, west of Garden City Road) to McNair Secondary 10. Whiteside Elementary (South of Steveston Highway) to Kidd Elementary 10a. McRoberts Secondary (South of Steveston Highway, east of Garden City Road) to McNair Secondary 11. Mitchell Elementary (South of Cambie Road) to McNeely Elementary 12. Blundell Elementary (West of No. 2 Road) to McKay Elementary 12a. Richmond Secondary (West of No. 2 Road, north of Blundell Road) to Burnett Secondary 12b. Steveston-London Secondary (West of No. 2 Road, south of Blundell Road to Burnett Secondary 13. Ferris Elementary (South of Francis Road) to Errington Elementary 13a. Richmond Secondary (South of Francis Road) to Steveston-London Secondary 14. Byng Elementary (North of Steveston Highway) to Steves Elementary 14a. McMath Secondary (North of Steveston Highway) to Boyd Secondary 16. Tait Elementary (West of Highway 99) to Talmey Elementary 20. Cambie Secondary (West of Highway 99) to MacNeill Secondary 22. Richmond Secondary to Steveston-London Secondary [Blundell Elementary, north of Blundell Road] 24. Burnett Secondary to Boyd Secondary [Grauer Elementary, north of Blundell Road] 25. Boyd Secondary to Burnett Secondary [McKay Elementary, south of Blundell Road]

PAGE 26

APPENDIX B LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARY

11 December 2019

PAGE 27 Contents

Overview ...... 3 Engagement Framework ...... 4 International Association of Public Participation Spectrum of Public Participation ...... 5 Engagement Strategy ...... 6 Engagement Summary ...... 7 Engagement Schedule ...... 8 Online Engagement ...... 8 Internal Communication ...... 9 Media Engagement ...... 9 External Communication ...... 9 Community Notice - English ...... 10 Community Notice - Chinese ...... 11 Board Announcement ...... 12 School Announcement - Email...... 13 School Announcement - Website ...... 14 School Announcement - Newsletter ...... 15

PAGE 28 Overview

The Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) public consultation process began on February 18, 2019 and concluded on June 26, 2019 with a Special Meeting of the Board of Education. After approval, staff developed a draft action plan beginning with a comprehensive catchment boundary review and set forth the public consultation strategy for proposed school boundary revisions as follows:

IDENTIFICATION OF NEED FOR A BOUNDARY MOVE:

The process for school boundary revisions begins when the need for boundary move or a series of moves are identified and presented to the Facilities & Building Committee for initial review and feedback from the Superintendent’s Office, including Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents, before proceeding to consultation stage. The identification stage will include an impact assessment on students currently attending schools, school population size and short and long- term enrolment projections.

CONSULTATION WITH SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION:

If a proposed school boundary revision is supported at this preliminary stage, staff would arrange a meeting with the Assistant Superintendent responsible for the schools affected and the school principals affected by the proposed move in order to receive feedback and local knowledge. Minor adjustments to boundaries may require less intensive meetings; major boundary revisions may also require presentation to PAC’s of schools affected.

PUBLIC NOTICE TO SCHOOL COMMUNITY WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR FEEDBACK:

Notices will be provided for schools affected by a proposed school boundary revision; identifying the purpose, location and impacts of the proposed school boundary revision and providing an opportunity for feedback from the school community.

REVIEW OF CONSULTATION FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATION:

Staff will review feedback from the public consultation and prepare a report including recommendations for the Board’s consideration and approval at the December 11, 2019 Board meeting.

PAGE 29 Engagement Framework

The public consultation process is based on a set of engagement principles, goals and objectives that also established the framework that guided the Board of Education’s work during the LRFP public consultation process.

ENGAGEMENT PRINCIPLES Because we care about our community and stakeholders we will: ï Authentically engage in an inclusive and meaningful way ï Be accountable to maintain and grow our relationships in an honest, transparent, and responsible way ï Listen in order to make decisions that are best for our students

ENGAGEMENT GOALS ï Listen, learn and acknowledge community concerns ï Provide balanced and objective information to assist our community and stakeholders to understand the problems and critical issues in the school district ï Seek input on potential alternatives and use it to inform Board of Education decisions ï Communicate how the input influenced the decision

ENGAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ï Meet with specific community groups to introduce them to the process, encourage their involvement and the involvement of their members to engage culturally diverse hard to reach groups ï Use creative strategies and a variety of online engagement, face-to-face tools, and traditional media to share information and to get input that enhances mutual understanding amongst all stakeholders ï Report back “what we have heard” at each stage of the engagement process through a variety of tools

DECISION MAKING All decision making will be informed by our foundational values, will be future orientated to ensure the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of our school district: ï Any decisions regarding land management whether lease/sale/or partnership will be made by the Board of Education (Trustees) ï The Community and our stakeholders will be advised of decisions made by the Board of Education (Trustees)

PAGE 30 International Association of Public Participation Spectrum of Public Participation

The proposed school boundary revisions engagement framework is in adherence to the International Association of Public Participation’s (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation. The Spectrum of Public Participation was developed to help clarify the role of the public in planning and decision-making.

The Spectrum identifies five levels of public participation or community engagement. It is not a flow chart and is not considered to be steps in a process – starting on the left and working to the right. The selection of each level of engagement is based on the specific context.

The public consultation process utilizes two levels of the spectrum including inform and consult.

INFORM CONSULT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOAL To provide the public with To obtain public feedback on balanced and objective analysis, alternatives and/or information to assist them in decisions. understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

PROMISE TO THE PUBLIC We will keep you informed. We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. We will seek your feedback on drafts and proposals.

PAGE 31 Engagement Strategy

The District employed a multi-channel engagement strategy for the public consultation process

External Internal Media Community Marketing and Organizations Advertising

Let’s Talk Website Secondary P/VP Richmond News City of Richmond Social Media Elementary P/VP Advertising

District Website RMAPS Richmond Richmond Public Chinese Media Sentinel Library (Translated Materials)

School Websites RASA Sing Tao MLA’s Richmond News - Print & Online

Twitter RTA Ming Pao Real Estate Richmond Sentinel - Associations Print & Online

Facebook CUPE Fairchild Richmond Child Care Resource Centre

School RDPA AM 1320 / AM VCH Community Newsletters 1470 Care Facilities

Print Media StrongStart Advertising Centres

Child Care Operators

PAGE 32 Engagement Summary

On October 21, 2019 the proposed school boundary revisions were published through a variety of communication channels:

District Communication: • Let’s Talk website • Twitter and Facebook posts • District website announcement • Notifications delivered to stakeholders, media and community organizations

School Communication: • 41 Proposed Boundary Revision notification letters delivered to all families with students in impacted schools • Announcement and proposed school boundary revision document(s) posted on school websites • Printed copies available at school office

From October 21 to November 15, 2019, the Let’s Talk website received:  4,400 page visits  3,950 document downloads  133 comments: • Home page: 112 comments • School pages: 21 comments: School Number of Comments McMath 12 McRoberts 3 McNair 3 Westwind 1 McKay 1 Mitchell 1

From October 21 to November 15, 2019, District social media posts within the City of Richmond received:  13,000 impressions

Eight emails were also received containing comments.

No written feedback was received directly by schools.

PAGE 33 Engagement Schedule

Process Action/Event Date Principal and stakeholder meeting(s) to review Setting the Stage proposed school catchment revisions and October 11 - 18 communications Monitoring and Engagement strategy implementation October 21 - November 15 Gathering Input Monitor and adapt to emerging information trends Review Input Analyze feedback November 18 - December 4

F & B Committee Report on feedback and emerging trends December 4 Feedback Public summary of feedback posted on Let’s Talk December 6 Summary website Recommendation Report prepared for Board with recommendation December 6

Decision Board decision December 11

Online Engagement

October 22, 2019 District Website Announcement and Call to Action October 22, 2019 Twitter Announcement and Call to Action 3,024 impressions October 22, 2019 Facebook Announcement and Call to Action 1,383 impressions November 4, 2019 Twitter Call to Action: Feedback Requested 1,729 impressions November 4, 2019 Facebook Call to Action: Feedback Requested 2,439 impressions November 14, 2019 Twitter Call to Action: Feedback Requested 2,104 impressions November 14, 2019 Facebook Call to Action: Feedback Requested 801 impressions November 15, 2019 Twitter Call to Action: Feedback Requested 950 impressions November 15, 2019 Facebook Call to Action: Feedback Requested 618 impressions

PAGE 34 Internal Communication

September 23, 2019 RASA Review – Proposed school boundary revisions September 25, 2019 Board of Education Workshop – Proposed school boundary revisions October 15, 2019 RDPA Review – Proposed school boundary revisions October 17, 2019 RASA Review – Communication plan October 18, 2019 RMAPS Review – Proposed school boundary revisions October 22, 2019 RASA Announcement and Call to Action October 22, 2019 RTA Review – Proposed school boundary revisions November 4, 2019 CUPE Review – Proposed school boundary revisions November 12, 2019 Maintenance, Operations Review – Proposed school boundary revisions and Transportation November 13, 2019 PAC (McRoberts) Review – Proposed school boundary revisions RDPA Announcement

Media Engagement

October 22, 2019 Richmond News Letter to the Editor October 22, 2019 Richmond Sentinel Letter to the Editor October 22, 2019 Sing Tao Letter to the Editor (Chinese translation provided) October 22, 2019 Ming Pao Letter to the Editor (Chinese translation provided) October 22, 2019 Fairchild Letter to the Editor (Chinese translation provided) October 22, 2019 AM1320 Letter to the Editor (Chinese translation provided) October 22, 2019 AM1470 Letter to the Editor (Chinese translation provided)

External Communication

November 5, 2019 Richmond School District - StrongStart Announcement November 5, 2019 City of Richmond Announcement November 5, 2019 Richmond Child Care Resource and Referral Centre Announcement November 5, 2019 Vancouver Coastal Health – Community Care Facilities Announcement November 5, 2019 Richmond Public Library Announcement

PAGE 35 Community Notice - English

The Richmond School District's Board of Education gathered valuable information from the public during its consultation on the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) from February – June 2019. Subsequent to the approval of the LRFP, district staff reviewed all school catchments and identified opportunities to align boundaries, reduce the number of major road crossings, and develop options to reduce the number of split-feeder elementary schools.

The District is now beginning the next phase of facilities planning. It is important to note that families that have a child currently attending a school with a proposed school boundary revision will:

• not be affected by the boundary revision, • have the choice to remain at the school in their current catchment or transfer to a school in their newly proposed catchment, • have the choice to enrol any siblings in their current catchment or their newly proposed catchment.

Who is affected?

As of September 2020, all new students living in an adjusted catchment area will be part of the newly formed catchment.

If you have any feedback, please respond by November 15, 2019 by providing your comments on the Let's Talk website (https://www.letstalksd38.ca/proposed-school-boundary-revisions) or by submitting written feedback to your school. The Board of Education is committed to a robust consultation process and will:

• Authentically engage in an inclusive and meaningful way; • be accountable to maintain and grow our relationships in an honest, transparent, and responsible way; • and listen in order to make decisions that are best for our students.

All comments will be considered prior to the Board of Education making a decision on the proposed boundary revisions on December 11, 2019.

PAGE 36 Community Notice - Chinese

学区通告

2019年2月至6月期间关于长远设施规划（Long Range Facilities Plan, LRFP）的公众咨询为列治文学区的教育委员会提供了极为有价值的信息。在长远设施规划经批准之后，学区工作人员审阅了所有学校的校区分界，确认了有关校区边界划分、减少主要道路交通口数量，并发展方案用以减少多选生源小学的数量。

于2019年10月21日起，列治文学区将开始下一阶段的设施规划。如果您所在的校区分界将面临任何改动, 您所在的学校校长将会与您沟通。值得特别注意的是，如果您家中的孩子目前就读的学校将会面临校区分界改动，你的家庭将： • 不受校区边界改动的影响， • 可以选择按照目前的校区分界升学, 或按照新校区分界申请转学去新校区内的学校， • 可以选择按照目前的校区分界注册任何兄弟姐们入学，或按照新校区分界注册入学新的校区。

谁会受到影响？

2020年9月起，居住在新校区分界的所有新生入学申请, 将按照新校区分界分配入学。

如果您有任何回馈，请于2019年11月15日之前在Let’s Talk网站上留下您的评论，或向您的学校提交书面回馈意见，学务委员会致力于创建一个健全的咨询流程，并将： • 真正地以开放包容，积极有意义的方式进行意见征询； • 全力打造诚实、透明、负责的相互关系； • 倾听意见，为学生做出最佳决策。

学务委员会将在2019年12月11日作出决议以前, 考虑所有收获的建议。

PAGE 37 Board Announcement

October 9, 2019

The Richmond School District’s Board of Education gathered valuable information from the public during its consultation on the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) from February – June 2019. Subsequent to the approval of the LRFP, district staff reviewed all school catchments and identified opportunities to align boundaries, reduce the number of major road crossings, and develop options to reduce the number of split-feeder elementary schools.

On October 21, 2019, the District will begin the next phase of facilities planning. A number of proposed boundary changes will be shared throughout the district and will be open for public feedback. It is important to note that current students and their siblings that live in an area with a proposed boundary move will not be affected by the boundary changes.

The board of education is committed to a robust consultation process and will:

If you have any comments, please respond by November 15, 2019 by providing feedback on the Let’s Talk website or by submitting written feedback to your school. All comments will be considered prior to the Board of Education making a decision on the proposed boundary changes on December 11, 2019.

PAGE 38 School Announcement - Email

Dear Parents/Guardians,

The Richmond School District has proposed [Number] school boundary revision(s) that may affect [Name of school]. The purpose of a school boundary revision is to reflect the regional strategy contained in the Long Range Facilities Plan. Please see the attached document for detailed information on the proposed school boundary revision(s).

It is important to note that families that have a child currently attending [Name of school] will:

• not be affected by the boundary revision, • have the choice to remain in their current catchment or transfer to their newly proposed catchment, • have the choice to enrol siblings in their current catchment or their newly proposed catchment.

Who is affected? As of September 2020, all new students living in an adjusted catchment area will be part of the newly formed catchment. If you have any feedback, please respond by November 15, 2019 by providing your comments on the Let’s Talk website or by submitting written feedback to the school office. All comments will be considered prior to the Board of Education making a decision on the proposed boundary revisions on December 11, 2019.

Sincerely,

[School Principal]

PAGE 39 School Announcement - Website

Dear Parents/Guardians,

The Richmond School District has proposed [Number] school boundary revision(s) that may affect [Name of school]. The purpose of a school boundary revision is to reflect the regional strategy contained in the Long Range Facilities Plan. Please click here <- link to pdf for detailed information on the proposed boundary revision(s).

It is important to note that families that have a child currently attending [Name of school] will:

Sincerely,

[School Principal]

PAGE 40 School Announcement - Newsletter

Dear Parents/Guardians,

The Richmond School District has proposed [Number] school boundary revision(s) that may affect [Name of school]. The purpose of a school boundary revision is to reflect the regional strategy contained in the Long Range Facilities Plan. Please visit the school website for detailed information on the proposed boundary revision(s).

It is important to note that families that have a child currently attending [Name of school] will:

Sincerely,

[School Principal]

PAGE 41 f8

APPENDIX C LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN COMPREHENSIVE BOUNDARY REVIEW (PHASE I) TECHNICAL APPENDIX 11 December 2019

PAGE 42 Table of Contents

Table of Contents i PHASE I SUMMARY TABLE 1 PHASE I BOUNDARY ALIGNMENT REVISIONS TO IMPROVE STUDENT SAFETY (RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS) 3 1. Mitchell Elementary (Caithcart Road) to Tait Elementary ...... 3 2. Tait Elementary (East of Shell Road) to Mitchell Elementary ...... 4 3. Blundell Elementary (South of Francis Road) to Errington Elementary ...... 5 4. Thompson Elementary (South of Granville Avenue) to Grauer Elementary ...... 6 4a. Burnett Secondary (South of Granville Avenue) to Boyd Secondary ...... 6 5. McNeely Elementary (West of No. 6 Road) to Mitchell Elementary ...... 7 6. Kingswood Elementary (East of Graybar Road) to Hamilton Elementary ...... 8 7. Westwind Elementary (East of Gilbert Road) to Maple Lane Elementary ...... 9 8. Kidd Elementary (West of No. 3 Road) to Maple Lane Elementary ...... 10 8a. McNair Secondary (West of No. 3 Road) to Steveston-London Secondary ...... 10 9. Bridge Elementary (South of Steveston Highway) to Kidd Elementary ...... 11 9a. McRoberts Secondary (South of Steveston Highway) to McNair Secondary ...... 11 10. Whiteside Elementary (South of Steveston Highway) to Kidd Elementary ...... 12 10a. McRoberts Secondary (South of Steveston Highway) to McNair Secondary ...... 12 11. Mitchell Elementary (South of Cambie Road) to McNeely Elementary ...... 13 12. Blundell Elementary (West of No. 2 Road) to McKay Elementary ...... 14 12a. Richmond Secondary (West of No. 2 Road, north of Blundell Road) to Burnett Secondary ...... 14 12b. Steveston-London Secondary (West of No. 2 Road, south of Blundell Road) to Burnett Secondary . 14 13. Ferris Elementary (South of Francis Road) to Errington Elementary ...... 15 13a. Richmond Secondary (South of Francis Road) to Steveston-London Secondary ...... 15 14. Byng Elementary (North of Steveston Highway) to Steves Elementary ...... 16 14a. McMath Secondary (North of Steveston Highway) to Boyd Secondary ...... 16 15. Whiteside Elementary (North of Williams Road) to Lee Elementary ...... 17 15a. McRoberts Secondary (North of Williams Road) to McNair Secondary ...... 17 PHASE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT NEW REGIONS DEFINED IN THE LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN (RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS) 18 16. Tait Elementary (West of Highway 99) to Talmey Elementary ...... 18 17. Kingswood Elementary (East of Highway 99) to McNeely Elementary ...... 19 18. Woodward Elementary (East of Highway 99) to McNeely Elementary ...... 20 19. Westwind Elementary (West of Fentiman Place) to Byng Elementary ...... 21 PHASE I SECONDARY SCHOOL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT NEW REGIONS DEFINED IN THE LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN (RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS) 22 20. Cambie Secondary (West of Highway 99) to MacNeill Secondary ...... 22 21. McNair Secondary (Kingswood and Woodward Elementary catchments east of Highway 99) to Cambie Secondary ...... 23 21a. McNair Secondary (Hamilton Elementary catchment) to Cambie Secondary ...... 23

PAGE 43 PHASE I SECONDARY SCHOOL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS TO REDUCE SPLIT FEEDER ELEMENTARY CATCHMENTS (RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS) 26 22. Richmond Secondary (Blundell Elementary catchment, north of Blundell Road) to Steveston-London Secondary ...... 26 23. McRoberts Secondary (Lee Elementary catchment, west of Garden City Road) to McNair Secondary ...... 28 24. Burnett Secondary (Grauer Elementary catchment, north of Blundell Road) to Boyd Secondary ..... 46 25. Boyd Secondary (McKay Elementary catchment, south of Blundell Road) to Burnett Secondary ..... 48 26. McMath Secondary (Westwind Elementary catchment, east of Fentiman Place) to Steveston- London Secondary ...... 49 GENERAL COMMENTS – NOT REVISION AREA SPECIFIC 58

PAGE 44 PHASE I SUMMARY TABLE

Proposed Boundary Adjustments

Potential Prop Students Description of Portion of Catchment Area to be Comments Rev Affected* Recommendation Adjusted Received # K-7 8-12

Boundary Alignment Revisions to Improve Student Safety 1 Mitchell (Caithcart Road) to Tait 0 0 Approval 2 Tait (East of Shell Road) to Mitchell 0 0 Approval 3 Blundell (South of Francis Road) to Errington 4 0 Approval 4 Thompson (South of Granville Avenue) to Grauer 1 0 Approval 4a Burnett (South of Granville Avenue) to Boyd 3 0 Approval 5 McNeely (West of No. 6 Road) to Mitchell** 0 0 Approval 6 Kingswood (East of Graybar Road) to Hamilton** 0 0 Approval 7 Westwind (East of Gilbert Road) to Maple Lane** Approval 8 Kidd (West of No 3 Road) to Maple Lane** Approval 8a McNair (West of No 3 Road) to Steveston-London** 9 Bridge (South of Steveston Highway) to Kidd** 2 0 McRoberts (South of Steveston Highway, West of Approval 9a Garden City Road) to McNair** 10 Whiteside (South of Steveston Highway) to Kidd** McRoberts (South of Steveston Highway, East of Approval 10a Garden City Road) to McNair** 11 Mitchell (South of Cambie Road) to McNeely 57 2 Approval 12 Blundell (West of No. 2 Road) to McKay 11 0 Richmond (West of No. 2 Road, north of Blundell) to 12a 2 0 Burnett Approval Steveston-London (West of No. 2 Road, south of 12b 6 0 Blundell) to Burnett 13 Ferris (South of Francis Road) to Errington 9 0 Approval 13a Richmond (South of Francis Road) to Steveston-London 11 1 14 Byng (North of Steveston Highway) to Steves 2 0 Approval 14a McMath (North of Steveston Highway) to Boyd 12 1 15 Whiteside (North of Williams Road) to Lee 9 0 Defer to 15a McRoberts (North of Williams Road) to McNair 10 0 Phase II Elementary School Boundary Adjustments to Reflect New Regions Defined in LRFP 16 Tait (West of Highway 99) to Talmey 0 0 Approval 17 Kingswood (East of Highway 99) to McNeely 22 0 Defer to Phase II 18 Woodward (East of Highway 99) to McNeely 4 1 Defer to Phase II 19 Westwind (West of Fentiman Place) to Byng 45 0 Defer to Phase II

PAGE 45 Potential Prop Students Comments Description of Portion of Catchment Area to be Rev Affected* Received on Recommendation Adjusted # Letstalk.ca K-7 8-12

Secondary School Boundary Adjustments to Reflect New Regions Defined in LRFP Cambie (West of Highway 99) to MacNeill [Tait, west of 20 0 1 Approval Highway 99] McNair to Cambie [Kingswood & Woodward 21 18 4*** Defer to Phase II Elementary catchments] Secondary School Boundary Adjustments to Reduce Split Feeder Elementary

Catchments Richmond to Steveston-London [Blundell, north of 22 56 4 Approval Blundell Road] 23 McRoberts to McNair [Lee, west of Garden City Road] 69 71 Defer to Phase II 24 Burnett to Boyd [Grauer, north of Blundell Road] 58 3 Approval 25 Boyd to Burnett [McKay, south of Blundell Road] 15 1 Approval McMath to Steveston-London [Westwind, east of 26 85 45 Defer to Phase II Fentiman Place] Previously Deferred to Phase II 21a McNair to Cambie [Hamilton Elementary catchment] 213 Defer to Phase II 5 general comments -

not revision specific

* - future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school ** - currently agricultural or industrial zoning *** - comments made in response to revisions #17 & 18, recommending that Hamilton be moved to Cambie Secondary

Recommended to be approved as part of proposed Phase I - 2020 Boundary Revisions Recommended deferral to Phase II - South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible

Consolidation Options and Program Location Review

PAGE 46 PHASE I BOUNDARY ALIGNMENT REVISIONS TO IMPROVE STUDENT SAFETY (RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS)

1. Mitchell Elementary (Caithcart Road) to Tait Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #1)1: 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the south boundary of Tait Elementary. The proposed move area includes a parking area of a commercial property. The move area has no current student residents. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

1 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 47 2. Tait Elementary (East of Shell Road) to Mitchell Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #2)2: 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the western boundary of Mitchell Elementary by using the centre line of Shell Road as the boundary, thereby improving safety by reducing a major road crossing by new students in the move area. The proposed move area from Tait Elementary to Mitchell Elementary is an industrial area with no current students as residents. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

2 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 48 3. Blundell Elementary (South of Francis Road) to Errington Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #3)3: 4

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the north boundary of Errington Elementary by using the centre line of Francis Road as the boundary, thereby improving safety by reducing a major road crossing by new students in the move area. The proposed move area from Blundell Elementary to Errington Elementary includes 4 potentially affected students. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

3 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 49 4. Thompson Elementary (South of Granville Avenue) to Grauer Elementary 4a. Burnett Secondary (South of Granville Avenue) to Boyd Secondary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #4)4: 1 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #4a): 3

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the north boundary of Grauer Elementary and Boyd Secondary by using the centre line of Granville Avenue as the boundary, thereby improving safety by reducing a major road crossing by new students in the move area. The move area includes 4 potentially affected students (1 K-7 student, 3 Grade 8-12 students). No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

4 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 50 5. McNeely Elementary (West of No. 6 Road) to Mitchell Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #5)5: 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the eastern boundary of Mitchell Elementary by using the centre line of No. 6 Road as the boundary, thereby improving safety by reducing a major road crossing by new students in the move area. The proposed move from McNeely Elementary to Mitchell Elementary includes an industrial area with no potentially affected students. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

5 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 51 6. Kingswood Elementary (East of Graybar Road) to Hamilton Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #6)6: 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the western boundary of Hamilton Elementary by using the centre line of Graybar Road as the boundary. The proposed move from Kingswood Elementary to Hamilton Elementary is an industrial area with no current students residing in the move area. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

6 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 52 7. Westwind Elementary (East of Gilbert Road) to Maple Lane Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #7)7: 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the western boundary of Maple Lane Elementary with a minor adjustment. The proposed move from Westwind Elementary to Maple Lane Elementary is an agricultural area with no potentially affected students. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

7 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 53 8. Kidd Elementary (West of No. 3 Road) to Maple Lane Elementary 8a. McNair Secondary (West of No. 3 Road) to Steveston-London Secondary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #8)8: 0 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #8a): 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the eastern boundary of Maple Lane Elementary. The move will align the boundary with centre line of the No. 3 Road, thereby improving safety by reducing a major road crossing by new students in the move area. The move area is an agricultural area with no current students residing in the move area. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

8 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 54 9. Bridge Elementary (South of Steveston Highway) to Kidd Elementary 9a. McRoberts Secondary (South of Steveston Highway) to McNair Secondary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #9)9: 0 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #9a): 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the south boundary of Bridge Elementary and McRoberts Secondary by using the centre line of Steveston Highway as the boundary. The proposed move area is an agricultural area with no current students residing in the move area. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

9 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 55 10. Whiteside Elementary (South of Steveston Highway) to Kidd Elementary 10a. McRoberts Secondary (South of Steveston Highway) to McNair Secondary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #10)10: 0 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #10a): 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the south boundary of Whiteside Elementary and McRoberts Secondary by using the centre line of Steveston Highway as the boundary. The move area is an agricultural area with no current students residing in the move area. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

10 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 56 11. Mitchell Elementary (South of Cambie Road) to McNeely Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #11)11: 57

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the north boundary of McNeely Elementary catchment west of No. 5 Road by using the centre line of Cambie Road as the boundary. This proposed boundary move improves safety by gradually reducing the number of students crossing the busy Cambie Road to attend Mitchell Elementary. The move area includes 57 regular students where close to 50% of those students already attending McNeely Elementary12. 2 comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (2):

 “I do not agree with the change in Mitchell boundary. My husband and I bought a presale place within the Mitchell Elementary school area in the hopes that my son would be able to go to Mitchell in September 2020 and fall within priority 2: living within the catchment. With this new boundary, we will no longer reside within the Mitchell catchment. I really hope you will consider not putting the Mitchell - McNeely proposal in place, postpone the effective date to 2021, or make sure the new boundary does not affect families that already reside or purchased a property within the catchment prior to September 2020. Please reconsider.”  “I STRONGLY STRONGLY oppose to this new boundary proposal. We had purchased a presale home due to complete in Spring 2020 with the thinking of being able to place our son into Mitchell Elementary. We even have after school care lined up at Mitchell once confirmation of his placement is given. People in the school board need to strongly reconsider this move as there is WAY too much negative feedback on this discussion board.”

11 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

12 54 K-7 students in area already attend McNeely Elementary (September 2018).

PAGE 57 12. Blundell Elementary (West of No. 2 Road) to McKay Elementary 12a. Richmond Secondary (West of No. 2 Road, north of Blundell Road) to Burnett Secondary 12b. Steveston-London Secondary (West of No. 2 Road, south of Blundell Road) to Burnett Secondary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #12)13: 11 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #12a): 2 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #12b): 6

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the eastern boundary of McKay Elementary and Burnett Secondary by aligning school boundaries with centre line of No. 2 Road, thereby improving safety reducing a major road crossing by new students in the move area. The move area includes 19 potentially impacted students (11 K-7, 8 Grade 8-12). No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

13 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 58 13. Ferris Elementary (South of Francis Road) to Errington Elementary 13a. Richmond Secondary (South of Francis Road) to Steveston-London Secondary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #13)14: 9 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #13a): 11

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the northern boundary of Errington Elementary and Steveston- London Secondary by aligning school boundaries with centre line of Francis Road, thereby improving safety by reducing a major road crossing by new students in the move area. The move area includes 20 potentially impacted students (9 K-7, 11 Grade 8-12) to align the catchment boundaries with the centreline of Francis Road. One comment received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (1):

 “I am not agree. So many students from Ferris school have siblings or friends at Richmond Secondary and it will be unfair what some of them will be at Richmond Secondary and some will not. I have my daughter Polina at Richmond Secondary and another daughter Lisa at Ferris. I'll know what it will be big tragedy if Lisa will not be at Richmond Secondary. Thank you!”

14 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 59 14. Byng Elementary (North of Steveston Highway) to Steves Elementary 14a. McMath Secondary (North of Steveston Highway) to Boyd Secondary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #14)15: 2 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #14a): 12 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020 RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To improve the alignment of the southern boundary of Steves Elementary and Boyd Secondary, by aligning school boundaries with centre line of Steveston Highway, thereby improving safety by reducing crossing of Steveston Highway for new students in the move area. The move area includes 14 potentially impacted students (2 K-7, 12 Grade 8-12. One comment received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (1):

 “We completely disagree with the new boundaries being proposed on the West of No.1 Road and North of Steveston Highway. 1. My child who will be in high school next year should be able to walk back and forth safely from school. Hugh Boyd is so much farther from our home than McMath...crossing major intersections and walking the roads on dark winter days should be given enough consideration for the safety of our children. 2. Friendships play a major role in a child's social and emotional health and well-being. Just knowing that my child can walk to and from high school with friends and families that have grown with us gives us much more security that our child will be okay in high school because we know that they can always look out for each other. This is the same community she has grown with and built friendships with for the past 7 years of elementary school. SAFETY and SECURITY (physical, social and emotional) of our children should always be considered when making such changes.”

15 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 60 15. Whiteside Elementary (North of Williams Road) to Lee Elementary 15a. McRoberts Secondary (North of Williams Road) to McNair Secondary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #15)16: 9 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #15a): 10

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER TO PHASE II

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: The purpose of this proposed move is to improve the alignment of the south boundary of Lee Elementary and McNair Secondary using the centre line of Williams Road, thereby improving safety by reducing a major road crossing for new students in the move area. The proposed move area includes 19 potentially impacted students (9 K-7, 10 Grade 8-12). No comments received, however the reduced catchment area for McRoberts requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

16 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 61 PHASE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT NEW REGIONS DEFINED IN THE LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN (RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS)

16. Tait Elementary (West of Highway 99) to Talmey Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #16)17: 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To align the boundary between Tait Elementary and Talmey Elementary using the centre line of Highway 99 as the boundary, consistent with the regional strategy in the LRFP. The proposed move area is a commercial/industrial area which includes no potentially impacted students. No comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

17 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 62 17. Kingswood Elementary (East of Highway 99) to McNeely Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #17)18: 22

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER TO PHASE II

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To align the boundary between Kingswood Elementary and McNeely Elementary using the centre line of Highway 99 as the boundary, consistent with the regional strategy in the LRFP. The proposed move area is largely an agricultural area with 22 potentially impacted K-7 students. No comments received, however further analysis is required to determine implications on student transportation for those in the proposed move area. Connected to revision 21, which requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review due to the reduced catchment area for McNair Secondary.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

18 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 63 18. Woodward Elementary (East of Highway 99) to McNeely Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #18)19: 4

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER TO PHASE II

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To align the boundary between Woodward Elementary and McNeely Elementary using the centre line of Highway 99 as the boundary, consistent with the regional strategy in the LRFP. The proposed move area is largely an agricultural area with 4 potentially impacted K-7 students. One comment received, however further analysis is required to determine implications on student transportation for those in the proposed move area. Connected to revision 21, which requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review due to the reduced catchment area for McNair Secondary.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (1):

 “I disagree with having a large portion of Woodward catchment be given to McNeely. Hamilton is the next closest elementary school to McNeely and they are close to their maximum capacity so why not take from them? The distance to travel to McNeely for the current Woodward household would be longer so commuting would be longer and would also increase in the carbon footprint. Many residents purchased their current home due to the closeness of the elementary and high school. I also feel the school district did not do enough to get public feedback. Having a couple of public sessions and then a massive long range facilities document that is not easy to read (I tried) does not give the public enough information on the rational of these decisions. I still don’t understand why the change has to happen. I strongly disagree and hope the school district will rethink and gain more feedback. Thanks.”

19 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 64 19. Westwind Elementary (West of Fentiman Place) to Byng Elementary

POTENTIAL K-7 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #19)20: 45

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER TO PHASE II

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To align the boundary between Byng Elementary and Westwind Elementary using the centre line of Fentiman Place as the boundary, consistent with the regional strategy in the LRFP, and reducing walk times to school for new students directed to Byng Elementary. The proposed move area includes 45 potentially impacted students in the move area. No comments received, however this revision is connected to revision 26, which requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (0)

20 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 65 PHASE I SECONDARY SCHOOL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT NEW REGIONS DEFINED IN THE LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN (RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS)

20. Cambie Secondary (West of Highway 99) to MacNeill Secondary

POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #20)21: 0

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To align the boundary between Cambie Secondary and MacNeill Secondary using the centre line of Highway 99 as the boundary, consistent with the regional strategy in the LRFP. The proposed move area is a commercial/industrial area which includes no potentially impacted students. One comment received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (1):

 “My child goes to Cambie and came from Tait. It is too far to MacNeil for these kids to get to on their own and dangerous on bikes etc. Also, the break down of the smaller Elementary school to a large school. No family community as the older kids are at Cambie. This is the silliest thing I have ever looked at ever.”

21 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 66 21. McNair Secondary (Kingswood and Woodward Elementary catchments east of Highway 99) to Cambie Secondary

21a. McNair Secondary (Hamilton Elementary catchment) to Cambie Secondary

PAGE 67 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #21)22: 18 POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #21a)23: 213

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER REVISION 21 TO PHASE II (REVISION 21a PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED TO PHASE II)

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: This is a proposed adjustment to reflect new regions defined in the LRFP that applies to a largely agricultural area with 18 potentially impacted Grade 8-12 students. 4 comments received. Further analysis is required to determine implications on student transportation for those in the proposed move area. The reduced catchment area for McNair requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Secondary Boundary Review. The proposed revision 21a (Grade 8-12 Hamilton Elementary catchment area students moving from McNair to Cambie) was already deferred to Phase II and was not included in the proposed revisions for Phase I consultation.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (4)24:

 “I do not understand the logic of the proposed changes in the boundary - McNair to Cambie. It is counter- intuitive to have the Hamilton area remain with McNair. It is also counter-intuitive to have an area that is south of McNair to be allocated to Cambie's catchment. You will literally have buses passing each other as they travel far north to drop South Richmond students to Cambie and North East students south to McNair. Not the best use of school district resources. I feel these proposed changes are short sighted and non-sensical. It really feels that the boundaries are manufactured and manipulated to serve some purpose other than providing access to schools for students who live in the areas closest to those schools. I would ask that you consider returning the Hamilton area to Cambie Secondary.”  “I have to agree with kcdykes. It makes no sense that the Hamilton students would not change to Cambie Secondary. Especially, if the new boundary East of Hamilton would go to Cambie. Cambie is closer to Hamilton than McNair and students would require less travel time & fuel costs to/from school.”  “With all the catchment change, why is Hamilton not included in the change. Yes, there is a school bus but it takes from 30 minutes to 45 minutes to get to McNair. Wouldn’t it be closer to have them to go to Cambie? First, this reduces the number of traffic and time of the students to and from school. Students from Hamilton wake up at 6:45am to catch the bus in the morning bus at 7:25am to go to McNair and arrive back home around 4:00pm. That is such a long period of time away from home. Also, if students are dismissed early, they can take 15-minute public transit back to Hamilton easily if they were to attend Cambie. As for McNair, public transit is not convenient which takes over an hour back to Hamilton. Like first day of school, the school bus for McNair only ran in the morning and afterschool. Students only needed to attend school for 2 hours, so some students were stuck at school for the whole day. Please consider the needs of Hamilton students.”  “A reason you list for the proposed changes is a reduction of the number of road crossings, yet you ignore Hamilton. The school bus takes from 30 minutes to 45 minutes to get to McNair. It would much easier for

22 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

23 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

24 Comments made in response to proposed moves #17, & 18, recommending that Hamilton Elementary be moved to Cambie Secondary.

PAGE 68 these students to attend Cambie. This would reduce the time it takes students to get and from school. Students from Hamilton wake up at 6:45am to catch the morning bus at 7:25 to go to McNair and arrive back home around 4:00pm. That is too long of a commute for kids and keeps them away from home for too long! Also, if students are dismissed early or they miss the bus they can take public transit back to Hamilton easily if they were to attend Cambie but at McNair public transit takes over an hour back to Hamilton. Please consider changing the Hamilton catchment to Cambie.”  “We live in Hamilton, I already have a child currently attending McNair, it would not make sense to send a sibling to Cambie Also there has been comments showing that if there is no room in the school bus for McNair the sibling will have to take public transportation, which does not make sense, so please arrange enough school buses in the area to transport the kids to McNair as many siblings will still want to go to the same high school.”  “I disagree with having a large portion of Woodward catchment be given to McNeely. Hamilton is the next closest elementary school to McNeely and they are close to their maximum capacity so why not take from them? The distance to travel to McNeely for the current Woodward household would be longer so commuting would be longer and would also increase in the carbon footprint. Many residents purchased their current home due to the closeness of the elementary and high school. I also feel the school district did not do enough to get public feedback. Having a couple of public sessions and then a massive long range facilities document that is not easy to read (I tried) does not give the public enough information on the rational of these decisions. I still don’t understand why the change has to happen. I strongly disagree and hope the school district will rethink and gain more feedback. Thanks.”

PAGE 69 PHASE I SECONDARY SCHOOL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS TO REDUCE SPLIT FEEDER ELEMENTARY CATCHMENTS (RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS)

22. Richmond Secondary (Blundell Elementary catchment, north of Blundell Road) to Steveston-London Secondary

POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #22)25: 56

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To eliminate the split feeder catchment for Blundell Elementary in order to keep student cohorts from Blundell together in secondary school consistent with the recommendations in the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP). Also, to reflect new regions defined in the LRFP (north half of current Blundell catchment area is in the North Central Region and south half is in the South Central Region). The proposed move area includes 56 potentially impacted students. 4 comments received.

25 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 70 COMMENTS RECEIVED (4):

 “We live at Granville Ave and Gilbert Road. My son is in Richmond Secondary School now and he just need 3-5 minutes walk to school. My daughter is in Blundell Elementary now and according to the Proposed School Boundary Revisions, she will go to Steveston London in the future. However, the new catchment secondary school is much farther away than Richmond Secondary. Why should the home address in Granville Ave move to Steveston London?”  “I have a major concern with the proposed boundary revisions of the Richmond High/Steveston London Catchment. Currently, we reside in an area that is 1.5 km away from Richmond High (our current catchment) and 1.3 km from Burnett. With the new proposed boundary revisions, my kids would have to go to Steveston- London which is 3.8 km away. Both my husband and myself work full time and the kids have to walk to school. It is not reasonable to ask them to walk 3.8 km (approximately 40 minutes) when there are two high schools less than 1.5 km away in each direction. Please reconsider the proposed revisions.”  “I agree to the aim to reduce the number of major road crossings for students’ safety, but I TOTALLY OPPOSED this nonsense revision. We live on Grandy street which is just a block away (1 major road crossing) from Richmond High. However, after the revision, my son will have to go to Steveston-London which is 3 blocks away (3 major road crossings). This makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense since this clearly violates its own purpose stated for implementing this boundary revision! I agree to the aim of “reducing the number of major road crossings for students’ safety concern, but I STRONGLY OPPOSED to this revision because such revision will increase the number of major road crossings 3 TIMES than the current secondary school. This is TOTALLY VIOLATED to the purpose stated for implementing this boundary revision.”  [Email to Trustees]: I do not think the proposed school boundary for the neighbourhood between Gilbert and No. 2 Road and between Blundell and Granville makes any sense. We live in the North West corner of this area (see picture below). Richmond High, our current catchment, is 1.5 km away and nearby Burnett is 1.3 km. Either one of these schools is walkable for my kids. Under the newly proposed boundaries, they will attend Steveston-London which is 3.8 km away. This makes no sense. It’s almost three times as far, completely unwalkable, and not a part of our community. Shifting neighbourhoods to schools outside of their communities is bad for communities, bad for families, bad for kids, and bad for the environment. Please reconsider the boundaries for this area as it is not feasible for kids to walk to school. We are both full time working parents and unfortunately, do not have the ability to drive them to school. Thank you for your time and consideration.”

PAGE 71 23. McRoberts Secondary (Lee Elementary catchment, west of Garden City Road) to McNair Secondary

POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #23)26: 69

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER TO PHASE II

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: The purpose of this proposed move is to eliminate the split feeder catchment for Lee Elementary in order to keep student cohorts from Lee together in secondary school consistent with the recommendations in the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP). The proposed move area includes 69 potentially impacted Grade 8-12 students. 68 comments received. Significant concerns were expressed, predominantly with a perception that it may be driving a future secondary school closure process. The reduced catchment area for McRoberts requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (71):

 “I do not agree with the McRoberts catchment boundary revision, McRoberts is much closer to my house. I do not want my kids to go to McNair!!!!!!!!!”  “I have major concerns with the proposed McRoberts/McNair boundary revisions. Currently, we are under 1 km away from McRoberts (our current catchment) and our kids need to cross one arterial road (Williams Road). With the proposed boundary revision to the McNair catchment, the distance would double to 2km, and our kids need to cross two arterial roads (Garden City & No 4 Road) that are much busier than Williams Road. We bought the house wanting to be close to the school that kids attend so that they can walk to school (not be driven). We have three kids at different ages and currently they walk to school together. The proposal

26 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 72 will result in the kids going to schools at opposite direction. We will end up needing to drive them to schools. Please do not proceed with the proposed boundary change.”  "...district staff reviewed all school catchments and identified opportunities to align boundaries, reduce the number of major road crossings, and develop options to reduce the number of split-feeder elementary schools..."While this doesn't affect my children as they current go to Walter Lee and looks like we have the option to select between McRoberts or McNair, however, the changes don't support your statement above. I live right across from McRoberts. When Rideau Park was closed years ago, my daughter has to go to Walter Lee instead of Whiteside (which is adjacent across to where we live). Now you are telling me in the future, the catchment is McNair for new enrolled students for our entire block?? HOW is this reducing the number of major road crossing?!?The city certain went crazy allowing developers to rezone along #3 and Williams for townhouses. We paid the premium for the location and now the school board is going to make us suffer?!?!”  “If I stood at my front door and threw a rock I would hit McRoberts. But that ain't my catchment? I gotta get in my car and fight the school traffic in front of my house just to get to my catchment school traffic? While I'm at it I might as well sit in the tunnel traffic just for fun!”  “I respectfully disagree with the plans to change the boundaries for the McRoberts area. A lot of these kids have attended Whiteside for a number of years, and form connections with kids from McRoberts through their leadership program. They look forward to going to McRoberts afterwards. We cross one intersection that is a tiny bit safer than at the No. 4 and Williams intersection. I think you are getting a lot of complaints about the McMath boundaries changing, as many of those developments were done with the McMath being the catchment school for those communities. Perhaps instead of looking at numbers person propose these changes, you should have a geographer do a location analysis, and look at the demographics, communities and traffic patterns to determine what would be a more sensible for any proposed changes.”  “I don't agree with the boundary revision between McRoberts and McNair Secondary. Instead of taking 5 mins walk from our home to McRoberts, it will take 15 mins drive to McNair. Why???”  “I live in the western part of the Walter Lee catchment. I do not agree with changing our high school catchment from McRoberts because rather than crossing one major road (Williams) and have to travel less than a km, our two children would need to cross 2 major roads (Garden City & No. 3 Rd) and travel more than twice the distance to get to McNair. Instead there should be a rebalancing of elementary catchment areas, as we are considering applying for cross boundary for Kindergarten at Errington because it is much closer than Lee. It makes no sense to force families to travel twice as far to a catchment school when the goal is to minimize distance and increase safety. Thank you for your consideration.”  “We live in the McRoberts catchment and currently the school is less than a ten-minute walk and probably 3 minute bike ride from our house. The proposed change of the school boundary now would turn the commute to almost half an hour by foot. My child would have to cross both Garden City and No4 Road to reach McNair. This does not make any sense at all since McRoberts is closer and he would only have to cross Williams street to reach McRoberts. The boundary change would only increase car traffic because many families would have to drive their kids to school instead of letting them walk or bike. It not only increases carbon footprint and discourages the kids to walk. As well it does completely the opposite of reducing major road crossings. We purposely moved to the area to attend McRoberts school, how can the school board decide to just change school boundaries without consulting or getting a vote from the families? This is unacceptable and my family 100% disagrees with the change.”  “My family lives in the current McRoberts catchment. We completely disagree with the proposed boundary changes. My child will have to travel much further to reach school, crossing two major intersections as opposed to one to reach school. Travel time would go from 5-minute walk to 25 minutes. How does that even

PAGE 73 make sense? I believe many families feel the same way. NO TO BOUNDARY CHANGE! This decision should not be the decision of the school board alone, it affects the livelihood of many families. Very disappointed”  “Hi there, my current catchment is McRoberts, it will be changed to McNair soon by subject plan as per today's email from Principal. I don't agree this change :1. Unless city wants to close McRoberts in the future, which is obviously a wrong idea, I don’t see the reason for the change.2. It takes about 10 mins to get McRoberts from Pigott Road. it will take 25 mins to Mc Nair. So, every single day, kids living in my area have to spend 50 mins on the street.3. Safety issue, compared with William road, NO 4 road and Garden city road are busier.4. McRoberts has been in Southarm for years, and famous for its French and English program existing parallelly. There is no reason to close it or change it to potential pure French school. Think about Richmond, pure French school may not be highly desired. 5. McRoberts has less students compared with many schools in Richmond. It is good to maintain mine area in its catchment. Southarm community deserves a high school.”  “I strongly disagree with the proposal to close McRoberts and separate the English and French students. The feeder schools for McRoberts work hard to integrate the two streams. Many of my son’s best friends are in English while he is in French. Instead of graduating together, he and the other French students will graduate from Palmer with classmates they don’t know. I know this proposal says “no current students” will be impacted but how is that possible if you close McRoberts before 2024? Unless you are using that infuriating notion that French kids don’t “live” at that school and can be moved anywhere because they drive to school anyway. My son walks and this move would increase the distance by almost a kilometre and have him crossing 2 busy streets. If you are planning to separate French and English, make a French high school so at least something positive would come from the disruption.”  “my current address is at west side of Garden City rd., Saunders area, it's very close to McRoberts secondary, school is within 15 mins walking distance, the child can go to school by himself, I do not understand and don't agree to change the catchment school to McNair, it's unreasonable, if change to McNair, the parents should drive the child to school everyday, it's really a problem for parents who have to go to work everyday. Pls reconsider and keep Mc Robert as our catchment school.”  “I am interested in what the long range plans for all the schools is. If there are planned closures, I would like to know what the reasons behind closing an individual school are. There are rumours, and I think the Board needs to clarify it's plans. I have heard of McRoberts’s potentially closing, which I happen to think is a poor choice. If that were to happen, you would be dividing 2 elementary school populations - Whiteside and Bridge. If that were to happen, I believe the Board would be intentionally segregating French Immersion students. Elementary school students should be moving together to one school as they have already created a community within their school. If the two streams were to be separated at the high school level, the Board would be impacting relationships kids have already formed, which can be instrumental in ensuring they have an easier transition into high school. Furthermore, I think the Board needs to look at the comments - especially those around commutes - and think if they are truly following their stated vision - that Richmond is the best place to learn and lead. Having longer commutes to school (especially if there is a school within a 15-minute walk), does not make Richmond the best place to learn. And if the Board does split FI and community stream kids from one Elementary school, it will definitely ensure that vision is not being fulfilled. As well, they would not be fulfilling their Mission of cultivating a safe, accepting and engaging community as you will have isolated the FI kids from their English peers. I also wonder why the Board would choose to close the largest of the 3 High Schools in the South Central region, thereby displacing the highest number of students, instead of looking at closing Palmer. McNair and McRoberts both have over 950 students, whereas Palmer is under 600. As well, have they looked at the overall facilities. McNair has only one gym - can they support an increase in the number of students? What will be the impact on their sports programs - there is not enough space to support grades 8-12 basketball usage with only one gym, with more kids. McRobert's and Palmer both have

PAGE 74 2 gyms and could better support sports programs. The Board's long range plan indicates that all the schools need upgrades, so unless they are looking at the value of the land to sell off, financial considerations should be moot.”  “Although I understand, and do not necessarily disagree, with need to close a high school in the South Central area, I am having significant difficulty understanding the logic of the choice of McRoberts’s over another school. By the district's own stats, McRoberts is the only school in the area that is at their targeted operating capacity at 85% - their own long-term projections (without the boundary changes), keeps that number at 85%. The districts numbers have Palmer currently at 50%, and long term at 62%; McNair currently at 60%, long tern 70%, and SLSS at 74%, up to 80% long term. Furthermore, McRoberts is only second to SLSS in total students. So why would the district look to impact the largest number of students and families. Even should they argue that FI is its own program and could be moved, they are still not taking into account they are displacing and impacting all those families. As well, McRoberts is adjacent to South Arm - do not discount the benefit of having the 2 together.”  “I think the board needs to be clear and transparent about what the real intention is with McRoberts. There are rumours that the board is trying to close this school. Looking at the redistribution of students it seems that to be the case.1. Why have parents not been told in clear language?2. Why has it been left for parents to read a massive document to try and put together implicit pieces of information about the school's future? Why has the board simply not been clear instead of hiding behind a thick document? I assume so they can say that they a) "consulted" b) the "information" was in the long range facilities plan...this cloak and dagger process is a sham.3. What is clearly lacking is common sense. Looking at some of the redistribution of boundaries, it makes no sense to see student not attend the nearest school (students in south Richmond having to go all the way to Cambie when McRoberts or McNair is an option.”  “We don't agree with the boundary changes! They don't make sense for the kids to walk to school, thus forcing parents to drive (more traffic) or take the bus (further costs). But what a lot of parents don't know if that this is only Phase One. The boundary changes are in preparation to CLOSE one high school and one elementary school in the south central area. This was not communicated with the boundary changes, but it is in the Long Term Facilities plan (over 700 pages). Low enrollment is cited, but the board doesn't "count" French Immersion students. They are a bubble viewed as moveable. For example, McRoberts is considered under enrolled, but is full! The French Immersion track is strong & flourishing, but the students don't count!! They don't realize that a lot of these kids actually live in the catchment areas. Regardless, these kids are part of the whole school and the community. The learner should come FIRST. And that means not taking them out of their community!”  “I am frustrated with the proposed boundary changes & disagree completely with the changes to the McRoberts catchment. Both my kids currently attend the EFI program at Whiteside. We purposely purchased our home in this area so that we would be walking distance from both Whiteside & McRoberts. The proposed catchment change for McRoberts would have my children walking to McNair (a 25 min walk crossing two intersections) versus a 5 min walk across Williams. In many cases siblings at McRoberts come to Whiteside at the end of their school day to pick up their siblings, how would this work with them 15 min away instead of 2? What I'm always surprised about is that when making these decisions students in the FI program are always thought of as "out of catchment" which is not the case. We literally live across the street from McRoberts and anyone looking at the new catchment map would laugh if I told them my kids won't be going to the school that I can see from my front door. Ridiculous!”  “In speaking with parents, we would like to see the school board recognize FI students as part of the school population when assessing if a school is at capacity or not. The idea that FI students are not part of the 'catchment' doesn't match the reality that the schools operate like they are. We would also like the board to consider schools that are connected to community centers and schools that are functioning well and at capacity (including FI) in deciding how to rezone. Understanding that you are trying to meet the needs of a changing population distribution, why would you consider consolidating (closing) McRoberts when it is a well

PAGE 75 attended school in an active and vibrant community and connected to a well used community center? If there are concerns about Cambie, as it is also connected to a community center, why not consider trying to increase the student population there? Has consideration been made to add mini programs to Cambie? Palmer already has huge issues with high traffic volume which the layout of the school and the neighbourhood cannot accommodate. Additionally, the push to have French only and English only schools is short sighted. There is huge enrichment on both sides by these students being able to attend a dual track school. There are many friendships and interests that cross the immersion boundaries and allow for a robust and lively student body. I strongly urge the board to reconsider implementing the propose catchment changes and to reach out to the community for feedback first. Your decision will impact the lives of students and families for many years to come. The current proposal is inherently flawed in that it appears many important factors were not considered or ignored. Your decision may spell the death knoll for families in some communities like South Arm. Surely together with public and teacher consultation, we can come up with a better plan!!!”  “This is much bigger than the RSB changing catchment boundaries. This is a direct result of poor city planning. There is a condo building spree going on in central Richmond and instead of adding better infrastructure to that area, the RSB is pushing into what already exists further south. This city has never had families in mind, just money. Despite adding townhouses, where there were once just single-family homes, all along Williams rd., the RSB plans on closing one High school and one elementary school in this area. Mc Roberts is the most likely one on the chopping block. On one side South Arm Park will be renovated, on the other there is a community center. Mc Roberts is the perfect place for a shiny new residential development, and you get those park views too. Mark my words this was their plan all along. I encourage everyone to write BC's minister of education Robert Fleming, it was just in April that he said his government has no interest in closing schools. E48:E49”  “I strongly oppose the proposed boundary changes for McRoberts and McNair. We are currently 500m which is a 5-minute walk from McRoberts. With the proposed boundary changes my kids would have to walk 1.4km which would take 17 minutes. How does that possibly make sense to have kids go further away to school when there is a perfectly viable option that is closer? Many working parents who have more than 1 child rely on older siblings to help with the pick up and drop off of younger children. With the proposed boundary changes this would become much more difficult as instead of walking across the parking lot from McRoberts to Whiteside my younger child would be left unattended for much longer as my older child makes the trek from McNair. I believe these proposed boundary changes will have a negative effect on many families in the Whiteside and McRoberts catchment and I hope that our concerns are heard and considered before any rash decisions are made.”  “I am strongly opposed to the proposed boundary changes to the McRoberts catchment area and feel that the school board is being dishonest in how they are presenting the proposal. I realize that students currently in the catchment area will not affected. The bigger question is why would the school board inform a student who has just moved into the neighbourhood south of Steveston Highway that they must walk past McRoberts to attend McNair? Why would students on Williams road across, across from Whiteside and within visible distance of McRoberts be told they are to attend McNair? If my family moved into our house located in the Saunders area, my three children who are currently attending McRoberts would be asked to walk 20 minutes to McNair instead of the 6-minute walk down a designated pedestrian path to McRoberts? Perhaps the school board has a more devious plan to slowly reduce the number of students attending McRoberts so that it is easier to close the school in September 2021?”  “The district is dishonest about the plans and not stating correctly the reasons for catchment area change for McRoberts and McNair schools. In the short document with the maps it just stating that kids for the English path (as McNair does not have an Immersion path) within a specific area would be moved to McNair. It does not say anything about the future plans for McRoberts. It also says that for the next year only new students will be enrolled in the new catchment area. In the LRFP, however, it clearly says that that French

PAGE 76 Immersion kids will be moved to Palmer if McRoberts will be closed. This suggests my younger son would need to attend Palmer. If right now it takes him 10 min to walk to school - to get to Palmer he will need to take a bus. I think he really would like to graduate from the same school his brother and sister did (one graduated 3 years ago and another this year). School its not just a building - its community, traditions, friendship. Why destroy it?”  “My family and I ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED regarding closure of McRoberts. There are rumours that the school board is trying to close this school. I read about it on Richmond News months ago and I was expecting more information to be brought up but no, nothing. The information is not transparent to the parents. Why do we have to do all the research instead of the school board sending us the info. To make my comment short: There's no reason to close McRoberts.”  “My family and I are STRONGLY OPPOSED to the proposed catchment boundary changes in general and especially for McRoberts. The proposal change is a huge decision that will affect so many lives and families in the community. It is TOO RUSHED! It needs a much longer period of consultation with much clearer communication and transparency. We were given a very short notice and feel deeply disrespected. We feel that our voices are not heard, and the school board simply pushes their agenda and turns a deaf to our concerns. We feel that the school board is not completely honest and we are continuously misinformed and misled. We strongly feel that the school board is not representing the interest of the community and have betrayed our trust! We STRONGLY DISAGREE with the boundary changes! The school board is dishonest! The proposed boundary change is illogical and profoundly disruptive to our communities. We strongly encourage the school board to drop it. The proposed catchment change is destroying our community!”  “I am strongly opposed to the proposed boundary changes to the McRoberts catchment area. Why did the school board think one of the secondary schools should be closed? I am wondering where our property tax goes? Do we pay the tax to close our community school?”  “Just attended McRoberts PAC meeting regarding Long Term Facility Plan. A room packed the parents has voiced their opinion loud and clear: We don't agree with the plan to change the catchment boundary and close McRoberts school in the future. All the reasons should have been given to the School Board spokes person at this meeting.”  “To present the boundary changes in isolation, without referring to the Long Range Facilities Plan, is disingenuous and insulting. All of the changes in South Central lead to less students coming to McRoberts in favour of the other high schools. Obviously, the boundary changes are part of a larger plan to close McRoberts and transfer the English students to McNair and the French students to Palmer. We are STRONGLY OPPOSED to that plan and therefore STRONGLY OPPOSED to the proposed boundary changes. You need to present the information honestly so we can have real debate about the future of the schools in our city. I am also concerned about your recent changes to Policy 704 that appears to give the Board more discretion around school closures and disposal of land. It used to be the case that a school could only be closed if there was room for the students at neighbouring schools AND at least 1 of 9 conditions were met (e.g., 20% or more of the student come from out of catchment). Now the Board need only "consider" these conditions, resulting in more discretion and less transparency. I only learned of this policy change by reading all the minutes and agendas for all Board meetings in 2019 - it was buried in the appendices to the Agenda for the Sept 11th Board meeting (page 137 of 158). This, combined with the lack of transparency on the boundary moves, is very upsetting - it makes it seem the Board is quietly getting its ducks in a row to close schools and hoping parents don't find out about it until it is TOO LATE. That is NOT transparent public consultation.”

PAGE 77  “We don’t want McRoberts to be closed. It doesn’t make sense for the students who lives near McRoberts to go so far to McNair for study every day. It is not safe at all. McRoberts is such a good school, their quality of the education is better than many other schools. The principal and the teachers treat the students so well. We really don’t want to lose McRoberts. Please don’t close McRoberts. Please don’t! Please don’t! Please don’t! I strongly disagree the plan to close McRoberts. Please consider what is better for the students. McRoberts is such a good school that all the students in this school want to stay there for study. So don’t close McRoberts.”  “As the boundary changing is only for "proposal", however, the newly students included kindergarten and new comers will be considered in new boundary, so looks like it is a done deal, for Dec 11 meeting, just for make it officially? The plan on McRoberts will separate the current catchments, Whiteside and Bridge, not only Lee affected. If it is the priority reason for changing boundaries is "prohibited separate catchment schools", this plan should not be considered. Furthermore, the new boundary proposal shrink McRoberts catchment area, it is helping to develop "McRoberts doesn't have enough students”? Even though we have 5 portables and fully occupied school building. McRoberts is main part of southarm community, also it is the recover destination of code red for schools and neighborhood, it should be considered we need a school in this location for its community responsibility.”  “Switching boundaries or worse, closing McRoberts, would affect so many families whose children are currently attending Whiteside and Bridge. We've been talking to other parents and many of us believe that McRoberts should not be closed and the boundary suggestions made no sense. Some even moved or rent in certain areas of the neighborhood, so they get to be in the catchment of McRoberts, or just so that their kids are closer to school. Changing that would affect our lives.”  “Would McNair offer French Immersion in this proposed revision?”  “if this is the council we voted for, we should call it back. we voted for better life and better community, we DON'T vote for school closure!!!!!!!!if city needs money, city should hire less staff. if city said less students are or will be enrolled, city should hire less staff again. we pay tax for kids and other things not for school closure. whoever came up this boundary change plan didn't understand how to serve the community at all, so if you knew nothing, please listen to us!!!!”  “I vehemently oppose the proposed boundary changes to McRoberts Secondary. Families living directly across from McRoberts are being asked to send their children further for no sensible reason. I am also extremely dismayed as these boundary changes to McRoberts are clearly a stepping stone to the eventual proposed closure of McRoberts. I strongly believe that the board is not putting students first and thinking about the impact of dismantling this vibrant school community. I understand that the board's platform is that the French immersion program is portable, but at the high school level, English and French streamed students are highly intertwined...they are all one school community and their friendships and support networks are not based on which program they are in. I feel that the board has not thought about the deep social-emotional impact and mental health impact on our kids when friends and peers are divided. Boundary changes/school closures are more than just lines on a map.”  “We STRONGLY DISAGREE with the boundary changes for McRoberts. It doesn’t make sense for my kids only need 5 mins walk to McRoberts and change 25 mins walk to McNair for study every day. It is not safe for them. All parents don't want McRoberts close, it would affect so many many families whose children are currently attending Whiteside. Please reconsider remain the original McRoberts boundary! Please Please do not close McRoberts!”  “I strongly oppose the proposed boundary changes for McRoberts secondary and it's feeder schools Bridge and Whiteside. It appears the plan is to reduce McRoberts' catchment (already the 2nd smallest geographic catchment) further to reduce enrollment to justify closing McRoberts. I see this school out my window every

PAGE 78 day, graduated from this high school and hope that my kids will be able to do the same. McRoberts has a strong community with several teachers working there for 20+ years. To close this school would be a huge loss. The two French Immersion feeder schools Bridge and Whiteside have a close relationship with McRoberts because of their geographic proximity (classes from both schools will walk to the high school for different events) and to relocate the French Immersion program to Palmer and close McRoberts would destroy this unique elementary/high school relationship. Please reconsider your long-term plan for McRoberts and the French Immersion program.”  “I strongly disagree to close McRoberts, it is a good school, the Principal and teachers are helpful, changing the school and environment might impact their future, please do not close McRoberts! i strongly disagree to close McRoberts, it is a good school, the Principal and teachers are helpful and friendly, changing the environment and school might impact the students' future (social and mentally), please do not close McRoberts!”  “I strongly disagree to close McRoberts, it is a good school, the Principal and teachers are helpful, changing the school and environment might impact their future, please do not close McRoberts!”  “I went to the McRoberts PAC meeting yesterday. The room was packed with parents visibly upset about the proposed boundary changes and how they will affect their children's education and sense of community. While we were told that we could only talk about boundary changes, all the questions and comments in the room had to do with what these boundary changes mean - can our children go to McRoberts? What happens to French Immersion students from feeder elementary schools? We could not understand how to only talk about the boundary changes and not the consequences of those changes. I left the meeting very disappointed, unheard, and questioning the motives of the School Board. My son started the LFI program at Whiteside (not our catchment area) and I am sad to learn about the possibility of McRoberts closing down when it is time for him to go to grade 8. If McRoberts closes, where will I send my son to continue his French education? This is not clear to me and I worry about his future.”  “Pls DON’T close McRoberts. My daughter graduated from McRoberts and my son is studying here right now. We think this is the BEST HIGH SCHOOL IN RICHMOND.”  “Very disappointed after receiving the BAD news that they might close McRoberts Secondary School !! I feel really sorry for those parents who spent so much time and energy, not to mention financially, trying to relocate to the areas so their children can attend a good school like McRoberts. Its location is perfect. South Arm Community Center and Whiteside Elementary, parks and swimming pool just steps away. The whole block acts like a huge education/recreation center. I urge the School Trustees to look at the matter seriously and hopefully come up with a better solution.”  “McRoberts is a very good school. I heard very positive reviews and feedbacks about it. Close the school will be a bad decision and impact quite a lot of families.”  “This is completely unnecessary. McRoberts is one of the best dual track secondary school in Richmond. To shrink the catchment with the intention of closing this school is extremely upsetting to many parents like myself. We were not properly consulted and were not given enough time and options in time. The school trustees we voted in should have come out to meet with students and parents and hear their voices. We are actual people not jut a number on the paper. McRoberts is a high school running very efficiently with its space. 40% of its students are French immersion. Without taking this into consideration, it shows your plan has a major flaw. We can cut on anything, but the education of our children. After all, they are the future. We will take any resources we can to stop this. If that means to go to the Provincial level or to the media, we will.”  “We do not support the proposed "McRoberts to McNair 4" boundary changes for the following reasons:1. We are in the Rideau Area, the proposal will more than double the distance to school and double the number of arterial road crossings. This will lead to driving as the only option to/from school, not walking or cycling.2.

PAGE 79 The proposal will decrease the number of student enrollment to McRoberts- which will be used as "facts" to support the speculated closure of McRoberts in the future.3. There is no sound, technical rationale provided to support the proposal. In fact, as noted in item 1, the proposal is contrary to key objectives/benefits identified by the School District.4. Consultation process is flawed and not transparent. We only learned about this a few days ago.5. Why close a perfectly fine school like McRoberts? One can only speculate the potential redevelopment potential (more $ for school district) is higher at McRoberts than McNair. Continued from previous submission...We do not support the proposed "McRoberts to McNair 4" boundary changes for the following reasons:6. The eventual closure of McRoberts is not consistent with City's plan to create a neighbourhood centre (densify) at Broadmoor. How can closure of a school be consistent with City's plan in creating a complete community at Broadmoor?7. According to TransLink website, No. 3 Road is a frequent transit network where growth is encouraged... No 4 Road is not. How can the eventual closure of McRoberts, which is much closer to No 3 Road, be consistent with the objectives set forth by TransLink, which is a regional transit authority?”  “Changing the boundaries around McRoberts will have long lasting negative impacts on the community. Students from the rental and non-rental residential areas south of McRoberts chose to raise their families there because of the school and community centre’s proximity. Reconfiguration of the boundary appears to be an effort to justify the school’s closure. Trustees need to find another solution that does not have such a devastating impact on so many low-income families who live so close by. McRoberts is ideally located for future growth, unlike McNair which is too far east and too close to MacNeill as it stands. There are other solutions. Do your job and find them.”  “I live in the catchment of McRoberts secondary school. My daughter is in McRoberts, and my younger son is a grade 3 student in Whiteside. I would like my son to be in McRoberts as we love this school! Both of my kids learned French and would like to go to McRoberts as our catchment school. There is no need to move McRoberts’s catchment students from elementary to McNair, and then encourage McNair’s catchment student to go to Cambie secondary school! What’s the point of doing this movements? As residents in Richmond, we pay our tax and just want our kids can go to the school within our catchment. It is such great school combined with southarm community! And I don’t agree with the saying “it is just a little boundary change”, and this little boundary change will lead to what! So obviously the plan after the first step is just to close one secondary school to save budget? It is not fair for us! We do not support this plan!”  “I strongly oppose the school boundary revision proposal, which will strategically and inevitably lead to the planned closure of McRoberts. The reason is that the process conflicts with the School Board Policy 704 (Page 162 of AGENDA of Nov 13 2019 PUBLIC Board Meeting). “It is the declared intent of the Board to make its policies and regulations on school closure clear to all concerned, to provide ample lead time before closing any school, and to support a process that provides an opportunity for those who will be affected to be involved before any decision is made.” As significantly affected parents in McRoberts, none of near 1,000 families has been clearly informed of the proposed closure of McRoberts by the School Board as of today. The info is buried in the Long Range Facilities Plan containing the school boundary revision as the first step. Based on the above, we recommend the School Board to hold a special public board meeting by the end of Nov 2019 to clarify the issue.”  “While I understand the goal of the LRFP and these beginning boundary changes, I am opposed to these boundary changes for McRoberts. I respect the difficult position of the board in trying to use district funds wisely and plan not just year to year, but over a decades-long planning horizon. However, the foundation of our community must be closely considered when making these financial decisions. We depend on the interplay between elementary and high school, sporting teams, preschools, community centre patrons and park users to foster a sense of belonging and watchfulness over each other that has kept our neighbourhood safe. High school students from McRoberts volunteer at Whiteside and Bridge weekly, and pick up siblings after school. It seems like these boundary changes are intended to acclimatize the neighbourhood to long-

PAGE 80 distance travel for high school to McNair or Palmer and overlook the cross-instructional language fabric of our neighbourhood we've worked so hard to cultivate.”  “I implore the Board to NOT APPROVE the boundary changes until they are considered ALONGSIDE the Long- Range Facilities Plan. Think about it: If the purpose of a school boundary change is "to reflect the regional strategy contained in the Long Range Facilities Plan", then the school boundary changes should NOT be considered (or consulted about) separately from the Long Range Facilities Plan, and yet this is how the process has been approached with the community "consultation". This is the basis for my concern with the consultation process. The rationale needs to be shared in a clear and meaningful way until people are convinced this is the best solution possible. And, if it turns out it is best that a school close down, then it should be done on the basis of criteria that makes sense to everyone involved. Do not try to pit schools against one another or see whose voices are the loudest.The board has a responsibility to clarify what are the criteria to determine a solution, and how are these weighted? This must involve more than a "Let's Talk" online forum and must include open- minded, extensive, and TRANSPARENT thoughtful dialogue. We are creative and reasonable people and I am sure we can come up with a good solution which will be better than all the bad feelings and decisions that come about when plans are railroaded and the heart of community is disrespected. Again, I urge you to SLOW DOWN the process and seriously consider how to do this better. The prospect of McRoberts closing down and splitting the French/English students is still not known to many- this information has not been shared in a transparent way and is buried in a 344-page report. This is insulting to the community and does not give a real opportunity to be involved in such an important decision. We must extend the consultation period to give more time to look at this and make a decision based on solid educational principles and community values (eg. community cohesion, school spirit, having continuity through the teen years, etc.). Meet with the parents and students face to face to discuss the LRFP- do not be satisfied with the illusion of consultation by burying the true plans in a 344-page document and only offering a Let's Talk forum to post ideas.”  “I STRONGLY oppose the closure of McRoberts school. Living close to Steveston Hwy, we have 3 children who walk to school not having to cross any major roads. Two are enrolled in FI at McR and another following soon. To put FI at Palmer would mean our kids walk 41 mins each way and cross Williams & Francis. This is a SAFETY concern and they lose the amenities that McR and SA Comm Ctr have to offer. To lose the culture at McRoberts where our kids have thrived both academically and athletically would be extremely difficult. The McR community is unique with FI and English programs, this allows students to have that broader range of relationships, make use of SA Comm Ctr, tennis courts, playing fields, outdoor basketball and the support of local RCMP. Palmer does not offer this. Why close a school that has so much to offer? This closure does not reflect nurturing our communities' children, instead this proposal tears apart a lifetime of friendships, community & learning. Concerned Family. From the Bridge catchment, students who are moved to McNair will have to cross two major roads, this does not reflect SD38 commitment to safety. Closing McRoberts and moving to McNair will only make getting to school more difficult for parents. If students are walking this increases their walking time significantly. Keep McRoberts open, there is more to offer students with all the amenities at SouthArm. Please take into consideration how much this will affect students, families, relationships and community.”  “I have asked my son Eric's opinion about in the future he will probably move to McNair because the LRFP proposed school boundary revision. He strongly opposes it, even this is his first year in McRoberts, he like this secondary school very much, make lot of new friends. He like his teachers, new clubs. He is so happy every week day that he went to school even before 8 am, when actually the first class open at 8.45 am. So, he will not accept either close the McRoberts or move to McNair, otherwise, he will be very sad, even he said he rather than self-study at home. So, I totally agreed with my son. All my family members (including my wife

PAGE 81 Ms.Grace, my son Eric and myself) oppose this school boundary revision proposal. Because it will eventually close McRoberts, lack of enough students in the future. I don't want to see after 2,3 years McRoberts disappear.”  “I strongly oppose the proposed boundary changes for McRoberts school. This first step of boundary change will probably lead to the speculated closure of McRoberts as reduced enrolled students. Close a High School like McRoberts would be a disaster for families who have no time to drop off and pick up their children. And with less and limited public transit, students have to walk more than half an hour to new school. School Trustees should figure out some others ways instead of just closing a school. How may families, students will be affected, terribly affected?”  “The School Board says that current McRoberts students will not be affected by the boundary changes. Even if the current students can complete their 5 years at McRoberts, what happens to the current grade 8s and 9s when they reach grade 11 and 12 and there are no younger students in the school? The halls are empty, many classrooms are closed, teachers have left. There won't be any mentoring opportunities or ways for older students to interact with younger students. Which teachers will want to work at a school that is closing? What kind of education will those students receive in their senior years? Will there be heat in an almost empty school? Or will those students suddenly be moved to another school to finish off their senior years? Of course, this will have a negative impact on the students currently attending McRoberts. The School Board needs to find a way to keep McRoberts open.”  “As father of two students currently attending at McRoberts, and also as a Richmond resident who believes in community values, I dispute the reasons supporting PSBR regarding McRoberts. All the arguments written in the minutes on the meeting days ago taken by the McRoberts Vice Principal reflects my opinion on why McRoberts shouldn't be closed. More details upon request. I also question the short window on which we received the notice, which is insufficient to schedule such meeting, and for expressing these comments with proper time for analyzing, as two days are not enough. I question the way this notice was implemented, with only 2 days to express our opinions. I wonder if that can be considered a good practise, and also if it is valid. I propose SD38 to call for a new meeting, inform parents about such meeting with reasonable time, enough to meditate about such relevant concept. I will appreciate SD38 please to answer to these comments. Thanks for reading these comments.”  “The revision of the boundaries and ultimate closure of McRoberts school is a move that will destroy the south arm community. McRoberts school is not only an excellent academic school but it is the hub that ties kids together with the South Arm Community Center and the surrounding facilities. The school is right beside a police station which eases parents minds in terms of school safety. We purposely moved to Saunders area for the McRoberts school catchment for our child and have encouraged many friends and family to be in the same area because all parents are concerned with the future education of their children. Closing down McRoberts school and forcing more kids to McNair will only enlarge class sizes and the consequence is a deficiency in the education of our kids. Teachers are already overworked, how will increasing the class size help our kids? Geographically the travel times for the kids to go to school will also increase, keeping them on the traffic ridden streets much longer. Additionally, how can the school board impose such a change and make this decision themselves? This matter involves the livelihoods and futures of the students and the families. The community as a whole should have a say, not just the school board. Having the school beside the community center is a huge bonus for students at McRoberts. They use the community center in conjunction with the school and it is a safe place for the students to hang out to do their homework, socialize and play sports. Youth coordinators at the community center also work with McRoberts students in leadership/ community project clubs. Closing the school down and moving all future students to McNair will lead to the vanishing of this educational cultural environment. How will this help our kids? This is extremely upsetting and disappointing that the school board has chosen to use this approach to determine our kids’ future.”

PAGE 82  “I strongly oppose to close McRoberts and my son feel sad about the closing of his school. He loves the teachers here as well as his friends. It is very inconvenient for him to go to McNair, because we live at Williams and No 3. Our whole family oppose the closing of McRoberts. Hope school board can understand our feeling and consider our opinions. Thanks very much!”  “We’re appalled that the School Board would go about making such an important decision in this manner! Informing families about the boundary changes, but omitting the reason for doing so is sneaky and disrespectful. The Long Range Facilities Plan should have been made transparent to the public so that open and honest discussions could be held. As McRoberts parents, finding out about this information from someone other than the School Board is unacceptable and we strongly oppose the proposed school boundary revisions!”  “I oppose the closure of McRoberts. The school is a needed resource in the community closing it makes no sense, families have moved to this catchment JUST to attend this school! It is a safe, stable, productive school and creating this disruption will bring no value for the staff the students and the parents. Why are we trying to get rid of something that works well? The school has great facility close to the community centre and park, this school is the core of this community! Please apply some community sense to this! My family moved from Alberta to the lower mainland and we chose McRoberts ONLY because of its reputation , rankings and location. People’s lives will be impacted please consider before making any decisions that impact how our students learn.”  “I oppose the boundary revisions that will effect McRoberts Secondary school. I don't believe the School Board has been transparent in the boundary revision process as there is no information on how the boundary revision process may eventually lead to the potential closure of McRoberts because of reduced student populations. Also, information about the potential closure of McRoberts secondary is buried on page 106 of the long range plan document. The boundary revisions and long range plan also do not consider the schools as communities rather just buildings with French and English program streams. A school is more than a building, it is a community.”  “It is disappointing to hear about the plan for McRoberts. We moved into this area so that our kids could walk to McRoberts as where we lived before the high school was too far away to walk to as McNair would be. High schools are important to help build community and McNair is not the community school for the Broadmoor area. I think much more thought is needed before any decision is made, besides families need and deserve more information about future plans.”  “I strongly oppose to the boundary revisions and the potential closure of McRoberts. This is a devastating news for my son who really likes his school and has formed a good bonding with his teachers and fellow classmates. He enjoys the activities in the South Arm Community next door. Closing a school will affect the lives of many students and their families. This decision should not be done by a small group of board members. The opinions of the affected families should be considered.”  “We are strongly opposed to the proposed boundary changes to the McRoberts/McNair catchment areas. These boundary changes will shrink the catchment area of McRoberts, therefore lessening the enrolment at McRoberts, while raising the enrolment at McNair. This would make McRoberts a prime choice for closure as mentioned hidden in the LRFP. McRoberts has a very strong, loyal, community. Many of us parents attended McRoberts ourselves, and have purchased homes in the area where our own children are now attending McRoberts. There are so many parts of this community that are interwoven-the preschools, elementary schools, community centre, people who utilize the park every day, and of course, McRoberts. There is a harmony to this area that we are all proud to be a part of. The closure of McRoberts would be devastating to our children who have made life long friendships right from kindergarten. We request that you DO NOT approve these boundary changes and keep McRoberts & the community in tact.”  “My daughter and I strongly oppose this plan and don’t understand the reasoning behind this decision. Firstly, the Richmond School District Board says they gathered “valuable information from the public” but

PAGE 83 who exactly is the “public” you asked? All the parents are clearly opposed so this means the board never took our opinions into consideration. The boundary changes will lead to less students attending and give the board an excuse to close McRoberts even though currently McRoberts meets the amount needed (~900 students). And why close McRoberts, one of the best schools in Richmond and that offers French Immersion? If we must close one school, why not close one of the smaller high schools to affect less people? Lastly, why do we need to close a school? The Richmond population will always continue to grow, and the number of students as well. Empty schools will fill up. Why hasn’t the board taken the long-term future into consideration?”  “I strongly disagree to close McRoberts. It is a good school, the Principal and teachers are nice and helpful, changing the school and environment might impact student’s future, please Keep McRoberts!”  “I don't think there should be any changes to the McRoberts catchment boundaries. I would not support any future plans that will lead to the closure of this high school. It is in a central location with ample parking & drop off, access to transit and the community centre and parks is also convenient for students. Although we drive an extra 15-20 min to attend McRoberts b/c it is our French Catchment, it's a great school and the commute is worth it. It does seem like the district wants to reduce the catchment to McRoberts so they can close it down and profit on the sale. They already have plans to sell Mitchell Elementary land to sell for commercial purposes even though there is an indenture that states that the land was donated to the city for EDUCATIONAL purposes only. The fact that they are willing to ignore that clause leads me to believe that the district does not act on the best interest of students but rather their own pockets. This whole boundary issue sounds shady to me!”  We are strongly opposed to the proposed boundary changes to the McRoberts/McNair catchment areas. McRoberts is such a great school and is running well with all its catchment elementary schools combined with Southarm community. My son grows here and is looking forward to step after his big sister’s track to join McRoberts to study! It is just about 5 minutes walk crossing the Southarm field for my kids to attend McRoberts! Why do they need to travel far away to go to Palmer or McNair afterwards?! All this is just for saving School board budget?! Why have we only been given such short notice for reboundary issue? Why can’t we discuss the consolidation of secondary school now? We all can see what’s going to happen after first step- trying to redirect some future students from McRoberts! We strongly oppose this reboundary plan! It is not fair for us and our kids in this catchment! We need a public meeting to be held, our thoughts need to be considered, and our voice need to be heard!”  “I've read most of the comments and agree with the reasons expressed in opposition to the boundary changes. Rather than reiterate what has already been pointed out, I will address my opposition from another point of view. Quoting from the LRFP executive summary, "The LRFP is a Board of Education-driven document that provides a framework for facilities planning and investment decisions and the District’s annual review of its Five-Year Capital Plan and proposed capital projects." IF this plan is anything like the City of Richmond's "Official Community Plan", our school system is in for big trouble. For example, look at all new high rises, condos, being built around the Cambie St and No. 3 Road area. Great to live around but horrible grid lock traffic. Is this "good" community planning? Therefore, is the "proposed boundary changes" in the best interest of the school community or is it too short sighted? We need more two-way consultation before any decision is implemented.”  “In case the south central boundary changes are meant as a “first step” to the closure of a secondary school in the area, then the district should reconsider moving the French immersion program from McRoberts to Palmer. The reason the LRFP chose over McRoberts for the FI program was because Palmer was more centrally located. However, the consultants did not consider the fact that Palmer is not located on a major street and therefore is not as accessible to hundreds of French immersion students who needs to be transported to get to school. The fact that Palmer is also located across another school, a big church makes things worst. I think McRoberts is a better location for the French immersion program as it is more accessible (has transit going down Garden City / Williams and has three lanes) and has worked for the French immersion

PAGE 84 program for years. Therefore, the district should reconsider the boundary changes if it is indeed being made with the purpose of closing McRoberts.”  “We are strongly opposed to the proposed boundary changes to the McRoberts/McNair catchment areas.”  “My kid has been looking forward to join McRoberts next year which is only 5 minutes walk through the south arm park. We strongly oppose to the boundary changes to McRoberts. Why the school with high ranking and best location will be closed?”  [Email to Trustees]: “My family and I are STRONGLY OPPOSED to the proposed catchment boundary changes, especially for McRoberts. The proposed change is a huge decision that will affect so many lives and families in the community. But it is TOO RUSHED! It needs a much longer period of consultation and much clearer communication and transparency. We were given a very short notice and feel deeply disrespected. We feel that our voices are not heard, and the school board simply pushes its agenda and continues to turn a deaf to our concerns. We strongly feel that the board is not representing the interest of the community and has betrayed us. We strongly urge you to consider withdrawing the highly contentious and disruptive proposal.”  [Email to Scott Robinson, Superintendent]: “In this letter, I would like to provide feedback on the potential boundary changes for McRoberts Secondary School along with input to your long term facility plan. Since December 2002, I have resided at my present address on Mowbray Road (one of the effected boundary areas). Prior to that, I lived on Dennis Crescent and Seaport Avenue. As such, I have been a Richmond resident since 1978 having attended Kingswood Elementary, McRoberts Junior Secondary and McNair Senior Secondary. I have three boys, two of which attend McRoberts (Grade 8 and Grade 11) with the youngest at Lee Elementary (Grade 4). We live in the area that would have been Rideau Elementary’s catchment if the school had not been closed. As such, the boys attended Lee Elementary. I have been an active member of the PAC. I was President for the years we were fundraising and building our playground. In addition, I worked closely with the City with the Ash Street expansion to provide more accessible walk and bike ways to the school. In additional, I was involved in the Lee potential school closure committee in 2016 when the School District had proposed the closure of 4 elementary schools. In terms of the boundary changes, it makes no sense for my children to attend McNair. Geographically, we are situated in the area just north of McRoberts. My children are required to cross one arterial roadway, Williams Road, at a traffic light controlled intersection. The walking distance is 450 metres from our house to the school or approximately a six minute walk. The route to McNair would include crossing two arterial roads, Garden City and No. 4 Road. At present, only the No. 4 Road crossing has a pedestrian controlled crosswalk. The walk is 1.2 kilometres or 15 minutes. The majority of people in this area would have the same concerns. Although I do not live in the other effected areas, it is quite reasonable to expect that the proposed changes do not make sense for the same safety and distance concerns I raised above. Presently, Lee feeds into both McRoberts and McNair. I know the School District would like to do away with these scenarios. Firstly, this scenario was created as a result of the closure of Rideau Elementary. Next, the School District prides itself on offering speciality programming and choice to their population. In our case, the decision was right for our children to attend McRoberts. I am grateful we had the choice rather than being forced into one situation or the other. If the option had been to only go to McNair, we would have sought out of catchment enrolment for our children to attend McRoberts for the reason listing above. The argument for feeding into a single school deals with the emotional and social well-being of the children. Sadly, this very factor is neglected when discussions are long term facility usage and “portable” special programs (i.e. French Immersion) are discussed as it relates to school closures. More troubling with the proposed changes is the new proposed McRoberts catchment area would be the smallest geographical area of all secondary schools. A large portion of the catchment would be the park

PAGE 85 grounds it shares with South Arm Community Centre and Whiteside Elementary. Elementary schools would have larger areas to draw upon. This would appear to be a systematic approach which would restrict student flow to the school thus justifying potentially closing the school. Yesterday, I attended a meeting at the McRoberts PAC which had a representative from the School District. The first thing that became clear is that parents and the community are angry at the lack of consultation which occurred on this matter. The process has been flawed. Only “impacted” stakeholders have been contacted. If we truly believe in concepts like neighbourhoods and the social/emotional well-being of the children, then the entire area should have been informed of the boundary changes as well as the long term facility proposals. Secondly, the representative at the meeting yesterday was unable to respond to the majority of queries. No slides or new information were provided in that forum. Once again, a comprehensive review of the issue should have been provided with multiple resources available to provide feedback, input or expertise. This did not occur and I do not blame the representative. The School District is ultimately responsible, not one person. Lastly, the approach adopted is to deal with stages. It is expected to start with this boundary alignment. Next a more comprehensive boundary alignment will be address. Then a review of facility consolidation. This is a piece meal approach which will result in gaps and weaknesses. The end goal should be determined first and actions should be taken that are congruent to the end goal. This would ensure no measures were counterproductive and/or unnecessary. The School District long term facility plan repeatedly does not align with the City of Richmond’s Official Community Plan 2041. It should be noted that the School District was a stakeholder in the development of the document.

According to the OCP, Richmond will grow by 80,000 people by 2041. More population growth will occur in the City Centre (61%) than in the rest of Richmond. The City Centre will double its population by 2041 and increase its share of the City’s population from 25% in 2011 to 36% in 2041. In many areas experiencing densification, developers are required to provide community resources like schools and community centres as part of the development process. This helps reduce or eliminate the cost of acquiring expense land rights after the fact to provide these essential services. No progressive planning has been taken on this matter. Therefore no action has been taken to address the significant increase in population in the city centre while the majority of your schools are situated outside of this area.

75% of the City’s new apartment development will occur in the City Centre, with 10% in North Richmond (e.g., Alexandra neighbourhood) and 5% in Central Richmond around the neighbourhood shopping centres. 50% of the new ground oriented housing (GOH) is projected to occur in the City’s predominantly residential area of Central Richmond (e.g., Thompson, Seafair, Blundell, Broadmoor and the residential portion of Shellmont), while 30% will occur in the City Centre, 10% in Hamilton and 8% in North Richmond (Alexandra Neighbourhood). Broadmoor is a neighbourhood highlighted in the OCP as a growing area with further densification occurring that the shopping centre and neighbouring areas.

PAGE 86 Steveston’s share of net additional housing units (both apartment and ground oriented) on a City-wide basis is projected to be modest because of the constraints on available and developable land. Strangely, Hugh Boyd was seismically upgraded even though it is under capacity and is projected to be under capacity in the future according to the Long Term Facility Plan. No school consolidation was considered in this area even though the schools in that area are expected to remain under capacity. Densification of the outside city centre areas should be foremost important to the School District as it relates to long term planning. The majority of schools are situated in areas not expected to experience massive growth. As illustrated in the chart below, the population by age in Richmond is expected to increase greater in the OCP projections that the literature presented by the School District.

The Province of British Columbia’s total public school age headcount enrolment had dropped from 616,617 in 1997 to a low of 512,557 in 2014, rebounding to approximately 527,000 in 2018. The projected provincial enrolment is expected to reach 569,400 students by 2027. The primary reason for the provincial enrolment decline was a maturing trend the population of BC as the baby boom generation gets older, resulting in smaller households with fewer children and a smaller number of incoming Kindergarten-age students replacing a larger number of outgoing Grade 12 students over the time period.

Visible minorities are now the majority in Richmond where 65% of the population is a visible minority. This is the highest proportion of any municipality in BC and the second highest in Canada. The predominant minority group is Chinese, at 45% of the total population (the highest proportion in Canada by a wide margin). Since 1991, the overall proportion of immigrant residents has been increasing. As of May 2006, 41% of Richmond residents were Canadian by birth, and over 57.4% were immigrants. A simple one size fits all solution is not possible for a cultural diverse community.

PAGE 87 The OCP refers to neighbourhood planning. The city would like to promote neighbourhood shopping centres, schools and community centres and parks as “hearts” in a community, which provide a sense of place and welcome resident. There is no better example of this in the Broadmoor neighbourhood. This area is detailed below in the OCP:

South Arm Community Centre, McRoberts along with Whiteside Elementary reside in the picturesque setting of the South Arm Park. There is no better example of the “heart” concept the City is striving towards. With recent and future improvements expected to Broadmoor Shopping Centre, this area will grow more vibrant. A similar redevelopment is expected at Garden City Shopping Centre which is situated in close proximity to Palmer Secondary. The School District does not align nor reflect the neighbourhood concepts as outlined in the OCP in either the potential boundary changes or long term facility plan. The troubling part with this whole process is it is flawed. Schools make up the very fabric of our neighbourhoods. If we are to start removing these learning and community destinations, we are eroding our neighbourhoods and conversely our community at large. If education is not revered as the single most important contributor to our future generations, then we as a society have failed. Property taxes in our City during my time at Mowbray Road have skyrocketed. In 2003, my property tax was $2,978.14. In 2019, my property tax was $7,343.47. That is an increase of $4,365.33 or a 247% increase. The school funding accounts for 39% of my property tax. Of course, the property tax increase in Richmond is not restricted to my particular property. In essence, our services are expected to decrease as our taxes continue to increase. If we are comfortable negatively impacting education, maybe we should start turning the lights out at the local hospital next. Sadly, the people we have championed with maintaining, building and protecting our community have either stopped trying or stopped caring along the way. Sadly, I have little faith in the process. It appears as the best way to succeed in the political forum is to focus on re-election at all costs at all levels of government. The plan moving forward would require Municipal, Provincial and District involvement. I believe this may be a dream rather than a reality based on past history. I wanted to voice my concerns on the matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time in this matter.”

PAGE 88  [Email to Trustee Sandra Nixon]: “I strongly disagree with the Mcroberts catchment boundary revision #4 proposals. Mcroberts is muchcloser to my house. I do not want my kids to go to McNair!!!!!!!!! If then will need to cross 2 big road (no. 4 and garden city) to walk to school regarding the safety. Please think kids safety first if you are a parents too. Currently, the pedestrian way along garden city to mcrobert is very safe . Kids enjoy the walk, if the further change cause any injuries later, the school board should take the responsibility!!!!!!”  [Email to Trustees]: “My current catchment is Mcroberts, it will be changed to Mcnair soon by subject plan as per today's email from Principal. I don't agree this change due to the following consideration. 1. it take about 10 mins to get Mcroberts from Pigott Road. it will take 25 mins to Mc Nair. so every single day, kids living in my area have to spend 50 mins on the street. 2. safety issue, compared with William road, NO 4 road is more busy. 3. Mcroberts has less students compared with many schools in Richmond. it is good to maintain mine area in its catchment.

PAGE 89 24. Burnett Secondary (Grauer Elementary catchment, north of Blundell Road) to Boyd Secondary

POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #24)27: 58

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To eliminate the split feeder catchment for Grauer Elementary in order to keep student cohorts from Grauer together in secondary school consistent with the recommendations in the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP). The secondary boundary move area includes 58 potentially impacted students. 3 comments received.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (3):

 “I live on Baffin Dr next to the Morris park. When I was a teenager (30yrs ago), I walked everyday to Burnett Sec. It just took me 5 mins to walk across Morris park, to Granville Ave then to Burnett. However, the present catchment is "Boyd Sec"! When my kids grow up, I have to drive everyday to No.1 Rd, Blundell Rd, Francis Road, pass thru the busy Seafair Mall to Boyd. I've sent e-mails to School Board before to suggest revision. Please kindly consider including the residences on BAFFIN DR, BAFFIN CT and DAMPIER DR into the Burnett boundary. Thank you very much.”  “I think the board should remodel the school catchments with safety and ease of commute for the students as their top priority. Why would you make students walk 20 minutes to school when they could attend one

27 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 90 that is a 5-minute walk away. For example, we live on Baffin Drive which is minutes away from Burnett High, yet my kids have to trek for 20 minutes to attend Boyd instead. We are both working parents and do not have the liberty of driving our kids to school everyday. Please sincerely consider changing Baffin drive and nearby areas to be in the Burnett catchment.”  “I strongly disagree with boundary change regarding moving Burnett catchment to Boyd! My two kids are at Grauer and it takes them less than 10 minutes to walk to Burnett and they don’t need to cross any major road. But with the boundary change, they have to walk around 30 minutes and cross 2 busy major roads Blundell and Francis to get to Boyd. That doesn’t make sense! Much longer walk and crossing 2 major roads increase their chance of accident. Being working parents, we can’t drive the kids to school in the morning. With the proposed boundary change, we have to worry about not only the kid’s safety but also their spending too much time commuting to school. Please reconsider!”

PAGE 91 25. Boyd Secondary (McKay Elementary catchment, south of Blundell Road) to Burnett Secondary

POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #25)28: 15

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER 2020

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: To eliminate the split feeder catchment for McKay Elementary in order to keep student cohorts from McKay together in secondary school consistent with the recommendations in the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP). One comment was received for this proposal, expressing support for this revision.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (1):

 “I agree with this change.as my son is in McKay and our home area belong to Boyd for secondary. but all his friends will go to Burnett. he feels sad about it. but with this new plan. he will not have any troubles. tks for your help to make it easier. tks/Kevin”

28 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 92 26. McMath Secondary (Westwind Elementary catchment, east of Fentiman Place) to Steveston-London Secondary

POTENTIAL 8-12 STUDENTS AFFECTED (REVISION #26)29: 85

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER TO PHASE II

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION: The purpose of this proposed move is to eliminate the split feeder catchment for Westwind Elementary in order to keep student cohorts from Westwind together in secondary school consistent with the recommendations in the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP). Also, to reflect new regions defined in the LRFP (west half of current Westwind catchment area is in the West Region and east half is in the South Central Region). The proposed move area includes 85 potentially impacted Grade 8-12 students. 43 comments received. Significant concerns were expressed, predominantly with respect to proximity to McMath Secondary vs Steveston-London Secondary. The proposed boundary move requires additional consultation and analysis as part of the Phase II - South Central Region Secondary Boundary Review, Integrated with Possible Consolidation Options and Program Location Review.

COMMENTS RECEIVED (45):

 “I don't agree with the boundary revision between McMath and Steveston-London Secondary. I am living in Merchantman place area, now my daughter can walk to school by herself everyday within 5 minutes, it is good for everyone of our family. If the boundary revised, 6 years later, my son has to move to Steveston- London Secondary, it is not convenient to take a bus, I think he will have to spend 1 extra hour on the road, this is not good for our family. Thank you for a kind consideration!”  “I disagree with realigning McMath’s catchment. It appears that you are virtually proposing to remove McMath school from its own catchment. 3 townhome complexes, including Klahanie co-op, are predominantly family residences. Given the socio-economic pressures these families already face, it would

29 Future new students affected, based on current count residing in area to be moved and attending current catchment school.

PAGE 93 be a disservice to move their kids out of a catchment where their high school can be literally 150m from their complex. It was a very important family consideration to have our kids attend our community catchment school. Emphasis on community. We would like to see our current catchment boundaries maintained.”  “We have 3 children at home, the oldest entering high school next year. McMath is literally steps away from our back gate and we took comfort knowing our children would have the security and assurance of being so close to our home at Klahanie Cooperative during their formative high school years. The proposed revision would mean our children lose that special link to home and to their community. It means the school where they all learned to ride their bicycles at, where we like to play catch during the summer months at, will not be a part of their teenage years. In addition, the revision would take us from a zero-emission daily commute to a 6-kilometer round trip by car, needlessly adding to the morning traffic. Indeed, transit is an option but we are not comfortable with sending our children on their own to Steveston-London by bus especially during their first years. I respectfully ask The District to consider the negative impact such a change would have on families such as ours.”  “Please reconsider!! This doesn't make sense at all. It would take about 5 minutes for our kids to walk to McMath on the path behind our home without having to cross any streets at all. Keeping the McMath catchment at least to Railway makes sense so all the kids who live in the green belt corridor can walk to school (as they have every morning for years!!).”  “not thought out properly. I do not understand how moving the physical community of McMath & moving it to Steveston/London makes any sense. McMath field is bordered by 3 complexes. 1 BC housing & 1 co-op. Why, knowing the socio-economic demographic of children (including my own) who live less than 20ft from McMaths field (not even a road to cross!!!!) would you force these kids to commute 3 kilometers to and from school everyday. You say these boundaries are being revised to “reduce the number of road crossings” this is not the case for the many many children surrounding McMath’s field. In fact, you are doing exactly the opposite, taking a commute of zero road crossings & increasing it to a commute with 9 (9!!!) road crossings! I strongly encourage you to revise this proposed revision & leave the current catchment boundaries in place.”  “I am completely disagree with McMath changing boundaries. It is not safe for our kids to go to Steveston- London which they have to cross roads and intersections. I think these changes will impact our kinds safety and we as a parent won't have peace of mind while we are at work. We reside in an area that is 10 min walk away from McMath (our current catchment) and 45 min walk from Steveston-London. With the new proposed boundary revisions, my daughter would have to go for 45 min walk to Steveston-London. Both my husband and myself work full time and she has to walk to school. Please note our kids should walk on Rainy and dark Winter mornings! Please think about our kids’ safety and our community.”  “Good day, we are leaving at westside of Railway & our current catchment secondary school is McMath which is approx. 12 min walk from our home. my daughter is studying at Westwind elementary school at the moment & it doesn’t make sense at all she will go potentially to Steveston-London for approx. 45 min walk instead. My wife & myself are working full time & our working hours is not match with our kid start & finish school time, so she has to go to school with her own risk which we do not want at all. in addition, we don’t want any risk for our kid’s safety by much more longer walk due to increase chance of any accident or unsafety matter unless having free school bus service Please consider to cancel this plan. Thanks for your co- operation in advance.”  “I was a student at Steveston Secondary and a student at McMath Secondary during its opening years. The walk home from Steveston Secondary (which was closer then Steveston-London is) would take me an hour to walk each way to school everyday. It was a relief for all my neighbourhood once McMath opened as we would not have to walk along busy Steveston Hwy and would just walk out our backyards for a quick 3- minute walk to McMath. The decisions for this catchment to change makes absolutely no sense to me as McMath was built to accommodate the Steveston Neighbourhood and I feel that this would be a division of

PAGE 94 Steveston. What sense is it to have my daughter walk 3km each way everyday to school instead of the 500 meters to McMath?”  “I do not agree with the McMath catchment proposal. We have specifically planned our house purchase and future plans in this catchment in order for the kids to go to McMath from Homma. We literally live 100 yards away from the school and it makes no logical sense to use the geographic area that is closest to the school as the boundary. This actually negatively impacts the greatest number of families. Please re-consider.”  “I strongly disagree with the McMath catchment proposal. We live a few houses away and it is a 2 min walk to McMath. Instead of my kids walking 2 min to school, we will have to drive or have them bus to Steveston- London. Why should we be penalized with the new catchment boundaries and forcing us to go farther than necessary. It is ridiculous that instead of having my kids Walk 2 minutes to and from school, they will need to plan 20 to 30 min walk to school each way. In my opinion the boundary proposal is unfair for those living between Fentiman Pl and West of Railway. We bought our house 7 years ago with a plan for our kids to attend McMath. Our house has always been in the McMath catchment at time of purchase. Had we wanted our kids to attend Steveston-London, we would have bought in that area instead of McMath. This was definitely not thought out properly.”  “For the McMath to Steveston-London proposed boundary change, we can't expect students to commute so far when 317 students are attending McMath cross-boundary in order to take French Immersion. These students cannot be allowed to take seats from students who live minutes away. Clearly, French Immersion must be moved to a school that is currently underused. Many such schools exist in Richmond. Parents who are currently driving their children to school can drive them elsewhere. Students who can walk metres to school must be allowed to do so.”  “I totally disagree with the proposed McMath to Steveston-London catchment change. Kids living on the west side of Railway can walk to McMath in <10 mins without any major road crossing. With the proposed change, students will need to walk >40 mins to attend Steveston-London and also have to cross major roads including Steveston hwy. This does not make any sense. Please reconsider and keep the west of Railway in the McMath catchment boundary.”  “The boundary changes for McMath Secondary will discourage students from walking to school. Currently, students living on Garry Street (close to Railway) would walk to McMath. With the proposed change, this would turn into parents driving kids to school. The school district is supporting climate change actions but at the same time forcing parents to drive their kids to school. I believe these changes are unfair to new residents in the Steveston neighborhood. Public schools are designed to by 'community-based' schools.”  “I live just next to the McMath Secondary, my backyard shares with same fence with the school. I feel it's ridiculous to revise the boundary like that, is it reasonable to take 10 minutes to drive my kid to another school instead of his one-minute walk to McMath school. I purchase the property because of the convenience to school. I know it won't affect his school now, however it 's unrational to make the revision like that. I sincerely suggest the staff of the school board should do more research before they make the revision proposal.”  “It’s understandable that the district aims to eliminate the model where an elementary school feed into two different secondary schools. However, there is a much stronger case to send all of Westwind to McMath rather than to Steveston-London. If the district must choose one, it needs to be McMath. Perhaps more French Immersion elementary schools can feed into McRoberts as a solution. Trustees, you must find an answer to McMath’s overcrowding that doesn’t force out its neighbours.”  “We currently live in the Duns area which is scheduled to remain in the Westwind catchment. McMath is less than a five-minute walk from our front door. It is insanitary to think my child should walk 40 mins to and from school to home everyday. This is ridiculous. Our family is completely 100% not in favorite to this change. It would affect future salability of our home! Not cool.”

PAGE 95  “We strong disagree with proposal boundary change regarding move McMath to Steveston-London. We live at Merchantman Pl, just walk around 3 or 4 minutes to McMath Secondary. That was the main reason for us to buy property beside the school. Kids can walk to school safely. If we have to move to Steveston-London, our child has to take bus to school, it cost around 1 hour on the road. It is very inconvenient for us. Not make sense for us! Please consider it! Thanks for kindly understanding!”  “Westwind students should not be moved from the McMath catchment to the Steveston-London catchment. Here are a few reasons why:1. French immersion students should be moved into another LFI school so neighbourhood kids aren't left to commute so far. This is not fair to make catchment students commute to accommodate out of catchment students.2. Most Westwind students have addresses that are closer to the McMath catchment. Our children should not have to commute when we live right beside McMath.3. By moving Westwind students to Steveston-London, we are increasing our carbon footprint by having to drive our children to school or for them to take transit along a busy road instead of them being able to walk. Safety needs to the first priority, and having students commute along multiple busy roads is not safe.”  “I completely disagree with the proposed McMath to Steveston-London boundary change. We are backing the McMath field which in a reasonable mind mean my children would be able to attend that high school when the time comes, but instead you are proposing we send our children to a school which is 31 minutes walk compared to the less the 5 minutes (of walking up a greenbelt and not on any busy roads) to a high school right there. Its mind boggling this would even be a suggestion!”  “I strongly oppose this plan to move the 100's of families /homes bound by McMath, Garry Street, Railway Ave and Steveston Highway currently under McMath catchment over to Steveston London. It would take the kids in my family from having to walk a few minutes to McMath, to a commute of about 3 km each way to Steveston London with multiple crossings on the way. I do not agree with the rationale of "reducing" the number of split feeder school, this is being proposed at the cost of inconveniencing so many students and families. In this age as we train our children to rely on "local" to reduce our environmental footprint, this is a bad example. Every time our children step out of our home, can see McMath school literally backdoor, but have to commute to Steveston-London, they are going to feel somebody in our community really does not understand the notion of being local. Not all split-feeders can be avoided, why subject these kids? I sincerely hope somebody rethinks this proposal.”  “I strongly oppose the McMath Secondary catchment proposal. We live west of Railway Ave. Instead of 9- min walk to McMath, our 2 kids will have to budget for close to 30-minute bus trip (walking, waiting, and traffic times) to Steveston-London Secondary. This is a terrible waste of time. I strongly believe the area west of Railway Ave and south of Steveston Hwy should still be going to McMath Secondary.”  “Our family strongly disagrees with the proposed boundary changes for McMath Secondary. We live closer to Byng Elementary, but due to catchment lines our kids attend Westwind. Now because of those lines, our children will now be expected to commute all the way to Steveston London - approximately 3.5 kms - vs a 2- minute walk. It is very unfair. Our neighbourhood families shouldn't have to endure this to accommodate out of catchment French Immersion. Families that purchase or rent homes to be in the McMath catchment shouldn't be penalized. Parents may have to drive their kids to Steveston-London therefore increasing our carbon footprint or take on the cost of transit. We could always say "the kids can just walk" - but they won't be walking to the neighbourhood high school - we are talking about a 3.5km walk with heavy backpacks in Vancouver weather. Big difference! Please, please reconsider.”  “I am fiercely opposed to the catchment revision from McMath to Steveston-London for the families living south of Steveston Hwy and west of Railway. Our homes and our community are centered around the greenway path that leads to the back door of McMath Secondary. By sending our children to Steveston- London, you are breaking up a core part of our community. Research shows that children's mental health is affected by attachment to supports and community. We need our children to be connected in the chaos of our modern world. This is an absolutely appalling proposal and will have a long-lasting impact on the well-

PAGE 96 being of our children. I am disgusted at the lack of understanding of our community that this was even put forward by staff.”  “I am opposed to the proposed boundary changes. My back yard is sharing the fence with McMath field and is less than a 2-minute walk. When my son enters grade 8 this September he will be the primary care giver to his younger sibling and needs to be close by to meet her. The neighbouring homes with their yards basically on the school grounds should not be cut off from attending McMath.”  “I am strongly opposed to the proposed catchment revision affecting my son and all the families who live around the McMath football field. It doesn’t make sense for my son to commute when he can just walk to school. I don’t understand why this was even considered as it defeats the purpose of “minimizing street crossings” when Steveston London is not within walking distance. In addition, this will be an extra expense on our part and additional stress to the students. We are so close to McMath that we can literally hear the bell ring! Our children should be allowed to attend McMath and not Steveston London given the proximity of our residence.”  “I am strongly opposed to the proposed catchment as this decision would affect my kids and other families living around McMath. In a lot of people's opinion, this is not a smart choice, in fact we can not understand why this is even a proposal. Our home is a 3 min walk away from McMath which is very convenient for my kids unlike Steveston London which they would have to use transit everyday. The distance to Steveston London would be more than 10 times the distance. This decision would be very costly for many families who live near McMath and it would also add stress to the students as they will not be able to go to school and come home easily. This is also a safety issue, as there may be accidents or traffic going a long way to school. From our house, my kids have to take only one path to get to McMath. I am very upset for the lack of understanding of this community. This proposal should not even exist, very disgusting. Many people are disappointed.”  “I strongly oppose the McMath Secondary catchment proposal. We live west of Railway Ave. Instead of 9- min walk to McMath, our 2 kids will have to budget for close to 30-minute bus trip (walking, waiting, and traffic times) to Steveston-London Secondary. This is a terrible waste of time. I strongly believe the area west of Railway Ave and south of Steveston Hwy should still be going to McMath Secondary.”  “Changing the boundaries for new students living at Klahanie or the other complexes and homes that border McMath High where students walk to within minutes will necessitate taking transit or forcing parents to drop and pick up them up does not make sense! R.Rkarnowski”  “I totally cannot comprehend why the proposed revision on catchment for our community from McMath to Steveston London is even considered, thus my strong opposition. My son can view his school from his bedroom window, and within just a 2-minute walk, he is already in school. The convenience and ease of going to and from school is a big part to his mental and physical well-being and I can say this for sure on behalf of other students who lives within a walking distance from their school. Without having to cross a street or with minimal road crossing and without need to take the bus or ride a vehicle contributes to our kids' safety and saves family from travel costs and time. In a bigger picture, we minimize transit and helps the environment. I truly hope that this boundary revisions plan will be carefully revisited taking into considerations all community inputs with the purpose of serving the best interest of our kids.”  “I posted this in the McMath section but I also see much opposition stated in this main page as well. I strongly oppose, as do all of the comments below, the proposed changes to the McMath catchment. You will read recurring reasons in all the comments because of how fundamental and important they are. Our children grew up in this neighborhood, can walk less than 5 min to McMath, have community centered around the greenspace but all that is up in the air and being replaced with an hour of commute daily by transit. My child grew up in Homma, and we moved into the Westwind catchment only after knowing that he could stay with his friends in Homma, and continue with them into McMath. His community is both with the people and the

PAGE 97 place we occupy, not 4 km away with entirely unfamiliar people and environment. Please reconsider these catchment changes for McMath.”  “I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the proposed McMath Steveston-London boundary changes. I cannot comprehend how these proposed changes are beneficial to the students. Our son is a student at Homma Elementary. We recently purchased a home South of Garry street as it is directly between our elementary school Homma and high school McMath (within McMath catchment, to which my son's friends at Homma will be attending.) Intentionally we purchased here so that our son could get to McMath on foot or bike in minutes, and come home for lunch (shorter travel time than from within the Homma catchment, which also goes to McMath.) We only purchased here once we knew he would be able to continue on to McMath with his friends from Homma. We have strong ties with our friends, the Homma/McMath/Steveston community and surrounding greenspace. I am absolutely blown away that my son could now have to bus 4 km to Steveston London, an area entirely foreign to him, when we live minutes from McMath.”  “We live in Klahanie Co-op which is directly behind McMath - this is a two-minute walk to school. The school board is proposing that my son will now have to travel by bus daily to a school blocks and across many busy streets. This proposed change is ridiculous and I am completely opposed to our complex being included in this change.”  “We live in Klahanie Co-op which is directly behind McMath - this is a two-minute walk to school. The school board is proposing that my son will now have to travel by bus daily to a school blocks and across many busy streets. This proposed change is ridiculous and I am completely opposed to our complex being included in this change.”  “I STRONGLY oppose the McMath catchment proposal. We purposely moved to Klahanie Co-op so my daughter could safely walk to high school. As a single mother is would be a massive inconvenience to have to drive out of my way every day to get her to school. Never mind the fact that she would be able to come home for lunch or is there was an emergency. Will the school board pay for my missed hours of work when I have to leave early to pick her up??”  “I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal to revise the McMath catchment area. According to the doc: "The purpose of this school boundary revision is to remove the current Westwind Elementary split-feeder catchment." However, there are MANY families in the "west of Railway Avenue and east of Fentiman Place, south of Steveston Highway" who attend a variety of OTHER SD38 elementary schools and live in close proximity to McMath. It is completely illogical that the boundary would be revised based on ONE feeder elementary school and not by living in close proximity to McMath. We can hear the McMath bell from our home and our children have a 5-minute walk to McMath. Those of us in this proposed area should NOT have to drive/bus our children to SLSS when they could ALL easily walk to McMath. Bad for families, bad for the environment, bad to spilt up teenagers/families who live in one area/neighbourhood. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES!!!”  “I strongly oppose, as do all of the comments below, the proposed changes to the McMath catchment. You will read recurring reasons in all the comments because of how fundamental and important they are. Our children grew up in this neighborhood, can walk less than 5 min to McMath, have community centered around the greenspace but all that is up in the air and being replaced with an hour of commute daily by transit. My child grew up in Homma, and we moved into the Westwind catchment only after knowing that he could stay with his friends in Homma, and continue with them into McMath. His community is both with the people and the place we occupy, not 4 km away with entirely unfamiliar people and environment. Please reconsider these catchment changes for McMath.”  “My family & I are strongly opposed with the proposed boundary changes for McMath Secondary. Our kids currently attend Westwind Elementary even though we live much closer to Byng. If these proposed changes go through, instead of a short walk to school, they'll be expected to commute 3.5 km to Steveston-London. My understanding is that one of the reasons why McMath is at capacity is because of out of catchment

PAGE 98 French Immersion students - that is unfair to families that purchase or rent homes to be in the McMath catchment. A move to Steveston-London creates new concerns including environmental. This could dramatically increase the carbon footprint for families in the area. 3.5 km is too far to expect kids to safely walk or bike every day, especially during winter months. This is going to lead to even more families using their cars when driving would be unnecessary if kids could simply attend their neighbourhood school. Please reconsider.”  “I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed McMath London-Steveston boundary revisions. When we moved to the McMath catchment South of Garry street, we counted 28 basketball nets on our little loop, that also backs onto greenspace and the Steveston bike path. Nearby houses back onto the grassy fields of Steveston community park, Japanese cultural centre, educational gardens, Steveston community centre and pool. Being minutes from McMath, this is an incredibly safe and kid friendly area. It saddens me that the demographics of highly sought-after area will likely change if the secondary catchment is changed from McMath, which is a short (minutes), safe walk or bike ride away, to Steveston London which is 3+km, 30-60- minute commute across several busy and potentially dangerous streets, including Steveston Highway. This once vibrant, kid & teen friendly area, will likely lose its lure and luster to families, and sadly the basketball nets will fall silent. Please don't change the boundaries.”  “Please be ABSOLUTELY SURE to include wording, that if these proposed McMath Steveston London boundary changes go through, that ALL elementary students living in the West of Railway/East of Fentiman Pl area, currently attending ANY elementary school, including HOMMA, will have the CHOICE of going on to McMath secondary, as promised by the Richmond School Board office when our (Homma) school administrator and McMath were kind enough to contact the Richmond School Board office yesterday. The psychological distress for 3 years (in our case) of not knowing, of having to rely on a cohort transfer form, when a house was purposely purchased within catchment, then boundaries changed, is inhumane. Not only would our son have to bus 3 km to Steveston-London, an area entirely foreign to him, he would not know a single person. This is the last place I thought we may run into boundary issues, it is directly adjacent to McMath. Makes no sense for the next generation. Please rethink these changes.”  “Please look at a map (e.g. google maps satellite) the West of Railway, East of Fentiman Pl. area. There are beautiful grassy & tree lined greenspace/bike paths on BOTH the South and North side of this area, safety bringing students from their subdivisions to McMath, a large percentage of whom without having to cross a single road. Those who do have to cross a road, it is merely a quiet neighbourhood street. These beautiful paths are not only safer, they foster a connection to the environment, health and community. There is NO SAFE PATHWAY taking students from the McMath area to Steveston London without crossing numerous busy 4-laned streets, and countless house driveways, any of which could have a car backing out as our children are feverishly trying to bike the 3 km to school. Are we not trying to reduce our carbon footprint as a society? I fear those most affected by these proposed boundary changes are silently unaware. Please rethink these proposed changes.”  “McMath / Westwind / McMath to Steveston-London. My wife and I strongly oppose this proposed boundary change that will affect those students who will attend Westwind Elementary and live on the west side of Railway Ave. The secondary school is often the ‘center’ of the neighbourhood. McMath is in the community of Steveston, Steveston-London is not! We have reviewed the pertinent parts of the almond Range Facilities Plan to try and make sense of the above proposed change. We were incredibly disappointed to come across the following reasoning, "The purpose of the school boundary revision is to remove the current Westwind split feeder catchment". This statement does not align with your Vision, Mission or Goals statements. Title LRFP Community of Schools Regions? In some cases, we can see this being about school geography but when a family can see the school from a bedroom window and it takes only 7 minutes to walk there, not even having to cross a road (green space) this focus is not on the Learner. Steveston-London is an entirely different catchment, community and neighbourhood.

PAGE 99 We strongly disagree with this proposal. Page 111 - 9.5.2 (c) The district may consider the possibility of maintaining the split feeder flow from the west portion of Westwind catchment which currently flows to McMath Secondary. “Continued enrolment intake from the west portion of Westwind elementary catchment may ensure that the size of the regular program at McMath secondary remains sustainable and well balanced with the French immersion program”. This does give us some hope that this is not a done deal which so many people are saying. We do hope you will consider some of the points raised by concerned parents when deciding on the future of these children and youth. Thank you for your consideration”  “I am concerned about the proposed changes to the Westwind/SLSs/McMath boundaries. Like many other families commenting here, we live west of Railway Ave and south of Steveston Hwy and our children would have a beautiful and short walk or cycle through the green belt to McMath. Should the proposed boundaries come into effect, our children would have to commute to SLSS across very busy main roads every day - a 25- minute walk according to google maps! I somewhat understand the desire not to split cohorts coming out of Westwind, but this proposed change would be a large imposition on our family life and on the safety of our children’s commute. The safe, walkable commutes to schools is part of why we chose to buy our townhome. I would be very upset if this were to go forward.”  [Email to Lynn Archer, Assistant Superintendent]: “I was wondering if I could get some clarification regarding the proposed catchment changes for Westwind students. Jared and I live in a complex behind McMath high school - he can literally see the school from his bedroom window. I received a notice from our property management company last week that all Klahanie kids who are starting grade 8 next year will now have to attend Steveston-London. I am familiar with one of the school board trustees and it was explained to me that the majority of Westwind parents felt that it was more beneficial to keep all the kids in the Westwind catchment together rather than to base high school catchment on walking distance. As a parent whose child will be affected by this change I do not remember being asked for an opinion? Was there a meeting I missed or information provided that I perhaps did not receive? I have submitted my opinion online and sent an email to all the school board trustees but I am very concerned that this proposal will go through and Jared will be forced to attend a school that is a minimum 30-minute walking distance across two major roads away versus a 2-minute walk across a field. Do you have any advice for me on how to voice my concern and objections? Should the proposal pass what steps do I need to take to get Jared into McMath on a cross boundary basis as I strongly oppose him attending Steveston-London. Thank you so much for your assistance. Colleen Foxwell”  [E-mail to Lynn Archer, Assistant Superintendent]: “I object to the new catchment area as I live at 4340 Steveston Hwy and my complex backs onto McMath Field. My son is currently in grade 6 and I have a daughter in grade 4 at St. Joseph the Worker. If the catchment area was to change and they would have to go to Steveston/London that would be at least an hour out of my kids’ day to bus there and back rather than the less than 5-minute walk it would take them to get to McMath. The proximity of McMath to us was the sole purpose of our decision not to continue with catholic education as they would have to take public transit which as we all know is not very reliable and sometimes not safe.”  [E-mail to Trustees]: “I am a parent of two elementary school age students and I am shocked that the proposal for families who live within a stone's throw of McMath Secondary School will to go to Steveston- London. We live on Trimaran Drive which is close to Railway, but my kids can walk to McMath in 5 minutes. I already wrote on the Let's Talk SD38 page, but feel I must write you all in person to tell you how strongly I feel about this. It's making me very upset and many of the parents I've talked to as well. McMath is where it

PAGE 100 makes sense for my children to go to and all those who live in the vicinity of it. It's played a huge role in their lives already with us going to elementary school concerts held there at Christmas, it's where we vote, where they have basketball lessons, and where they learned to ride bikes, it's familiar, safe, and close, and for children with anxiety (mine!!!), that is what they need. It's just down the street and part of the fabric of this community which they are a part of it. This proposal is will put a lot of stress on families and also children. Children like to be close to their homes, they like to walk home with their friends, and I just don't get why you are doing this. There are many complexes and co-ops with families who live between 1 Road and Railway who specifically moved here so their children could walk easily to school for their high school years and be a part of the Steveston community that they feel a part of already. Carving up our neighbourhood to send children to a school where they will have to cross many roads, or walk 45 minutes to, or take a bus (good luck waking teens up on time for that!) when they could easily walk to McMath in 5 minutes. It upsets me very much and will cause undo stress on many families not to mention the carbon footprint. What would you rather have for your child? A five minute walk to school on a safe, tree-lined path or a 45 minute walk across many busy roads. It makes no sense. Parents can't always drive, buses are often full, teens wake up late, and this area has many low-income families who are already pressed in many ways...this will add to their burdens and I can guarantee you many of these kids will be turned off by this when getting them to go to school is already hard. Please, please, please, consider re-drawing the boundary to Railway. That way all children in this neighbourhood can walk to school as they have done for many years.

PAGE 101 GENERAL COMMENTS – NOT REVISION AREA SPECIFIC

Four comments received were not affiliated to a specific proposed boundary revision or it was unclear which proposed revision the comment was referring to. COMMENTS RECEIVED (4):

 “I wished to have a proposal to move from McNeil to Richmond High. Many families have challenges with commuting every day. Thank you kindly for understanding!”  “I'm strongly opposed to the boundary change. It will double my children's travel time to school. The decision- making process should be made by parents, rather than a few school board members, half of whom do not even have kids attending school. The proposed transition period has to be longer than Sept 2020, so parents can adjust/move... Most of the parents do not even know about this proposed boundary change, and there has to be more time for discussion”  “Dear SD38 School Board: The cut-off for feedback is November 15th and it says above the matter will be reviewed December 11th. That is less than a 4-week period. Is this really an adequate amount of time to read ALL comments, gather points, have multiple thoughtful discussions with all stakeholders on an issue that will have far reaching impact for years to come? The feedback box has a limit of 1000 characters which is not enough space to include all my points so I will enter it in parts. SD38, why are you setting such a low character limit for such an important issue? PART 1: I am opposed the proposed boundary changes for a variety of reasons including: STRESS: parenting is very stressful to begin with; the school board is talking about now creating an additional major stressor for families (by way of many of the points mentioned in my multiple comments). School can be a very stressful place for children and the school board is risking the cause of further damage and stress to the mental health and overall well-being of children in the school system during an already fragile time. PROXIMITY: it makes no sense to have children switch from a nearer school to a more distant one. For example: many of the co- op and townhouse communities surrounding McMath high school would go from walking to school with no major street crossings to upwards of needing to cross NINE major roads. PART 2: I am opposed the proposed boundary changes for a variety of reasons including: TIME: increasing commute time for children & parents (not just for school but any extra-curricular school activities), requiring parent time to walk with or drive, disrupting family schedules and possibly affecting parent work schedules. FINANCIAL: increased cost to families for gas $, bus fare, as well as municipal money spent for school board to make changes (probably already spent on ridiculous amount to plan, plus future admin costs for processing endless cross-catchment applications). PART 3: I am opposed the proposed boundary changes for a variety of reasons including: SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS: all students need consideration with this decision but changes like this will impact students with additional needs even more; whether the needs are learning, behavioral, physical, mental, emotional. ENVIRONMENT: school board will be responsible increasing emissions contributing to climate emergency (which has been declared by Richmond City Council) by creating a completely unnecessary need for driving and bussing in many circumstances, like a middle finger to climate action. PART 4: I am opposed the proposed boundary changes for a variety of reasons including: FAIRNESS: with the proposed changes now because of a one year difference, some families with siblings who began at a nearby school in 2019 (or prior) would be allowed to continue, as well as their siblings (ex: Klahanie/McMath) while families in the same complex/neighborhood with a child beginning in 2020 would be sent to a school at a greater distance (as well as their siblings) increasing time, stress and costs for certain families but not others.

PAGE 102 These proposed changes are likely to have the most impact on those who are more vulnerable in our community: at-risk children and youth, higher needs students, lower income families, single parent families and other family types (ex. grandparent guardians, foster families, etc.) PART 5: I am opposed the proposed boundary changes for a variety of reasons including: DIVISIVENESS: by implementing these changes the Richmond School Board is creating divisions in communities as not all children in complexes and neighborhoods will be going to the same schools and won’t be creating the same bonds and friendships. Childhood friends may find themselves living next door to each other but going to different schools because of a one-year age difference. In today’s world community is more essential that ever. Good friendships and a school/neighborhood connection are essential to the mental health and well- being of children in their formative years. The impact on families and neighbors will be very detrimental. PART 6: I am opposed the proposed boundary changes for a variety of reasons including: LIAISING WITH RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR: in certain areas schools may be bursting therefore might seem to need boundary adjustments but overcrowding is a problem which rests with the school board and THE CITY OF RICHMOND to resolve, not dump the problem on to children and their families! Why isn’t the RICHMOND SCHOOL BOARD working with RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR? Have representatives from the Richmond School Board been making veto requests against proposed housing developments based on this issue at Richmond City Council meetings when there are developers wanting to densify in areas where schools are already, or will be, over-filled? Don’t pass the buck to parents and kids, find common ground and work together, city and board, remove the red tape and do what’s best for the families in this community. PART 7: I am opposed the proposed boundary changes for a variety of reasons including: LITIGATION: the school board potentially opening itself up to lawsuits going forward. For example: a child from Trimaran neighborhood was walking/biking to Steveston London or was being driven and there was an accident, parents might have justification to file a lawsuit. If that child had been going to McMath (2 min walk out back gate on a path) the accident would never have happened. Anything like this would be a sad circumstance. Further, if there were to be any successful lawsuit, that settlement money will come from city coffers, which are funded by Richmond Taxpayers. PART 8: I am opposed the proposed boundary changes for a variety of reasons including: SHIFTING RESPONSIBILTY: Those in power here know what the issues are and it comes down to really caring about the impact on families, better problem solving and money management, directing money into enlarging schools, hiring more teachers at those schools where there are more students, NOT an upheaval of neighborhoods and families. The school board and city are not talking enough about this and coming up with solutions, and the community is paying the price. PART 9: I am opposed the proposed boundary changes for a variety of reasons including: IMPACT ON THE LARGER COMMUNITY: Even if you don’t have kids, your kids go to private school or your kids will not be affected by this proposed change, the impact on one part of a community has a ripple effect on everyone in the community, which flows into society as a whole. Caring for one another in as many ways as possible just makes things better for everyone and your support on this issue for the affected children and families in your community is appreciated; I don’t even have kids and I’m feeling the stress of my friends and neighbors who will have to navigate this melee for their families and the impact on their lives. RSB, don’t do this and work with RCC and the mayor to find a better solution.”  “I agree with the other parents. You need to give parents more time to prepare for moves and arrangements. Some of us have preference as to which school we want our kids to be in and/or had already purchased or moved to the new home to accommodate to the existing boundaries. Some of us put commute in mind when we moved and you suddenly proposing these changes and saying this needs to happen within a year is unreasonable.”

PAGE 103 Report to the Board of Education (Richmond) Public DATE: December 11, 2019

FROM: Wendy Lim, Assistant Superintendent Mike Charlton, District Administrator, Emergency Preparedness & Seismic Upgrade Liaison

SUBJECT: Report – Emergency Preparedness Update 2019

The following report to the Board is for information only. No further action on the part of the Board is required at this time.

Introduction The goal of emergency preparedness is to provide safe learning environments for our students and staff.

In year two, the District Administrator has focused time on the following initiatives: • source, order and deliver emergency preparedness steel containers to all remaining school and non-school district sites • collect, collate and order “top up” emergency supplies for all District sites • order fold up tables for sites’ incident command centres, garbage bags for site needs and tarps for instant sheltering to add to emergency containers • coordinate emergency management training for all site administrators and managers in terms of Incident Command Systems and Student Reunification • research commercial, digital, portable radios to be provided to all sites as a communication device given a significant emergency situation whereby all cell communication would not be available • create emergency management procedures for the District’s School Board Administration Office and Maintenance Works Yard facilities, and • continue collaborations with the City of Richmond’s Emergency Preparedness division.

Emergency Preparedness Containers and Supplies Since September 2019, the District Administrator has ordered and coordinated the delivery of 25 steel containers to complete the goal for all school and non-school sites to have their own exterior storage for all emergency supplies and equipment. These containers were positioned in pre-selected areas per site, ensuring containers were in close proximity to the site’s emergency assembly area, were in high visibility spaces, were placed on firm, level black top or specially installed gravel pads to allow container swing doors to operate correctly.

Via the use of a District-wide supplies ordering template, priority emergency items have been identified and supply lists for all school sites, as well as the Maintenance Works Yard, are

PAGE 104 presently being developed. This will ensure that all sites have adequate supplies to match any population (students/staff) variances from the previous year. The organization, 72 Hours, will continue to be the District’s partner in providing these emergency supplies.

Emergency Scene Management Training On Wednesday, November 5th, the school district hosted our first two district-wide emergency scene management training workshops for all school-based administrators and maintenance managers. The training provided information, protocols and scenario tasks covering an “all- hazards approach” to emergency management, incident command systems and student reunification procedures. A third workshop opportunity has been planned for January 29th for any administrator/manager who could not make the November training workshops.

Communication Radios The District Administrator has researched communication radios by connecting with SD#38 Tech Services, SD#38 Maintenance Department, adjacent school districts and the City of Richmond. Information has been collected and the sourcing of radios and budget quotes is the next step.

Collaborations Collaborative efforts have also been instructive in the creation of formal emergency procedures for the School Board Administration Office and Works Yard facilities. Through the coordination of meetings with District Health and Safety staff, Maintenance managers, and the Safe School District Administrator, critical protocols and emergency response protocols and posters for staff are being developed and piloted this Winter.

We continue to collaborate with the City of Richmond’s Emergency Preparedness division to ensure alignment of School District and City processes and protocols.

Conclusion Continuing into 2020, the District Administrator for Emergency Preparedness will complete work on these key directives, identify priorities for year three, submit budget requests based on next phase priorities, make EP presentations to staffs and PACs, and continue site visits to assist schools to improve their emergency practices.

______Wendy Lim, Assistant Superintendent Mike Charlton, District Administrator

PAGE 105

Report to the Board of Education (Richmond) Public DATE: December 11, 2019 FROM: Wendy Lim, Assistant Superintendent SUBJECT: Junior Board Meets Senior Board Meeting 2020

The following report to the Board is for information only. No further action on the part of the Board is required at this time.

INTRODUCTION The Junior Board Meets Senior Board Meeting is an annual opportunity for Trustees to dialogue with students on a topic that students identify. Over the past few years, this opportunity has been a special Education Week kickoff event and this year it will be held on Monday February 24, 2020. This year’s topic will be “reviewing the draft Strategic Plan – confirming strengths, areas of growth and identifying gaps” and the dialogue strategies demonstrated will be “Think-Pair-Share and Talking Stick.”

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES The schedule of the February 24th Junior Board Meets Senior Board Meeting in the Board Room will be: 5:15-5:30 Meet and Greet - Junior Board and Senior Board 5:30-6:15 Welcome, Team Builder, Dinner 6:15-6:20 Education Week Cake Cutting and Photos with Trustees – to be confirmed 6:20-7:15 Junior Board Meets Board of Trustees, Senior Team and Stakeholder Presidents – Focused Activity 7:15-7:30 Closing Q&A

Please find attached Appendix: 2008-2019 Junior Board Meets Senior Board – Previous Topics and Dialogue Strategies for your review.

NEXT STEPS Staff will invite each of the 10 Secondary School Principals to identify two to three students to participate in the Junior Board Meets Senior Board Meeting. In addition, staff will confirm catering for this meeting.

CONCLUSION We look forward to another engaging and successful Junior Board Meets Senior Board Meeting on Monday February 24, 2020, as a special Education Week kickoff event.

______Wendy Lim, Assistant Superintendent

PAGE 106

Appendix 2008-2019 Junior Board Meets Senior Board – Previous Topics and Dialogue Strategies Date Topic Dialogue Strategy February 25, What are ways that students and educators, individually and Talking Stick, Private Write, 2019 collectively, can intentionally put into action our mission PlaceMat statement February 26, Breathing Life into the Policy 100 Words From Words to Action and 2018 Visuals February 27, Creating Vision and Mission Together Key Word Board and Gallery 2017 Walk February 29, Student Voice Round the Room-Spot the Dot 2016 Dialogue Strategy

March 2, 2015 "All Kinds of Kind" focus questions: “100 Ideas in 10 Minutes” • Why is creating a culture of kindness and caring so important in Dialogue Strategy our schools? • How can this be achieved and how can people in the system contribute? • What would be evidence of achieving this? March 3, 2014 What are the vital ingredients that make a great school that will “World Cafe” Dialogue best prepare students for living and working in the 21st century? Strategy With a goal to have all students thrive and flourish in our schools, what can be done to ensure that all students have access to best practice, research- based, high quality teaching, programs and experiences. March 4, 2013 What do you think are the core or essential things all students “What is the Solution” should know, understand and be able to do by the time they leave Dialogue Strategy secondary school? March 5, 2012 BC Education Plan: 5 Elements Card Stack and Shuffle Dialogue Strategy May 2, 2011 What the priorities for a great public education given budget Three-Step Interview restraints and restructuring? Dialogue Strategy

May 17, 2010 Applying what we learn in school to life. Edward deBono’s Six Thinking Hats strategy

May 4, 2009 Environmental sustainability Edward deBono’s Six Thinking Hats strategy

May 5, 2008 1) What are some effective ways for students to have a "voice" in Interview Matrix strategy school and district decision-making? 2) What do we know about what supports student learning? 3) How do we support schools in their efforts to become more environmentally sustainable? 4) What ways do students and adults show that they are participating in health living?

PAGE 107

School District No. 38 (Richmond) 7811 Granville Avenue, Richmond, BC V6Y 3E3

EDUCATION COMMITTEE PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES

Minutes of PUBLIC meeting of Education Committee held in the School Board Office, 7811 Granville Avenue, Richmond BC, on Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 6 pm.

Present: Ken Hamaguchi, Chair, Education Committee Norm Goldstein, Vice-Chair, Education Committee Heather Larson, Trustee, Alternate Sandra Nixon, Trustee Scott Robinson, Superintendent of Schools Lynn Archer, Assistant Superintendent Liz Baverstock, President, RTA JW Cho, Pro-D Officer, RTA Dionne McFie, President, RDPA Dave Miller, Teacher, Richmond Secondary, RTA Emmanuel Adjei-Achampong, Principal, Brighouse Elementary, RASA Carol-Lyn Sakata, Principal, Steveston-London Secondary, RASA Joanne Rooney, Principal, Wowk Elementary, RASA Richard Steward, Direction of Instruction, Learning Services Vrunda Shashikumar, Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary)

Regrets: Richard Lee, Trustee, Member Brigitte Dvorak, Custodian, Palmer Secondary, CUPE Jose Pelayo, RMAPS

The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm.

1. INTRODUCTIONS

2. ADOPT AGENDA The agenda was adopted as circulated.

3. APPROVE MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held Wednesday, September 16, 2019 were approved with an amendment: Add: Trustee’s role to the list of names of meeting attendees in the minutes under ‘Present’.

4. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF MINUTES a. Climate Strike Some of the members attended the Climate Strike demonstrations and shared their observations with the Committee. Trustee Goldstein commented on the variety of messages on the signs.

PAGE 108

There were appreciative comments about the letter sent to families from the office of the Superintendent clarifying expectations in light of the Climate Change Strike.

5. QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC – TONIGHT’S AGENDA Nil

6. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS a) ELL Consortium (Metro Boards), SD38 Rep Donna Sargent – minutes of the meeting held May 8,2019 were included in the agenda package b) Richmond Sister City Advisory Committee (City Committee), SD38 Rep Heather Larson – no new update c) Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement Advisory Committee, SD38 Rep Sandra Nixon – minutes from the meeting held in February and October 2019 were included in the agenda package d) SOGI Advisory Committee, SD 38 Rep Sandra Nixon - minutes from the meeting held on May 30, 2019 were included in the agenda package. The highlights of the meeting of September 26th were also shared, minutes would be available at a future date.

7. NEW BUSINESS/PRESENTATIONS a. Healthy Schools – Vaping Assistant Superintendent Lynn Archer, and the Director of Instruction, Learning Services, Richard Steward informed the Committee about the incidents of vaping in schools that had increased in the past year and provided an overview of the resources available to students to increase awareness. The Committee explored options that could be helpful in reducing the incidents such as creating information pamphlets, presentations, partnering with community organizations like Vancouver Coastal Health, Richmond Addictions, RCMP, etc. to build awareness about recognizing the product and learning about the fatal effects of vaping. Action: Richard Steward to follow up with a proposed plan of action for reducing student incidents of vaping and present a special report to the board thereafter.

The Chair informed that the Board of Education received a letter from a member of the Legislative Assembly seeking support in demanding action from the B.C. Government to address surging youth vaping rates. Action: This item would be tabled for the next Committee meeting so that feedback could be received from Committee members.

b. Educational Program Discussion Assistant Superintendent Lynn Archer and the Director of Instruction, Learning Services, Richard Steward informed the Committee about the various educational programs such as the Neighborhood, Program Options and Alternate Programs that are offered in the

PAGE 109

district, and programs that are offered in other Metro districts such as MYP/PYP, Academy programs, Outdoor programs, STEM, Career programs so that feedback could be obtained about these programs from stakeholders.

Discussion ensued about the challenges involved in developing a program, declining participation in some programs, possible alternate programs that could more likely resonate with students, credits offered, resources, staffing, financial cost, etc. Action: Richard Steward to provide information about Career Programs and Alternate Programs in other metro districts. Assistant Superintendent Lynn Archer to provide information about Program Options/Academies in other metro districts.

The Chair sought feedback from the attendees about the new format of the Committee that brings important issues for discussion at the meeting for processing so that the Committee can make recommendations to the Board when appropriate.

The Chair thanked the attendees and encouraged stakeholders to send their ideas/suggestions to the Assistant Superintendent for potential discussion at future meetings.

8. NEXT MEETING: November 20, 2019 at 6:00 pm at the School Board Office

9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:22 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ken Hamaguchi, Chair, Education Committee

PAGE 110

School District No. 38 (Richmond) 7811 Granville Avenue, Richmond, BC V6Y 3E3

FACILITIES AND BUILDING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

Minutes of a PUBLIC meeting of the Facilities and Building Committee held in the 1st Floor Boardroom at the School Board Office, 7811 Granville Avenue, Richmond, BC, on Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 4:30 p.m.

Present: Debbie Tablotney, Committee Chairperson Sandra Nixon, Committee Vice-Chairperson Norm Goldstein, Trustee Member Rick Ryan, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Roy Uyeno, Secretary Treasurer Frank Geyer, Executive Director Planning and Development Rob Laing, Executive Director – Learning and Business Technologies Mike Beausoleil, Director, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Liz Baverstock, President, Richmond Teachers’ Association Steve Wenglowski, 2nd Vice President, Richmond Teachers’ Association Michael Palmer, Co-President, Richmond Management and Professional Staff Andrew Scallion, Vice-President, Richmond District Parents Association Sowon Huh, Treasurer, Richmond District Parents Association* Colleen Howu, Parent* Wanda Plante, Executive Assistant (Recorder)

*Joined the meeting already in progress

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 4:31 pm.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as circulated.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes from the October 2, 2019 meeting were approved as circulated.

3. RICHMOND PROJECT TEAM UPDATE The Executive Director, Planning & Development advised attendees that the former Capital Projects Update agenda item has been renamed as the Richmond Project Team Update to reflect the joint venture between the Board, the Ministry of Education and Partnerships BC to facilitate accelerated capital seismic upgrading of Richmond schools. He provided and spoke to a power point presentation advising attendees of a new Project Manager who has recently joined our district and updated on several seismic projects that have been approved by the ministry and are well underway. The Executive Director, Planning & Development updated on four projects currently at the Project Definition Report Stage and the next projects to be applied for in the 2021/2022 Capital Plan. Informative project facts highlighting

PAGE 111

specific structural and sub-structural seismic upgrades including before and after photographs of seismic work and or additions, potential project costs and target completion dates were reviewed. The Executive Director, Planning & Development further noted expected Provincial funding for building envelope remediation of Block 3 included in seismic upgrades at Mitchell elementary. He also advised that an application has been submitted for Provincial funding for a 36-60 month daycare facility (24 spaces) as part of the seismic project at Tomsett Elementary.

The Treasurer of the Richmond Parents Association joined the meeting at 4:33 pm and the Parent joined the meeting at 4:35 pm during the above agenda item.

4. LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE [standing item] An overview was provided by the Executive Director, Planning & Development regarding the school catchment boundary review adding that workshops with Trustees and affected elementary and secondary school principals has occurred. He further added that over 3,300 site visits have been received on the Let’s Talk SD38 “Proposed School Boundary Revisions” website since going live October 2019. The Executive Director, Planning & Development advised that letters have also been sent to all families of affected schools advising them of the proposed boundary changes and information has been shared in both languages with all media outlets, real estate boards, Richmond City Council, MLAs and others on the engagement list. He noted the November 15, 2019 deadline date identified for feedback in which all comments will be considered. The proposed final list of boundary revisions for the 2020/2021 school year will be presented to the December 11, 2019 Board of Education meeting for a decision.

5. MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS PLAN The Secretary Treasurer spoke to his report as included with the agenda package and provided background to the ministerial order issued April 5, 2019 where all BC public schools are required to provide free menstrual products for students in school washrooms by December 31, 2019. He further added that at the time of the ministerial announcement, the Ministry of Education announced $300,000 in Provincial start-up funding, although no funding has come directly to school districts. The Secretary Treasurer noted that the start-up funding was used to assist the Focused Education Society to source and obtain (via provincial tender) best product pricing for product dispensers, receptacles and bulk orders for consumable menstrual products with savings on pricing to be passed on to participating school districts. Maintenance staff will communicate to schools their plan to deploy menstrual products in schools commencing November 12, 2019, by installing dispensers and disposal receptacles in all female and gender neutral washrooms in elementary and secondary schools including the Stretch Horizons location by the end of December 31, 2019.

6. MINUTES FOR INFORMATION (a) CHILD CARE DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes from the September 4, 2019 meeting were attached for review.

PAGE 112

7. NEXT MEETING DATE – WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2019 at 5:00 PM

8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:15 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Debbie Tablotney, Chairperson Facilities and Building Committee

PAGE 113

School District No. 38 (Richmond) 7811 Granville Avenue, Richmond, BC V6Y 3E3

FINANCE & LEGAL COMMITTEE PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES

Minutes of a PUBLIC meeting of the Finance & Legal Committee held in the 3rd Floor Meeting Room, School District Administration Building, 7811 Granville Avenue, Richmond BC, on Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 11:00 a.m.

Present: Ken Hamaguchi, Committee Chairperson Debbie Tablotney, Trustee Member Norm Goldstein, Trustee Alternatee Rick Ryan, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Roy Uyeno, Secretary Treasurer Maria Fu, Assistant Secretary Treasurer Laura Buchanan, Executive Director Human Resources Liz Baverstock, President, Richmond Teachers’ Association Mark Hoath, President, Richmond Association of School Administrators Lynne Farquharson, Past President, Richmond Retired Teachers’ Association Wanda Plante, Executive Assistant (Recorder)

Regrets: Richard Lee, Committee Vice-Chairperson

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 11:05 am

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was adopted as circulated.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the September 18, 2019 public meeting were approved.

3. HR STAFFING & ENROLMENT UPDATE The Executive Director, Human Resources updated attendees that district total K-12 enrolment has increased by an estimated 242 students and advised that increases in FTE funded enrolment will result in funding increases but also increased staffing requirements. She further added that the total ELL enrolment (K-12) has increased by 311 students, from the prior year that will result in increased staffing levels under the

PAGE 114

restored collective agreement language. The Executive Director, Human Resources reported that unfilled non-enrolling teaching positions remain unfilled in the district and advised that all unfilled non-enrolling positions were transitioned into Learning Support/Helping Teacher positions, which have fewer required qualifications. In efforts to attract teachers who may only be able to work in a part time position, these unfilled positions will be re-posted as part time positions, however, some positions may remain unfilled for the entire school year. The Executive Director reported that despite hiring challenges, our schools remain well re-sourced and supported with teachers in positions, however significant obstacles remain with Education Assistant positions being unfilled due to the lack of supply of Education Assistants at this time, although successful REAP graduates will be available to work in the district by mid-November. She highlighted that for the first complete school year, SD38 is expected to receive sufficient CEF staffing to be able to meet collective agreement staffing requirements at the start of the year and noted that the District and the RTA reached an agreement as to how to allocate unused 2018/2019 remedy funding.

Discussion ensued regarding the REAP program and the existing challenges to fill positions for Educational Assistants.

4. FUNDING MODEL REVIEW UPDATE An overview and timeline of the Funding Model was provided by the Secretary Treasurer in which he advised that an Independent Review Panel was appointed by the Ministry of Education in Feb 2018 to assist in reviewing the current funding model and providing recommendations on a new funding model. A final report which included 22 recommendations was presented in December 2018 by the Independent Review Panel. He further noted the establishment of four working groups 1) Financial Management, 2) Adult and Continuing Education 3) Inclusive Education 4) Online Learning in March 2019- August 2019 to assess the implications of the Panel’s recommendations, identify challenges and to provide suggestions. The Secretary Treasurer added that the Ministry of Education will review and may consider implementing per-headcount funding rather than by course for students of Grade 10-12. He noted that a meeting with the Ministry, Board Chairs and Secretary Treasurers is scheduled soon and anticipates that a Ministry funding model will be released by the end of November.

5. TRUSTEES’ EXPENSES FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2019. It was agreed to forward the following:

PAGE 115

RECOMMENDATION

WHEREAS the Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond) is paying for expenses incurred by the Trustees in the discharge of their duties,

6. NEXT MEETING DATE – WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20 at 11:00 am

7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:37 am.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ken Hamaguchi, Chairperson Finance & Legal Committee

PAGE 116

Report to the Board of Education (Richmond) Public DATE: November 29, 2019

FROM: Ken Hamaguchi, Chairperson Finance and Legal Committee

SUBJECT: Budget 2020/2021 Process and Timeline Finance and Legal Committee No. 2019-07

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the budget process and timeline for the 2020/2021 budget be approve as presented; and FURTHER THAT staff be directed to post the timeline on the district’s website.

BACKGROUND

The Richmond School District has in prior years developed a budget process timeline that spanned a period from November to June (7 months). Beginning last year, the Board approved a budget process and timeline that was condensed to a period from November to April (5 months) to ensure that staffing changes, post and fill, layoff notices could be completed by June 30th each year to allow schools to be organized for September in an efficient and effective manner. In addition, completion of the budget process by April, facilitates the timely completion of the final budget submission to the Ministry of Education by June 30th. The 2020/2021 budget process (see attached schedule) proposes a timeline from November to April/May, consistent with the prior year.

The budget process for 2020/2021 includes the following:

§ Approval of the 2019/2020 Amended Annual Budget § 3-Year Base Budget development work § 3-Year Enrolment Projections § Confirmation of Ministry of Education Operating Grant Funding § Budget proposals development § Stakeholder and Public input and consultation § Board consideration of stakeholder / public input and budget deliberations § Board approval of 2020/2021 Annual Budget

PAGE 117

CONCLUSION

Staff are committed to a streamlined, efficient and effective budget process that ensures a transparent, inclusive process to engage staff, stakeholders and the public in seeking and receiving feedback, input and consultation on the district’s 2020/2021 budget.

For the 2020/2021 budget process, it is recommended that the budget process and timeline be approved as presented.

Respectfully submitted,

Ken Hamaguchi, Chairperson Finance and Legal Committee

PAGE 118 School District No. 38 Richmond 2020/2021 Budget Process Timeline

November 2019 - December 2019 • Update current year operating budget based on actual Sept 30 enrolment and changes to projected revenue and cost factors • Update three year enrolment projections • Prepare 2020/2021 Budget Process/Timeline for Board Approval (Dec 11) • Ministry of Education recalc of 2019/2020 Operating Grant (Dec 20)

January 2020 - February 2020 • Finalize the 2019/2020 Amended Annual Budget • Budget workshops for Trustees • Develop public consultation process on budget • Board approval of 2019/2020 Amended Annual Budget (February 12) • Provincial Government budget announcement (February 18) • Development of the 2020/2021 and Three-Year Base Budgets • Develop 2020/2021 potential proposed budget adjustments

March 2020 • Ministry of Education 2020/2021 Operating Grant announced (March 13) • Finalize 2020/2021 and Three-Year Base Budgets • Finalize list of potential proposed budget adjustments

January 2020 - April 2020 • Provide budget updates and gather feedback and input through the Budget Advisory Working Group • Gather stakeholder/public input/feedback on budget • Budget information updates for stakeholders, trustees and public

April 2020 • Board consideration of stakeholder and public input and feedback (Committee of the Whole) • Board deliberations on proposed budget adjustments

May 2020 • Board approval of 2020/2021 Annual Budget (May 13)

PAGE 119

PAGE 120

School District No. 38 (Richmond) 7811 Granville Avenue, Richmond, BC V6Y 3E3

MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING OF POLICY COMMITTEE

Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2019 at 10:30 am Board Room, 1st Floor, School District office

Present: Sandra Nixon, Chairperson Donna Sargent, Vice Chairperson Heather Larson, Member Scott Robinson, Superintendent Mark Hoath, President, Richmond Association of School Administrators Tim McCracken, Vice President, Richmond Teachers’ Association JW Cho, Richmond Teachers’ Association Ian Hillman, CUPE, Local 716 Liz Baverstock, President, Richmond Teachers’ Association Steve Wenglowski, Richmond Teachers’ Association Catherine Cleary, Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:32 am.

1. INTRODUCTIONS

2. ADOPT AGENDA The agenda was adopted as circulated.

3. APPROVE MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held Monday, September 5, 2019 were approved as circulated.

4. NEW POLICY : Menstrual Products Attachment: Memorandum from the Superintendent.

The Superintendent provided an overview of the memorandum outlining the background, new draft policy and proposed administrative guidelines. Earlier in the year, the Ministry of Education issued a ministerial order requiring that Boards of Education provide menstrual products free of charge to all students who may require them. The Ministry stated that products must be available in schools by the end of the 2019 calendar year. In addition, boards must develop policies and administrative procedures regarding the provision of menstrual products in their schools.

The Ministerial order also stated that student feedback be incorporated into decisions made about the provision of menstrual products and as such, school principals were asked to consult with students at both the secondary and elementary levels. The

PAGE 121

Superintendent reported on the feedback received from students and noted that based on the feedback received, it is recommended that the District provide both pads and tampons at the secondary level and that pads be offered at the elementary level, all free of charge to students.

The Superintendent noted that at the current time, the Richmond Board of Education does not have policy or procedures pertaining to the provision of menstrual products. A draft policy as well as draft administrative guidelines were provided to the Committee members for reference. Following the initial discussion at the Policy Committee, potential revisions to both documents will be made with revised copies of the draft policy and administrative guidelines brought to the next regular meeting on November 18, 2018 meeting of the Policy Committee for further consideration. As well, the Superintendent noted that there will be a communication plan proposed for implementation.

The Committee members had comments and questions on the timeline and communication as well as operational questions on products offered along with information to be provided to students. The Superintendent noted that Facilities and Buildings will handle the operational side of the process and confirmed that menstrual products will be offered before the end of the calendar year.

ACTION: It was AGREED that any revisions to both the draft Policy and Guidelines be brought to the next meeting of the Policy Committee on November 18, 2019 for further consideration.

5. NEXT MEETING DATES

The next meeting is a Special Policy Meeting on Policy 704/704-R and Policy 704.1/704.1-R scheduled for Monday, November 4, 2019 at 10:30 am.

Future meetings are scheduled for 10:30 am on the following dates: Monday, November 18, 2019; and Monday, December 16, 2019

6. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 10:52 am.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sandra Nixon Sandra Nixon, Chairperson Policy Committee

PAGE 122

School District No. 38 (Richmond) 7811 Granville Avenue, Richmond, BC V6Y 3E3

MINUTES OF SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING OF POLICY COMMITTEE

Date: Monday, November 4, 2019 at 10:30 am Board Room, 1st Floor, School District Office

Present: Sandra Nixon, Chairperson Donna Sargent, Vice Chairperson Heather Larson, Member Scott Robinson, Superintendent Tim McCracken, Vice President, Richmond Teachers’ Association Ian Hillman, CUPE Local 716 Wennie Walker, RASA Liz Baverstock, President, Richmond Teachers’ Association Rebeca Avendano, Co-Chair, RMAPS Catherine Cleary, Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary)

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:34 am.

1. INTRODUCTIONS

2. ADOPT AGENDA The agenda was adopted as circulated.

3. POLICY 704 & 704-R: School Closure and/or Consolidation POLICY 704.1 & 704.1-R: Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements Memorandum from the Superintendent Stakeholder Review and Feedback

The Superintendent provided an overview of his report highlighting a summary of stakeholder input on Policies 704 & 704-R and 704.1 & 704.1-R received between September 12 and November 1, 2019. Attachments from Richmond Teachers’ Association and CUPE Local 716 feedback were provided. RASA also provided input through discussion with senior staff.

It was noted by the Superintendent that based on all the feedback received, there is general support for the majority of changes being proposed for both Policy 704/704-R and Policy 704.1/704.1-R. Regarding Policy 704/704-R, Stakeholders expressed some questions regarding the length of the consultation process and requested that a specific reference to input provided by employees be added to the Regulation.

PAGE 123

Regarding 704.1/704.1-R, it was noted that the Board should proceed with caution should it decide to consider actually proceeding with a disposal. It was also discussed that flexibility should be maintained with regard to how the Board wishes to use proceeds of a disposal (within Ministry and Board policy).

Discussion amongst committee members and stakeholders ensued and stakeholders were asked to share their thoughts regarding the proposed consultation minimum time period of two months. Stakeholders noted that it was important to balance the need for an appropriate amount of consultation time with not wanting to prolong stress and anxiety in schools that are being considered for closure. It was noted that it would only be in highly unusual circumstances that consultation would be limited to two months. Ultimately, all present agreed that it would be wise to continue with the proposed minimum two month consultation period in the policy.

Following further discussion and questions, the Committee Chair read the two draft Notices of Motion to be brought forward to the Board on November 13, 2019 and that for the minutes, grammatical changes, suggestions to Legal Counsel as well as consultation length be noted as follows: grammatical changes/organizational suggestions and final edits will be made where appropriate; the minimum length of the consultation period will be two months; more specific detail under Section 5 be added regarding provision of information to and consultation with, employees.

ACTION: It was AGREED that a NOTICE OF MOTION would be provided at the November 13, 2019 public meeting of the Board of Education (Richmond) advising that a RECOMMENDATION to approve the revised final proposed revisions to Policy 704 & 704-R: School Closure and/or Consolidation be brought to the December 13th, 2019 Public meeting of the Board.

ACTION: It was AGREED that a NOTICE OF MOTION would be provided at the November 13, 2019 public meeting of the Board of Education (Richmond) advising that a RECOMMENDATION to approve the revised final proposed revisions to Policy 704.1 & 704.1-R: Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements be brought to the December 13th, 2019 Public meeting of the Board.

4. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 11:05 am.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sandra Nixon Sandra Nixon, Chairperson Policy Committee

PAGE 124

Report to the Board of Education (Richmond) Public DATE: December 11, 2019 FROM: Sandra Nixon, Chairperson, Policy Committee SUBJECT: Notice of Motion – Policy 504.4/504.4-R: Menstrual Products

NOTICE OF MOTION TO DECEMBER 11, 2019 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (RICHMOND)

In accordance with Board Policy 204: Creation and Revision of Policy and Regulations, this is a Notice of Motion that a RECOMMENDATION will be presented at the January 8, 2019 Public meeting of the Board of Education (Richmond) to place proposed new Policy 504.4 and 504.4-R: Menstrual Products into the stakeholder review process for questions and feedback by February 13, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Earlier this year, the Ministry of Education issued a ministerial order requiring that boards of education provide menstrual products free of charge to all students who may require them. The Ministry has stated that products must be available in schools by the end of the 2019 calendar year, which will occur in the Richmond School District. In addition, boards must develop policies and administrative procedures regarding the provision of menstrual products in their schools.

CONSULTATION: The draft policy and regulations have been discussed at the Policy Committee. There was consensus amongst members of the committee as well as stakeholders at the November 18th public meeting of the committee that the draft policy should be entered into the stakeholder review process.

CONCLUSION Every student in the Richmond School District should have access to healthy learning environments including free access to menstrual products. The attached draft policy and regulation are intended to reflect that notion.

Respectfully submitted,

Sandra Nixon, Chairperson Policy Committee

Attachments: A – Proposed new Policy 504.4 – Menstrual Products B – Proposed new Regulation 504.4-R – Menstrual Products

PAGE 125

EXCERPT from Policy 204: Creation and Revision of Policy and Regulations ....Notice of Motion for any adoption, amendment, or suspension of a policy or regulation shall be submitted at the regular public Board Meeting prior to the meeting at which the change will be considered.....

Definitions:

Policies define guiding values, overall purposes and specific goals. They indicate, as directly and concisely as possible, what the Board wants and why. Regulations define required actions. They indicate how and by whom the Board requires things to be done.

Administrative guidelines are developed and maintained by the Superintendent to complement policies and regulations developed by the Board by providing additional or more detailed procedures and expectations when that is deemed necessary by either the Superintendent or the Board.

PAGE 126 Policy

EDUCATION Policy 504.4

Attachment A

Provision of Menstrual Products to Students

The Board of Education (Richmond) is committed to providing menstrual products to students who may require them.

Every student in the Richmond School District should have access to healthy and effective learning environments. The public school system is expected to promote gender equality and create an inclusive learning experience for all students. Lack of access to menstrual products can impact a student’s ability to engage in their school experience and can negatively impact their social-emotional well-being. Providing students with convenient access to free menstrual products helps to support their full participation in school activities, reduces stigma and promotes gender equality.

Adopted; Board Adoption of Revision:

PAGE 127 Regulation

EDUCATION Policy 504.4-R

Attachment B

Provision of Menstrual Products to Students

The Board of Education will:

a. Ensure menstrual products are made available to students of all gender identities or expressions in a manner that protects student privacy; b. Provide for barrier free, easily accessible menstrual products at no cost to students; c. Provide menstrual products in school washrooms; and, d. Consider student feedback with respect to the provision of menstrual products.

School district staff will develop procedures regarding the provision of menstrual products to students.

Board Adoption: 06 December 2010

PAGE 128

Report to the Board of Education (Richmond) Public DATE: December 11, 2019 FROM: Sandra Nixon, Chairperson, Policy Committee SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION – Approval of Proposed Revisions to Policy 704/704-R: Retirement of School Facilities (to be renamed School Closure and/or Consolidation)

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT The Board of Education (Richmond) approve the final draft changes to Policy 704/704-R: Retirement of School Facilities (to be renamed School Closure and/or Consolidation).

In accordance with Board Policy 204: Creation and Revision of Policy and Regulations, a Notice of Motion was provided to the November 13, 2019 public meeting of the Board of Education (Richmond). The notice of notion advised that a RECOMMENDATION will be presented at the December 11, 2019 Public meeting of the Board of Education (Richmond) to approve proposed changes to the current Retirement of School Facilities policy.

BACKGROUND: Rationale for Proposed Changes: Policy 704 and 704-R: Retirement of School Facilities were last revised in 2003 and require significant updating. The process of revision began in April, 2019. Proposed revisions are intended to provide a more transparent, equitable and evidence-based approach to school closure and to bring the policy into alignment with those of other school districts. Specifically: • The current school closure process outlined contains several challenges: o Some of the language is too prescriptive and has the potential to result in the wrong schools being identified for closure. Recommended revisions are intended to allow for schools to be considered in a broader, more consistent and equitable manner. o Language regarding the School Act requirement that ‘consideration be given to possible alternative community use for all or part of the school’ needs to be strengthened in order to ensure full compliance with the School Act. o A more transparent, robust and equitable approach to consultation is needed. The current consultation process has the potential to be unclear, unwieldy and could provide voice and influence to some members of the community over others. Recommendations are intended to equalize and strengthen the voice of the entire school community potentially impacted by school closure. o The current regulation addresses both the school closure process as well as the disposal of land or improvement process. Relative to other BC school districts’ policies, it is unusual for these two processes to be combined into a single policy. The current combining of the two processes has the potential to imply that a school closure will automatically result in disposal of the school site which is not ever a given.

PAGE 129

CONSULTATION: Analysis of Feedback Received During Consultation Process: Stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed policy revisions through the usual Board approved consultation process and several groups chose to do so. Based on the feedback received, it appears there is general support for the substantive changes being proposed for policy 704/704-R. A number of relatively minor changes were suggested during the stakeholder review process, some of which were incorporated into the current proposed policy.

The Board’s legal counsel was asked to consider several suggestions regarding the organization of the regulation itself and has done so. The attached draft policies reflect legal counsel’s most recent perspective.

CONCLUSION The attached revised draft School Closure policy and regulations reflect the revisions recommended through the legal analysis, provincial policy comparison and stakeholder review undertaken. It should be noted that all recommended revisions are intended to the strengthen processes to ensure that those who could be impacted by a potential school closure have ample opportunity to provide meaningful input and that the Board of Education has as much information as possible available in order to make an informed decision. It should also be noted that the revision of policy 704/704-R in no way presupposes any school closure. The Board of Education would, in all cases, undertake a thorough, meaningful and legally defensible process compliant with its own policy and the BC School Act should it decide to consider closing a school at any time in the future.

Respectfully submitted,

Sandra Nixon, Chairperson Policy Committee

Attachments: A – Proposed Revised School Closure Policy B – Proposed Revised School Closure Regulation C – Existing Retirement of School Facilities Policy and Regulation

PAGE 130

Definitions:

PAGE 131 Policy

FACILITIES Policy 704 (previously Policy 904)

School Closure and/or Consolidation Attachment A

The Board recognizes that declining and shifting student populations may necessitate the consolidation and/or closure of schools. The Board also recognizes and understands that permanent school closure decisions have the potential to affect and impact many stakeholders in the community, and that these stakeholders must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to provide input prior to any decision being made by the Board.

It is the policy of the Board to bear in mind the possible impact on other Board policies, such as its attendance area policies and its policies pertaining to personnel assignment. It is the declared intent of the Board to make its policies and regulations on school closure clear to all concerned, to provide ample lead time before closing any school, and to support a process that provides an opportunity for those who will be affected to be involved before any decision is made.

The Board has approved regulations for implementing school closures. These are an integral part of the Board's policy, and may not be changed except by Board action. (See Board Regulation 704 - R (formerly 904-R).

PROPOSED

Adopted: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption of Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption of Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 132 Regulation

FACILITIES Policy 704-R (previously Policy 904-R)

Attachment B

School Closure Process

At the request of the Board and/or Superintendent of Schools, and/or as a result of a concern for the educational program(s) in the school(s), staff will investigate the need to consolidate and/or close schools. To assist staff the following school closure process must be adhered to:

1. A school may be considered for closure when there is sufficient space to accommodate the students in neighboring schools. An initial report identifying potential closures shall be prepared, considering the following factors:

a) Present and future enrolment projections;

b) the number of children in the catchment area who do not attend the school;

c) the number of children attending the school from outside the catchment area;

d) The operating cost per student;

e) The need for significant capital expenditures to keep the building operational, and the availability of funding for this purpose;

f) The appropriateness of the facilities for educational programming and staff; consideration of possible alternative community uses for all or part of the school.

2. Upon completion, the initial report shall be presented to the Senior Management Team.

3. After considering the initial report, and any other relevant information, the Senior Management Team shall decide whether to make a preliminary recommendation to the Board regarding potential closures.

4. In the event the Senior Management Team decide to proceed, a report, including preliminary recommendation(s), will be prepared and presented to the Board of Education (Richmond) in a public meeting. The community shall be informed that this report is being presented to the Board, and provided access to its contents. (See Board Policies and Regulations in the 802 sequence). The report should include:

a) Detailed reasons for the proposed school closure, with reference to the criteria outlined in 1(a) to (g) above.

b) Identification of the specific school(s) being considered for closure.

Board Adoption: 06 December 2010

PAGE 133 Regulation

c) How the proposed closure would affect the current catchment area for each school.

d) The general effect on surrounding schools

e) The number of students who would be affected at both the closed school(s) and surrounding schools

f) The effect of proposed closures on Board-provided student transportation

g) Educational program/course implications for the affected students

h) The proposed effective date of the closure(s)

i) Financial considerations.

j) Impact on the Board’s capital plan

k) Proposed use of the closed school(s) including potential lease or sale.

l) Consideration of possible alternative community uses for all or part of the school.

m) Future enrolment growth of persons less than school age as well as adults in the community.

5. Upon receipt and consideration of the Senior Management Team's report, the Board will determine whether or not to approve the report and preliminary recommendation(s), in principle, for the purposes of public consultation.

6. In the event the preliminary recommendations are approved in principle, the Board will engage in a public consultation process. At a minimum, the following steps shall be taken to ensure that an open, meaningful public consultation will take place prior to making a final decision on any proposed closure:

a) The Board shall make the report and preliminary recommendations publicly available, together with any other relevant supporting materials and data.

b) The period of consultation must not be less than two (2) calendar months in duration.

c) The Board shall provide an adequate opportunity for affected persons to submit a written response to any proposed school closures. Information will be provided on how to submit a written response to the Board. This information should advise potential correspondents that their written response may be referred to at a public meeting respecting the closure, unless the correspondent specifically states in their written response that he/she wishes their name to remain confidential.

Board Adoption: 06 December 2010

PAGE 134 Regulation

d) The Board shall inform employees potentially impacted by any proposed closure or consolidation and shall provide them with relevant information and an opportunity to provide input during the consultation process.

e) The Board shall maintain records of all consultation, including any consultation meetings, information provided at these meetings; names of trustees/District staff who attended these meetings, a record of individuals, community agencies and organizations attending public community consultation meetings, and a record of questions asked and responses provided.

f) The Board will hold at least one public meeting to discuss the proposed school closure(s), present relevant information, and listen to community concerns and proposed options. The time and location of the public meeting shall be appropriately advertised to ensure at least thirty (30) days’ advance notification to affected persons or groups in the community. This will include written notification to students and parents of students currently attending the school. In addition, a clearly visible notice will be placed in local newspapers and on the District’s website.

g) At the beginning of the public meeting, the Board will present all written, pertinent facts and information related to the proposed school closure, as well as a summary of the input received from members of the community. Minutes will be kept of the public meeting to record concerns or options raised regarding the proposed closure.

7. Following the public meeting, the Board will give fair consideration to all public input prior to making its final decision with respect to the school closure.

8. A decision by the Board to permanently close a school will be made by bylaw.

9. The Superintendent of Schools will be responsible for implementing any recommendation(s) adopted by the Board of Education (Richmond) and shall ensure that disruptions are minimized during any transitions required as a result of the implementation of the recommendation(s) adopted. The time from the adoption date to the implementation date will be no less than three full months.

Board Adoption: 06 December 2010

PAGE 135 Policy

FACILITIES Policy 704 (previously Policy 904)

Attachment C Retirement of School Facilities

Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements

It shall be the policy of the Board to dispose of by lease, sale or land exchange, in whole or in part, any unused Board land or improvements, provided such disposal does not conflict with or detract from the regular or extracurricular program of a school or the current or future educational needs of the school district.

The disposal shall be through a public process, and shall be at fair market value.

School Closure and/or Consolidation

The Board recognizes that declining and shifting student populations may necessitate the consolidation and/or closure of schools from time to time. It is the policy of the Board to bear in mind the possible impact on other Board policies, such as its attendance area policies and its policies pertaining to personnel assignment. It is the declared intent of the Board to make its policies and regulations on school closure clear to all concerned, to provide ample lead time before closing any school, and to support a process that provides an opportunity for those who will be affected to be involved before any decision is made.

Adopted: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption of Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption of Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 136 Regulation

FACILITIES Policy 704-R (previously Policy 904-R)

Retirement of School Facilities

Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements (In Whole or In Part)

In order to determine whether the School Board may dispose of Land or Improvements (“Facility”), the following guidelines shall be used:

1. Each Facility shall be considered on its own merit.

2. No part of a Facility shall be made available for rent or lease during regular school hours if it is felt that to do so would interfere with the District's educational program being offered in the Facility.

3. No consideration shall be given to the disposal of any Facility until staff have had an opportunity to review, with the Board, and the Board has considered, the current and future educational needs of the District and possible alternate uses of the Facility. Community use of a Facility shall also be considered, being mindful of Item 2 above.

4. When the Board has decided that a Facility is no longer required to serve the needs of the District and will not be required for future educational purposes, the Board shall, subject to the orders of the Ministry of Education, dispose of the Facility through a public process. Unless Item 5 applies, the Board must make the Facility to be disposed of available to the public on the terms the Board proposes.

5. The Board is not required to make a Facility available to the public if the Board proposes to dispose of the Facility:

a) to a not for profit corporation; b) to a public authority; c) to a person who, as part of the consideration for the disposition, will exchange land or an improvement with the Board; d) to a person under a partnering agreement that has been the subject of a process involving the solicitation of competitive proposals; or e) to an owner of adjoining land for the purpose of consolidating the lands.

6. Regardless of whether Item 5 applies, the Board must dispose of a Facility through a public process as follows:

a) If the disposition is to a person referred to in Item 5, then the Board may only proceed with the disposal after it has passed a bylaw at a public meeting of the Board approving the disposal, provided that the Board has published, on its publicly accessible website or in some other public manner, notice of its agenda at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting, and the notice includes:

Adoption: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption with Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption with Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 137 Regulation

i) a description of the land or improvements; ii) the person or public authority who is to acquire the property under the proposed disposition; iii) the nature and, if applicable, the term of the proposed disposition; and iv) the consideration to be received by the Board for the disposition.

b) For all other dispositions, the Board shall post at the Facility, a sign visible from a public street indicating the nature of the proposed disposition, and the Board shall publish a notice in a local newspaper for at least two (2) consecutive weeks that includes:

i) a description of the land or improvements; ii) the nature and, if applicable, the term of the proposed disposition; and iii) the process by which the land or improvements may be acquired.

7. Any proposed transferee or lessee of a Facility must satisfy the Board that it has the ability to meet its financial obligations to the Board, and the Board must be satisfied that the disposition of the Facility is at fair market value.

8. The City of Richmond shall be advised when the Board is proceeding with the disposal of any Facility, in order that it may make suitable arrangements for alternate space for any of its programs that will be affected by the disposal.

School Closure Process

1. A school may be considered for closure when there is sufficient space to accommodate the students in neighbouring schools. In addition, at least one of the following conditions must exist:

a) The present and the three-year enrolment projection is 25% or more below capacity; b) 20% or more of the children in a catchment area do not attend the school; c) 20% or more of the children attending the school are from outside the catchment area; d) The operating cost per student is above the district average; e) There is a need for significant capital expenditures to keep the building operational; f) The facilities restrict appropriate educational programming; g) The facilities have inappropriate accommodation for pupils and/or teachers; h) Any schools with a total enrolment lower than 100 (fte).

2. A report is prepared and presented to the District Management Committee indicating which school(s) have been identified for possible closure. The report should include information on each item for each school and an appropriate educational rationale. (See 1 (a) to (h)).

3. Based on the report, and such additional information as may be required, the District Management Committee decides which school(s) identified warrant further action.

Adoption: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption with Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption with Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 138 Regulation

4. A report and preliminary recommendation(s) will be prepared and presented to the Board of Education (Richmond). The community is informed that this report is being presented to the Board. (See Board Policies and Regulations in the 802 sequence.)

5. If the Board determines that further investigation and/or action is required, the Superintendent of Schools will appoint a committee and establish a timeline:

a) The committee shall comprise:

Superintendent, or designate Secretary Treasurer, or designate Representative of the City of Richmond Planning Department School's Principal, or delegate Two parent representatives, or alternates (from both schools, if two schools are involved)

b) The committee's terms of reference will include:

i) compliance with Board Regulation 802-R, Citizens' Involvement in Decision- Making; ii) further examination and analysis of the data used in the identification of schools for possible closure; iii) detailed examination/analysis of data collected relative to criteria to be used when deciding on school facilities for school closure for the school or groups of schools being considered; iv) preparation of a preliminary report which may include one or more alternative courses of action; v) presentation to and feedback from public meetings of appropriate and interested groups of the community or communities concerned, with at least 30 days' notice, and with no fewer than three Trustees present; vi) preparation and presentation of a final report including recommendation(s) to the Superintendent of Schools.

6. The Superintendent of Schools will prepare and present a report to the Board of Education (Richmond). The report will include the final report and recommendations of the committee. At least two calendar months must elapse between this item and Item 4.

7. The Superintendent of Schools will be responsible for implementing any recommendation(s) adopted by the Board of Education (Richmond) and shall ensure that disruptions are minimized during any transitions required as a result of the implementation of the recommendation(s) adopted. The time from the adoption date to the implementation date will be no less than three full months.

Adoption: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption with Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption with Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 139 Report to the Board of Education (Richmond) Public DATE: December 11, 2019 FROM: Sandra Nixon, Chairperson, Policy Committee SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION – Approval of Proposed Revisions to Policy 704.1/704.1-R: Retirement of School Facilities (to be renamed Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements)

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT The Board of Education (Richmond) approve the final draft changes to Policy 704.1/704.1-R: Retirement of School Facilities (to be renamed Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements).

BACKGROUND: Rationale for Proposed Changes: • Policy 704 and 704-R: Retirement of School Facilities were last revised in 2003 and require significant updating. The process of revision began in April, 2019. The current regulation addresses both the school closure process as well as the disposal of land or improvement process. Relative to other BC school districts’ policies, it is unusual for these two processes to be combined into a single policy. The current combining of the two processes has the potential to imply that a school closure will automatically result in disposal of the school site which is not ever a given. • In addition, the current section of Policy 704-R dealing with disposal is not as clear and well- organized as it could be in order to ensure a transparent and easily understandable policy and process exist. • A separate proposed policy that only contemplates the disposal of school board lands or improvement has therefore been drafted and was distributed for stakeholder consultation.

CONSULTATION: Analysis of Feedback Received During Consultation Process: Stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed new policy through the usual Board approved consultation process and several groups chose to do so. Based on the feedback received, it appears there is general support for what is proposed within new policy 704.1/704.1-R. Cautions were provided about actually proceeding with a disposal and ensuring that all future needs can be accommodated before any disposal is contemplated.

PAGE 140

At the November 4th, 2019 public meeting of the Policy Committee, further discussion occurred amongst trustee members of the committee and stakeholder representatives. It was clarified that there is existing Ministry policy that deals specifically with how proceeds from disposal can be used. It was also pointed out that it was very important that the Board engage in due diligence in determining ownership of any land being considered for disposal and as a result, language regarding this was strengthened in the draft policy.

The attached draft policies reflect legal counsel’s most recent perspective after reviewing all suggested changes.

CONCLUSION The attached revised draft Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements policy and regulations reflect the revisions recommended through the legal analysis, provincial policy comparison and stakeholder review undertaken. It should be noted that all recommended revisions are intended to strengthen processes to ensure that those who could be impacted by a potential disposal of school board land have ample opportunity to provide meaningful input and that the Board of Education has as much information as possible available in order to make an informed decision that is in the best interests of effective stewardship of public assets and protection of the long-term interests of the School District.

Respectfully submitted,

Sandra Nixon, Chairperson Policy Committee

Attachments: A – Proposed Revised Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements Policy B – Proposed Revised Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements Regulation C – Existing Retirement of School Facilities Policy and Regulation

PAGE 141

Definitions:

PAGE 142 Policy

ATTACHMENT A

FACILITIES Policy 704.1

Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements

The Board believes that all decisions relating to disposition of School Board lands and improvements shall be made in the interests of effective stewardship of public assets and protection of the long- term interests of the School District.

The School District may dispose of property owned or administered by the Board including land and improvements, leases (short-term and long-term), rights of way and easements under the authority of the School Act. The authorization for disposal of land or improvements must include consideration of the future educational needs of the District, disposition through a public process, and Ministry approval where necessary. Disposition will be through a public process, and will typically be for fair market value.

PROPOSED

Adopted: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption of Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption of Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 143 Regulation

FACILITIES Policy 704.1-R (previously Policy 904-R)

ATTACHMENT B Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements

When land or improvements owned by the Board (collectively “the Real Property”) becomes surplus to the needs of the School District, the surplus property may be disposed of in accordance with the School Act, applicable Ministerial Orders and this Policy and related Regulations.

The Board has the responsibility for the disposal of its Real Property and may, after considering future educational needs and school space requirements for the School District, deem a property no longer required for further educational purposes or other Board purposes and determine to proceed to dispose of such property. In accordance with the School Art and applicable Ministerial Orders, the Board must not dispose of land or improvements by sale or transfer in fee simple or by way of lease of ten years or more unless such disposal is provided for in the Disposal of Land or Improvements Ministerial Order M193/08, or is approved by the Minister. The Board can dispose of land or improvements by way of lease, other than a lease of ten years or more, if such disposition is to an agency or organization for an alternative community use.

The procedure to dispose of Real Property by sale or transfer in fee simple or by way of lease of 10 years or more is as follows:

1.0 Determination of Ownership

1.1 Prior to initiating the disposal of any Real Property, the Board will engage in its own due diligence to conduct a title search to confirm that the property is registered in the name of the Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond) with fee simple ownership. The title search should include a determination as to whether or not the Real Property is held in trust by grant from the Crown, or subject to any registered charges.

2.0 Consultation

2.1 Once ownership has been determined in accordance with 1 above, prior to disposing of Real Property, the Board shall undertake, with stakeholders, local governments, community organizations and/or the public, such consultations as the Board may consider appropriate with respect to the Real Property involved. This consultation process shall include:

2.1.1 Consideration of future enrolment growth in the School District, including K-12, adult programs and early learning;

2.1.2 Consideration of alternative community use of surplus space in school buildings and other facilities;

2.1.3 A fair consideration of the community's input and adequate opportunity for the community to respond the Board's plan for the Real Property.

Board Adoption:

PAGE 144 Regulation

3.0 Disposal Process

3.1 Following consultation, if the Board passes a resolution declaring the Real Property surplus to the needs of the School District and instructing School District staff to proceed with the Real Property disposal process, the School District staff shall:

3.1.1 Where necessary, arrange for the preparation of a legal survey plan showing the boundaries of the property to be disposed of;

3.1.2 Initiate the disposal process in accordance with a public request for proposals or tender process, provided that if the disposition is:

i) to a not-for-profit organization;

ii) to a public authority;

iii) to a person who, as part of the consideration for the disposition, will exchange land or an improvement with the Board;

iv) to a person who is a party to a subsisting lease, option, right of first refusal, joint venture, coownership or collaborative land acquisition or development agreement that has been the subject of a process involving the solicitation of competitive proposals, regardless of whether the agreement has been amended or assigned subsequent to the completion of that process;

v) a disposition of land to an owner of adjoining land for the purpose of consolidating the lands;

then the requirement for a public request for proposals or tender process shall only apply if the Board in its discretion so elects by resolution.

3.1.3 When required pursuant to the School Act and applicable Ministerial Order, apply to the Minister for approval of the disposal. The application will include:

i) Verification that the school closure was completed in accordance with the provisions under the current or former School Opening or Closure Order, if applicable;

ii) Description of circumstances giving rise to the Board request for Ministerial approval for the disposal of the property;

iii) Confirmation that the property will not be required for future educational purposes;

iv) Description of Board consultation as undertaken with respect to the proposed disposal;

v) Description of how the property was first acquired for educational purposes by the Board if known

vi) Confirmation that the property is owned by the Board and not the subject of Crown land grant as evidenced by one of the following documents obtained from the Land Title office:

Board Adoption:

PAGE 145 Regulation

vii) Confirmation that the property is owned by the Board and not the subject of Crown land grant as evidenced by one of the following documents obtained from the Land Title office:

(1)State of Title Certificate (certified copy of title); or

(2)Title search print including parcel identifier No.

viii) Address and legal description of the property;

ix) Site plan showing the subject property clearly outlined in bold or in colour;

x) Property Appraisals by two licensed property appraisers. In situations where it is not practical to obtain two comprehensive appraisals, the latest property assessment notice will be provided as one of these appraisals; and

xi) Statement of expected purchase price or rent.

3.1.4 Undertake necessary steps to subdivide the Real Property to be disposed of, if it is to be subdivided from a “parent” property to remain in the ownership of the Board.

4.0 Bylaw Requirement

4.1 Upon completion of the process outlined in #3 above, (and upon notification of Ministerial approval where applicable), the Board shall adopt a By-law (the "Real Property Disposal By-law") authorizing the disposal of the Real Property. The Real Property Disposal By- law will include:

i) Confirmation that the Board will not require the land or improvements for future educational purposes;

ii) The name and the facility number, if any; and

iii) The address and legal description of the Real Property.

5.0 Notification to Minister of Education

5.1 Upon adoption of the Real Property Disposal By-law by the Board, the Board will provide without delay the following documentation to the Minister:

i) A copy of the Board's Real Property Disposal By-law authorizing disposal of the property; and

ii) Written notification of the disposition and allocation of the proceeds as required under section 100(2) of the School Act.

6.0 Transfer of Title

6.1 Where disposal is by sale or transfer, the transfer of title shall be completed in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into with the purchaser.

Board Adoption:

PAGE 146 Policy

FACILITIES Policy 704 (previously Policy 904)

Attachment C Retirement of School Facilities

Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements

The disposal shall be through a public process, and shall be at fair market value.

School Closure and/or Consolidation

Adopted: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption of Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption of Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 147 Regulation

FACILITIES Policy 704-R (previously Policy 904-R)

Retirement of School Facilities

Disposal of School Board Land or Improvements (In Whole or In Part)

In order to determine whether the School Board may dispose of Land or Improvements (“Facility”), the following guidelines shall be used:

1. Each Facility shall be considered on its own merit.

5. The Board is not required to make a Facility available to the public if the Board proposes to dispose of the Facility:

6. Regardless of whether Item 5 applies, the Board must dispose of a Facility through a public process as follows:

Adoption: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption with Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption with Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 148 Regulation

i) a description of the land or improvements; ii) the nature and, if applicable, the term of the proposed disposition; and iii) the process by which the land or improvements may be acquired.

School Closure Process

1. A school may be considered for closure when there is sufficient space to accommodate the students in neighbouring schools. In addition, at least one of the following conditions must exist:

3. Based on the report, and such additional information as may be required, the District Management Committee decides which school(s) identified warrant further action.

Adoption: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption with Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption with Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 149 Regulation

5. If the Board determines that further investigation and/or action is required, the Superintendent of Schools will appoint a committee and establish a timeline:

a) The committee shall comprise:

b) The committee's terms of reference will include:

Adoption: 05 March 1990 Board Adoption with Revisions: 07 April 2003 Board Adoption with Revisions: 02 September 2003

PAGE 150 Dear Richmond School Board Superindendent and District 38 School Trustees,

I write as a concerned parent, community member and PAC Chair at Westwind Elementary School. My concern is regarding the proposed catchment boundary changes for Westwind students entering high school. I write this with no personal bias, as my son will not be going to McMath no matter what the boundary changes are as we are no longer in the Westwind catchment and live closer to Steveston London.

Currently, students are in a split catchment with roughly half in the McMath catchment and half in the Steveston London catchment. It has been the general rule that parents could request for their child to go to either school in order to stay with their cohort and the majority of the parents wish for their children to go to McMath because it has the safest walking/cycling route from the Westwind neighbourhood.

On the School District 38 Let's Talk website it is stated that the school board "identified opportunities to align boundaries, reduce the number of major road crossings, and develop options to reduce the number of split-feeder elementary schools." The proposed change for Westwind would actually drastically increase the number of major road crossings for students if they must go to Steveston London. The route to Steveston London from Westwind Elementary School includes having to cross both No. 2 Road south to north and Steveston Highway west to east. No matter which route the students take be it traveling east on Steveston Highway all the way to Gilbert Road or north on No. 2 Road to the community path just south of Wallace Road, parents will be forced to choose between driving their children, making their children walk (which takes much longer than cycling and is farther than walking to McMath), take public transit or instruct their children to break the law by riding their bicycle on the sidewalk on Steveston Highway and either No. 2 Road or Gilbert Road, because no parent in their right mind would want their child riding on any of those three busy roads.

The route from Westwind to McMath is by far safer and shorter. The route has only one major road crossing which is at the quieter end of Railway Avenue at Garry Street which has a full set of traffic lights. From there, the children would head north on the cycling/walking path on Railway Ave. to the community path which goes west all the way to McMath Secondary. A child could easily cycle the whole distance from the Westwind neighbourhood with only one dismount at the Railway crosswalk.

This proposed change will result in many more cars on the road which is not only an environmental concern but one which will also take away the chance for these children to practice independence during their commute to and from school. For those who do cycle, they will be on the sidewalks most of the way to and from school, which, as I have stated, in against the law and not ideal.

Although the school board put the information out in advance, the wording of the document was so confusing that our PAC and our administration had to reach out to our School Trustee Liaison to get clarification about how the changes would actually play out for Westwind

PAGE 151 students. We all believed at the beginning that we understood and that Westwind students currently enrolled at Westwind and their siblings could still ask to stay with their cohort at McMath and be approved for the cross-boundary enrollment but then we started to question the wording. We found out only on Tuesday, December 3rd that this is not the case. This has not left us with nearly enough time to get the word out to parents and mobilize them to speak out against this catchment boundary change.

I ask that the School Board either vote against this catchment boundary change for Steveston London and McMath or postpone voting until the public has a proper chance to give their feedback. The document released by the School Board would be greatly enhanced by adding specific examples of situations for students from Westwind and by more transparent, concise language outlining the changes.

Sincerely, Judie Schneider

PAGE 152

PAGE 153