Report to the Minister on Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board Peterborough Secondary School Accommodation Review

February 17, 2012
The Honourable Laurel Broten Minister of Education 900 Bay Street 22nd Floor Toronto, M7A 1L2 Re: Independent Facilitator’s Report on the Peterborough Secondary School Accommodation Review, KPRDSB Dear Minister, The purpose of this letter is to provide you with my findings as the Independent Facilitator of the administrative review of the accommodation review process undertaken by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) regarding the secondary schools of the City of Peterborough. The schools included in the accommodation review were the following Peterborough secondary schools: • Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School • Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School • Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School • Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School The request for an administrative review was filed by Shirl Delarue, Jay Amer, Margaret Marchen, Eileen Madder, Andrew Pyle and Michael Saunders. The request was accompanied by signatures representing 33% of eligible families. Board staff has also validated the list of petitioners regarding their eligibility in terms of each person's school affiliation, parent or student status, and record of participation in the accommodation review process.I was appointed by your Ministry on January 3, 2012 to conduct this administrative review. I was present in Peterborough from January 16th to January 20, 2012. During that time, I spoke with the Board of Trustees, the Director of Education, senior school board officials, the members of the Accommodation Review Committee (ARC), the petitioners, the principals of the four schools involved, some staff members and students of the affected schools, representatives of teacher federations and support staff unions and officials of the City of Peterborough including the Mayor and the Chief of Police. A public meeting was held on Wednesday January18, 2012. It was attended by approximately 350 members of the public. At this meeting, I heard presentations from 47 individuals. During the course of my review, I also received and reviewed written submissions from many members of the four school communities affected by the Peterborough Secondary School Accommodation Review. In addition to the written submissions that I received during my week in the KPRDSB, I invited interested parties to forward further commentary via email for a two week period following my time in Peterborough. I received many submissions during this time which largely reflected and amplified the polarized views I heard during my meetings with the various stakeholders in the community.

1

I was privileged to visit each of the schools under review. The issues of this review notwithstanding, I want to comment on the very positive learning and teaching environments I found in each of the four secondary schools under review. High levels of student engagement, dynamic and innovative instructional approaches and multifaceted partnerships with the community to meet the needs of vulnerable students were evident in each school. In particular, I want to comment on the vibrant and enthusiastic leadership of each of the principals with whom I met. I can honestly say as a parent of four myself that I would have been delighted to interact with any one of these school leaders when my children were in secondary school. My meetings with the community and stakeholders were ably facilitated by Norm Stormes and Mary Fairhead of the Barrie Regional Office of the Ministry of Education. The parents, trustees, board officials, board staff, students and community members with whom I met were all very generous with their time and their perspectives and our conversations were frank and productive. I appreciate their assistance particularly given the discussions were often charged with passionate opinions.

TERMS OF REFERENCE The following terms of reference were established by your Ministry for my work as the Independent Facilitator conducting this administrative review. PRINCIPLES • School boards, parents, communities and the government recognize that school boards have the legal right to close schools after following a board-approved pupil accommodation review process. The Ministry of Education released the revised Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline (2009:B7) on June 26, 2009. The Guideline provides direction to school boards regarding pupil accommodation reviews undertaken to determine the future of a school or a group of schools. School boards are responsible for establishing and following their own accommodation review policies. School boards’ accommodation review policies are to reflect the requirements of the Ministry’s Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline. Under the Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline, schools are required to make school valuation the centre of board and community decision-making. School valuation requires school boards to consider the value of a school or schools, based on community consultation.

SCOPE OF THE REVIEW The independent facilitator shall be responsible for: • Determining whether the KPRDSB followed its board-approved pupil accommodation review process in conducting the accommodation review; • Reviewing formal documentation, interviewing relevant participants including Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) members, petitioners and board staff; • Submitting a written report to the Minister of Education upon completion of the review.

2

REPORTING TO THE MINISTER The report should be in the form of a letter to the Minister, indicating whether the accommodation review process followed the board’s pupil accommodation review policy. The Minister is responsible and will make the facilitator’s findings available to the board and the public in a timely fashion. PROFILE OF THE BOARD The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board encompasses almost 7,000 square kilometers, including Clarington, Northumberland and Peterborough Counties. It serves the communities located in the Kawarthas to the north, and south to Lake Ontario. Hastings County is the eastern border and the western border extends to the City of Kawartha Lakes and to the edge of the City of Oshawa. The Board has 76 elementary schools and 17 secondary schools, including three adult and alternative learning centres to serve urban and rural communities. As of October 31, 2011, the KPRDSB has approximately 34,515 students (32,361 full-time equivalent): 21,995 elementary students (19,975 full-time equivalent) and 12,520 secondary students (12,386 full-time equivalent). 23,000 students are bused to school every day on 500 different bus routes. The KPRDSB student population has the following characteristics: • • • • Percentage of students for whom language of instruction is not their first language: 1.6% Percentage of students with First Nation, Métis and Inuit ancestry: 1.6% Percentage of students who have completed 16 credits as of June 30 of their second year of high school: 74% Percentage of students (Grade 1 to Grade 12) with Individual Education Plans (IEPs): 21%

The Board has approximately 3,500 employees, including 1,228 elementary teachers, 892 secondary teachers and close to 1,400 union and non-union support and administrative staff, including secretaries, custodial and maintenance staff, education assistants, professional and paraprofessional staff, technicians, principals, vice-principals, supervisors and senior staff. KPRDSB receives the assistance of over 8,000 volunteers in their schools. The Board is governed by 11 Trustees, including a First Nations Trustee. The Board also has a Student Trustee. It is interesting to note that the 2011 Statistics Canada census results indicate that Peterborough is the municipality with the highest proportion of the population 65 or older in Canada. Like many school districts in Ontario, the KPRDSB is facing serious declining enrolment – with 18 percent or 7,000 fewer students than in 2002-03. In the last decade, there has been a decline of over 900 students in the four secondary schools under review and the schools are more than 1,000 students below the capacity of their buildings. Board projections indicate that this pattern will continue and over the next four years, that number will rise to approximately 1,767 students below the capacity of the four schools collectively. Program viability and breadth of options have been severely challenged by this enrolment decline.

3

The KPRDSB’s recently developed strategic plan outlines areas of priority for the board through 2011–2014. The document, available on the KPRDSB website, is called Living, Learning and Leading in a Changing World and is the Board’s public statement of its current focus and direction and reflects a recent consultative process with the Board’s various communities and stakeholders. PROFILES OF AFFECTED SCHOOLS The following are brief factual outlines of the facilities and program provision at the affected schools. I would like to note that I had the opportunity to spend time in each of these schools and at each site, I was struck by the inviting nature of the school climate and the high level of engagement of students and staff both in their learning and teaching activities and with each other. Each of the four schools presented as a lively, dynamic and supportive learning environment where young people and the adults who work with them were productively and enthusiastically involved. Each school demonstrated impressive sensitivity to the needs of vulnerable and at risk students through active partnerships with local social services as well providing counselling, nutrition and clothing supports. Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School was established in 1960 and is a high school and intermediate school in the City of Peterborough. The school provides a fully composite educational program on 6 hectares of land in the northern area of the city, is accessible to students with disabilities, and has numerous athletic fields and a track. General Information Grades: 7 - 12 Enrolment: (October, 2011) 822.5 FTE On the Ground Capacity: 1242 (1017 Secondary + 225 Elementary) Technology Program Areas: 5 Special Education Classes: 4 Care, Treatment and Correctional Facility classes: 0 Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School has dedicated space for a number of specialized programs. (Please see Appendix B for more details.): Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School was established in 1952 and is a high school and intermediate school in the City of Peterborough. The school provides a fully composite educational program on 7.13 hectares of land in the southern area of the city, is accessible to students with disabilities, and has numerous athletic fields and a track. General Information Grades: 7 - 12 Enrolment: (October, 2011) 680.5 FTE On the Ground Capacity: 1224 (918 Secondary + 306 Elementary) Technology Program Areas: 7 Special Education Classes: 5 Care, Treatment and Correctional Facility classes: 0 Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute has dedicated space for a number of specialized Programs. (Please see Appendix B for more details.)

4

Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School (PCVS) Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School was established in 1907 and is a high school in the City of Peterborough. The school offers an Integrated Arts program which draws students from across the City and County of Peterborough is located on 1.2 hectares of land in the central core of the city, does not provide composite educational programming, is not barrier free for students with disabilities, and does not include athletic fields. General Information Grades: 9 - 12 Enrolment: (October, 2011) 755.5 FTE On the Ground Capacity: 846 Technology Program Areas: 1 Special Education Classes: 1 Care, Treatment and Correctional Facility classes: 0 Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School has dedicated space for a number of specialized programs. (Please see Appendix B for more details.) Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School (TASSS) Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School was established in 1967 and is a high school in the City of Peterborough. The school provides a fully composite educational program on 13.3 hectares of land bordering the Otonabee river in the eastern area of the city. The school is partially accessible for students with disabilities, and has numerous athletic fields, a track and a 7 acre joined-island along the river. General Information Grades: 9 - 12 Enrolment: (October, 2011) 607.25 FTE On the Ground Capacity: 1290 Technology Program Areas: 9 Special Education Classes: 2 Care, Treatment and Correctional Facility classes: 6 Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School has dedicated space for a number of specialized Programs. (Please see Appendix B for more details.)

Final Recommendations of the ARC and Recommendations of Administration Leading to the Board’s Decisions on Sept 29, 2011 The Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) recommendations were endorsed at the May 12, 2011 meeting of the ARC: “1. The committee recommends that: 1.1 The programming in the four secondary schools offered in the City of Peterborough be consolidated into three secondary schools. 2. In order to maximize program opportunities for students, the committee further recommends that: 2.1 A closure of a school be the last resort in order to address programming issues. 2.2 If a school were to be closed and sold, the monies from the sale would be distributed proportionately among the three remaining secondary schools based on enrolments. Additionally, the committee recommends that:

3.

5

3.1

The Board review its policies and procedures which govern the organizational structure and proceedings of Accommodation Review Committees.”

On May 26, 2011 these recommendations of the ARC were reported to the KPRDSB in a report entitled “City of Peterborough Secondary Schools –Group Pupil Accommodation Review”. The minority report of the ARC dissenting from the ARC’s recommendations was also provided to the Board of Trustees in their information package for the May 26, 2011 board meeting at which the Report of the Peterborough ARC was received. The minority report objected to any recommendations made by the ARC, asserting that “information was gathered throughout the process without any chance for analysis, debate or thoughtful review.” In a subsequent report to the KPRDSB, dated June 23, 2011, Board Senior Administration reported that: “Administration has reviewed relevant and related information from the accommodation review process, examining the key considerations of student achievement and stewardship of resources. Specific regard has been given to providing optimum programming availability for all students and the enrolment pressures facing the individual school communities within the Accommodation Review.” The report agreed with the recommendation of the ARC to consolidate four schools into three in order to enrich student programming offerings at the three remaining school sites. In the June 23rd report, the Administration offered the following as the “most preferred course of action”: • • The closure of Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School, effective September 2012. The phasing out, over two years, of Kenner Intermediate School, beginning in September 2012. Keith Wightman Pubic School, Otonabee Valley Public School, and Roger Neilson Public School would move to a Kindergarten to Grade 7 model in September, 2012, and to Kindergarten to Grade 8 by September, 2013. The re-purposing, contingent upon a feasibility study, of the Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School site to house the Board’s Education Centre, as well as be the home for a specialized school learning environment for elementary and secondary students. This specialized school will be focused on intensive science/technology and environmental science programming for students from across the jurisdiction. The school will also allow for experiential learning opportunities for Grade 7 and 8 students, as well as a combined staff and student leadership centre. The disposal of the Board’s property at 1994 Fisher Drive, Peterborough, Ontario. Further enhancements to existing Peterborough secondary school facilities will be explored.

• •

The following “alternative course of action” was identified in the event the first option was not found to be feasible: • Closure of Peterborough Collegiate Vocational School • Retention of Peterborough Collegiate Vocational School site for use in providing alternative student programming. The following was identified as the “least desirable course of action”: • Closure of Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational School or Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute. 6

On September 29, 2011, after receipt and analysis of the feasibility study regarding the potential closure of TASSS, Senior Administration presented a report to the board. The report noted: “On September 16, 2011, the feasibility study on the possible move of the Education Centre to the Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School site was received by administration and released publicly. As a result of this study, administration no longer deems it to be financially feasible to relocate the Education Centre.” [emphasis added] The September 29th report also outlines: “There are least preferred options for school closure, and those that are more preferred. It is the opinion of administration that the least preferred options are to close either Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute or Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute. This is for the reasons outlined in the June report, which includes the attributes of both these schools as fully composite facilities, which are accessible for disabled persons, and geographically situated well to serve existing student populations as well as possible future growth. Either of the following two options if selected will provide enhanced programming for secondary students in the City of Peterborough: [Option 1] Closure of Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School: Consolidate existing programming at Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School into Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute, Crestwood Secondary School, Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute, and Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School, effective September 2012. […] [Option 2] Closure of Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School: Consolidate existing programming at Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School into Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute, Crestwood Secondary School, Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute, and Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School, effective September 2012.” This option includes the following implementation aspects: • “The Integrated Arts program moving to Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School. • All senior students to be given the option of moving with their fellow students to Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School for the remainder of their high school years, and be provided transportation as per Board policy. • Junior students (currently in Grades 9 and 10, other than Integrated Arts program students) being relocated to either Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute (for those in the Highland Heights Public School and Queen Mary Public School catchment areas), Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute (for those located in the Prince of Wales Public School catchment area), or Crestwood Secondary School (for those living in the Westmount catchment area). • Students will of course continue to be able to attend French Immersion at Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute and the International Baccalaureate at Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute regardless of home location. In addition, all students may apply for out-of-boundary status on an individual basis.

7

There are several key considerations identified as part of this option, including the following: • projected enrolment • size of the site • non-composite facility • distribution of students would benefit enrolment at each of the other schools • strong location for alternative usage” The report then makes the following recommendations: 1. “That existing programming at Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School be consolidated into Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute, Crestwood Secondary School, Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute, and Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School, effective September 2012. That administration consider locating alternative services and programming including the Peterborough Centre for Individual Studies, at Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School That a decision regarding the future of Kenner Intermediate School be considered at the October 27, 2011 Board meeting. That in accordance with Board Policy No. BA-1.2, Pupil Accommodation Review: School Closure/Consolidation, a transition implementation committee be struck for the City of Peterborough secondary schools.”

2.

3. 4.

Schedule and Activities of the ARC During the Peterborough Secondary School Accommodation Review The members of the Accommodation Review are listed in Appendix A. The Chair of the ARC and Senior Administration provided the following timetable of the ARC’s deliberations and an outline of the items of information provided to them: 1. The committee members representing the four school communities, met on the following dates: • February 3, 2011 (6:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m.) at Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School • February 28, 2011 (6:30 p.m.-10:44 p.m.) at Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School • April 7, 2011 (6:30 p.m.-11:34 p.m.) at Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School • May 12, 2011 (6:30 p.m.-11:09 p.m.) at Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School 2. During the course of the four public meetings as prescribed by Board policy, the committee considered and investigated the benefits, issues, concerns and considerations for the possible consolidation/closure of the four City of Peterborough secondary schools. Discussion by committee members at the fourth meeting led to the development of the final recommendation. 3. At each meeting, the committee members informed and consulted their respective communities. School newsletters included the purpose of the accommodation review and information on the dates, times and location for meetings of the Accommodation Review Committee. All information (policies, procedures, agendas, minutes, presentations and correspondence) was posted on the Board’s website. 8

4. There were 57 delegations received by the ARC during its deliberations. In addition to the delegations heard by the ARC, 113 delegations presented to the KPRDSB Board of Trustees during the Accommodation Review Process and prior to the trustees’ decision. 5. The following information was provided to the committee by Board staff: • Opportunities for optional tours at Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School (January 25, 2011), Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School (January 26, 2011), Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School (January 18, 2011), and Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School (January 19, 2011) • Board Policy No. BA-1.2, Pupil Accommodation Review: School Closure/Consolidation • City of Peterborough Secondary Schools: Group Pupil Accommodation Review Report to December 16, 2010 Board meeting • Board Policy No. B-3.2, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion • Critical path of the ARC • Presenter’s package template and public presentation guidelines • Data collection report for each school • School information profile for each school • Enrolment data for Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board and co-terminous Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board • Enrolment in special programs (French Immersion, Integrated Arts, International Baccalaureate) • Square footage of each school building • School transportation costs • Leasing costs • City of Peterborough planning report regarding the Lily Lake development • Accessibility summary report (“Quick Facts”) • Enrolment summary report (“Quick Facts”) • Secondary programming report (“Quick Facts”) • Five accommodation scenarios with pros and cons • Coloured boundary maps for each of the schools involved in the accommodation review • Preliminary market value real estate assessment for the four school properties ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Several of the issues raised in the meetings I had during this administrative review and in the written submissions I have reviewed fell outside the scope of the mandate for this review of the process. While these issues were raised with passion and commitment, they relate to the Board’s decision itself or to some perceived deficiencies that are not borne out as legitimate deviations from Board and Provincial policy once analyzed, rather than to the process used to conduct the Peterborough secondary schools accommodation review. I made this point repeatedly during all the discussions with various groups but it was a challenge for some people to remain focused on the process when they were so adamantly opposed to the decision itself. However, in my meeting with the petitioners and the group which supported the preparation of the petition, each presenter tried to root his/her presentation in perceived issues with the process itself. Written versions of each presentation were provided and the presentations of concerns were clearly articulated. Our meeting allowed for forthright discussion and respectful exchange. I appreciate the concerted effort made by members of the petitioners’ 9

group, and indeed, most presenters at the public meeting, to share their heartfelt perspectives in a concise and focussed way. The Board points out that while the petitioners in their request for an administrative review of the process have raised a number of concerns regarding the text of the Board’s Policy and its alleged inconsistency with the 2009 Guideline, these issues were not raised until after the decision was made on September 29, 2011 to close PCVS. It is true however, that members of the ARC did express concern about the format of the meetings and the pressures of time at several points along the way. Of course, it is natural that individuals and groups who are opposed to a decision would be motivated to comment on the process that led to that decision when they are dissatisfied with the outcome. That said, Board Policy No. BA-1.2, Pupil Accommodation Review: School Closure/ Consolidation is a very general document and several specific issues of concern to some ARC members, the petitioners and presenters at the public meeting are not directly addressed in the provisions of the policy. There may well be ways in which the policy and process could be improved to enhance community satisfaction and capacity for engagement. Suggestions will be included in this report to address the most pressing of these issues. Several issues relevant to the mandate of this facilitated review were raised in the original letter requesting the administrative review. In addition, some of these issues were reiterated in my meetings with the ARC, with the petitioners and in some of the presentations at the public meeting held on January18, 2012 and in the written submissions I considered. I will deal individually with each of the issues which, after careful examination, fall into the mandate of this administrative review and comment first on the perspectives of the petitioners and community members. I will then outline the Board’s responses to the identified issues. Finally, I will provide my analysis of each issue and make a determination about each in terms of whether or not it constituted a deviation from the process. The KPRDSB’s Pupil Accommodation Review: School Closure/Consolidation Policy BA- 1.2 is attached for reference in Appendix E.

ISSUE #1: General vs Specific Terms of Reference for the ARC Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspective The petitioners assert that the Terms of Reference provided to the ARC at the beginning of their work were not specific to this ARC. They believe “the Peterborough ARC was disadvantaged in its work by not having specific terms of reference tailored to the particular requirements of the issues they were asked to consider.”1 The petitioners objected to the fact that the Board referred to general terms of reference for ARCs and assert that “a unique mandate and specific Terms of Reference is to be provided for each study undertaken.”

1

Quotes in the “Analysis of Issues” section are drawn from either the petitioners’ request for an administrative review or the response of the KPRDSB to that request,unless otherwise indicated.

10

Board’s Response Section 5 of the Board Policy describes in detail the Terms of Reference for every ARC established there under. Copies of the Policy were provided to every member of the Peterborough ARC at the first Peterborough ARC meeting on February 3, 2011 and it was expected that they would read the Policy carefully. The Minutes of the first Peterborough ARC meeting reflect that the Chair of the ARC addressed the mandate of the ARC when he reviewed the Pupil Accommodation Review process included in Board Policy, BA-1.2 Pupil Accommodation Review: School Closure/Consolidation which was provided to the ARC members in advance of the committee’s first meeting. The Board states that the mandate of the committee was also apparent in the December 16, 2010 Staff Report that had led to the creation of the Peterborough ARC. This report was provided to members of the ARC and the affected schools were named in the recommendations of the December 16th report. The Board asserts that “It was obvious at all times that the “terms of reference” for the Peterborough ARC were directed towards the possible closure of one of the named schools.” The Board also states that “no complaint or concern was ever raised regarding the absence of “review-specific” terms of reference at any point during the course of the ARC’s deliberations.” Facilitator’s Perspective Board Policy, BA-1.2 Pupil Accommodation Review: School Closure/Consolidation in section 5.1 and 5.2 outlines in some detail the expectations for the work of an ARC. In creating the ARC for the City of Peterborough Secondary Schools and in naming the schools to be considered for closure or consolidation and ensuring appropriate representation from each of those schools in the membership of the ARC, it was apparent that the committee was to explore possible outcomes that would reduce the number of schools with excess capacity. It could be argued that the Board could use the terms of reference of an ARC as an opportunity to declare the Board’s specific goal in establishing a particular ARC. For example, in this case, the goal was to improve program options for students currently not well served by excess capacity and insufficient course options. Often, one of the motivations at the heart of an ARC is to dispose of a building in order to reduce expenditures make resources available for reinvestment in student achievement. No such disposal of facilities was contemplated in the initiation of this accommodation review. The focus on program improvement was clear in the December 16th report of Senior Staff to the Board. As a result, I believe the terms of reference were not in violation of the Board’s policy or the Provincial Guideline. While I do not believe it is reasonable to assert that the ARC was unaware of its mandate as it began its work, more elaboration of the mandate of the ARC at the outset of the first meeting to orient the ARC members could have been helpful and more consistent with the spirit of the Guideline.

ISSUE #2: Requirement to Provide Alternative Accommodation Option: Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspectives The petitioners assert that the Board failed to comply with the province’s Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline which states that:

11

“School boards must present to the ARC at least one alternative accommodation option that addresses the objectives and Reference Criteria outlined in the Terms of Reference. The option(s) will address where students would be accommodated; what changes to existing facilities may be required; what programs would be available to students; and transportation.” The petitioners claim state that: “The Board provided “no guidance to the Peterborough ARC regarding an alternative accommodation option until the third Peterborough ARC meeting date on April 7, 2011 which the petitioners consider to be much too late in the process. The guidance provided at that meeting was then not in the form of “accommodation options” as required by the Guidelines, but was merely an outline of simple scenarios involving the closures of each of the four schools under review and a final scenario of leaving all such schools open. These scenarios do not fulfill the specific requirements for accommodation options set out in the Guidelines and, even if intended as “options”, specifically did not address or include the required information regarding “what changes to existing facilities may be required” and “what programs would be available to students.” Board’s Response The Board believes that by providing the December 16th report to the Board to the ARC, the alternative accommodation option to the unsatisfactory status quo contemplated by the Board was the closure of one of the four schools and the consolidation of four school programmes into three. The Board asserts that this was very evident to all members of the ARC from the outset of their deliberations. The Board states that it did not wish to second guess the work of the ARC or in any way inhibit a real exploration of the options by identifying the closure of one school of the four as a preferred alternative option. The Board was also concerned that the provision of one alternative option would have “invited allegations” that the Board’s decision was predetermined in advance of the work of the ARC. The Board believes that “Board Administration, over the course of the ARC’s deliberations, presented options outlining the consequences of closing each of the four schools under review as well as the consequences of leaving the status quo intact.” The Board asserts that there was specific information regarding alternative accommodation options, specifically with respect to options that address where students would be accommodated; what changes to existing facilities may be required; what programs would be available to students; and transportation. They offered the following details: The Alternative Accommodation Options (scenarios), presented to the committee, clearly identified where students would be accommodated in accordance with each scenario. For example, Scenario A suggests that the closure of Adam Scott CVI and Adam Scott Int. would result in the movement and the accommodation of English and French Immersion students at TASSS, Scenario B outlines how students within the International Baccalaureate program would be accommodated at Adam Scott, etc. etc. Extensive discussion, as illustrated in ARC committee minutes, and noted in the Alternative Accommodation Options (scenarios), reviewed possible future changes to existing facilities with respect to the accessibility of each site.

12

As noted in the April 7, 2011 ARC Committee minutes, programs unique to each school, and possible changes to be considered as part of any transfer, were presented and discussed by the principals with the committee, including any limitations pertaining to the facility (e.g. moving a horticulture program to a school without a greenhouse, etc). The board’s position, and as presented in the facility condition information presented to the committee and in general discussion, is that all schools are in appropriate shape for learning and teaching. 1) As noted above, the Alternative Accommodation Options (scenarios), clearly identified what programs would be available to students, with specific reference in Option (scenario) C, that a re-purposing of PCVS would result in “all secondary students having a full range of facilities/programs.” 2) As noted in the February 28th ARC meeting Agenda and Minutes, a report called School Transportation Costs FAQs, outlining the transportation costs associated with each school as part of the review, was presented for review and discussion of the committee. Facilitator’s Perspective I understand the petitioners’ desire for fully detailed alternative options early in the process. The December 16th report of to the Board outlined the need for the reduction of pupil spaces in the interests of quality programming and outlined the schools to be considered for closure or consolidation in order to reach this goal. I have no doubt that the ARC was well aware of the general parameters of their task and that the scenarios provided at the third meeting provided detail about each school under review. However, I do believe that the provision of these scenarios came late in the process and would have been more helpful to the ARC had they been available earlier as there were only four meetings. These scenarios were presented at the third meeting. An early opportunity for detailed discussion of these accommodation options in working groups outside the context of the four public meetings and without delegations might have addressed the questions that some ARC members believed needed more extended discussion and clarification. Suggestions for how this might be accomplished are offered later in this report. Board Policy, BA-1.2 does not specifically state that detailed alternative accommodation scenarios will be provided, but Section 3 does state that Administration will prepare a full report for schools to be considered for the review process as outlined in the Data Collection Report in the administrative regulation supporting Board Policy, BA-1.2. This full report was provided and does specify details re program, facilities, and transportation. With respect to the condition of the school buildings and long-term planning, information was provided to the committee in the data collection reports and it is reflected in the minutes of the ARC as well as in the school information profiles. Within the school information profiles all four schools are identified as being kept at an "appropriate standard.” Detailed capital maintenance costs for each school were provided to the committee dating from 2003 and projecting out to 2025 and beyond thus addressing the need for changes to existing facilities. At the May 12th meeting the minutes reflect that there was discussion surrounding a "Ministry Audit" of the condition of the schools. The Superintendent of Business and Corporate Services advised the committee that the Ministry is in the process of updating the 2004 audits and that updates from the Ministry will be available in another year or so. A review of the documentation provided to the ARC including the Data Collection Report required by Section 3 of Board Policy, BA-1.2 13

indicates that the Board provided the information it had at its disposal regarding the condition of the facilities to the committee. In addition, the Board did provide information on program provision in each of the scenarios presented. It is my view that the Board complied with its basic obligations in regard to the provision of accommodation options. However, I believe that the structure, number and format of the four public meetings limited the breadth and depth of discussion that some felt was necessary to prepare appropriate recommendations to the Board regarding the accommodation options for the City of Peterborough secondary schools.

ISSUE #3: Failure to Provide for Full Community Involvement at the Time of the Board’s September 29th Decision. Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspectives The petitioners believe that the Board failed to provide for their full involvement after the June 23, 2011 administration report that recommended the closure of TASSS as the preferred option and PCVS as the second alternative for closure. Specifically, the petitioners assert that “the administration failed to establish an appropriate and publicized time frame and calendar during which the administration would complete its revisions and analysis for recommendation to the Board and provide for appropriate input from the local community.” The petitioners believe that the process was flawed as they were not given sufficient time to register as a delegation to the Board on the night of the Board’s final decision. Their objection arises from the decision of the administration to recommend for trustees’ consideration at the September 29, 2011 meeting the second rather than the first option, as articulated in the June 23rd report to the Board. This same concern was raised by Municipal representatives with whom I met. Board’s Response The Board’s policy does not address public comment on staff recommendations to the Board. The Board’s position was that the Provincial Guideline “does not purport to regulate the manner by which board administrators analyze the final reports of ARCs.” Specifically, the Guideline does not require anything of Board Administration in terms of publicizing its analytical process or in terms of obtaining public input during the course of that analysis. The Guideline simply states on page 6: “The ARC will present its Accommodation Report to the Board of Trustees. Board administration will examine the ARC Accommodation Report and present the administration analysis and recommendations to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees will make the final decision regarding the future of the school(s).” The Board points out that the Administration’s recommendation to close TASSS as a first option was contingent upon a feasibility study that would determine if the associated costs were doable and that the closure of PCVS was a clearly understood second option should the feasibility study demonstrate that the re-purposing of TASSS was not economically viable. Indeed, the Board points out that when the Board met on August 25, 2011, even when the Board was awaiting the results of the feasibility study and the closure of TASSS was still the first option, “there were nevertheless delegations to the Board (2 announced and 2 unannounced) in support of keeping PCVS open, involving three of the six signatories to the letter requesting the current administrative review. This demonstrates that concerned

14

supporters of PCVS (and specifically those requesting the Review in this case) remained well aware of the potential for the closure of PCVS as of August 25, 2011.” The Board asserts that: “From the outset of the Peterborough ARC process, the publicly available Critical Path identified September 29, 2011 as the date upon which the final decision of the Board would be made. The ‘PCVS Community’ very clearly recognized the implications of the Feasibility Study and the subsequent press release – 21 of 33 delegations made to the Board at its September 29, 2011 meeting were made by supporters of PCVS.” In the Board’s view, the petitioners and concerned community members were heard at every step along the way, including at the September 29th meeting. The Board argues further that as soon as possible after the results of the feasibility study were available on September 16, 2011, the results of the study were posted on the Board’s website and the Director and Chair issued a public statement indicating that, based on the feasibility study, the board could not support moving the administration centre to TASSS. Facilitator’s Perspective I understand the petitioners’ frustration that the time between the receipt of the feasibility report, which effectively eliminated the re-purposing of TASSS as a first option to address excess capacity and improve programming, and the Board’s decision to close and re-purpose PCVS was extremely short. That said, I don’t think there can be any doubt that all affected parties were well aware of the implications of the June 23rd report and the sequence of recommendations therein, as well as the publicly available critical path leading to the Board’s decision on September 29, 2011. This is clearly demonstrated in the consistent focus of the petitioners and others on making presentations to the Board and in continued activity in public opposition to the possibility of PCVS being considered for re-purposing. Board Policy, BA-1.2 does not speak to any expectation that the Board would reconvene community consultation after the ARC’s recommendations are accepted and considered in the preparation of the final report to the Board on the recommended course of action. The Guideline does not speak to the involvement of community in the Board’s ultimate response to the Administration’s final recommendations. I do not find the timeline for the decision or the public involvement surrounding the critical path to be a violation of Board policy or the Provincial Guideline. While there are no technical violations, it is understandable that some community members were concerned that there was no specific information about the details of the closure and re-purposing of PCVS prior to the board meeting when the decision was made. I would like to note however that the June 23, 2011 report to the Board indicated that the closure and repurposing of PCVS, if pursued, would include the retention of the site for use in providing alternate student programming.

ISSUE #4: Impact of the Places to Grow Act (Ontario) in the ARC’s Consideration of Value to the Community Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspective The petitioners assert that the ARC process failed to give significant weight to the potential impact of closure of PCVS on Peterborough’s downtown core. More specifically, they claim that 15

the ARC was not sufficiently informed about the implications of the Places to Grow Act (Ontario) which directs certain municipalities to establish strategies to revitalize and bring intensification to downtown communities. They believe that the discussion that took place at the third meeting of the ARC on the Peterborough Central Area Master Plan was limited only to speculation on potential enrolment and did not emphasize the importance of “strengthening communities”. For the purpose of this assertion the petitioners are defining “community” as the downtown core of Peterborough rather than the entire city of Peterborough. Board’s Response In its response to the request for an Administrative Review, the Board stated: “The request for an administrative review reflects a fundamental disagreement between the understandable perspective of the petitioners and that of the Board regarding the notion of ‘community’ as it relates to the directions in the Guidelines regarding ‘impact on the community’. Whereas the petitioners regard the ‘community’ affected as ‘the downtown core’, the Board perceives the issues confronting the Peterborough ARC to have related to the broader community of the City of Peterborough as a whole.” At the February 3, 2011 ARC meeting the Growth Plan and a professional planning opinion concerning growth potential for the City of Peterborough Urban Growth Centre, amongst other matters, were provided to the ARC for their information and consideration. The resulting enrolment projections also presented to the ARC reflected a consideration of these same matters. And again, at the April 7, 2011, ARC meeting, an overview and specific information from the City of Peterborough’s Planning Department, including extensive excerpts from a report made by the city planning department in 2009 April, Planning Peterborough to 2031: How the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) will affect the City of Peterborough, was shared with the committee through the Enrolment Quick Facts. This information has been publicly available on the Board’s website since that time. In the Board’s view, the closure of PCVS and the re-use of the PCVS building are consistent with the Places to Grow Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in using public dollars to maintain community infrastructure in order to create complete communities. The Growth Plan envisions balanced and complete communities that keep pace with changing needs. The Growth Plan further requires community facilities to be provided efficiently and effectively. The Board asserts that it was mindful of and shared information about the Growth Plan’s objectives as it consulted with the community through the ARC. The Board is charged with providing a quality education for all of its students, and in the Board’s view, the closure and re-purposing of the PCVS building achieves this. Facilitator’s Perspective While conducting this administrative review, I had the opportunity to speak with Municipal leaders including the Mayor of Peterborough and the Chief of Police about their perspectives on the accommodation review of the Peterborough’s secondary schools. Their observations did not deal with the process or its alignment to Board or provincial policy. These City leaders acknowledged the declining enrolment issues which the Board is facing and recognized the need to provide high-quality programming for all secondary schools students in the City. They all spoke about the important contribution schools make to vibrant social and economic life of a community and expressed the view that PCVS made such a contribution particularly to the 16

downtown core. They recognized that the School Board is aware of the significant impact the presence of schools has on the growth and prosperity of communities and neighbourhoods. The Places to Grow Act of 2005 gives the Ontario Government authority to designate growth plan areas and develop growth plans. Municipalities must ensure that their official plans conform to the growth plan for their area where one exists. While it is clear that the Places to Grow Act has jurisdiction over Municipal governments and not directly over school boards, in my experience school boards work closely with municipalities around growth plans. In this case, both municipal officials and school board representatives in Peterborough spoke of their collaboration in determining demographic forecasts and their discussion of the impact of declining enrolment on the provision of high-quality secondary education in the City of Peterborough. There is no doubt that there is a definite conviction in the minds of the many with whom I spoke that schools add tremendously to the success and appeal of communities and there is a particular concern regarding maintaining and expanding a dynamic downtown core. It is probably fair to say that the Municipal leaders with whom I spoke would prefer to see PCVS remain a secondary school, just as they lament the absence of elementary schools to feed a secondary school in the downtown core, but none of these leaders asserted any view that the Board had failed to consider the impact of school closure on communities. Rather the perception was that this was considered along with many other factors affecting the Board’s capacity to provide excellent programming in a declining enrolment context. This is appropriate, based on the responsibilities of school boards to support student achievement and make effective use of resources. It is worth noting that the re-purposing of PCVS to provide alternative programming for students 16-21, as well as continuing education credit and non-credit courses for adults and space for community agencies, will ensure that there is ongoing presence of students and staff in the downtown community, while maintaining the building for other possibilities. Such possibilities are suggested in the Central Area Master Plan of the Planning Division of the City of Peterborough where there is reference to exploring opportunities “to establish an institutional and academic hub in the Central Area which…may provide a unique environment for the delivery of specialized programs in satellite environments where there already exists clusters of supportive activities or facilities such as performance venues, galleries, social and human service agencies” (Chapter 5, page 4).The Board is exploring possible use of space at PCVS with Trent University as well as community agencies and local service agencies. During the consideration of the various accommodation scenarios, the view was expressed by staff, some ARC members and some community members that the potential redirection of the Integrated Arts program to TASSS, which is 2.2 kilometres away from PCVS, would not result in significantly reduced connection to downtown cultural venues and organizations as the program will still rely on those links and, for the most part, the teachers of the program who helped forge those connections will still be with the program. It was stated by the principals of the affected schools, members of the Board of KPRDSB, Senior Administration and some members of the ARC that transition planning will take advantage of the proximity of the other schools including the new home of the Integrated Arts program to foster and expand opportunities for all students within the City of Peterborough to experience and connect with “downtown” arts centres, theatres and venues. I think it is fair to say that the ARC suffered from a lack of time to allow full discussion of these possibilities among its members, but I am satisfied that an overview and information from the City of Peterborough’s Planning Department was provided to the ARC along with reference to 17

the Peterborough Central Area Master Plan and the Places to Grow Act. I also believe that the Board considered the range of social and economic impacts that school closure has on communities in their accommodation review process and therefore, did not violate either their own policy or the spirit of the Provincial Guideline regarding “taking into account other government initiatives aimed at strengthening communities.”

ISSUE #5: Number of Meetings of the ARC and Facilitation of the Work of the ARC A.) Number of Meetings of the ARC Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspective The petitioners, many members of the ARC and many community observers expressed frustration with the limitation of the ARC meetings to a maximum of four public meetings. In their request for an administrative review, the petitioners argue that the Guideline provides that: “At a minimum, ARCs are required to hold four public meetings to consult about the School Information Profile, the accommodation options, and the ARC Accommodation Report.” The petitioners believe that Section 5.5 of the Board Policy which prescribes that the ARC “shall meet on a maximum of four occasions for the purpose of seeking input and community feedback on options for accommodating students who may be affected by a school closure or consolidation” limited the ability of the Peterborough ARC to undertake a thorough and complete review. They claim that this limit was acknowledged by Board members during the final Peterborough ARC meeting held on May 26, 2011, but that no corrective action was taken even when some ARC members requested a fifth meeting. “Instead of making appropriate adjustments for a mistaken process that the Board itself deemed to be flawed, the ARC chair continued to insist the ‘maximum four meeting’ position be maintained and governed the meetings accordingly.” The petitioners point out that Section 8.2 of the Board Policy allows the Board to extend the any time period prescribed by the Board Policy. They expressed great frustration with what they considered to be inflexibility by the Board in failing to ascent to “repeated requests for additional meeting times or extensions of the duration of meetings.” They point out that acting on Section 8.2 of the Board Policy and allowing for an extension of the number or duration of meetings would have permitted non-public committee deliberation on the presentations made during the four public meetings and/or further discussion and clarification of the materials they had been asked to consider in their deliberations. They also point to the fact that a motion to approve the continuation of the last meeting of the ARC at a later predetermined time and date was moved and seconded by members of the Peterborough ARC, was “ruled” out of order by the Peterborough ARC Chair on the basis that the Peterborough ARC was bound by the maximum four meeting rule. Board’s Response The Board responded by stating that changing the number of meetings would have added to the pain and distress that the accommodation review had already caused. They further asserted that given that “the number of ARC meetings is fixed by Board Policy,” and if additional meetings allowed, other members of the Peterborough community who had not asked for additional meetings could “quite properly complain that the Board was not following its policy.”

18

They also point out that “the Critical Path for the Peterborough ARC was publicized at the outset of the process. No issue was taken at that time with either the Policy or the Critical Path in this regard.” With respect to the last meeting of the ARC and the need for more time, the Board pointed out that: “[T]he Chair of the Peterborough ARC did agree, as a point of order, to permit a motion to be made to “recess” the last ARC meeting on May 12, 2011 to be reconvened at the same location the following afternoon. This was designed, given the late hour, to allow students and working persons a chance to get some sleep, to attend to their duties of the following day and resume to the discussion precisely where it left off the night before. This suggestion was not adopted. The motion that was ruled out of order was a motion to reconvene the ARC five days later. This was viewed as, in effect, an attempt to create a fifth meeting of the ARC, in violation of both the Policy and the critical path established by the Board for the ARC.” Facilitator’s Perspective There is no question that Board Policy, BA-1.2 does stipulate a maximum of four public meetings for the ARC and that the policy also stipulates in Section 8.2 that the Board can, by motion extend any timeframe. There is also no question that many members of the ARC and many community members were very concerned that the four meetings of the ARC devoted a great deal of time to hearing public presentations. It appears that the ARC process afforded only limited opportunity for ARC members to have in-depth dialogue among themselves to process and analyze the information that was provided. (I note that the motion to recess was not adopted because it was felt by the majority the recess until the next afternoon would not have met the work needs of the community members and some staff with family obligations on such short notice.) Frustration and disappointment was expressed by many that, in their view, the Board process prevented full participation by the community due to lack of time to go beyond simply asking each member to provide their views on the matters at hand or ask questions for clarification. Some members expressed the view that they would have preferred to engage each other at a higher level by sharing interests, issues and ideas perhaps in small working groups where members could reflect and discuss outside the “fishbowl” of the four public meetings. Some asserted that there was very limited dialogue focussed on addressing the information and issues as a group. I believe these concerns genuinely reflected a limitation on the ARC. As competing needs, values and priorities arose, largely through presentations to the ARC during the four public meetings, many felt that the ARC was seriously limited in its opportunities to develop in-depth understandings of options in order to reach a collective perspective and make the compromises necessary for the ARC to complete its challenging work. The Board Policy does stipulate a maximum of four meetings so it is obvious that the decision to stay with that number of meetings is not a violation of the policy. The Chair of the ARC was within his technical rights to rule the motion for an extra meeting out of order. There is also little to suggest that an additional public meeting in a “fishbowl” context with further delegations would have achieved the desired outcome of more fruitful discussion among ARC members. In fact, several ARC members, including several who declared satisfaction with the ARC process, expressed the view that another public meeting devoted primarily to delegations would not have

19

been helpful and might have even further exacerbated the frustration experienced by many members of the ARC and the general tension associated with the process. However, it is also clear that the provision in Section 8.2 in Board Policy, BA-1.2 which allows a change to the timeframe for the meetings by Board motion was not utilized as it might have been to address the legitimate concerns that some ARC members had about the need for further exploration and discussion. An additional working meeting of the ARC could have been arranged by implementing the provisions of Section 8.2 of the Board Policy. In fact, I believe that the establishment of working groups of the committee or meetings of the whole committee with no delegations would have significantly enhanced the efficacy of the committee and the quality of its work. Regarding the issue of public transparency, this has been addressed in several other jurisdictions by reporting on the deliberations of working groups at a public meeting through the minutes of the working groups or by holding working meetings of the ARC where the public can attend but only as observers. When an ARC has a large number of members, the working group solution is often effective. An added benefit to these arrangements is the avoidance of the problem of committee members attempting to communicate in a large room where seeing and hearing each other can prove difficult as it did in the Peterborough ARC according to many participants. In my discussions with the Director of Education, he indicated that he understands this issue and that this idea can and should be incorporated into the revision of the policy which is underway. While the Provincial Guideline speaks only to a minimum number of public consultation meetings, a requirement the Board met by having four meetings, I believe allowing additional working meetings of the ARC would support the objectives of the Guideline. In general, allowing for the possibility of additional public consultation meetings where required would also be more consistent with the Guideline. B.) Facilitation of the Work of the ARC Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspective In their request for a review of the process, the petitioners assert that the “Senior Board administration continually disregarded this requirement and impeded the work of the Peterborough ARC. Information requested by the Peterborough ARC throughout the Process was consistently not delivered by senior Board administration in a timely manner.” They particularly cite requests for information regarding “enrolment data for the related Catholic Board, an accessibility summary report, school transportation costs, operating costs, projected capital costs, leasing costs, and the market value assessments of the identified schools.” Significant concerns were expressed by Peterborough ARC members that the Facility Condition Index, provided by Senior Board administration, was out of date. Board Response The Board flatly denies that the Senior Administration of the Board failed to facilitate the work of the ARC by the provision of the required information. They state that petitioners’ list of areas where they claim to have been under-supported “identifies the breadth of the demands placed, often with little or no notice, upon Senior Administration. Many of these requests were completely unanticipated and many of them required highly involved analyses of matters and comparisons that had not been previously undertaken.”

20

With particular reference to the Facility Condition Index, it was explained to ARC members that these figures were generated by a Ministry audit conducted in 2003 and were no longer current. The Board believes that the ARC was provided with updated information regarding facility conditions “to the extent possible.” The Board strenuously disputes the claim that Administration blocked the provision of information and states: “In all cases, Senior Administration made its best efforts to facilitate the work of the Peterborough ARC and provided all requested information as soon as it became available. Their support of the Peterborough ARC was entirely consistent with Board Policy.” Facilitator’s Perspective I believe that, as observed in Section A of my response, the ARC had limited time as a group to absorb and digest the material that was presented to them due to the extent of the time devoted to delegations at their meetings. I also believe that there were requests for information that required time to respond to and therefore, when the information was provided, time may not have permitted a full exploration of the material, although I am told materials were sent to ARC members in between meetings for their review in preparation for the next meeting. However, after reviewing the minutes of the meetings and the accumulation of material provided to the ARC and the comments made to me by the entire membership of the ARC, both during my meeting with them and in several written submissions which were sent to me after that meeting, I do not find that the majority of the ARC members found the provision of information to be wanting. In fact, many said they were at times overwhelmed by the amount of information which they received. I conclude the information provided was consistent with board policy. That said, there was a lack of time to explore the material and have meaningful dialogue. The suggestions offered later in this report will provide some approaches to effectively responding to emerging questions during the ARC’s deliberations.

ISSUE #6: Directives to Staff Regarding Involvement in the Process Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspectives Some petitioners and a few community members have raised an issue regarding direction to staff regarding their participation in this Accommodation Review Process. The concern centred on two emails that were sent to staff. I will deal with these two communications separately as follows: A.) The first was sent by the Chair of the ARC, Don Blair, to the Chair of the PCVS School Council and copied to ARC members, the Chair of the KPRDSB, and Senior Staff. It was sent in response to an inquiry from the Chair of the PCVS School Council wherein she requested clarity on the role of teachers in the Accommodation Review process. In her inquiry, she stated that, given the information sent out with the agenda for the ARC and her experience at the first meeting of the ARC on February 3, 2011, “it would appear that a precedent has been set to allow them to voice their opinion.” In the Chair Blair’s email, he outlined the two meetings he had held with the local branch of OSSTF “to discuss the ARC process and the involvement of OSSTF members as Committee members, KPRDSB employees and community members.” In the email, Chair Blair states the following: “The direction given by me and the OSSTF provincial executive was that when expressing opinions they should be fair and positive. Any comment made by an employee that reflects negatively upon the policies and 21

procedures of the Board may be dealt with as a disciplinary matter.” Those who raised this concern felt that some teachers may have been intimidated by the reference to “a disciplinary matter” in this context. B.) The second email that caused some concern was sent by Superintendent Peter Mangold to a PCVS teacher who was seeking direction regarding staff participation in the activities of the group opposing the Board’s September 29, 2011 decision to repurpose PCVS. Superintendent Mangold’s response was as follows: “After consultation, meetings held prior to the Board decision were acceptable; however, attendance at any meetings held after the September 29th Board meeting even without active participation suggest tacit support for activities which would be contrary to school board direction. I hope that clarifies things.” Those who raised this email as an issue felt that it limited staff participation unfairly. Board’s Response The Board meet with the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) and discussed the involvement of teachers prior to the commencement of the ARC. At no time during the accommodation review process up to the time of the Board’s decision, were staff directed not to offer their viewpoints or make pointed comments if they chose. Rather, they were asked to do so constructively by both the Federation and the Board. The Board’s response to the concern regarding the two emails was as follows: A.) At the February 3, 2011 ARC meeting, the first of four, a staff member of the board publicly made negative comments regarding one particular school and school community. These comments heightened tension within this meeting, and subsequent to its conclusion, and was seen as emblematic of the possibility of an adversarial dynamic developing between school communities as the ARC progressed. These comments had also been subject of discussion between D. Blair and ARC committee members in the time between this meeting and the distribution of the February 24, 2011 email. The email from Chair Blair was sent in response to an inquiry from the Chair of PCVS School Council and in the context of the negative comments made at the first ARC meeting. This joint board and OSSTF direction was summarized by Chair Blair as “when expressing opinions they should be fair and positive.” In essence, the intent was that comments made should be constructive and contributing to the effectiveness of the process. Chair Blair continued the February 24, 2011 note by suggesting that negative comments by staff were not appropriate and may be dealt with as a disciplinary matter. From the Board’s perspective, this concluding comment by Chair Blair needs to be viewed in light of its context and timing. The board asserts that the email was sent in an effort to lessen, wherever possible, the prospect of staff members making negative comments regarding any of the schools within the review as part of the public ARC process, or during the course of their normal duties. That said, the Board acknowledges that reference to possible “disciplinary action” in this email was ill advised.

22

B.) Superintendent Mangold’s email was sent in response to an inquiry seeking direction. The Board believes the direction he offered was appropriate as it dealt with staff openly opposing and publicly criticizing the Board’s decision after it was made on September 29, 2011. Facilitator’s Perspective On March 30, 2011 a joint memorandum was sent to all staff of the KPRDSB from the Director of Education and the Federation and Union Presidents of KPR Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO), Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) 5555, OSSTF District 14, ETFO Occasional and OSSTF District 14 Occasional. This memorandum is attached to this report as Appendix D. The March 30th memorandum indicates a high level of understanding and co-operation regarding the involvement of teachers in the accommodation review process. This was confirmed in my meeting with the President of OSSTF District 14 and several representatives of CUPE. I was also informed that all OSSTF members were invited to attend an ARC information meeting on January 25, 2011 with Chair Blair, the Director and the OSSTF Executive. Despite this meeting being advertised well ahead of time, only seven members chose to attend and those in attendance were concerned primarily about staffing issues that might arise should a closure occur. This small attendance was interpreted as an indication that OSSTF members generally felt well-informed about the process and did not require further clarification. In my discussions with principals and other staff both in the four schools I visited and when I met with members of the ARC, the vast majority of teachers said that they felt comfortable in expressing their views. There was some indication by one member of the ARC that some teachers at PCVS were uneasy about expressing their views during the process. These are my observations on the two emails discussed above: A.) The first email from Chair Blair was sent in response to a question from the Chair of a School Council and was not sent to school staff as a directive. I believe that in the main, it did represent the advice that both the Board and the OSSTF wished to convey regarding teachers expressing their views reasonably and constructively. The reference to negative reflection on the Board policy and procedures resulting in possible disciplinary action was ill-advised and the Board regrets the use of those words. B.) The second email sent by Superintendent Mangold was in response to a direct question and was, in my view, a genuine effort to indicate the appropriate behaviour of a Board employee in speaking of Board decisions. I do not find this direction unreasonable. I understand that some teachers were involved in activities protesting the Board’s decision and no action was taken by the Board as there was a recognition of the deeply passionate views held by some teachers regarding the Board’s decision and it was felt some latitude was in order despite the normal expectations of employers that employees will refrain from attempting to undermine their organization’s decisions. In a charged situation where opposing views are expressed vigorously and frequently, ensuring all voices can be heard can be challenging. I am convinced that most staff felt free to participate in the ARC process and that they were not directed to refrain from comment as options were being considered. They were however, expected to refrain from deleterious remarks about schools, students, communities and colleagues. It is clear that at least one teacher was 23

definitely directed in an email responding to an inquiry not to take part in openly opposing the Board decision once it was made.

ISSUE #7: Consideration of Partnerships Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspectives: The petitioners assert that “the Board did not take into consideration partnerships in general, took no pro-active steps to source or evaluate partnership opportunities and did not inform the Peterborough ARC about partnership potential or the requirement that it be considered at the ‘beginning of the process.’” Board’s Response The Board responds to this concern regarding information about partnerships by stating that the Board has been in regular dialogue with Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, Sir Sandford Fleming College and Trent University regarding possible shared use of space. The Board points out that the Provincial Guideline requires that “the Board’s long-term planning has taken partnership possibilities into account.” The Director stated that he pursued the needs of other appropriate institutions throughout the accommodation review, including discussions with the Ontario Science Centre when the Board was considering all the implications of a move of the Education Centre to TASSS. The Board acknowledges that “the Administration erred technically in not advising the ARC at the beginning of the Review process about the lack of partnership opportunities.” When questions about partnership arose from the ARC, the Board made the point that although partnerships, when they are available, can help with operational costs, they don’t address the key issue of having sufficient program options available for students. Facilitator’s Perspective The Board met its obligations with respect to “taking partnership possibilities into account” in this Accommodation Review. It is unfortunate that this information was not formally communicated to the ARC at the beginning of the process, although the limitations of partnerships in addressing the programming needs of students in Peterborough’s secondary schools were discussed with the ARC by the time that their recommendations were formed at the last meeting of the ARC. The timing notwithstanding, the fact is that there are no viable partnerships possibilities with the exception of the potential use of some space in one of the Board’s facilities by Trent University.

ISSUE #8: Consensus Model for Decisions Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspectives In asserting that real consensus was not reached at the fourth meeting of the ARC regarding the Committee’s final report the petitioners refer to Board Policy, Section 5.6 which states: “Accommodation Review Committee will complete their decision making process using a consensus model for decisions”; that “All committee members shall have the opportunity to provide input” and that “each committee member have the opportunity to express their opinion, be listened to and accept a group decision based on its logic and feasibility 24

considering all relevant factors”. It further provides that “As the committee works towards consensus, the needs of all students in the schools(s) being reviewed are to be considered objectively and fairly, based on the School Information Profile(s) and the Board’s education and accommodation expectations outlined in the Terms of Reference”. Finally, it provides that: “When an Accommodation Review Committee is unable to reach consensus on recommendations to be made to the Board, the issues, concerns and factors contributing to the impasse will be noted in the final report to the Board.” According to the petitioners, the consensus model for decision-making required by the Board Policy was not properly implemented as there was in the petitioners’ view insufficient time for the 34 members of the ARC “to express their opinions and be listened to.” The petitioners also point to the decision of the Peterborough ARC Chair to deny a motion to convene another meeting at a further time and date for deliberation. The petitioners believe that the consensus model was abandoned and a voting process was imposed “preceded by very little discussion.” They further point out that approximately one third of the committee members opposed this motion or abstained from voting and that all three of the independent members of the Peterborough ARC (i.e. those who were not students or parents of a particular school or employees of the Board) were signatories to the minority dissenting report which was sent to the ARC Chair. Board’s Response The Board disagrees that the consensus model for decision making was ignored at the final meeting of the Peterborough ARC on May 12, 2011.The statement that the ARC members were “given less than three (3) hours” to reach consensus suggests that more time was necessary. As stated, the 34 members of the ARC were invited by the Chair to consider recessing the May 12 meeting until the following afternoon. This option was not pursued. The Board asserts that the Policy expressly does not anticipate ‘consensus’ meaning unanimity. Section 5.6 states: “Unanimity is not the goal but rather the opportunity for each committee member to have had the opportunity to express their opinion, be listened to and accept a group decision based on its logic and feasibility considering all relevant factors.” As stated, no ARC member was told their time was up. The Board acknowledges that given a committee of 34 members, the expectation of ‘consensus’ on an issue as divisive as school closures may be ‘somewhat ambitious’. And it is of course, always possible to argue that ‘more discussion’ would have led to ‘true consensus’. Having said that, a little over two thirds of the members of the Peterborough ARC, 22 individuals, affirmatively supported the final recommendation with 8 opposed and 2 abstentions. (The Chair did not vote and one member was absent.) Section 5.6 of the Policy obviously anticipates that achievement of consensus may not be possible. It states: “When an Accommodation Review Committee is unable to reach consensus on recommendations to be made to the Board, the issues, concerns and factors contributing to the impasse will be noted in the final report to the Board.” The Board argues that: “As the meeting in question wore on, members began to ask how the deliberations might be concluded. The Chair facilitated this discussion by offering the alternative of a vote. This process appeared generally agreeable and so was undertaken.” Even had the Chair proposed that a vote be taken, the Board states their view very strongly on this matter: “Nothing prohibits a Chair from asking a committee to entertain a motion. … The 25

Board does not accept that any guidance given to the Peterborough ARC in this regard by its Chair was untoward, let alone a “breach of protocol”.” The Board agrees that the Report of the Peterborough ARC did not refer to the issues, concerns and factors that contributed to the impasse between the authors of the minority report and the rest of the Peterborough ARC. This was only required in the event of a lack of consensus. As stated, the Board believes consensus was achieved and Board Policy BA-1.2 does not require unanimity. However, the minority report did outline the reasons why its authors did not support the recommendations and this report was provided to all trustees in their information package for the May 26, 2011 Board Meeting at which the Report of the Peterborough ARC was received. In addition, two of the signatories of the minority report, both presented as unannounced delegations at the May 26th Board meeting where they outlined their concerns. The Board was well aware of the minority concerns. Facilitator’s Perspective Twenty-two of the thirty-four members of the ARC present at the final meeting indicated their support for the proposed recommendations. Eight indicated their opposition and two members abstained; one member was absent. The Chair did not participate in the response except to call for it. Some members of the ARC indicated that they believe the indication of support was called for in order to gauge whether general consensus was possible. It appears that there is no technical violation of the Board policy as the more than a two-thirds majority who expressed approval of the proposed ARC recommendations can arguably be called a ‘general consensus’. The policy does not call for unanimity. That said, it was widely reported to me that the last meeting of the ARC was extremely tense for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the denial of the request for an additional meeting in the near future at a later date other than the recess that was offered and rejected for the next afternoon. For reasons articulated under Issue #5(A) above, I believe this tension was exacerbated by what was perceived by some to be a rejection of an opportunity to pursue a more “true consensus” through further discussion. There is no way to know if such a meeting would have made a difference at this point in the process. It is possible that it might have dispelled some of the sense the petitioners have that the recommendations were hastily arrived at. More importantly, it might have served as a formal opportunity for public input directly to the ARC on their proposed recommendations before they were finalized. That said, many members of the ARC who supported the final recommendations of the ARC indicated in comments to me and in written submissions that those who dissented from the recommendations would not have been persuaded in a future meeting. Like several other aspects of the process, working group opportunities to discuss the nature of possible recommendations outside the ‘fishbowl’ would probably have improved the process. There were many indications that the format, structure and physical arrangements of the ARC meetings were not conducive to the informal, exploratory dialogue that most often leads to consensus. I strongly recommend that the review of the Board policy that the ARC recommended, and that I understand is currently underway, should result in a policy that is more specific about how the 26

ARC can come to its final conclusions. Seeking strong consensus in a group this large with several schools under review is probably unrealistic. It is my view that some kind of voting mechanism should be designed and specifically articulated in the Board policy. Several other school districts have spelled out such mechanisms in their policies. While not everyone is necessarily happy at the end when these approaches are implemented, the process for coming to conclusion is clearly understood at the beginning of the process and guides the final discussions which are quite regularly contentious. ISSUE #9: Completion of School Information Profiles Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspectives The petitioners claim that the School Information Profiles (SIPs) were deficient in the following ways: • The categories of “community value” and “economic value” were collapsed into one category. In the view of the petitioners, this prevented full consideration of both aspects. • The Board policy fails to provide for consideration of circumstances where a school is “the sole school in a downtown community of the broader area under review and the factors and criteria for evaluation suggested for single community schools were appropriate and should have been considered by the Peterborough ARC.” In the view of the petitioners, these alleged deficiencies resulted in excluding some factors such as the extent to which a school “attracts or retains families in the community” and does not focus broadly enough on extracurricular activities and student participation but rather places too much emphasis on school grounds as a support for physical activity. Board’s Response: The Board argues the petitioners’ perspective on this issue vigorously. I believe that the Board’s opinion is clearly represented in their response to the petitioners’ request for an administrative review: “The petitioners’ comments in this area address two issues. One concerns the format in which issues concerning the “value” of a school, considered from various perspectives, are addressed. Specifically, is it permissible for a Board or an ARC to consolidate the “value to the community” and “value to the local economy” components of a School Information Profile (SIP) into a combined consideration. The Board maintains that the Guidelines are not nearly so prescriptive as that, and are satisfied if the SIPs employed by an ARC are sufficient to achieve their intended purpose. … The second issue again reflects a disagreement with the Board regarding the breadth of the “community” in question. Obviously, if one interprets the word “community” in an increasingly narrow sense, it is always possible to describe a particular secondary school as “the only school within the community”, unless it is across the street from another secondary school. This cannot be the intent of the Guidelines since, by this test, every ARC would have to consider every school as “the only school in the community”. The Board has interpreted the term “community” more broadly. By the Board’s interpretation, there are presently four secondary schools in the Peterborough community. Consequently, the Guidelines’ suggestions regarding impact assessments for “single school communities” were inapplicable in the context of the Peterborough ARC. … 27

Even if “community” is interpreted narrowly, the anticipated “closure” of PCVS is, in the Board’s estimation, unlikely to cause “downtown core” residents to move 3 km simply to be closer to one of the remaining three schools.” Apart from money spent by students and staff at lunch, the financial impact on the downtown core will be non-existent, as will the impact on the economy of the “community” of Peterborough as a whole. And as stated, the re-use of PCVS (adult education/community use centre) will substantially mitigate the effects of the relocation of the existing student body on the “local economy” of the “downtown core”, assuming that is a consideration relevant to the Guidelines.” The petitioners now take issue with the fact that two of the categories “suggested” by the Guidelines were collapsed into one and that disproportionate weight was allegedly given to the value to certain factors, allegedly diminishing emphasis on the “local economy”. ... As evidenced by the minutes of the meeting, no one took issue with the final format of the SIP used in this case at any point prior to the Board’s decision on September 29, 2011. This is despite the express, repeated invitation by the ARC Chair at the first meeting of February 3, 2011 to members of the ARC to suggest desired modifications to the SIP format they would be using... The Board argues that the combination of the categories in no way diminished the ARC capacity to reflect on the contributions made by the schools to the City of Peterborough. Further the Board points out that its process with many opportunities for public deputation both to the ARC and the Board combined with the SIPs provided more than adequate information on the perceived impact of closures on “the local economy” surrounding all four schools. In all, 113 delegations presented to the Board and there were 57 delegations presented to the ARC. Facilitator’s Perspective I do not believe that the collapsing of the two categories of value to the community and value to the economy distorted the intent of the Board policy or the Provincial Guideline directing Boards to consider value in a variety of ways. Between the discussion around the SIPs and the many deputations to the ARC and the Board, there is no doubt that the particular circumstances of the “downtown” neighbourhood in the City of Peterborough were discussed. The salient factor is that the Board established an ARC to review four secondary schools within a two to four mile radius and thus, defined community for the purpose of this review, as a consideration of the impact of potential re-purposing and closure on the City of Peterborough. I found the argument the Board makes regarding the compensating impact of the re-purposed “downtown school” persuasive. Even with programs such as Integrated Arts that are currently situated in the ‘downtown” school redirected to other schools, the nature of those programs will require that engagement with the art and culture venues and local businesses in the downtown core will continue. When a review involves four schools, the overall impact of change for the whole community concerned has to be the central focus. The Board did not violate its own policy in this regard nor did it ignore Provincial policy. It is also important to note that the ARC did not respond to an invitation to change the SIP format when that opportunity was made available. Several members of the ARC commented both in our meeting and in written submissions that they found the format sufficiently clear. Most members of the ARC expressed the view that the SIPs when considered in combination with the 28

information provided to the ARC by many delegations provided sufficient detail to allow for an awareness of the variables in each site. Several commented on the efficacy of the school visits to further understanding of the possible options. That said, as referenced earlier, the discussion time of the ARC meetings was limited and working group meetings might have enhanced opportunities for dialogue and further exploration. Several people suggested a refinement to the process which might have helped the discussion on the SIPs to be more in-depth. This suggestion is well articulated in the following quote from the submission of one community member: “Much of the committee meeting time was spent providing and updating the school profile information which should have been completed before the meetings began (school administration could easily have done this). The scenarios presented at the last meeting should have been presented right off the start. On the positive, the tours for members should continue. This was very helpful as I had not been in most areas of any of the schools.”

ISSUE #10: ARC Determination of Presenter the Final Report and Public Meeting Regarding the Final SRC Recommendations A.) ARC Determination of Presenter of the Final Report Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspectives Regarding the determination of the presenter the final report of the ARC to the KPRDSB Board, the Board Policy in Section 5.2.5 provides that: “The Accommodation Review Committee will determine who will present the final Accommodation Report and recommendations to the trustees.” In their letter requesting the administrative review, the petitioners state the following: “There was no permitted discussion among the members of the Peterborough ARC at its final meeting as to who would present the report to the trustees. Instead, once it was finalized, the report was submitted to the trustees by senior administration of the Board and the Board appointed chair of the Peterborough ARC.” Board’s Response The Board’s response to this concern about who presented the ARC report to the Board is as follows: “The Board acknowledges that the identity of the person charged with the responsibility of delivering the Report of the Peterborough ARC was not determined by the ARC. The process in this case was based upon past practice (never before objected to). The petitioners’ statement that ‘there was no permitted discussion’ regarding this matter at the last meeting of the ARC suggests that attempts were made to discuss the matter but were somehow ‘not permitted’. This is not the case. The matter was simply one of oversight, perhaps reflecting the relative importance of the issue to the ARC compared to the other matters before it.” The Board maintains that this oversight did not have a significant impact on the process.

29

Facilitator’s Perspective The Board Policy in Section 5.2.5 does specify that the ARC will determine who will present its report to the Board. It is true that this was not discussed at the fourth and final meeting of the ARC. Therefore, the policy wasn’t followed in this instance. Once again, time constraints may have pushed this off the agenda and the minds of the participants. That said, there is no evidence that the ARC report was not reported to trustees in the full detail with which it was submitted. On the evening the ARC report was received, the Board also heard deputations on its contents and recommendations including representation from the minority report authors. As a result, I consider this a technical violation that realistically did not alter the information provided to the Board of Trustees for consideration in their decision-making. B.) Public Meeting re the Final ARC Recommendation Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspectives The petitioners argue that the Board Policy in Section 5.5.3 provides that the Peterborough ARC: “shall hold one of the designated meetings as an information meeting, open to the public, to present the report and recommendations going to the Board” and that “such committee “may alter the final report based on community input at this meeting”. No information meeting where the report and recommendations were presented was in fact held. At the last Peterborough ARC meeting, the Peterborough ARC report was not presented and was in fact only completed after the final meeting. The failure to present the report publicly negates: (i) the intention to provide the public with access to information, (ii) the opportunity for the public to review the report and recommendation and (iii) the ability of the public to participate by way of response. With no information meeting held, there was of course no opportunity to respond to input or to alter the report. Board’s Response The Board’s response to the Ministry states: “With respect to this issue, Section 1.7 of the Administrative Regulation states: “The committee prepares an Accommodation Report which is presented to the public at the fourth public meeting. The committee may alter its report and recommendations based on feedback at this meeting.” The Peterborough ARC Critical Path was approved by the Board at the December 16, 2010 meeting and was distributed at the first meeting of the ARC on February 3, 2011. It stated that the fourth and final meeting of the Peterborough ARC would be held on May 12, 2011. That Critical Path also made it clear that the ARC’s Final Report would be posted on the Board’s website on May 18, 2011. Items 6 and 7 on the Agenda for the May 12, 2011 meeting were “Committee Recommendations’ and “Adoption of the Final Report”. Posted at the same time as the Agenda was a template for the Final Report, called a “Conceptual Framework for ARC Report”. This template clearly set out spaces for recommendations to be completed by the Peterborough ARC.

30

Although it was not referred to expressly as an “information meeting”, the Board perceived that the fourth meeting of the Peterborough ARC would, consistent with the Administrative Regulation, be used to satisfy the requirements of Section 5.5.3 of its Policy. In retrospect, its communication of this understanding was unclear. However, the public was undeniably aware that the May 12th meeting would be its last opportunity for comment on the ARC process prior to the issuance of the ARC’s Final Report. There were, in point of fact, extensive representations at this meeting by members of the public.” Again, as elsewhere in their response to the petitioners’ issues, the Board points out that this issue was not raised during the ARC or by the public until the Board’s final decision was made public. Facilitator’s Perspective Again, the issue of time for reflection and discussion arises. In both of these objections, the petitioners point out that the compliance with the Board policy was not exact. The Board acknowledges this in both cases but argues that no substantial impact was created as a result. Similarly, it was clear to all that the last meeting of the ARC was the meeting where the recommendations of the ARC would be determined and this was done in a public forum. There were several opportunities where the public and the petitioners responded to the ARC recommendations through subsequent deputations to the Board. That said, the ARC timeline and the timing of the finalization of the ARC recommendations at the fourth meeting did not allow opportunity for the ARC to “alter the final report based on community input at this meeting” as dictated by the policy. I am satisfied that members of the community had opportunities to comment on the ARC’s report before the Board’s final decision, although they did not have a chance to formally request the ARC to alter their report based on input as the Board Policy stipulates. Again, I believe this is a technical violation that did not have an impact on the information provided to the Board of Trustees for consideration in their decision-making.

ISSUE #11: Use of 2009 Guideline on Website Petitioners’ and Some Community Members’ Perspectives The petitioners assert that the Board Policy in Section 8.4 sets out that: "A copy of this policy shall be posted on the Board’s website along with the Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines and Administrative Review of Accommodation Review Process". The Board’s website linked to the 2006 version of the Guideline throughout the process, as opposed to the most recent 2009 version. The 2009 Guideline updated the 2006 version in several significant ways and the link to the older version led to confusion with respect to terminology, policies and interpretation for both members of the Peterborough ARC and the public during the process.

31

Board Response In response to the concerns of the petitioners the board stated: “In December 2010, the Board established a website section dedicated to the Peterborough ARC process - http://www.kprdsb.ca/Spotlight/spotlight7.html - that was linked from the front page of the Board website. This area included Board reports, current board policies, presentations, minutes and information related to the ARC process. The Board acknowledges that another, general area of its website for school reviews incorrectly linked to the 2006 version of the Ministry of Education Guidelines.” Facilitator’s Perspective This concern is really not a significant issue as the 2006 version of the Guideline was left on a general area of the website in error when the website was refreshed but was not in the website section specifically dedicated to the Peterborough ARC process. In the part of the website called “The City of Peterborough Group Pupil Accommodation Review”, there is a clear reference to the most recent 2009 Ministry Guideline in the December 16, 2011 report that initiated the Accommodation Review and established the ARC. The report indicates that the Board Policy, BA-1.2 was revised as a result of the new provincial directives released in June 2009. This report was also given to all members of the ARC by the Chair of the ARC.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE ARC PROCESS The report on another Ontario Administrative Review of a School Accommodation Review recently described the process as “exhaustive and exhausting.” I am sure that most participants in this experience in the City of Peterborough would agree with that observation. I doubt that anyone involved in the discussions of this administrative review would argue with the statement that there was a sharp divide in opinion regarding the functioning of the ARC and its adherence to the KPRDSB Board Policy No. BA-1.2, Pupil Accommodation Review: School Closure/Consolidation. That divide generally followed the school affiliation of the presenter or speaker in the Administrative Review process. Broadly speaking, members of the community opposed to the closing of PCVS expressed various concerns regarding the efficacy of the process. Similarly, those who indicated satisfaction with the process tended to be parents, students or community members affiliated with one of the other three schools under consideration in this Accommodation Review. There is no doubt that the petitioners have invested considerable energy and commitment in the public process to ensure that their views were heard and understood. It is also clear that the petitioners felt the process was ‘more form than substance’ and did not allow for meaningful dialogue about options and failed to appropriately consider the ‘value’ of PCVS. The format and number of the meetings contributed to this perspective. It is important to report that many did not share the petitioners’ view on the process. It is interesting to note that when the first option outlined in the June 23rd report of the administration to the Board identified the re-purposing of TASSS as the first option, contingent upon feasibility, members of the TASSS community formed a group called 'Put Students First' which did present to the Board. Their issues however, were not about the process of the ARC or the proceedings of the accommodation review. Rather, they focussed on issues related to the decision itself such the building and 29 acres on the river as having “vast potential for the students of 32

Peterborough”, the support of First Nations leadership for TASSS, and facility suitability for special education provision. They crafted an overall ‘vision' for secondary education in Peterborough which was sent to all trustees as well as presented at the August Board meeting. It was generally reported that the presentations to the ARC and the numerous delegations to the meetings of the Board during the ARC process and since the decision was taken, were predominantly by individuals and groups opposed to the consideration of closure of PCVS or ultimately, the Board’s decision to re-purpose PCVS. It is not surprising therefore, that those opposed to the Board’s decision and dissatisfied with the process were represented in this Administrative Review in much larger numbers than those satisfied with the process. There is no question that this secondary school accommodation review has resulted in serious antagonisms among and between community members both when individuals and groups anticipated and then responded to the Board’s decision. I repeatedly heard from ARC members and others that the process “pitted one school community against another.” Some of this unfortunate interaction is unavoidable when difficult decisions are being made and emotions are running high. However, some changes in the format for community input and the nature of the dialogue at the ARC meetings themselves might contribute to a more positive climate. Several presenters and participants in the meetings I held who represented both those in agreement with the Board’s decision and those opposed to it, spoke of the need ‘to heal’. They referred to the damage all the controversy has done to friendships and the cohesion of the community served by the four schools under review. The Board’s policy is general in nature and in my view, would benefit from further specificity to ensure more clarity at the beginning of the ARC’s work regarding the task and the way the ARC will function to achieve its goals and come to final decisions about the advice the members of the ARC will offer the Board of Trustees. One of the biggest bones of contention in this review was the definition of community for the purposes of the ARC. The petitioners spoke of community in terms of a specific downtown neighborhood and the Board defined community as the combined communities which are aligned to all four schools in the City of Peterborough. Many of the allegations of a ‘flawed process’ flowed from that difference in definition. Ultimately, the Board has the discretion to determine what constitutes a community for the purposes of an accommodation review. The most obvious and broadly held negative opinion of the process centered on the format and number of meetings held by the ARC. While the Board adhered to the requirements of its own policy in this regard, it is clear that the discussion and exploration time was limited by the number of presentations to the ARC and that those presentations tended to provide similar information repeatedly. Another arrangement that allows for more working time for the ARC is needed. Another general concern that arose was the way in which the final recommendations of the ARC were decided. There was a general feeling that those recommendations were arrived at in an atmosphere of tension and frustration. Again, more time spent on facilitated discussion around key issues in an attempt to find some ‘common ground’ for the formation of group recommendations could have supported more group ownership of the final ARC recommendations.

33

The gathering and consideration of the material for SIPs was another sore spot in the proceedings. There are ways in which this process could have been facilitated both before and during the meetings to make more productive use of ARC members’ time and input. Timely and effective communication between the Board and community members who had questions seems to have been an issue for some, although not for all. The policy doesn’t speak directly to how emerging and ongoing questions from community members not on the ARC will be handled. In practice during this accommodation review, questions from committee members were answered by telephone or e-mail by the Chair of the ARC or his assistant, as were questions from non-committee members. A link to ‘Group Pupil Accommodation Review’ is available in the front page of the website under "In the Spotlight". A ‘Q and A’ document was distributed to the parents of all secondary and elementary students in the City of Peterborough during in December 2010, prior to the commencement of the accommodation review and again in October 2011, after the decision. There was no interactive link on the Board website which allowed the public to post questions and/or obtain answers relating to the ARC’s deliberations. If there was a common theme to questions then a Quick Facts sheet was produced and posted on the website in the ARC section. On a more positive note, Board Policy BA-1.2 does stipulate in Section 6.6 that the Board may authorize an Accommodation Review Committee consisting of principal, teachers, school council members, parents and students “to plan and implement appropriate procedures for a smooth a transition for students, staff and parent(s)/guardian(s).” It is my understanding that this group has been struck and has begun its work. In a conversation I had with the Director of Education, he indicated that everything possible will be done to assist PCVS students as they make this transition in terms of their academic program, their co-curricular activities and their connections to community services and cultural venues. As one example, Grade eleven PCVS students in particular may well wish to have the opportunity to take a course or courses at what will become an alternative school, have their Commencement at PCVS and even have a PCVS diploma, despite attending a different school in their final year. The Board, in keeping PCVS as an alternative school, appears open to considering these opportunities. There is evidence that the board, school administration and teaching staff will provide the appropriate support for all students, particularly vulnerable students, to thrive in each facility.

FACILITATOR’S SUGGESTIONS I have spent a significant amount of time reviewing all pertinent documents, many written submissions, visiting the affected schools and speaking at considerable length with the wide range of stakeholders in this school accommodation review, I would like to offer some suggestions about areas where I believe some improvements can be made to both the Board Policy BA-1.2 and its implementation. Clearly, an alternative to continued conflict and division is in the best interests of all and the students whom the Board serves in particular. There is no question that the problem of declining enrolment and resulting limitations on the quality of secondary school programming in the City of Peterborough has to be addressed. Although the Board Policy BA-1.2 was largely followed in this accommodation review and the two identified infractions are technical deviations, the policy lacks depth and specificity. As noted earlier, it is a very general document which can be improved with greater detail and direction around various aspects of the review process and the functioning of the ARC. Unfortunately, the experiences of the participants in this ARC were marked by an increase rather than a reduction in the divisions in the community. 34

It has been asserted by the petitioners that the Chair and some trustees involved in this accommodation review indicated that they thought the process was ‘flawed’. I found no evidence that any member of the Board made a statement to that effect. As a matter of fact, in my meetings with the trustees, all but one of nine stated that they believed the Board had followed its Policy in this accommodation review. However, both in my meeting with trustees and in the documents and press clippings I reviewed, it is clear that the Board members and Senior Administration are aware and have stated that the policy, and thus the process, can be improved. This willingness to consider changes which would improve the accommodation review process in KPRDSB is evident as the Board has approved a recommendation to commence just such a review. I hope the suggestions which follow will be helpful as new approaches are being contemplated. I believe it is timely and helpful for the Board to revisit its policy in light of this experience and the provincial Guideline and in consultation with community members. I suggest the following ideas for consideration: 1. Change the policy to provide for at least four public consultation meetings to seek input and community feedback on options for accommodating students most effectively. In addition to these meetings for the purpose of public commentary, establish working groups of the committee to address the key issues, explore ideas and come to understandings of the complexities of the situation. This is particularly important when the review involves a number of schools and the ARC is large. There are a number of ways to ensure transparency regarding the reflections of the working groups. These could include reporting back at a public meeting on the topics discussed in the smaller groups, circulating minutes of the working group meetings or allowing non-participating observers at specified parts of the working group meetings. Consultation with other Ontario district school boards on how the structure of the ARC’s meetings is designed will no doubt reveal other approaches as well that could allow for fuller and more in-depth dialogue among ARC members and ultimately, more fruitful full Committee deliberations. Finally, there should be a culminating meeting of the ARC where the final recommendations of the ARC are thoroughly discussed and where the public can provide input before these recommendations are sent to the Board as advice. If the decision regarding who will make the presentation on behalf of the ARC to the Board of Trustees has not been made during the ARC’s deliberations, it could be made at this final meeting. 2. Provide School Information Profiles which are already populated with reliable factual and technical information so the ARC spends less time on the gathering of operational information and more on less mechanical aspects of the value of the schools under review to students, the community, the economy and the Board. This would also allow more committee time for discussions with principals of the affected schools who should serve as a resource to the ARC’s analysis of the data. The discussions of the ARC would of course, add information to the SIPs.

35

3. Consider other methods of arriving at the ARC’s recommendations other than a straight consensus model which is often extremely difficult to use in a large group contending with many complex issues. Other Ontario school districts have used mechanisms for approval of recommendations from the ARC to the Board which involve a series of votes on the establishment of ‘common ground’ on key issues before final recommendations are crafted. Whatever method of determining final agreement it chosen, it should be spelled out in detail in the Board policy so there are no misapprehensions as the ARC makes difficult and sometimes stress inducing decisions. 4. Review the ways in which emerging questions and concerns are handled before, during and after the ARC does its work. The regular posting of answers to questions that had common and recurring themes in the Quick Facts sheets was a good way of addressing matters that were raised frequently. I think it would be helpful if the policy specified how questions and information requests which emerge during the review from ARC members and the public will be handled. Several Ontario school boards have developed strategies for dealing with emerging questions from ARC members in between meetings and generally from the community and have articulated these communication and clarification strategies in their Board Accommodation Review policies. With respect to emerging questions, some school districts have used “a parking lot” method of recording issues that arise at public or working group meetings of the ARC to ensure that those questions that can’t be addressed immediately are not lost and receive timely attention.This kind of detail in the policy provides all stakeholders with a clear understanding of how inquiries will be handled at the beginning of the process and often prevents misunderstanding and confusion in what can be a complex process 5. Include in the Board’s policy a requirement for a pre-ARC orientation session lead by the Chair for members of the ARC to discuss the Board policy and the expectations of the Provincial Guideline and address any preliminary questions there may be about the mandate of the ARC, the rules of engagement during the ARC’s deliberations and the general content, format and timetable of the process. 6. Specify in the Board’s Policy a requirement for the Administration to meet with representatives of the affected federations and unions (as was done in this review) and issue a joint statement before the process begins clarifying the role of staff as members of the ARC and expectations regarding the role of staff during the accommodation review and after the Board has made its decision. It is usually advisable to have it stipulated that the principals of the affected schools will serve as a resource to the ARC rather than as voting members.

CONCLUSION In conclusion Minister, I appreciated the opportunity to conduct this review and offer my advice. I was responsible for determining whether the KPRDSB followed its Board approved Pupil Accommodation Review School Closure/Consolidation Policy in light of the 2009 provincial directives in conducting the accommodation review for City of Peterborough secondary schools. School consolidation and the decisions regarding the wise use of public resources to provide the best possible education for all students present many difficult challenges for Boards of 36

Education and for affected families and community members. After visiting all four schools I know that what is best for students is the central focus of the adults in those students’ lives, both at home and at school. I am confident that the students in the secondary schools of the City of Peterborough will be well-served in the future in excellent facilities which will house high-quality and diverse programs meeting the wide range of needs presented by students who are 21st century learners. I was greatly assisted in my task by the candor and commitment of the petitioners and community members who met with me and shared their views so openly and clearly. Their concern for the City’s children’s success is apparent. Staff members, union representatives, municipal leaders, senior administration and the Board of Trustees with whom I met were open, professional and committed to creating optimal learning environments for students. Based on my review of the process, documentation, written submissions and the consultations I conducted, I have concluded that the KPRDSB followed its own policy with two technical violations which have been outlined above that I do not believe had an impact on the board’s decision making. However, it is clear to me that this policy needs revision to be a more effective tool in making difficult school closure decisions which meaningfully involve the community and reflect the spirit of the Ministry’s Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline. I believe the areas that need strengthening that I have pointed out in the Board Policy will be the focus of consideration and redefinition in the review of the policy which the Board is now undertaking. The goal of this work must be to foster a more productive dialogue on issues that are vitally important to all the dedicated people who invest their hearts and minds in ensuring that educational resources are used as wisely as possible in the best interests of all of the students of the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board.

Respectfully submitted,

Joan Green, Independent Facilitator

37

APPENDIX A THE KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD PETERBOROUGH SECONDARY SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW COMMITTEE Chair/Superintendent Don Blair Superintendent Peter Mangold Trustee Rose Kitney Trustee Roy Wilfong Trustee Cathy Abraham Principal - Adam Scott CVI Melanie Foulkes School Council Rep - Adam Scott CVI Natalie Hawthorne School Council Rep - Adam Scott CVI Lauren Dallin Secondary Staff - Adam Scott CVI Darrell Wright Elementary Staff - Adam Scott CVI Rachel Bemrose Secondary Student - Adam Scott CVI Madeline Brown Secondary Student - Adam Scott CVI Scott Tuck Principal - Kenner CVI Alison Sadowski School Council Rep - Kenner CVI Kim Whiteside School Council Rep - Kenner CVI Carissa McCaw Secondary Staff - Kenner CVI Lori Quinlan Elementary Staff - Kenner CVI Sean Hazeldine Secondary Student - Kenner CVI Stephanie Coleman-Sadd Secondary Student - Kenner CVI Melanie O’Grady Principal - Peterborough CVS Denise Severin School Council Rep - Peterborough CVS Margaret Marchen School Council Rep - Peterborough CVS Andrew Pyle Secondary Staff - Peterborough CVS Barry Adams Secondary Student - Peterborough CVS Joseph DiGuiseppe Secondary Student - Peterborough CVS Rebecca Ballarin Principal - Thomas A. Stewart Ann Johnston School Council Rep - Thomas A. Stewart Mary Harran School Council Rep - Thomas A. Stewart Tammy Salem Secondary Staff - Thomas A. Stewart Janet Wylie Secondary Student - Thomas A. Stewart Tony Spiridis Secondary Student - Thomas A. Stewart Amanda Little Community Representative Bob Gallagher Business Representative Eileen Madder Municipal Representative Keith Riel

38

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SCHOOL FACILITIES Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School has dedicated space for a number of specialized programs, including: French Immersion classrooms Daily Physical Activity Room Weight Room Music Room Drama Room Foods Rooms Art Rooms (2) - digital kiln Dark Room Specialized programs offered at the school include: French Immersion Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM): Arts & Culture, Health and Wellness Outdoor Education Leadership package courses Dual Credit Programs with Fleming College (Welding, Computer Network, Engineering Technology, Introduction to Marketing, Health and Wellness) Technology Programs (Automotive, Small Engines, Construction, Technical Design), Yearbook Photography Fashion Certificate Program E-learning Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program Alternative student programming Music (instrumental, jazz, guitar and vocal) Visual Arts (pottery, ceramics, sculpture, textiles, etching, stained glass, photography)

Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute and Intermediate School Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute has dedicated space for a number of specialized programs, including: Drama Room Dance Studio Weight Room Dark Rooms (2) Hairstyling Greenhouse Art Studio with kiln Industrial Kitchen Specialized programs offered at the school include: Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM): Construction, Hospitality, Horticulture, Transportation International Baccalaureate Program Instrumental Music Hairstyling Photography Dual Credits Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School 39

Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School has dedicated space for a number of specialized programs, including: Dance Studio Art Studios (2) and kiln Dark Room Drama Classrooms (2) Wood Shop Mac Lab Recording Studio Chemistry Lab Music Room Specialized programs offered at the school include: Integrated Arts: Dance, Drama, Instrumental Music, Visual Arts Specialized High Skills Major (SHSM): Arts & Culture, Business, Energy, Health and Wellness Canada World Studies: Model United Nations International Business (articulation agreement with Fleming College) English Language Learners (ELL) Magnet School Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School has dedicated space for a number of specialized programs, including Art Studios (2) Drama Studio Dark Room Music Room Technology Programs (Construction, Welding, Transportation, Small Engines, Manufacturing) Specialized programs offered at the school include: Specialist High Skills Majors (Arts & Culture, Horticulture) Integrated Leadership Program (4 credit program, combining Biology, English, Leadership and Physical Education credits) Dual Credit Program with Fleming College (Landscaping, Art) Photography Hospitality Foods Photography International Business Native Studies

40

APPENDIX C SCHEDULE - INDEPENDENT FACILITATOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) PETERBOROUGH SECONDARY SCHOOLS ACCOMMODATION REVIEW Monday, January 16, 2012 Time Meeting 8:30 a.m. Planning Meeting – Joan Green - Facilitator, Norm Stormes& Mary Fairhead – BRO Media Interviews 10:30 a.m. KPRDSB Senior Administration 1:30 p.m. . 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. School Visit KPRDSB Board of Trustees Peterborough Secondary Schools Accommodation Review Committee

Location Best Western 84 Lansdowne Street East, Peterborough Administrative Conference Room, Education Centre KPRDSB, 1994 Fisher Drive, Peterborough Kenner Collegiate Vocational Institute (KCVI) 633 Monaghan Road South, Peterborough Board Room, Education Centre, KPRDSB, 1994 Fisher Drive, Peterborough General Meeting Room, Education Centre, KPRDSB, 1994 Fisher Drive, Peterborough

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 pm School Visits Media interviews

3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. – 10:30 p.m.

Federation/Union Representatives Murray Rodd, Chief of Police Petitioners

• Adam Scott Collegiate Vocational Institute (ASCVI) 175 Langton Street, Peterborough • Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School (TASSS) 1009 Armour Road North, Peterborough Library, Crestwood Secondary School (CSS) 1885 Sherbrooke Street West, Peterborough Telephone Library, Crestwood Secondary School 1885 Sherbrooke Street West, Peterborough

Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:00 a.m. School Visit Media Interviews 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. – 12:00 a.m. ASCVI, TASSS, PVCS, KCVI Principals Public Meeting

Peterborough Collegiate Vocational School (PCVS) 201 McDonel Street, Peterborough Administrative Conference Room, Education Centre KPRDSB, 1994 Fisher Drive, Peterborough Evinrude Centre 911 Monaghan Road, Peterborough

41

Thursday, January 20, 2012 9:00 a.m. Daryl Bennett, Mayor of Peterborough 12:00 am-6:00pm Analysis of public meeting presentations Media interviews

Peterborough Collegiate Vocational School (PCVS) 201 McDonell Street, Peterborough

Friday, January 20, 2012 10:00 a.m. KPRDSB Senior Administration (Fact-checking and issue identification)

Administrative Conference Room, Education Centre KPRDSB, 1994 Fisher Drive, Peterborough

42

APPENDIX D City of Peterborough: Group Accommodation Review Memorandum to All Staff TO: All Staff FROM: W.R. (Rusty) Hick, Director of Education David Wing, President, KPR ETFO Ron Maguire, President, CUPE 5555 Janie Kelly, President, OSSTF District 14 Marsha Jones, President, ETFO Occasional Nancy Edwards, Co-President, OSSTF District 14 Occasional DATE: March 30, 2011 RE: City of Peterborough: Group Accommodation Review Dear KPR Staff Member: As we move along in the process of the accommodation review for the two intermediate and four high schools in the city of Peterborough we believe it is appropriate that all interested staff know how their viewpoints may be heard. The staff at the schools directly involved continue to have the opportunity to speak with their representatives on the committee, including their principal. However, we realize that other KPR staff are also affected. Staff at other locations may have children attending these schools, and/or they may be interested in the process for other reasons. The extremely valuable opinions of all need to be heard and we have every confidence that this can be achieved. Some staff members may naturally have very strong and passionate feelings about the schools and we want to try to ensure that those feelings and opinions are channelled productively, in a manner that is respectful in tone and content to colleagues, programs, other schools, and our board. Accommodation Review Committee staff members are listed below. Should you have an opinion you would like to share with one of them, please do so using email. If you wish to share an opinion with the entire committee, please refer to the process outlined on our board website: www.kprschools.ca. If you are unsure about your message in any way, we encourage you to send it in advance to your federation / union / executive or other leadership to review it for you. Our Board of Trustees will be asked to make a decision at the September Board meeting. Once that decision is made it is important for all of us to uphold that decision and continue to work together positively. If you have any questions about the review process itself, please contact Superintendent Don Blair or visit the dedicated section on the front page of our website for the minutes of the committee meetings, and related information. We know this process is difficult for those involved and we thank you for your continued professionalism throughout.
43

Yours sincerely, W.R. (Rusty) Hick Director of Education Ron Maguire President, CUPE 5555 Nancy Edwards Co-President, OSSTF District 14 Occasional Committee Membership - Staff Ontario Principals’ Council Melanie Foulkes ASCVI Alison Sadowski KCVI Denise Severin PCVS Annie Johnston TASSS OSSTF CUPE Darrell Wright Barry Adams Janet Wylie

David Wing President, KPR ETFO Janie Kelly President, OSSTF District 14 Marsha Jones President KPR ETFO Occasional

ETFO Rachel Bemrose Sean Hazeldine

ASCVI KCVI

ASCVI PCVS TASSSS

Lori Quinlan KCVI

44

APPENDIX E

KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD POLICY STATEMENT Section: Policy: Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION

Policy Code: BA-1.2 Page 1

The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board aims to provide educational programs and services of the highest quality, in facilities conducive to a stimulating learning environment and designed to meet the needs of all pupils, within fiscal parameters. In addition to facilitating the delivery of our Board mission, the Board will endeavour to optimize the use of its facilities. Various factors beyond the control of the Board impact on this commitment. These factors include declining, increasing, and shifting populations, current funding and operation realities, new provincial legislation and policy, changing educational objectives and physical limitations of buildings. In order to maintain our commitment, it is necessary to monitor and evaluate all schools on a regular basis. Where enrolment is increasing, the Board must provide adequate student accommodations through boundary changes, and/or additional classroom space, temporary or permanent, and/or blending arrangements. Where enrolment is limited and decreasing, the consequent impact of financial resources, staff, learning resources and program creates difficulties in providing adequate educational programs for students. Under these conditions, the Board will consider boundary changes, blending arrangements, consolidation, closure, alternate use of surplus space or other measures. All reviews of consolidations and/or closures will be conducted within the guidelines and expectations of the Ministry of Education. The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board is aware that changes in any school’s student accommodation or other status has an impact beyond the school and therefore maintains that the detailed review of any school have a district-wide perspective and include public consultation. 1. Annual Pupil Accommodation Report 1.1 Senior staff responsible for student accommodations will maintain and present major updates regarding enrolment trends and accommodation needs based on the Board’s capital planning process. 1.2 Annually, the senior staff responsible for accommodations, in consultation with the Superintendent of Business and Corporate Services, shall prepare a report for Board consideration addressing upcoming accommodation needs and provisions. This report will be presented to the Board by June 30 of each school year and is
45

available to the public on the Board website. KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Section: Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation Policy: PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: Policy Code: BA-1.2 SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION – continued Page 2 2. Criteria for Identifying an Accommodation Review in the Capital Needs Assessment 2.1 Administration shall bring to the attention of the Board, through the Capital Needs Assessment update in the annual enrolment and accommodation needs report, those schools that fall under one or more of the following categories:

2.1.1 Program Viability Any school, or group of schools, which is deemed not able to offer a viable program in terms of enrolment, class sizes and/or grade configurations. This includes schools that under the normal staffing allocation would require the assignment of more than two grades to one class in elementary schools and multigrade/level/subjects to one class in secondary schools. Schools that are unable to provide an equitable range of learning opportunities for students will also be identified. 2.1.2 Overcrowded Any school, or group of schools whose Average Daily Enrolment (ADE) exceeds, or is projected to exceed its pupil places as designated by the On The Ground Capacity allocation by 15% or more shall be identified. 2.1.3 Operating/Maintenance Costs Any school, or group of schools, which is/are deemed to have extraordinary operating and maintenance costs which affect efficiency within the grants provided by the Ministry to the Board. Any school that is experiencing higher building maintenance expense than the average for the system and/or is in need of major capital improvements shall be identified. 2.1.4 Underutilized Any school, or group of schools whose Average Daily Enrolment (ADE) falls, or is projected to fall below 85% of the pupil places as designated by the On The Ground Capacity allocation. 2.1.5 Other Any school, group of schools or area which, in the opinion of administration should be considered due to exceptional circumstances. Such exceptional circumstances can include but are not limited to: 2.1.5.1 the school is destroyed by fire or other catastrophe; 2.1.5.2 the school is unusable due to environmental hazard; 2.1.5.3 the school is unusable due to a health hazard.

46

KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Section: Policy: Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: Policy Code: BA-1.2 SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION – continued Page 3

Any school, or group of schools, impacted by the above criteria, may be identified for consideration in an individual or group accommodation review. 3. Administration will prepare a full report for schools individually or in groups that are recommended to be considered for the review process as outlined in the Data Collection Report in the administrative regulation supporting this policy. 3. Identification of Schools for the Accommodation Review Process 4.1 The Board shall consider the reports of schools that are presented by administration for the review process and decide whether the school(s) proceed in the process by identifying the school(s) specifically for review. 4.2 Where the Board identifies a school(s) for the review process, it shall also establish an Accommodation Review Committee to provide input and recommendations. 4.3 Where the Board identifies a school(s) for review and establishes a committee in respect of same, the Director shall give notice through the Board meeting media release to: 4.3.1 the principal(s) and staff of the identified school(s); 4.3.2 the chairperson(s) of the school council(s) of the identified school(s); 4.3.3 the community, by posting a notice on the Board’s website and by such other means, as the Director deems appropriate; and 4.3.4 any other person or body as the Board may direct or the Director may determine; and shall deliver or otherwise make available a copy of this policy to the said principal(s), chairperson(s) of the school council(s) and other affected parties. 4. Terms of Reference for the Accommodation Review Committee 5.1 Purpose The purpose of the committee is to review the reports and information presented by administration and advise the Board on recommendations for possible outcomes of the accommodation review which are in keeping with the Board’s mission, vision and values.

47

KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Section: Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation Policy: PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION – continued 5.2 Mandate 5.2.1 The Accommodation Review Committee shall review the Board’s educational and accommodation expectations as outlined in the introduction of this policy and use them as the guiding principles for deliberations. The Accommodation Review Committee shall consider the report prepared by administration, and use the information to begin weighing the value of the school as reflected in the generic School Information Profile provided in the administrative regulation supporting this policy. The information report will be posted on the Board’s website to inform the public. 5.2.2 All meetings of the committee shall be open to the public. The committee will consult with school and community groups including school councils, parents, guardians, students, teachers, local community and other interested parties. The consultations shall be based on the School Information Profile(s) created by the Board. The Board and/or the committee may customize the profile as required. The School Information Profile(s) will be applied to each of the schools involved in the review process. 5.2.3 Any member of the public may make written submissions to the committee one week prior to a scheduled meeting or advise of their intention to make a presentation. The committee shall acknowledge and consider all submissions received but need not reply to any such submissions or other representations in writing or at all. 5.2.4 The committee shall use the School Information Profile(s) and the information received during the public meetings to create the final report of the committee. The Accommodation Review Committee submits the Accommodation Report to the Director of Education. The report will be made available on the Board’s website. 5.2.5 The Accommodation Review Committee will determine who will present the final Accommodation Report and recommendations to the trustees. In addition to the Accommodation Report, administration shall provide an analysis of the Accommodation Report and submit recommendations to the Board. 5.2.6 The committee is dissolved by Board motion.

Policy Code: BA-1.2 Page 4

48

KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Section: Policy: Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: Policy Code: BA-1.2 SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION – continued Page 5

5.3

Membership The composition of the committee shall be determined by the Board and shall include, at least: 5.3.1 the trustee(s) representing the jurisdiction in which the identified school is located; 5.3.2 one trustee from another jurisdiction within the Board’s jurisdiction as approved by Board motion; 5.3.3 two senior staff, one being the appropriate Supervisory Officer for the identified school(s); 5.3.4 two school council representatives selected by the school council of each identified school; 5.3.5 two school council representatives selected by the school council of each identified area school; 5.3.6 two secondary students, when the review involves secondary schools, as selected by the principal in consultation with the student leadership group in the school and staff; ideally, these students would be identified through a selection process and be representative of a cross-section of the student population for each school identified for the review process; 5.3.7 the principal(s) of the identified school(s) and one staff member from each school; and 5.3.8 an attempt will be made to include a community member and one each of business and municipal leaders if they are available.

5.4 Roles and Responsibilities 5.4.1 The senior staff responsible for student accommodations will be responsible for facilitating the work of the Accommodation Review Committee.

49

KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Section: Policy: Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: Policy Code: BA-1.2 SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION – continued Page 6

5.4.2 The Board will ensure there is support provided to the committee to take minutes. Committee minutes will be provided on the Board’s website as will responses to questions raised during the consultation meetings. 5.4.3 Unless the Board decides otherwise, where any person appointed to the committee is unable or unwilling to participate in the work of the committee, or where the school council of the identified school is unable or unwilling to appoint one or more of its representatives in accordance with sections above, the committee shall continue to act and perform its duties under this policy despite the absence of that member(s), and no act or duty performed by the committee shall be deemed invalid by reason only of the absence of that member(s). 5.5 Meeting Framework 5.5.1 The Accommodation Review Committee shall meet on a maximum of four occasions for the purpose of seeking input and community feedback on options for accommodating students who may be affected by a school closure or consolidation. 5.5.2 Where appropriate space allows, meetings of the committee will be held in the school(s) affected by the review. 5.5.3 The committee shall hold one of the designated meetings as an information meeting, open to the public, to present the report and recommendations going to the Board. The committee may alter the final report based on community input at this meeting. All trustees and appropriate senior administration will be invited to attend this meeting. 5.5.4 A minimum of fourteen calendar days notice of the date and location of the information meeting shall be given to the community. The secretary of the committee shall ensure that notification of the public meetings is posted on the Board’s website and may determine if further notice should be given. 5.6 Decision Making The Accommodation Review Committee will complete their decision making process using a consensus model for decisions. All committee members shall have the opportunity to provide input.

50

KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Section: Policy: Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: Policy Code: BA-1.2 SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION – continued Page 7

Consensus is defined as meaning both general consent and the process of getting to such agreement. Unanimity is not the goal but rather the opportunity for each committee member to have had the opportunity to express their opinion, be listened to and accept a group decision based on its logic and feasibility considering all relevant factors. As the committee works towards consensus, the needs of all students in the school(s) being reviewed are to be considered objectively and fairly, based on the School Information Profile(s) and the Board’s education and accommodation expectations outlined in the Terms of Reference. When an Accommodation Review Committee is unable to reach consensus on recommendations to be made to the Board, the issues, concerns and factors contributing to the impasse will be noted in the final report to the Board. 5.7 Meeting Agenda and Protocols The Accommodation Review Committee will use the procedures outlined in the administrative regulations supporting this policy for meetings. 6. School Accommodation Review Procedures 6.1 Accommodation reviews may be introduced at any time during the year, however, timelines and procedures will be determined as outlined in the administrative regulation accompanying this policy. 6.2 Trustees will review the Accommodation Report from the Accommodation Review Committee and the information presented by senior administration in order to make a final decision on the school closure and/or consolidation. The decision by the Board concerning the recommendation to close the designated school shall be made at a meeting(s) of the full Board in open session. 6.3 Where the Board decides to close the identified school(s), the closure shall usually be effective as of September 1 of the next school year in which the Board makes such decision, unless the Board, in its sole discretion, determines otherwise.

51

KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Section: Policy: Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: Policy Code: BA-1.2 SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION – continued Page 8

6.4 Where a school has been identified for the review process pursuant to this policy and where any step remaining in the process contemplated by this policy has been prevented by reason of any extraneous circumstances or other events, such that the school cannot be closed by September 1 of the next school year in which it was identified for review leading to closure, the Board may decide, in its sole discretion, to continue the process in the subsequent school year and, in that event, the Board may decide, in its sole discretion, not to repeat any step in the process already conducted; provided that all steps contemplated by this policy shall be completed before the closure of the school. 6.5 Where the Board decides to close the identified school(s), notice of the Board’s decisions shall be given through the Board meeting media release to: 6.5.1 the principal(s) and staff of the identified and receiving school(s); 6.5.2 the chairperson(s) of the school council(s) of the identified and receiving school(s); and 6.5.3 the community, by posting a notice on the Board’s website or by other appropriate means as the Director may determine. 6.6 Where the Board decides to close the identified school(s), the Board may authorize an Accommodation Review Committee consisting of a local trustee, local superintendent of student achievement, principal(s), teachers, school council members and parents, to plan and implement appropriate procedures for a smooth transition for students, staff and parent(s)/guardian(s). 6.7 Where the Board decides not to close the identified school(s), the Board shall determine the actions, if any, required. 7. School Closure in Extreme Circumstances Despite any other provision in this policy or any policy of the Board, in unusual and extreme circumstances such as problems with safe use of a facility, the Board may close a school and forthwith advise the public of its decision and the reasons therefore.

52

KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Section: Policy: Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: Policy Code: BA-1.2 SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION – continued Page 9

8.

Miscellaneous 8.1 Where the time limited by this policy for doing anything expires or falls on a school holiday within the meaning of Regulation 304 of the Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1990, the time so limited extends to the next day following that is not a school holiday. When calculating the timeframe for the review process, December/Christmas, March breaks and summer holidays shall not be included in the calculations. 8.2 The Board may decide to extend any time period prescribed by this policy on such terms as it deems appropriate, by formal motion. 8.3 Secondary schools identified for closure may need to remain open for a year in addition to the above due to the schedules for the completion of option sheets and collective agreement staffing data. 8.4 A copy of this policy shall be posted on the Board’s website along with the Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines and Administrative Review of Accommodation Review Process. 8.5 It would be expected, in normal circumstances, that once a school was reviewed, it would not be reviewed again for five years.

9.

When a school that has no identifiable school community is to be identified for review, an Accommodation Review Committee will be formed consisting of: 9.1 trustee(s) from the Associated School Grouping which includes the designated school; 9.2 one trustee from another area of the Board’s jurisdiction; 9.3 two senior staff, one being the appropriate Superintendent of Student Achievement; and 9.4 an attempt will be made to include members of the former school community as well as business and municipal leaders.

53

KAWARTHA PINE RIDGE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Business and Administrative Services Administrative Operation Policy: PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW: SCHOOL CLOSURE/CONSOLIDATION – continued 10. Application of Accommodation Review Guidelines Section:

Policy Code: BA-1.2 Page 10

The Ministry of Education Accommodation Review Guidelines and Board policy regarding School Reviews do not apply in the following circumstances: 10.1 Where a replacement school is to be rebuilt by the Board on the existing site or located within the existing school attendance boundary as identified through the Board’s existing policies; 10.2 When a lease is terminated; 10.3 When a board is considering the relocation of a grade or grades, or a program, where the enrolment in the grade or grades, or program, constitutes less than 50% of the enrolment of the school. This calculation is based on the enrolment at the time of the relocation or the first phase of a relocation carried over a number of years; 10.4 When a board is repairing or renovating a school, and the school community must be temporarily relocated to ensure the safety of students during the renovations; and/or 10.5 Where a facility has been serving as a holding school for a school community whose permanent school is over capacity and/or under construction or repair.

______________________________________________________________________________ Established: January 20, 2000 Revision Dates: November 23, 2000 June 23, 2005 March 29, 2007 January 28, 2010

54

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful