› documents › appendix 5 finalreporteastcredit… · h 1 pg. 1 regular board meeting may 24,...

H 1 Pg. 1

Regular Board Meeting

May 24, 2016

East Credit Pupil Accommodation Review – Final Staff Report

Strategic Goal: Catholic Learning Environment, Stewardship of Our Physical Environment, Community Engagement

Policy/Governance

Regular Board Meeting – May 24, 2016 East Credit Pupil Accommodation Review – Final Staff Report

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to recommend the reduction of pupil places in the East Credit Review Area in conclusion of the East Credit Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR). This report and associated appendices outline information presented by delegates to the Board of Trustees on May 9, 10 and 11, 2016. The Final Staff Report is a requirement of the Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline and the Board’s PAR Policy.

BACKGROUND

On November 24, 2015 the Board of Trustees approved the commencement of a Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) in the East Credit review area in the City of Mississauga. For the purpose of the PAR, the East Credit review area was approved to include the following schools: Our Lady of Good Voyage, St. Bernadette, St. Dunstan, St. Gertrude, St. Gregory, St. Herbert, St. Raymond and St. Valentine.

The current number of pupil places in the East Credit Review Area is 4394. The current enrolment (October 31, 2015) in the East Credit Review Area is 2776 pupils. There is an excess of 1618 pupil places in East Credit with schools operating between 45% and 90% utilization with OVERALL EXCESS CAPACITY of approximately 40%. Projected enrolments suggest a further decline by 2025 to levels where schools would be operating at 36% to 84% utilization and 1800+ excess pupil places.

On April 26, 2016 board staff presented the East Credit PAR Interim Staff Report to the Board of Trustees. The purpose of the Interim Staff Report was to inform trustees of the work conducted by the East Credit Accommodation Review Committee (ARC), as well as comments and feedback from the public, the ARC, municipalities and community partners. The Interim Staff Report also outlined information presented in the Initial Staff Report and included two modified options. The modified options were developed by staff and incorporate input received from both the ARC and the public throughout this process. The Interim Staff Report with Maps 1 to 10 only, is attached as Appendix 2.

Delegation Night As per the requirements of the Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline and the Board’s PAR Policy, members of the public were given opportunities to provide feedback on the Interim Staff Report through public delegations to the Board of Trustees.

H 1 Pg. 2


The Board of Trustees held three Special Board Meetings on May 9, 10, and 11, 2016 to receive public input in the form of public delegations. There was an additional delegation at the May 16, 2016 Faith and Program Committee meeting. There were 68 delegations in total.

The majority of delegates advocated to keep their respective schools open providing their own rationale. There were a number of common themes expressed during the delegations. Some common themes and staff comments are noted in Appendix 3.

Additional Questions for Clarification During the three evenings of delegations (May 9, 10 and 11) and at Faith and Program Committee on May 16, 2016, trustees asked staff questions of clarification. These questions and their responses are noted in Appendix 4.

Correspondence Items to Trustees Following the final meeting of the ARC and the cessation of the PAR Info web mailbox to receive emails, Trustees have continued to receive correspondence for consideration from the community. These items of correspondence have been forwarded to board staff for review and consideration. Staff has developed a PAR Frequently Asked Questions page located on the board website which responds to questions that have not been addressed through the PAR process or delegation night, or questions and statements that require clarification. These items are identified in Appendix 5 with staff responses as provided on the board website in Appendix 6.

DISCUSSION

Interim Staff Report The Interim Staff Report presented ten options for trustees to compare and consider as illustrated in Appendix 1. These options included the original three staff options, five ARC options, and two modified staff options.

As noted in the Interim Staff Report, the ARC established a set of rationale to use in assessing and evaluating options to close schools and a list of criteria to consider at potential receiving schools. Staff also considered the concerns that were raised from the ARC and the community with respect to the original staff options. Following the development of ARC rationale and important physical characteristics of a receiving school and the rating of these by the community, staff was able to modify the original options presented to take into consideration factors important to the community while taking into account staff developed rationale.

Staff Rationale

1. Reduce overall capacity by 1400-1600 pupil places

2. Increase and maximize overall utilization by 20% or higher

3. Retain schools that are central to the catchment area

4. Maintain Catholic presence within the East Credit Review Area

5. Retain newer schools that have lower maintenance costs

6. Increase utilization minimizing need for portables or an addition at receiving school

H 1 Pg. 3


7. Keep school communities together when possible

8. Consider major roads as boundary lines

ARC Rationale – Top 5 as ranked by the community

1. Keep students together as one community when redirecting to another school

2. Ensure safety of students to and from school

3. Distribute schools to maintain Catholic presence throughout the review area

4. Retain newer school facilities within East Credit

5. Consider walking distance to community resources such as, but not limited to church, child care, community centres

Important Physical Characteristics at a Receiving School – Top 5 as ranked by the community

1. Maintain classroom space for future growth and/or programs in East Credit

2. Minimize the need for portables

3. Retain schools with lower renewal costs

4. Ensure barrier-free school facilities, meaning schools that are fully accessible by all learners regardless of ability

5.* Maintain access to on-site child care centres for children 18 months to 3.8 years of age

6.* Maintain fully air-conditioned buildings (installed and maintained by the Board)

*Tied for 5th

DISCUSSION

Staff Considerations and Modified Options Staff reviewed and considered all information gathered throughout the East Credit PAR process. Staff also has a responsibility to the Board to ensure that we are fiscally prudent in making recommendations that will affect the system as a whole.

Based on the preceding, staff has developed two modified options to reflect the feedback received from the community including feedback from delegations. Modified Staff Options A and B presented in this report are the same as those presented in the Interim Staff Report on April 26, 2016. Detailed information on Modified Staff Options A and B are noted below.

H 1 Pg. 4


Modified Staff Option A Modified Staff Option A proposes the closure of Our Lady of Good Voyage, St. Dunstan and St. Valentine and includes the introduction of an Extended French program. All EXISTING students from Our Lady of Good Voyage would be directed to St. Raymond; all EXISTING students from St. Dunstan would be directed to St. Bernadette; all EXISTING students from St. Valentine would be directed to St. Herbert. This modified option provides for a substantial decrease in capacity and a significant increase in overall utilization. This option recommends the closure of Our Lady of Good Voyage which is the smallest and the oldest school in the review area with the highest Facility Condition Index (FCI) in the Board. The school currently has the lowest student enrolment in the review area which is anticipated to further decline. St. Dunstan is also proposed to close in this option. St. Dunstan is located on a major collector road; it is a one story building on a constrained site which may limit the number and location of portables as well as the construction of an addition; it has the third highest FCI in the review area (1% lower than the second highest school); it cannot accommodate another school in its entirety without the requirement for portables long term; there is the potential to reduce bussing; and its location is not suited to be central to any catchment area it may serve. The third school recommended to close in this option is St. Valentine which is one of the largest and newest schools in East Credit, with the third lowest FCI and it is fully air-conditioned. St Valentine’s location is also not suited to be central to any catchment area it may serve.

MODIFIED STAFF

OPTIONS

SCHOOLS RECOMMENDED TO CLOSE

PROPOSED INTRODUCTION OF

PROGRAM

REDUCTION OF PUPIL PLACES

LONG TERM %

UTILIZATION INCREASE

(2025)

A (MAP 9)

*Our Lady of Good Voyage*St. Dunstan*St. Valentine

Add Extended French (Currently proposed at

St. Gregory. Further assessment required.)

1415 30%

Comments: Maximizes number of pupil places eliminated: 1415 +/- Increases utilization by greater than 20%: 30% +/- Keeps students together as one community when redirecting to another school No crossing of major roads with new boundaries Maintains newer facilities Maintains two schools with full board air-conditioning Closes two schools with higher FCI Closes two of the smallest schools in the review area Keeps remaining schools central to proposed new boundaries Maintains space for growth in the East Credit Review Area: 10% +/- Distributes schools to maintain Catholic Presence throughout the review area Includes the closure of a facility built in 2001 Closes one school with full board air-conditioning

Consider walking distance to community resources such as, but not limited to church, childcare, community centres

The need for on-site child care will be assessed with the Region of Peel and Licensed ChildCare Operators

H 1 Pg. 5


Modified Staff Option B This option recommends the closure of Our Lady of Good Voyage and St. Dunstan and includes the introduction of an extended French program. All EXISTING students from Our Lady of Good Voyage would be directed to St. Raymond; all EXISTING students from St. Dunstan would be directed to St. Bernadette. The closure of these two schools is recommended for the reasons noted in Modified Staff Option A. While this option takes into account many of the rationale developed by the ARC, the impact on overall utilization is significantly less than Modified Staff Option A.

MODIFIED STAFF

OPTIONS



PROGRAM


LONG TERM %


(2025)

B (MAP 10)

*Our Lady of Good Voyage*St. Dunstan



764 14%

Comments: Keeps students together as one community when redirecting to another school No crossing of major roads with new boundaries Maintains space for growth in the East Credit Review Area: 26% +/- Maintains newer facilities Maintains schools with full board air-conditioning Closes two schools with higher FCI Closes the two smallest school in the review area Keeps remaining schools central proposed new boundary Distributes schools to maintain Catholic Presence throughout the review area Limited impact on reduction of pupil places: 764 +/- Limited increase in utilization: 14% +/-

Consider walking distance to community resources such as, but not limited to church, childcare, community centres

The need for on-site child care will be assessed with the Region of Peel and Licensed ChildCare Operators

Boundary Changes Both options keep school communities together and move students to receiving schools as a unit. However, staff recommends that the new proposed boundaries be effective July 1, 2016. All new students within the transition areas would be directed to register at the school within the new boundary. The recommendation to have the boundaries effective as of July 1, 2016 would alleviate any unnecessary pressures at receiving schools and provides for student enrolment at some schools to begin increasing without delay.

Students currently enrolled in these transition areas, and their siblings, will be grandfathered to attend the receiving school with the balance of their peers.

H 1 Pg. 6


The recommended boundary adjustments are as follows:

Modified Staff Option A New Boundaries: St. Gregory NEW Boundary:

NORTHERN BOUNDARY: Highway 401 (SOUTH SIDE) WESTERN BOUNDARY: Credit River (EAST SIDE) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: Britannia Road West (NORTH SIDE) EASTERN BOUNDARY: Mavis Road (WEST SIDE)

St. Raymond NEW Boundary: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: Britannia Road West (SOUTH SIDE) WESTERN BOUNDARY: Credit River (EAST SIDE) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: Bristol Road West (NORTH SIDE) EASTERN BOUNDARY: Mavis Road (WEST SIDE)

St. Herbert NEW Boundary: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: Bristol Road West (SOUTH SIDE) WESTERN BOUNDARY: Credit River (EAST SIDE) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: Eglinton Avenue West (NORTH SIDE) EASTERN BOUNDARY: Mavis Road (WEST SIDE)

St. Bernadette NEW Boundary: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: Eglinton Avenue West (SOUTH SIDE) WESTERN BOUNDARY: Credit River (EAST SIDE) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: Highway 403 (NORTH SIDE) EASTERN BOUNDARY: Mavis Road (WEST SIDE)

Modified Staff Option B New Boundaries:

St. Gregory NEW Boundary: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: Highway 401 (SOUTH SIDE) WESTERN BOUNDARY: Credit River (EAST SIDE) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: Britannia Road West (NORTH SIDE) EASTERN BOUNDARY: Mavis Road (WEST SIDE)

St. Raymond NEW Boundary: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: Britannia Road West (SOUTH SIDE) WESTERN BOUNDARY: Credit River (EAST SIDE) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: Bristol Road West (NORTH SIDE) EASTERN BOUNDARY: Terry Fox Way (WEST SIDE)

St. Herbert NEW Boundary: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: Bristol Road West (SOUTH SIDE) WESTERN BOUNDARY: Credit River (EAST SIDE) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: Eglinton Avenue West (NORTH SIDE) EASTERN BOUNDARY: Terry Fox Way (WEST SIDE)

H 1 Pg. 7


St. Bernadette NEW Boundary: NORTHERN BOUNDARY: Eglinton Avenue West (SOUTH SIDE) WESTERN BOUNDARY: Credit River (EAST SIDE) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY: Highway 403 (NORTH SIDE) EASTERN BOUNDARY: Mavis Road (WEST SIDE)

Introduction of Program of Choice Modified Staff Options A and B suggest that a program be added to the review area to address surplus space. This is a result of the community interest expressed from Survey #2. Please note that further discussion and consultation will be required to ascertain viability, location, implementation strategy, financial implications and effect on existing program boundaries prior to the addition of a new program in the East Credit community. If it is determined a program is not viable for remaining schools in this review area the overall utilization is anticipated to decrease 1% - 2%.

FUNDING REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATED SITES

The Ministry of Education provides a number of funding sources to address capital improvements at schools that have recently undergone an accommodation review to eliminate surplus pupil places. These funding sources include Capital Priorities and School Consolidated Capital programs. The Board would be in a position to apply for funding through these programs to address outstanding renewal needs, new capital improvements (e.g. new child care spaces, accessibility, program improvements, air conditioning) and solutions to addressing surplus space (e.g. right-sizing a building). Please note that the amount of funding required will vary for each option identified in this report as the scope of work differs.

SECONDARY SCHOOL FEEDER INFORMATION

In all options, the recommendation is to maintain the secondary school boundaries for St. Joseph Secondary, St. Marcellinus Secondary and St. Francis Xavier Secondary Schools notwithstanding that in all options students from the same elementary feeder school will be directed to different secondary schools. The intent is to maintain status quo enrolments at all three (3) secondary schools. It is not uncommon for a feeder school to have students directed to more than one secondary school based on home address, not the school boundary. This is true for both regular track and specialty programs (Extended French, French Immersion, International Baccalaureate, Regional Arts, Regional Sports, Regional Advanced Placement, Career Path). Staff will consider secondary school boundary reviews at a later date.

TIMELINE & TRANSITION

As stated in the Initial Staff Report, Interim Staff Report and throughout the East Credit PAR process, notwithstanding which option is selected, the proposal by staff is to close schools at the end of June 2017. This is subject to an approved recommendation by the Board of Trustees, no later than June 2016, to close schools in the East Credit PAR Area.

H 1 Pg. 8


Staff suggests that all proposed boundary adjustments outlined in Modified Staff Options A and B, be effective July 1, 2016 for all NEW students moving into the area. All students currently registered at a school recommended to close, and their siblings, would be relocated as a group to the approved receiving school and would not be affected by the boundary change. However, current students have the option to attend the school located within the new boundary.

Following the decision to consolidate and/or close a school, the Board will establish a separate committee to address the transition for students and staff, who will work in consultation with parents/guardians and staff.

CONCLUSION

The Board of Trustees approved the commencement of the East Credit PAR on November 24, 2015. Staff presented three (3) options to consider at the onset of the process as required by Board Policy 6.51.

As a result of working with the ARC and taking into consideration the results of the surveys, consultation with the community at large, and consultation with municipal and community partners, board staff has developed two modified options contained within this report, based on the information noted above, which are as follows:

Modified Staff Option A:

Close Our Lady of Good Voyage and redirect existing students to St. Raymond

Close St. Dunstan and redirect existing students to St. Bernadette

Close St. Valentine and redirect existing students to St. Herbert

Consult with the Program Department on the introduction of a program of choice in EastCredit

Amend boundaries as noted in MAP 11, effective July 1, 2016

Grandfather siblings of existing students at receiving schools

Modified Staff Option B:

Close Our Lady of Good Voyage and redirect existing students to St. Raymond

Close St. Dunstan and redirect existing students to St. Bernadette

Consult with the Program Department on the introduction of a program of choice in EastCredit

Amend boundaries as noted in MAP 12, effective July 1, 2016

Grandfather siblings of existing students at receiving schools

Staff recommends the Board of Trustees approve Modified Staff Option A which closes three (3) schools.

Following the decision to close a school(s), the Board will establish a transition committee to address the transition for students and staff that will work in consultation with parents/guardians and staff. Any schools approved to close would close by June 30, 2017.

H 1 Pg. 9


RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT THE REPORT, EAST CREDIT PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW – FINAL STAFF REPORT, BERECEIVED.

2. THAT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVE THE CLOSURE OF OUR LADY OF GOOD VOYAGE,ST. DUNSTAN AND ST. VALENTINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, EFFECTIVE JUNE 2017, ASOUTLINED IN MODIFIED STAFF OPTION A.

Prepared by: S. Cox, Manager of Planning J. Rogers, Senior PlannerK. Koops, PlannerD. Del Bianco, Superintendent of Planning and OperationsD. Amaral, Superintendent, Mississauga South

Submitted by: D. Del Bianco, Superintendent of Planning & Operations D. Amaral, Superintendent, Mississauga SouthS. Cox, Manager of Planning

Date: May 19, 2016

ATTACHMENTS:

MAPS 1-3: Original Staff Options MAPS 4-8: ARC Preferred Options MAPS 9-10: Modified Staff Options MAPS 11-12: Modified Staff Option NEW Boundaries APPENDIX 1: Comparison Chart of Modified Staff Options, ARC Preferred Options, Original Staff

Options APPENDIX 2: Interim Staff Report (without appendices) APPENDIX 3: Delegation Themes APPENDIX 4: Trustee Questions APPENDIX 5: Additional Correspondence APPENDIX 6: Additional Correspondence - Responses as noted on DPCDSB webpage

Top 5 Survey Results on Imporant Receiving School Considerations

Option Closing Schools Where are Students Directed 2017Reduction of

Pupil Places

Long Term %

Increase in

Utilization

(2025)

FDK

Retrofits/

Capital

Projects

Building

Operating cost

savings

(annual)

Elimination of

Outstanding

Renewal Needs

Change in

Transportation

Cost (annual)1

Keeps students

together as one

community when

redirecting to another

school

Ensure safety of

students to/from

school

Distribute schools to

maintain catholic

presence throughout

the review area

Retain newer

school facilities

within East Credit2

Consider walking distance to

resources such as, but not

limited to church, child care,

community centres

Maintain

classroom

space for

future

growth3

Minimize need

for portables

Retain

schools with

lower

renewal

costs4

Ensure barrier

free facilities for

all learners

Maintain access to on-

site child care centre

Maintain

buildings with

full board A/C

New Staff Options

Our Lady of Good Voyage to St Raymond YES

St Dunstan to St BernadetteSt Valentine to St Herbert

Boundary

Adjustment for

NEW students

Our Lady of Good Voyage to St Raymond YES

St Dunstan to St Bernadette

Boundary

Adjustment for

NEW students

ARC Options

Our Lady of Good Voyage to St Raymond

St Herbert to St Bernadette

Add EF Program to St Dunstan (Currently proposed. Further

assessement required)

Our Lady of Good Voyage to St Raymond

St Bernadette to St Herbert

Add EF Program to St Dunstan (Currently proposed. Further


St Dunstanto Our Lady of Good Voyage and

St BernadetteOLGV RCM to

remain

St Gregory to St Raymond

St Valentine to St Gertrude

Our Lady of Good Voyage to St Dunstan NO

St Herbert to St Bernadette

St Raymond to St Gregory

Our Lady of Good Voyage to St Raymond NO

St Dunstanto St Herbert and

St Bernadette

St Gertrudeto St Gregory and

St Valentine

Original Staff Options



St Bernadette

St Gertrudeto St Gregory and

St Valentine



St Bernadette

St Valentineto St Gregory and

St Herbert

St Dunstanto Our Lady of Good Voyage and

St BernadetteOLGV RCM to

remain

St Gregory to St Raymond

St Herbertto St Bernadette and

St ValentineALL COSTS ARE APPROXIMATE1 Does not include additional costs for EF bussing2 Newer schools constructed 2000 to present3Based on percentage of remaining capacity4 Based on Board Average FCI of 11.92%

$290,705 ($5,625,360) $76,107

Work with Child Care

Operators to assess

need for and replace

closed child care

spaces as required

NOPortables required

in short term only to

accommodate full

communities

Portables required

in short term only to

accommodate full

communities

Portables required

in the long term at

some schools

Portables required

in the long term at

some schools

All schools are

accessible. Further

enhancements will be

considered based on

individual student

needs

All schools are

accessible. Further

enhancements will

be considered based

on individual

student needs

YES

NONO

Transportation

Eligibility will be

assessed in

conjunction with

Mississauga Traffic

Safety Advisory Council

NO

Maintains Catholic

presence south of

Eglinton, north of

Eglinton, north of

Bristol, north of

Britannia

YES

YES

YES

YES YES

$272,037 ($6,228,206)

Top 5 Survey Results on ARC Established Rationale for Consideration

YES

813

26% YESYES

1

YES

15% YES YES

NO

25%

25% NO

764 14% YES $173,029 ($4,740,320) $7,436

Add EF Program to St Gregory (Currently proposed. Further


All school are accessible.

Further enhancements will

be considered based on

individual student needs

5

10%

12% NO

1546 30% NO YES 10%

1464 28% YES4

4%Portables possibly

required at other

schools

2

1691

Transportation

Eligibility will be

assessed in

conjunction with

Mississauga Traffic

Safety Advisory Council

Transportation Eligibility

will be assessed in

conjunction with

Mississauga Traffic Safety

Advisory Council


will be assessed in

conjunction with


Advisory Council


will be assessed in

conjunction with


Advisory Council

1415 30% YES

NO

$217,282 ($3,588,000)

$186,410 ($4,888,000)

$311,842 ($3,881,440)

$326,293 ($4,391,920)

($6,228,206)

8%

30% NO YES 10%

13%

All school are

accessible. Further


considered based on

individual student

needs

All school are

accessible. Further


considered based on

individual student

needs

NO$290,705 ($5,625,360)

$118,607

$76,107

Portables required

in the long term at

some schools

Portables required

in the long term at

some schools

NO

NO

NO

NO NO





All school are

accessible. Further


considered based on

individual student

needs

All school are

accessible. Further


considered based on

individual student

needs

$272,037

NO

$118,647

NO

NO

NO

NO


will be assessed in

conjunction with


Advisory Council


will be assessed in

conjunction with


Advisory Council


will be assessed in

conjunction with


Advisory Council

NONO

YES

NO

$319,739 ($3,552,800) Portables possibly

required at other

schools

$158,386

$169,495

$118,607





NO

Not Defined as

part of ARC

Option Rationale

Not Defined as

part of ARC

Option Rationale

NO

YES

NO


will be assessed in

conjunction with


Advisory Council


will be assessed in

conjunction with


Advisory Council





$57,824

$60,085

A

B

3

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

36%3

767

1573 32%

15%

Add EF Program to St Gregory (Currently proposed. Further


2 1415 27%

1 1546

NO

Maintains Catholic

presence: North,

South, West and

East

Maintains Catholic

presence:

north/south of

Bristol, centre

corridor and

east/west

Maintains catholic

presence: west of

Creditview Rd and

south of

Eglinton Ave

Maintains Catholic

presence: North,

South, East and

West

Maintains Catholic

presence: ALL areas

of the East Credit

Maintains Catholic

presence south of

Eglinton, north of

Eglinton, north of

Bristol, north of

Britannia

Maintains Catholic

presence south of

Eglinton, north of

Eglinton, north of

Bristol, north of

Britannia

Maintains Catholic

presence south of

Eglinton, north of

Eglinton, north of

Bristol, north of

Britannia

Maintains Catholic

presence south of

Eglinton, west of

Creditview, north of

Bristol


Operators to assess


closed child care

spaces as required


Operators to assess


closed child care

spaces as required


Operators to assess


closed child care

spaces as required


Operators to assess


closed child care

spaces as required


Operators to assess need

for and replace closed

child care spaces as

required


Operators to assess


closed child care

spaces as required


Operators to assess


closed child care

spaces as required


Operators to assess


closed child care

spaces as required


Operators to assess


closed child care

spaces as required

NO

Not Defined as

part of ARC

Option Rationale

Not Defined as

part of ARC

Option Rationale

Not Defined as

part of ARC

Option Rationale

NO

APPENDIX 1H 1 Pg. 10

H 1 Pg. 11

Regular Board Meeting

April 26, 2016

East Credit PAR – Interim Staff Report

Strategic Goal: Catholic Learning Environment, Stewardship of Our Physical Environment, Community Engagement

Policy/Governance

Regular Board Meeting- April 26, 2016 East Credit PAR – Interim Staff Report

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform trustees on the work conducted by the East Credit Accommodation Review Committee (ARC), comments and feedback from the public, the ARC, municipalities and community partners as well as efforts to meet with municipalities and community partners. In addition, the report outlines information presented in the Initial Staff Report and modifications to the preferred option. The Interim Staff Report is a requirement of the Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline and the Board’s PAR Policy.

BACKGROUND

Board staff would like to acknowledge and thank the members of the East Credit Accommodation Review Committee for their dedication and efforts throughout the Pupil Accommodation Review process. Their commitment in serving their school communities to the fullest is reflected in their work and action as illustrated in working group meeting minutes. The respect displayed towards each other, board Staff and the process has been a true testament to their Catholic values.

On November 24, 2015 the Board of Trustees approved the commencement of a Pupil Accommodation Review (PAR) in the East Credit review area in the City of Mississauga. For the purpose of the PAR, the East Credit review area was approved to include the following schools: Our Lady of Good Voyage, St. Bernadette, St. Dunstan, St. Gertrude, St. Gregory, St. Herbert, St. Raymond and St. Valentine.

Initial Staff Report The Initial Staff Report recommending the commencement of a PAR in the East Credit review area identified three (3) options as required by the Ministry of Education. Staff was also required to identify a preferred option from the three (3) presented. The Initial Staff Report (without appendices) is attached as Appendix 2. This report provided information on historical enrolments, status quo enrolment trends, capacity and utilization within the review area, and costs to operate the schools under review. In addition, a School Information Profile (Appendix 15) was prepared for each school in the review area providing information on the site, school building, facility condition and renewal needs, financials, enrolment, instructional and program attributes, and extracurricular activities, to name a few.

The current number of pupil places in the East Credit Review Area is 4394. The current enrolment (October 31, 2015) in the East Credit Review Area is 2776 pupils. There is an excess of 1618 pupil places in East Credit with schools operating between 45% and 90% utilization with OVERALL EXCESS CAPACITY of approximately 40%. Projected enrolments suggest a further decline by 2025 to levels where schools would be operating at 36% to 84% utilization and 1800+ excess pupil places.

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 12


In developing options for the Initial Staff Report, board staff considered the following rationale:

Reduce overall capacity by 1400-1600 pupil places

Increase and maximize overall utilization by 20% or higher

Retain schools that are central to the catchment area

Maintain Catholic presence within the East Credit Review Area

Retain newer schools that have lower maintenance costs

Increase utilization minimizing need for portables or an addition at receiving school

Keeping school communities together when possible

Taking into consideration major roads as boundary lines

The primary goal was to reduce capacity and increase overall utilization; Staff developed the following options:

ORIGINAL STAFF

OPTIONS



LONG TERM % UTILIZATION

INCREASE (2025)

1 (MAP 1)

*Our Lady of Good Voyage*St. Dunstan*St. Gertrude

1516 30%

2 (MAP 2)


1415 27%

3 (MAP 3)

*St. Dunstan*St. Gregory*St. Herbert

1573 32%

For all options identified, it was noted that no school closures would occur until the end of June 2017 to allow for a one (1) year transition period for students and staff at both the closing and receiving schools.

ACCOMMODATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Board Policy 6.51 states that in the case of a Regular PAR an Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) will be established following approval to proceed and prior to the first PAR Public Meeting. The purpose of the ARC is to provide feedback on behalf of the affected communities and act as an official conduit for information shared between the Board and the school communities.

As per the policy, an East Credit ARC was established with two (2) parent/guardian representatives from each school under review. The Superintendent for Mississauga South Family of Schools was appointed Chair of the Committee by the Director of Education. Planning staff and the principals of the schools under review acted as regular resource staff to the ARC. Additional board staff from the Transportation Department, Finance Department, and Program Department attended to present information and to address questions of the ARC as required. All ARC working group meetings were open to the public and were well attended. Those members of the public in attendance who were not ARC were very respectful of the fact they could not actively participate in the discussion and were there in an observatory role only.

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 13


The ARC meetings were held on the following dates from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., or longer as reflected in working group meeting minutes (Appendix 8).

Orientation Session: January 6, 2016

Working Group Meetings: January 13, 27; February 3, 11, 24; March 2, 9; April 6, 2016

ARC School Tours: February 17, 2016

ARC Working Group Meeting agendas and meeting slides are found in Appendix 7.

Work of the Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) The work of the ARC included, but was not limited to, reviewing the School Information Profiles for each school under review, engaging in discussion with fellow ARC members, asking questions and points of clarification on information presented by resources staff from Transportation, Finance, Program, Plant, and Planning, presenting options on behalf of their school community, and reviewing all correspondence submitted through the PARinfo web mailbox (ARC presentations - Appendix 9 and resource staff presentations - Appendix 10). In total, the ARC reviewed and received 353 items of correspondence throughout the process (Appendix 8). The ARC took action and requested clarification as required for these items (Appendix 11).

It is important to note that the ARC identifies that throughout the process, items of correspondence have been received that make offensive and disparaging remarks regarding communities which do not reflect the spirit of collaboration, collegiality, compassion and empathy that are paramount to the ARC’s mandate and philosophy.

Rationale & Important Physical Characteristics The ARC established a set of rationale to use in assessing and evaluating options to close schools. As noted above, staff prepared a list of rationale that was used to develop the three (3) options presented in the Initial Staff Report. In working with the ARC and reviewing correspondence from the community at large, it became evident in the feedback that there were other items of rationale that were important to the community and that required attention. The ARC members participated in an exercise where they individually identified rationale they felt were important to them and their community. This rationale is listed below (in alphabetical order).

ARC Established Rationale to Consider When Closing Schools

• Consider walking distance to community resources such as, but not limited to church, child care,community centres

• Distribute schools to maintain Catholic presence throughout the review area• Ensure safety of students to and from school• Keep Students together as one community when redirecting to another school• Maintain classroom space for future growth and/or programming in East Credit• Minimize transportation costs• Reduce overall capacity (pupil places) within the review area• Retain newer school facilities within East Credit

In addition, the ARC participated in an exercise to identify physical characteristics at receiving schools that are important to the community which are listed below (in alphabetical order).

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 14


Important Physical Characteristics at a Receiving School

• Ensure ability to accommodate added traffic on-site (e.g. buses, parking)• Ensure barrier-free school facilities, meaning schools that are fully accessible by all learners

regardless of ability• Maintain access to on-site child care centres for children 18 months to 3.8 years of age• Maintain classroom space for future growth and/or programs in East Credit• Maintain classrooms used for special purposes such as prayer rooms• Maintain fully air-conditioned buildings (installed and maintained by the Board)• Minimize the need for portables• Retain schools with lower renewal costs

The ARC used these lists to assess all proposed options submitted by the committee members and the community, the identification of a preferred option for each school community, and the preparation of the survey presented at the Public Open House #2.

ARC Options In preparation of Public Open House Meeting #2 the ARC members identified the preferred options of their respective communities which were displayed at the open house. The five (5) options listed below are the preferred options of the ARC from the original seventeen (17) presented, including fourteen (14) community options (Appendix 12) and three (3) original staff options. In some situations, more than one community selected the same option.

THESE OPTIONS ARE LISTED IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER

ARC PREFERRED

OPTIONS



PROGRAM REDUCTION

OF PUPIL PLACES

LONG TERM %


(2025)

1 (MAP 4)

*Our Lady of Good Voyage*St. Herbert

Add Extended French (Proposed at St. Dunstan. Further

assessment will be required) 813 15%

2 (MAP 5)

*Our Lady of Good Voyage*St. Bernadette

Add Extended French (Proposed at St. Dunstan. Further

assessment will be required)

767 15%

3 (MAP 6)

*St. Dunstan*St. Gregory*St. Valentine

N/A 1691 36%

4 (MAP 7)

*Our Lady of Good Voyage*St. Herbert,*St. Raymond

N/A 1464 28%

5 (MAP 8)

*Our Lady of Good Voyage*St. Dunstan*St. Gertrude

N/A 1516 30%

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 15


PUBLIC CONSULTATION

As required by the Ministry of Education and Board Policy 6.51, staff was required to hold two (2) public meetings to consult with the community. Notices of both Public Open House Meetings were distributed to all students in the East Credit PAR, advertised in the Mississauga News and on the Dufferin-Peel CDSB website (Appendix 13).

Public Open House Meeting #1 The first Public Open House Meeting was held on January 20, 2016. The Initial Staff Report served as the grounds for discussion for this meeting. The following information was presented:

Options identified in the Initial Staff Report;

Overview of the ARC orientation session; and

School Information Profiles

Staff prepared a short presentation outlining the Ministry of Education PAR Guidelines, the approval to commence the East Credit PAR and the consultation process, background information on enrolments in the East Credit Review Area, and staff rationale (Appendix 13). Following the presentation, staff was on hand to answer questions from attendees with respect to the three (3) proposed staff options and general questions regarding the PAR process and timelines. A survey was available requesting feedback on the options. Further information on the survey is outlined in the Survey section of this report.

Parking Lot In addition, a ‘Parking Lot’ was set up where questions and feedback were posted on sticky notes. Staff was on hand to address a limited number of ‘Parking Lot’ items at the end of the evening to all those assembled. The remainder of the feedback and questions were addressed and posted on the Board website (Appendix 14).

The results of the initial survey and feedback from the ‘Parking Lot’ questions were shared with the Accommodation Review Committee. Discussions and follow-up requests from the ARC on these matters are reflected in the ARC Working Group minutes.

Approximately 500 people attended Public Open House Meeting #1 and over 1200 people participated in Survey #1.

Public Open House Meeting #2 Public Open House Meeting #2 was held on March 30, 2016. Staff prepared a short presentation with an overview of the work of the ARC and next steps (Appendix 13). Survey #2 was available on-site and on-line. Further information on the survey is outlined in the Survey section of this report. Preferred options were selected by the committee and displayed in addition to the original staff options. Board staff was available to answer questions from attendees on the PAR process and next steps. ARC members also provided support at the meeting.

536 people attended Public Open House Meeting #2 and over 1500 people participated in Survey #2. The results of the survey are noted below.

APPENDIX 2


H 1 Pg. 16

Surveys As noted above, at both public open houses an on-line survey was conducted. Tablets were provided at the school during both public open houses and the surveys were also accessible through the Board website. The surveys were open beyond the open house meeting dates to allow the broader community an opportunity to engage in the PAR process. Information on the surveys and results of the surveys are described below.

Survey #1 (1200+ responses) The purpose of this survey was to collect feedback on the three (3) options presented in the Initial Staff Report. The survey validated that each community preferred the option that did not affect their school. In addition, the survey provided for the suggestion of alternate options including the addition of programs to the community, as well as comments which can be viewed as the foundation from which the ARC rationale was developed. The complete results of Survey #1 can be found in Appendix 5

Survey #2 (1500+ responses) The overall purpose of this survey was to have the community rank the most important rationale to consider when closing schools, rank the most important physical characteristics of a receiving school, and identify the extent to which there was an interest in adding a new program to the review area.

Survey #2 was developed in large part by the ARC. The ARC established rationale and identified physical characteristics that were the basis for questions 1 and 2, respectively. Staff rationale that was dissimilar to ARC rationale was also imbedded in question 1. The addition of a program to the East Credit review area was a recurring theme in alternate options, discussions with the ARC, and correspondence items. Therefore, the purpose of question 3 was to gauge overall community interest in a specialty program of choice. The complete results of Survey #2 can be found in Appendix 6.

The following results of Survey #2, as determined by the East Credit community, are presented to Trustees for consideration in determining the final outcome of the East Credit PAR:

RANK Top 5 Rationale

as Identified by the Community

Top 5 Important Physical Characteristics as

Identified by the Community

Preferred Program of Choice as identified by the

Community

1 Keep Community

Together Maintain classroom space for

future growth Extended French

2 Ensure student safety to

and from school Minimize need for portables French Immersion

3 Distribute schools to

maintain Catholic presence

Retain schools with lower renewal costs

Global IB

4 Retain new school

facilities Ensure barrier-free school

facilities for all learners N/A

5* Consider walking distance

to resources Maintain access to on-site child

care (1.5-3.5 yrs) N/A

5* N/A Maintain buildings with full

board installed Air Conditioning N/A

* Maintain access to on-site child care and Maintain building with full board installed air conditioning were tied for 5th place

under the Important Physical Characteristics of receiving schools

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 17


PAR Info Correspondence As previously stated in this report, 353 items of correspondence were received from the PARInfo web mailbox. This mailbox began receiving emails in late November 2015 after the Board approved the commencement of the East Credit PAR and closed at midnight on April 4, 2016. The subject of correspondence was a standing item on ARC working group meeting agendas. Each item of correspondence was reviewed and considered by the ARC as a whole and action items were identified as requested. ARC requested action items were addressed by the appropriate resource staff. All information concerning correspondence and related action items is addressed through the minutes of each ARC working group meeting. (Appendix 8)

Municipal and Community Partners Following Board approval to commence the East Credit PAR process, within five (5) business days, written notice was sent to the Clerks of the Region of Peel and the City of Mississauga, Directors of Education for all four (4) co-terminous boards, the Ministry of Education, and all community partners identified through the Community Planning and Partnership Consultation prior to the recommendation to commence the East Credit PAR.

Furthermore, notice to the Region of Peel, City of Mississauga and all community partners included an invitation to attend a meeting to discuss and comment on options in the Initial Staff Report, notwithstanding the Ministry PAR Guideline and Board Policy 6.51 required that only community partners expressing interest prior to the PAR needed to be notified.

Meetings & Communication On December 10, 2015, board staff convened a meeting with the Board’s community partners. Planning staff presented the Initial Staff Report for the East Credit PAR, addressed questions, and requested input. Representatives from a number of organizations attended the meeting including, but not limited to, the Region of Peel, City of Mississauga, the Peel District School Board, licensed child care operators, and local parish priests.

On March 11, 2016 staff notified community partners that input on the Initial Staff Report was required prior to the March 30, 2016 Public Open House Meeting #2.

Correspondence was received from the Region of Peel requesting the Board continue to“…notify the Region of future PARs, future surplus declarations, and any opportunities to deliverservices in operating school sites.” (Appendix 3)

Correspondence was received from the St. Joseph Parish Priest suggesting the Board considerparish boundaries in the process leading to any proposals. (Appendix 4)

Throughout the PAR process, board staff has continued to notify all community partners of important meeting dates.

Licensed Child Care There are licensed child care centres currently operating within five (5) of the schools in the East Credit PAR Area and all eight (8) schools operate licensed before and after school programs.

On April 8, 2016 following Public Open House Meeting #2, staff convened a meeting with the operators which currently operate licensed child care programs in the East Credit PAR Area schools.

APPENDIX 2


H 1 Pg. 18

A representative from the Region of Peel - Human Services Department, dealing with Early Learning and Child Care within the Region of Peel was also in attendance.

The purpose of the meeting was to exchange information and gather general feedback on the impact potential school closures within the review area would have on licensed child care. Each of the three (3) operators provided an overview of current child care program enrolment within their respective centres and before and after school programs in the review area.

All three (3) licensed operators indicated their willingness to expand current programs at receiving schools to accommodate existing students from licensed programs in closing schools, notwithstanding if the provider from the closing school was different from the receiving school. Board staff would work with the licensed operators to obtain the required Ministry licenses to accommodate these additional children.

With respect to any closure of schools in East Credit containing licensed child care centres, staff will work with these operators, and the Region of Peel to assess the need to replace these spaces within the review area, or elsewhere within the Region. The Board will submit a request to the Ministry of Education for capital funding to retrofit and/or construct facilities to accommodate the replacement spaces, if required.

Board Website The Board maintained an East Credit PAR website throughout this entire process. All board reports, policies, presentation and meeting material including agenda, correspondence and information requests were posted on the website. The website was also used to post all relevant meeting dates and collect feedback through the PARinfo email and survey tools.

DISCUSSION

As identified in the Initial Staff Report, a primary incentive from the Ministry of Education to address excess capacity at school boards is through a reduction of funding. Accordingly, it becomes necessary for boards to address their excess capacity in an attempt to mitigate their financial (GSN) reductions.

For the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board excess capacity funding reduction equates to $1.5 million per year which is comprised of a $1 million reduction in top-up funding related to excess capacity and $0.5 million of declining enrolment attributed to excess capacity. It is also anticipated that the reduction will continue for the next 3 years for a total of $4.5 million.

Accordingly, it is important to note that options which propose the largest elimination of surplus pupil places will have the greatest impact in offsetting the funding reductions experienced by the board. Furthermore, the closure of older facilities will eliminate future renewal needs.

The current costs to operate the schools in the East Credit PAR Area, based on 2014/2015 actuals, are illustrated below:

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 19


A PAR is required in East Credit to increase utilization by reducing the number of excess pupil places, and reducing operating costs.

Staff Considerations and Modified Options based on ARC Developed Criteria Board staff has facilitated the working group meetings of the ARC, addressed the community and responded to inquiries at the Public Open House meetings, listened to presentations from the ARC, analyzed survey results, and reviewed correspondence from the community. The key message from the ARC and the community is to keep school communities together and relocate students as a group. Other important criteria have also been identified and staff has considered these when formulating revised options. Staff also has a responsibility to the Board to ensure that we are fiscally prudent in making recommendations that will affect the system as a whole.

Based on the information gathered throughout the East Credit PAR process, staff has developed two modified options to reflect the feedback received from the community. Options A and B identified below are modifications to the Original Staff Option #1 presented in the Initial Staff Report. The original Staff Option #1 proposed the closure of Our Lady of Good Voyage, St. Dunstan and St. Gertrude. This option reduces pupil places by 1500+ and increases long term utilization by 30%. This option was based on rationale developed by staff prior to engaging in the public consultation portion of the accommodation review process.

Modified Staff Option A As identified in the table below, Modified Staff Option A proposes the closure of Our Lady of Good Voyage, St. Dunstan and St. Valentine and includes the introduction of an extended French program. Consistent with the original staff option #1, this modified option will include a significant increase in overall utilization. As outlined in Appendix 1, this option addresses many of the rationale developed by the ARC but requires the closure of a newer facility (St. Valentine).

Modified Staff Option B This proposes the closure of Our Lady of Good Voyage and St. Dunstan and includes the introduction of an extended French program. While this option takes into account many of the rationale developed by the ARC and proposes the closure of the two schools with the highest renewal needs, the impact on overall utilization is significantly less than Modified Staff Option A.

School

Our Lady of

Good Voyage St. Bernadette St. Dunstan St. Gertrude St. Gregory St. Herbert St. Raymond St. Valentine

• Total Annually $91,708 $94,702 $81,321 $99,008 $112,845 $125,574 $109,011 $117,676

• Outstanding Renewal Needs $3,087,760 $1,856,400 $1,786,720 $1,487,886 $1,317,680 $556,400 $866,320 $885,040

• Facility Condition Index (FCI) 53% 19% 18% 11% 12% 5% 7% 7%

Annual Cost to Transport Students

to School ($) $13,608 $11,307 $63,956 $16,329 $16,329 $13,568 $16,329 $16,329

Expenditures for School Utility & Snowplowing/Salting Costs ($)

School Renewal Needs ($)

*Cost are approximate

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 20


MODIFIED STAFF

OPTIONS



PROGRAM


LONG TERM %


(2025)

A (MAP 9)




1415 30%

Comments:

Maximizes number of pupil places eliminated

Increases utilizations by great than 20%

Includes the closure of a newer facility

B (MAP 10)

*Our Lady of Good Voyage*St. Dunstan



764 14%

Comments:

Limited impact on reduction of pupil places

Limited increase in utilization

Incorporates all rationale received in Survey #2

Boundary Changes Both options keep school communities together and move students to receiving schools as a unit. However, staff proposes that boundaries be adjusted at St. Gregory to include all NEW students from the area north of Britannia Road currently directed to Our Lady of Good Voyage effective July 1, 2016. In addition, it is proposed that the St. Bernadette boundary also be adjusted to include all NEW students from the area south of Eglinton currently directed to St Dunstan effective July 1, 2016. Students currently enrolled in these transition areas, and their siblings, will be grandfathered to attend the receiving school with the balance of their peers.

The proposal to have the above-noted boundaries be effective as of July 1, 2016 is to alleviate any unnecessary pressure at St. Raymond and St. Herbert in 2017 and provides for student enrolment at St Gregory and St Bernadette to begin increasing without delay.

Introduction of Program of Choice According to the results of Survey #2 from Public Open House Meeting #2, of the 1500+ respondents, 67.5% indicated an interest in a special program in the East Credit PAR area. Respondents were subsequently asked to select from the three (3) programs of choice currently offered at the elementary panel. Extended French was selected by 39.7% of the respondents followed by French Immersion at 32.4%, and Catholic Global Learning at 23.7%.

Modified Staff Options A and B, and ARC Options #1 and #2, suggest that a program be added to the review area to address surplus space. Please note that further discussion and consultation will be required to ascertain viability, location, implementation strategy, financial implications and effect on existing program boundaries prior to the addition of a new program in the East Credit community.

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 21


Comparison of Staff and ARC Options The chart attached at APPENDIX 1 compares the 2 NEW staff options, 5 ARC preferred options, and 3 original staff options, in relation to the reduction of pupil places, increase in utilization, cost savings, as well as the 5 most important rationale and 5 most important physical characteristics as identified by the community in survey 2.

FUNDING REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATED SITES

The Ministry of Education provides a number of funding sources to address capital improvements at schools that have recently undergone an accommodation review to eliminate surplus pupil places. These funding sources include Capital Priorities and School Consolidated Capital programs. The Board would be in a position to apply for funding through these programs to address outstanding renewal needs, new capital improvements (e.g. new child care spaces, accessibility, program improvements) and solutions to addressing surplus space (e.g. right-sizing a building). Please note that the amount of funding required will very for each option identified in this report as the scope of work differs.

SECONDARY SCHOOL FEEDER INFORMATION

In all options the recommendation is to maintain the secondary school boundaries for St. Joseph Secondary, St. Marcellinus Secondary and St. Francis Xavier Secondary notwithstanding that in all options students from the same elementary feeder school will be directed to different secondary schools. The intent is to maintain status quo enrolments at all three (3) secondary schools. It is not uncommon for a feeder school to have students directed to more than one secondary school based on home address, not the school boundary. This is true for both regular track and specialty programs (EF, FI, IB, Regional Arts, Regional Sports, Regional Advanced Placement, Career Path).

TIMELINE & TRANSITION

As stated in the Initial Staff Report and throughout the East Credit PAR process, notwithstanding which option is selected, the proposal by staff is to close schools at the end of June 2017. This is subject to an approved recommendation by the Board of Trustees, no later than June 2016, to close schools in the East Credit PAR Area.

Staff suggests that all proposed boundary adjustments outlined in staff Option A and B, be effective July 1, 2016 for all NEW students moving into the area. All students currently registered at a school recommended to close, and their siblings, would be relocated as a group to the approved receiving school and would not be affected by the boundary change. However, current students have the option to attend the school located within the new boundary.

Following the decision to consolidate and/or close a school, the Board will establish a separate committee to address the transition for students and staff, who will work in consultation with parents/guardians and staff.

CONCLUSION

The Board of Trustees approved the commencement of the East Credit PAR on November 24, 2015. Staff presented three (3) options to consider at the onset of the process and as required by Board Policy 6.51.

APPENDIX 2


H 1 Pg. 22

The East Credit Accommodation Review Committee was formed in January 2016. The ARC convened eight (8) working group meetings; two (2) Public Open House Meetings were held and two (2) Surveys were conducted. The ARC reviewed the School Information Profiles, reviewed 353 items of correspondence from the community, developed rationale to consider when closing schools as well as identified important physical characteristics of receiving schools, and developed options to present to the community and trustees.

Staff consulted with a variety of groups. Consultation with the community at large was in the form of Public Open House meetings, surveys, and through the Board website. In-house meetings were also held with municipal and community partners, as well as licensed child care operators. All groups were kept apprised of the process and important meeting dates through various forms such as bulletins, e-mail correspondence, the Board website, and the local news publications.

As a result of working with the ARC and taking into consideration the results of the surveys, consultation with the community at large, and consultation with municipal and community partners, board staff has developed two modified options contained within this report. These modified options provide two different alternatives to the original staff option by incorporating feedback received throughout the process and, more specifically, through the results of Survey #2.

Following the decision to close a school(s), the Board will establish a transition committee to address the transition for students and staff that will work in consultation with parents/guardians and staff. Any schools approved to close would close by June 30, 2017.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT THE REPORT, EAST CREDIT PUPIL ACCOMMODATION REVIEW – INTERIM STAFF REPORT,BE RECEIVED.

Prepared by: S. Cox, Manager of Planning J. Rogers, Senior PlannerK. Koops, Planner

Submitted by: D. Del Bianco, Superintendent of Planning & Operations D. Amaral, Superintendent, Mississauga SouthS. Cox, Manager of Planning

Date: April 21, 2016

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 23


ATTACHMENTS:

MAPS 1-3: Original Staff Options MAPS 4-8: ARC Preferred Options MAPS 9-10: Modified Staff Option APPENDIX 1: Comparison Chart of Modified Staff Options, ARC Preferred Options, Original Staff

Options APPENDIX 2: Initial Staff Report (without appendices)

*APPENDIX 3: Correspondence from the Region of Peel *APPENDIX 4: Correspondence from Father Marc-Andre, St. Joseph Parish Priest *APPENDIX 5: Survey #1 Results Presentation *APPENDIX 6: Survey #2 Results Presentation *APPENDIX 7: Meeting Agendas and slides *APPENDIX 8: Meeting minutes and correspondence *APPENDIX 9: ARC Presentations *APPENDIX 10: Resource staff presentations *APPENDIX 11: ARC requested information *APPENDIX 12: All options reviewed by ARC *APPENDIX 13: Bulletins, meeting notices, Public Open House #1 and #2 slide decks *APPENDIX 14: Parking Lot questions and answers from Public Open House Meeting #1 *APPENDIX 15: School Information Profiles

*These items are available in digital copy on the Board website in the area titled PAR Review – April 26,2016. A hard copy is available for review at the Dufferin-Peel Catholic Education Centre 40 MathesonBlvd. West in Mississauga

APPENDIX 2

H 1 Pg. 24

APPENDIX 3

Special Board Meetings - Delegation Night (May 9, 10, 11) recurring concerns

Note: All items from the above noted delegation nights may not be addressed in the comments below

as many have been addressed throughout the Pupil Accommodation Review Process.

Students crossing Mavis Road, Eglinton Avenue and Britannia Road This was a very common theme and concern throughout the consultation process. Proposed NEW boundaries in Modified Staff Option A and Modified Staff Option B take safety of students into consideration and do not require the crossing of Mavis Road, Eglinton Avenue West and Britannia Road West.

Staff acknowledge that in order to achieve the number one rationale of the community which is to keep school communities together, existing St. Dunstan students will be required to cross Eglinton Avenue West. St. Dunstan students residing south of Eglinton Avenue West are currently bussed to St. Dunstan as Mississauga Traffic Safety Council historically identified the intersection at Eglinton Avenue West and Creditview Road as unsafe for students to cross.

Keep students together as one community The Interim Staff Report states that the number one rationale is “Keep students together as one community when redirecting to another school” as identified by the community through the results of Survey 2. In both Modified Staff Option A and Modified Staff Option B, the intent is not to split students currently enrolled at the school and their future siblings. The intent of both modified options is to relocate school communities as a unit with changes to school boundaries applicable to new students only moving into the neighbourhood. It is a practice of the board to phase in new boundaries. It would be very difficult to consider factors such as long term enrolment balance throughout the review area and to minimize the long term needs for portables without changing boundaries. If existing students choose not to relocate with their school as a unit there is the option to relocate to the school within their new boundary at any time.

The closure of St. Gertrude suggesting the relocation of the French Immersion (FI) program and regular track program to different schools has been removed and is reflected in Modified Staff Options A and B. It is also important to note that the entire population of St. Gertrude could not be accommodated in another East Credit PAR school, nor can St. Gertrude accommodate the entire population of another East Credit PAR school without the requirement of a significant number of portables or an addition to that school.

Retain newer facilities The East Credit Review Area is made up of three schools that opened between 2000 and 2001. Throughout the PAR Process staff identified that a reduction of 1400-1600 pupil places address the excess capacity in the East Credit Review Area. This was one of many rationale considered by staff when developing the original three options that were presented in the Initial Staff Report. Safety concerns related to crossing of major roads was a common theme identified throughout the ARC, community correspondence, and the community survey results. Safety concerns were ranked higher in the community survey results than maintaining schools with lower renewal needs.

Therefore, to reduce a high number of pupil places while achieving as many of the top community identified rationale and physical characteristics as possible, it is inevitable that one of the three newest schools would be identified to close. The Interim Staff Report acknowledges in the body of the report

H 1 Pg. 24

H 1 Pg. 25

APPENDIX 3

and Appendix 1 that a drawback of Modified Staff Option A requires the closure of a newer school. Modified Staff Option A considered schools central to the new catchment area when determining schools to remain open and those recommended to close in addition to staff and ARC rationale and criteria.

It is not possible to reduce 1400-1600 pupil places in the review area, meet all five rationale and all six important physical characteristics of a receiving school, as identified by the community, and keep a newer school open.

Distribute schools to maintain Catholic presence throughout the review area The definition of Catholic presence as it relates to the review area is subjective in nature. The ARC did not pursue a consensus on the definition of Catholic presence. Each ARC represented school identified their own parameters around the issue of Catholic presence which are reflected in the ARC identified options.

Staff identified Catholic presence in relation to major roads and proposed new boundaries that would locate schools central to their respective catchment areas. Staff also considered the location of adjacent public schools and the location of the Catholic Church which in itself can be considered a cornerstone of Catholic presence in a neighbourhood. There are many areas of the Board where a school boundary serves a large geographic area.

Maintain classroom space for future growth In considering all ten options identified in Appendix 1, the remaining capacity in the East Credit Review Area ranges from 4% to 26%. The survey statement regarding future growth relates to the review area as a whole, not future growth for each school in the review area. The statement from the survey is as follows, “Maintain classroom space for future growth and/or programming in East Credit”. Distribution of students throughout the schools proposed to stay open would require a number of boundary adjustments and would not achieve the community desire to keep students together.

Minimize need for portables There is concern by the community that in a number of options the utilization exceeds the capacity of the school and portables will be required. Staff has identified throughout this process as well as other processes that require the redirection of students in the board, there is no guarantee that portables will not be required on a school site. Staff clarified, during the ARC exercise in identifying important physical characteristics of receiving schools, that portables are a reality for school boards. The following wording was agreed to by the ARC for the purpose of the survey, “minimize the need for portables”.

The number of portables required at any given school, board wide, is determined by the number of loaded classrooms, the number of students by grade and by specialty program if applicable, as well as FDK and class size requirements. There are situations where the enrolment exceeds capacity however portables are not required due to the organization of the school. There are also situations where enrolment does not exceed capacity and portables are required. It is not feasible to accurately identify the total number and duration of required portables at receiving schools for the options provided without detailed information noted above.

For the purpose of identifying which options would minimize the need for portables, staff conducted a

general mathematical equation based on the number of students exceeding the capacity of the school.

H 1 Pg. 26

APPENDIX 3

The fact that enrolment continues to decline overall in East Credit suggest that the use of portables will be temporary in most situations until enrolments stabilize.

Parish Boundaries Schools are built and boundaries are established to serve the neighbourhoods that are planned by municipalities through secondary plans and subdivisions which do not consider parishes and their boundaries. The Archdiocese does not consider school boundaries when establishing parish boundaries. Parishes boundaries were established before the rapid growth in Mississauga and in many situations do not conform to more natural boundaries (e.g. highways, major roads, natural features, etc.) that the school board would consider when establishing school boundaries.

There are currently two schools (St. Dunstan and St. Gregory) within East Credit that are not in alignment with parish boundaries. There are instances throughout the Board’s jurisdiction where school and parish boundaries are not aligned. Parish boundaries were not a consideration by the ARC when evaluating options or developing ARC rationale. All correspondence intended for receipt by the ARC was presented and discussed at all ARC meetings. Correspondence received by staff as a result of the community consultation process was identified as such in the Interim Staff Report.

Air-conditioning at schools Outlined below is the list of the East Credit Review Area schools with board maintained air-conditioning.

School Area of School that is Air Conditioned

Our Lady of Good Voyage No Air Conditioning

St. Bernadette Front Office and Day Care

St. Dunstan Main Building Excluding Corridors

St. Gertrude Addition Only

St. Gregory Addition, Office, Rooms 201, 202, 214, 215 & 216

St. Herbert ALL

St. Raymond ALL

St. Valentine ALL

Staff recognizes in Appendix 1 that Modified Staff Option A does not maintain a building with full board air-conditioning.

Development of staff options Staff has reviewed all schools on their own merits in relation to both the ARC developed rationale and characteristics, and staff rationale. Staff considered the reduction of pupil places, keeping school communities together, students crossing major roads, the location of schools with respect to walk-in boundaries, site and building configuration including constraints and the ability to accommodate additions and/or portables, age of building and FCI, and the overall boundaries for the review area to ensure remaining schools are central to the new proposed boundary.

Out of ten options presented to trustees (5 ARC, 5 Staff) there are no schools that are not considered to close in at least one of the options. Staff acknowledges that there is one school that is proposed to close in all staff options however it was assessed as noted above and not targeted in any way.

H 1 Pg. 27

APPENDIX 3

What is the plan for relocating sensory rooms or specialty equipment in place for students with special needs? The Board has a practice in supporting transitions for all students, in particular, for those students who

may require special supports. Students with special needs will continue to be supported to reach their

fullest potential, regardless of the school in which they are registered. These needs will be addressed

throughout the transition plans.

Student Well Being and Academic Achievement The Board's Strategic System Plan, Catholic Board Learning Plan and other associated Plans articulate a commitment to student achievement and well-being. During the delegation evenings, questions arose pertaining to the Ministry's Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline (March, 2015) and the identification of the Guiding Principles outlined therein. It is important to note that the Ministry's PAR Guidelines identify that Boards "must respond to changing demographics and program needs while ensuring continued student achievement and well-being, and the financial viability/sustainability of the school board." It is important to note that the Ministry and EQAO have clearly articulated that it is not the intention for individual school achievement results on the EQAO Primary and Junior assessments of Reading, Writing and Mathematics to be used in comparing and/or ranking of schools. As such, individual school EQAO achievement results were not part of staff's initial rationale in proposing options for consideration, nor were EQAO achievement results articulated as a rationale for closing or receiving schools by the ARC or the community survey #2. The Board remains committed to a cycle of continuous improvement for all students.

H 1 Pg. 28 APPENDIX 4

Special Board Meetings - Delegation Nights (May 9, 10, 11) and Faith and Program Committee (May

16, 2016) – Additional Questions for Clarification

The questions below were asked by Trustees of Board staff at each of the three delegation nights.

May 9, 2016 Delegation Night

1. Are there other elementary schools in the Board that feed into more than one secondaryschool?

Yes, there are regular track elementary schools in Brampton that feed into more than onesecondary school. In some situations such as at St. Rita and St. Patrick elementary schools,Caledon students attend elementary school in Brampton and are directed to secondaryschool in Caledon.

There are also situations where a specialty program feeds into more than one secondaryschool from a single elementary feeder school, or into a different secondary school than theregular track program at the same elementary school.

2. Where are French Immersion students from St. Gertrude directed for secondary school?

Loyola Secondary School

3. Are utility costs for child care centres included in the overall costs noted in the report?

Yes4. Are utility costs from child care centres captured in rental rates for these facilities?

Yes

May 10, 2016: Delegation Night

1. How much growth is occurring at St Dunstan?

Enrolment at St Dunstan is projected to increase to 369 students in 2025

2. How many flex boundary students attend the regular track program at St Gertrude?

As of October 31, 2015, there were 25 flex boundary students attending the regular trackprogram

3. How many flex boundary students attend St Dunstan?

As of October 31, 2015, there were 52 flex boundary students

4. What are the conditions used by Mississauga Traffic Safety Council to deem an intersection unsafe?

Mississauga Traffic Safety Council reviews a number of variable when assessing safetyconditions including the posted speed limit, number of traffic/ turning lanes, number ofvehicles, number of pedestrians crossing and the time at which they are accessing anintersection.

May 11. 2016: Delegation Night

Note: Staff responded to the questions noted below in a report to the Faith and Program Committee

on May 16, 2016


1. The total number of St. Joseph Elementary School students residing north of Britannia RoadWest.

There are 196 students (as of October 31, 2015) residing north of Britannia Road Westattending St. Joseph Elementary School.

St. Joseph Elementary School, along with Divine Mercy, Our Lady of Mercy and St. Rose ofLima are located within Education Service Area (ESA) CE07 (Streetsville South, Central ErinMills). As of October 31, 2015 the ESA had a total capacity of 2076 pupil places and 1,541students resulting in an overall utilization of 74% or 535 surplus pupil places.

The ESA CE07 (Streetsville South, Central Erin Mills) grouping of schools was part of theCentral Erin Mills Pupil Accommodation Review which concluded in 2008. At that time theBoard of Trustees approved the closure of Blessed Trinity and consolidated those studentswith St. Rose of Lima. The boundary for St. Joseph, including the area north of BritanniaRoad, remained intact through that PAR process to address the underutilization of thatfacility.

This information was shared with the East Credit Accommodation Review Committee atWorking Group Meeting #2 (January 27, 2016) and available on the Board website.

2. Provide a summary of schools in which students are required to cross a minimum 5 lane roadwith a minimum speed limit of 60 km/h and 70km/h.

Student Transportation of Peel Region (STOPR) was able to confirm that throughout thejurisdiction of the consortia there are 167 elementary schools (66 Dufferin-Peel CatholicDistrict School Board and 101 Peel District School Board) in which students are required tocross a minimum 5 lane road with a minimum posted speed limit of 60 km/h, four (4) ofwhich with a posted speed limit of 70 km/h. This includes ninety-two (92) schools in the Cityof Mississauga, seventy-one (71) schools in the City of Brampton, and four (4) schools in theTown of Caledon.

All secondary schools (26 Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and 37 Peel DistrictSchool Board) throughout the jurisdiction of the consortia have students that are required tocross a minimum 5 lane road with a minimum posted speed limit of 60 km/h, eighteen (18)of which with a posted speed limit of 70 km/h.

STOPR has identified that the consortium provides transportation for approximately 30% ofstudents for both Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and Peel District School Board,with the balance of students (70%) not eligible for transportation under the respective boardtransportation policies. The following table identifies the approximate number of students(based on the 167 elementary schools and 63 secondary schools) that are required to cross aminimum 5 lane road with a minimum speed limit of 60 km/h and 70 km/h.

Establishment and maintenance of safe pedestrian routes are the responsibility of eachmunicipality. The Municipal traffic safety councils provide assessment and confirmation of


acceptable pedestrian routes which assists the board and STOPR in establishing a consistenttransportation eligibility standard throughout the municipality.

Approximate number of students required to cross a minimum 5 lane road with a minimum

speed limit of 60 km/h and 70 km/h

Elementary (posted speed limit @ 60 km/h) 57,000

Secondary (posted speed limit @ 60 km/h) 25,000

TOTAL (posted speed limit @ 60 km/h) 82,000

Elementary (posted speed limit @ 70 km/h) 2,000

Secondary (posted speed limit @ 70 km/h) 26,000

TOTAL 28,000

GRAND TOTAL 110,000

May 16, 2016: Faith and Program Committee

Trustee L. del Rosario, noting community relationships, conservation lands and green space, inquired if staff could look at program enhancements. 

Trustee S. Hobin inquired if staff could research the elite athletes programs offered in Toronto.   The premise of an elite athlete program at Our Lady of Good Voyage has some merit. Students who participate in elite athletics often miss class time due to their training schedule. Having students in one location has the potential to alleviate disruptions to a regular school program. However, the location is not ideal in that no elite programs (e.g. gymnastics, aquatics, martial arts, etc.) have training facilities in the neighbourhood.

Outdoor Learning Centre Our Lady of Good Voyage School could support programs that are unique in their capacity to develop students’ identity through close interactions with nature, which develop creative process using nature as a provocation or inspiration.

Our Lady of Good Voyage School building could serve as the staging ground for a number of unique day program offerings and could include, but is not be limited, to the following:

a) Religious Education: The new elementary program, Growing in Faith, Growing in Christ, hasgreat links to environmental education, stewardship, creation, science and nature. In theoutdoors, students would be exposed to an enriched hands-on, inquiry based program.

b) Christian Meditation: Opening Our Minds to God by Grounding Ourselves in Sacred Soil - Aseries of full-body retreat experiences that involve prayer, meditation and contact with soil,rocks, humus, water and green growth as the vehicles for developing multisensory connectionto the greatness as well as the intimacy of God’s gift of creation.

c) Primary Forest School –Forest School Canada fosters rich learning experiences, ecologicalliteracy, and healthy living by connecting children to nature, to play and learn in local forests,creeks, meadows, prairie grasses, mountains, and shorelines.


d) Environmental Inquiry - Staff could co-plan and/or co-facilitate periodic visits to the naturalenvironment of the school that involves activities that are rooted in the science and socialstudies expectations but also integrate elements of literacy, mathematics, and learning skills.

e) Project Wild/ Below Zero Programs –Canadian Wildlife Federation educators could be engagedto provide more customized learning experiences in the style of learning that the OutwardBound facilitator provides at Silver Creek.

f) Indigenous Knowledge Building – collaboration with one or more knowledge carriers from thePeel Aboriginal Network and the Credit River Métis council could be engaged to provide ongoinglearning experiences for both educators and groups of students. The focus would be ontraditional indigenous teachings about the land and how the land shapes our identity and guidesus to live with each other in good ways.

g) What Do Environmental Scientist Really Do? – This program would take the potential of theSchool surroundings as an environmental ‘field station’. Students would learn to apply thewhole range of skills described in the science curriculum as necessary to understand and tomonitor natural environments.

h) The Wonders of Nature Through the Season – The Credit Valley Conservation, the RiverwoodConservancy and the City of Mississauga forestry division could be engaged to support learningexperiences for both educators and students. These could be repeated seasonally and help alllearners develop a deeper appreciation for the difference between nativeand introduced species of flora and fauna and the changes that nature goes through fromseason to season in order to sustain and promote life.

i) Interdisciplinary Sustainability and Stewardship Inquiry - using Religious Education, Science,and Social Studies curricula as a framework for thinking about sustainability and stewardship.

j) Understanding Life Systems Programming for visiting students would offer many opportunitiesto connect to and support the strand of The Ontario Science and Technology, Grades 1 – 8(2007) curriculum as well as provide experiential, real-world opportunities to practice corescientific inquiry and investigation skills, (i.e. initiating and planning, performing and recording,analyzing and interpreting, communicating).

The day programs as described above will not have an impact on enrolment or utilization in the East

Credit review area.

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:03 PM Subject: CONCERNS-ST.DUNSTAN CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: [email protected]

Dear Luz,

Thanks for leaving me a message as per your request hre is documented report.

I am a mother of one daughter who is attending to ST.Dunstan Catholic elementary school since Grade 1. She is now Grade .

I would like St. Dunstans as one of the schools shutting down due to the reasons below.

1- Access to School

There is no convenient and safe access to the school . No traffic lights were made available and it is always left to the mercy of the drivers at the incoming traffic to allow a parent to turn into school yard to drop of f the kids . Please have a visit, especially try coming from the south of eglington. Exit and entrance is a huge traffic mess, many parents have been ticketed for many reasons.

2- QUALITY OF EDUCATION, QUALITY OF TEACHERS

I have observed a huge teaching quality decline over the past 5 years. Many teachers were retired and new ones were hired. Unfortunately, new ones have been failing to keep themselves respectable.

No teacher should say “ I am not good at explaining , here is your video to learn “. but unfortunately thats what I heard this year and saddened by it. This is a complete incompetency, furthermore its is shocking to hear a teacher saying it.

Therefore , many teachers are losing respect from the students. This is a serious issue.

3 – PA DAYS:

School is failing to inform parents regrading to PA days, especially the past pa DAY april 11 , PARENTS WERE notified on the april 6th by the school. This is unacceptable.

Subtopic of concern :

APPENDIX 5 a

mailto:[email protected]

There are already too many PA days , consuming the 1 week of vacation entitlement of any working parent, this is a challenge as well as not many activities city of Mississauga offering that had the PA day coverage , so parents are forced to consume their vacation days to stay with their children, those many PA days also taking away valuable teaching time from the childrens school time..

In return , I am questioning the efficiency of those PA days. NO improvement whatsoever regarding the quality of education. Very poor job on Peel Dufferin catholic school board side.

Catholic school board requires a refreshment of a reform.

if you would like to further contact me via email/ phone please do so, cell :

best regards,

APPENDIX 5 aH 1 Pg. 33

From:Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 18:18 To: del Rosario, Luz; Pascucci, Mario; [email protected]; [email protected]; Xaviour, Shawn; Di Cosola, Frank; Hobin, Sharon; Abbruscato, Anna; Thomas, Thomas; Iannicca, Bruno; [email protected] Subject: Pupil accommodation Meeting - clarity required

Dear Trustees,

I have a major concern with the new information and staff options that were proposed on April 26, 2016. It appears that the decisions to remove staff options 1-3 and replace them with the modified staff options A and B were based primarily around only 1 of the top 5 criteria from the survey results "Keeping the community together". The issue that I have is what defines community? Is it a neighborhood community? Special Program community? Facility community? The greater issue here is that the word community is open to interpretation as it was never defined in the survey. My interpretation is the the English Stream and the French Immersion programs at St. Gertrude are two separate communities.

In addition a question was raised by one of the trustees with regards to the number of pupils in the French Immersion program at St. Gertrude. Mr. Daniel Del Bianco (superintendent) stated that there were a total of 279 pupils enrolled in the French Immersion program. Further, the question was raised as to how many students were actual students of the St. Gertrude Community? The numbers provided were 81 students were from the St. Gertrude community, 61 were from the surrounding east credit community and the remaining 140 were from other communities. Based upon the criteria in the Top 5 Survey Results "keep the communities together" this is a moot point as the definition is debatable and not clear and the numbers are comprised of individuals from outside the boundary communities.

In conversation with other members of my parent community there interpretations all vary. Please reconsider and keep all options on the table when making your decision. The final decision should be weighted equally on all the top 5 priorities.

Sincerely,

APPENDIX 5 bH 1 Pg. 34




From:Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 3:45 PM To: del Rosario, Luz Cc: 'St. Valentine School ARC' Subject: Question to The Board of Trustees

Dear Luz del Rosario,

Would you submit the fallowing questions to the Board of Trustees, please?

Based on: Appendix 1: Comparison Chart of Modified Staff Options, ARC Preferred Options, Original Staff Options – Dated April 26, 2016

1.- I noticed that Option 2 (from the original Staff option) was developed further to became Option A (from the New Staff option). Why did options 1 and 3 (from the original staff options) were not considered and developed further to be presented as an alternative for the New Staff Options?

2.- It is not clear where the cost of portables, its maintenance and surveillance for kids safety is being allocated. Would you send me that information for New options and Original Options please?

I truly appreciate if you can answer these question.

Thank you,

APPENDIX 5 cH 1 Pg. 35

-------- Original message -------- From: Date: 2016-04-27 6:10 PM (GMT-05:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Pupil accommodation- transportation cost breakdown

Hello,

I attended the board meeting regarding the PAR interim report.

In regards to the transportation cost breakdown, it was unclear as to how the numbers that were presented in the newly modified options were calculated? There was mention that the calculations were based on a 1988 formula. We are now in 2016 - how realistic are the numbers that were presented as they are a part of the deciding factor?

Thank You,

APPENDIX 5 dH 1 Pg. 36


From:Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 4:43 PM Subject: Please keep St. Valentine open

Dear Trustee, I am concerned with the option to close St. Valentine.

Cost: St. Valentine is the newest school. According to the school profile, it has one of the lowest Facility Condition Indicators (a higher FCI indicates a higher cost to repair the facility). In fact it has lower FCI than 6 other schools and it is lower than the board average. St. Valentine has the 3rd lowest projected 5-year facility renewal cost.

St. Valentine has one of the lowest per-student school utility expenditures (even with only 58% utilization).

St. Valentine has the lowest cost per student bussed to school.

Why close the newest school, with biggest capacity and lowest cost requirement?

Resources St. Valentine is a fully Air Conditioned building with 21st Century Learning Resources, such as Smart Boards in many classrooms.

St. Valentine is the school with second highest student capacity and number of instructional rooms. It has no portables or portapak. It is the best candidate to receive new students instead of being closed.

Problems with "New Staff Option #1" In the "New Staff Option #1", St. Valentine is supposed to be moved to St. Herbert. BUT St. Valentine is the only school with significant growth in the 10-year enrollment projections. If St. Valentine students are directed to St. Herbert, immediately, the school will be 18% overpopulated. In 10 years, this school will be 30% overpopulated!!!! It will require portables to house 158 students - that's about 6 portables!!! Why is this option even being considered. See the table below for the numbers (taken from the school profiles)

Year St. Valentine population St. Herbert population St. Herbert capacity Overflow of students 2017 394 237 533 98 2018 403 230 533 100 2019 416 227 533 110 2020 419 230 533 116 2021 429 232 533 128 2022 432 237 533 136 2023 443 239 533 149 2024 454 239 533 160 2025 449 242 533 158

APPENDIX 5 eH 1 Pg. 37

Another problem is that St. Herbert already has limited parking for the current population. How will it accommodate the new student population?

Have all the trustees toured all school facilities to experience the cleanliness and space available? St. Valentine is a clean and large school.

Have you verified which schools are with walking distance to the church? St. Valentine is! This is what keeping the community together is all about - include our church in our community.

Please look at the numbers and the facts. Closing St. Valentine does not make financial sense. Please keep it open.

St. Valentine parent

APPENDIX 5eH 1 Pg. 38

From:Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 3:21 PM Subject: ARC Options

Dear Trustee, After a closer analysis of the New Staff Option #1, I noticed that it's almost the exact duplicate of the Original Staff Option #2. Attached is the comparison of the two options. The full document is available in the documents for April 26, 2016 meeting (APPENDIX 1: Comparison Chart of Modified Staff Options, ARC Preferred Options, Original Staff Options - See more at: http://www.dpcdsb.org/CEC/News/Pupil+Accommodation+Review.htm#sthash.EhEUaz22.dpuf).

I highlighted the two main differences for you - the new option "Keeps students together" by introducing "Boundary Adjustment for NEW students" and introduces Extended French to the school that would have received the split population.

My concerns are as follows: Concern #1 Why was only Original Staff Option #2 submitted as a "New" option, since the only main difference is the boundary adjustment and EF. Since Original Staff Option #1 was preferred, why wasn't that resubmitted with boundary adjustments and introduced EF to the best candidate school?

Please recall, that comparing the major criteria, which is the reason for the PAR, Original Staff Option #1 was preferred because it: - reduces more pupil places- has a higher elimination of outstanding renewal needs- RETAINS NEWER SCHOOL facilities- Portables are needed only in long term ONLY IF need arises (further reducing cost)- maintains buildings with FULL A/C

Concern #2 The New Staff Option #2 does even meet the minimum number of pupil places to be eliminated (it only reduces 764 places). Why it even being considered?

Concern #3 Why is boundary adjustment only being introduced now? The Ministry of Education Pupil Accommodation Review Guideline states that "moving attendance boundaries and programs to balance enrolment" should be done first. Only when that (and the other options specified in the document) are deemed unviable, then PAR should take place. http://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/1516/2015B9appenAEN.pdf

Concern #4 The New Staff Options adds Extended French program. St. Valentine is the newest school (built in 2001) with full A/C. The kindergarten yard was just redesigned. Other improvements were added this year also. It has lowest transportation costs. Why is St. Valentine even being considered for closing? It has the ability to accommodate new population and there is a predicted

APPENDIX 5 fH 1 Pg. 39

http://www.dpcdsb.org/CEC/News/Pupil+Accommodation+Review.htm%23sthash.EhEUaz22.dpuf

http://www.dpcdsb.org/CEC/News/Pupil+Accommodation+Review.htm%23sthash.EhEUaz22.dpuf

http://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/1516/2015B9appenAEN.pdf

growth for the area. St. Valentine is the perfect candidate for an additional program (like Extended French) - not closing!

Thank you for your time,

St. Valentine parent

APPENDIX 5 fH 1 Pg. 40

From:Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 23:11 To: Pascucci, Mario; Da Silva, Anna; D'Souza, Darryl; Xaviour, Shawn; del Rosario, Luz; Di Cosola, Frank; Hobin, Sharon; Abbruscato, Anna; Thomas, Thomas; Iannicca, Bruno; O'Toole, Esther Subject: Questions re: Special Needs Children

Hi,

I value that all information has been shared to the Public through the PAR process and posted for transparency to the website for any information requested and discussions.

What I cannot find is how many Special Needs children are at each school? Can this be shared?

I am concerned as the transition to another school for any child is difficult but research does show that children with special needs who transition from school to another school, does pose additional challenges as well as can delay the learning that is designed for the child.

I would think that this was a discussion point and can be shared with me?

Sincerely,

Parent speaking on behalf of our children

APPENDIX 5g

H 1 Pg. 41

From:Sent: May 4, 2016 10:56 PM To: Pascucci, Mario; Da Silva, Anna; D'Souza, Darryl; Xaviour, Shawn; del Rosario, Luz; Di Cosola, Frank; Hobin, Sharon; Abbruscato, Anna; Thomas, Thomas; Iannicca, Bruno; O'Toole, Esther Subject: East PAR Review - concern about safety & transportation

To the Board of Trustees,

As a parent and representing a number of parents in regards to the Interim option presented by Staff - Interim Modified Staff OptionA in particular, the concern is the following;

How can St. Valentine school a newer school with projected enrollment numbers for the next 10 years, as well as with a larger capacity be transitioned to a smaller and older school? St. Herbert has an OTG - 533 where St. Valentine is 651.

Also, the traffic is a huge concern as it was highlighted as a rationale / criteria in terms of Safety for physical attributes if schools were to consolidate. How will a smaller school compensate for increased traffic coming from various roads or entry points? The main point is if in current state St. Herbert is already congested with limited school size, traffic flow then how can it be safer in the future.

It is said that transportation and the safety assessments are left to the "transition plan" but my recommendation is otherwise. The consideration for traffic, safety and physical allowance at the 8 schools, especially St. Herbert, should be considered now if the decision was to close schools.

If traffic at St. Herbert is a problem now where the school has be under capacity, sitting at 44-50% in the last 5years, and projected to be the same over the next 10years, then why would this be a logical solution to consolidate children to St. Herbert. Should it not be the otherwise where St. Valentine receive children, who has many of the rationale to stay OPEN. St.Valentine is a newer, larger, fully air-conditioned school and who also recently one a grant via research for the well designed KissNRide lanes from Samsung.

Your timely response awaits and is respected.

Sincerely,

Concerned Parent in the PAR

APPENDIX 5hH 1 Pg. 42

From: Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 17:29 To: del Rosario, Luz; Pascucci, Mario; Da Silva, Anna; D'Souza, Darryl; Xaviour, Shawn; Di Cosola, Frank; Hobin, Sharon; Abbruscato, Anna; Thomas, Thomas; Iannicca, Bruno; [email protected] Subject: The closure of St. Valentine - from a concern parent, taxpayer and catholic

Hello Board of Trustees,

The criteria on whether to close St Valentine is still unclear.

Safety If St Valentine moves to St Herbert: this area has two other schools in the vicinity - Fallingbrook Middle School and Rick Hansen Secondary School. The congestion at the start and end of the school day will only increase, as more parents will drop and pickup their children. This area is already overly congested. This becomes a hazard for children and adults with the influx of traffic – children, cars, buses. Imagine this area during the winter, it will be utter chaos. (see aerial view of the vicinity below)

• Question: Was an evaluation or assessment completed with these considerations?• Question: What planning will be or has been put forth to ensure the influx of traffic will not

be safety hazard to the children and adults? Is the documentation available?

Future enrollment The move to St Herbert will bring the capacity roughly over 100% and new enrollments are re-directed to St Raymond. If St Herbert students move to St Valentine, there is still room for growth and St Valentine can handle the new enrollments instead of re-directing students to St Raymond. St Herbert cannot accommodate portables – again, no room for growth.

• Question: What forecasting numbers in new enrollment does the board anticipate for StHerbert?

• Question: How will this impact the current students?• Question: What is the threshold (in numbers) before the board considers moving the extra

students to a new school?

New Facility St Valentine is a new school compared to St Herbert. St Valentine is eco-friendly. With an older school, the maintenance cost are greater than an eco-friendly facility. St Valentine requires far less up-keep than St Herbert. Ontario is becoming an eco-friendly province – if this was the only criteria, St Valentine is the hands down winner.

• Question: Is this a consideration for non-closure? An eco-friendly school. The best choice forthe students, environment, community

St Francis Xavier The parish is within walking distance from St Valentine. No buses required, hence no cost. A greater encouragement for the students to attend mass and follow the Catholic faith.

• Question: Isn’t one of the criteria – Community. This is keeping the Catholic communitytogether.

APPENDIX 5 iH 1 Pg. 43


St Valentine is located in an area where there is strong growth potential for new enrollment, spreading word of the Catholic faith and keeping our values/beliefs within the Community. I know one of the main goals is cost savings, keeping St Valentine open is the best, smarter, eco-friendly Catholic choice.

Please help keep the Catholic faith alive in our community, please keep St Valentine open.

All the Best,

APPENDIX 5 i

H 1 Pg. 44

From:Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:27 PM To: del Rosario, Luz Subject: Delegation

Hi Luz, My name is and my daughter attends St. Valentine elementary school. As a parent of a JK child I am extremely upset at the fact that a newer school would be an option to close. They have 21st technology for teaching the students, a brand new customized play ground area for the Jk/Sk, 2 huge kiss and ride lanes, parking to drop off and pick up our children, there are no other schools around the area that conflict with traffic or safety of the children, fully air conditioned, our home parish is 500 meters away and the children walk there for masses and St. Valentine is a larger school which doesn't make sense to close and go to a smaller one?! The huge down fall for closing St.Valentine would be putting our kids in portables(expense) busing (which would be a huge expense), having 2 public school across from St. Herbert which will add to traffic and also very dangerous for crossing the road as there is one street where there are 3 schools. Why not consider closing St.Herbert, as St. Valentine has the capacity to hold those children where St.Herbert doesn't. You are taking our children away from our home parish and dividing our families as a community that once was a whole. St Herbert's capcity is lower then ours and St. Valentine is a bigger school which would make more sense to have them move to St. Valentine. St. Herbert is not a fully air conditioned school, it's an older school, it's smaller and they will not be able to accommodate the capacity. My husband is one of the staff members at Fallingbrooke and he has told me numerous of times the amount of cops that are at the high school on plenty of occasions whether it be for drugs, fights or vandalism and any other stuff that goes on with high school kids!!! We do not feel safe with our children going to a school where there are 2 other schools right across the street and coming from a school where there is no other schools around!

St.Gertrude was part of the options for closure and since Thomas Thomas made a "comment" about have 5 trustees in his pocket they have magically disappeared from any options?? He should not be able to vote!!!

Please take all these things into consideration as we are all fighting for our schools to stay open its not fair what you guys are doing to our children!

Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada's largest network.

APPENDIX 5 j

H 1 Pg. 45

From:Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 9:59 AM To: del Rosario, Luz; Di Cosola, Frank; Pascucci, Mario; Hobin, Sharon; Abbruscato, Anna; Thomas, Thomas; Iannicca, Bruno; O'Toole, Esther Subject: FW: asbestos in elementary schools

Hello Ms Del Rosario and Board of Trustees,

Below you will find attached an article from the Mississauga News regarding possible asbestos in elementary schools. Bruce Campbell comments that the schools concerning asbestos are those build before 2000. My question to him and the Board is why is St. Gertrude not on this list?

Thank you,

APPENDIX 5k

H 1 Pg. 46

Many Mississauga Schools Contain Asbestos That Cause Health Problemsby Jonah Shinuda on May 1, 2016

Elementary school teachers in Ontario are pushing for a ban on asbestos: a type of mineral fibre present in the building material of quite a few older Peel public schools.

The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) is supporting a request from the Canadian LabourCongress to ban asbestos in Canada, according to a recent Mississauga News article.

“We are concerned for our members, students and school communities as asbestos-containing materialssuch as ceiling tiles and pipe insulation can be present in aging school buildings within view and withinreach,” said Sam Hammond, president of the EFTO, in a statement released on Tuesday.

While asbestos is not used as commonly as before, the current concern surrounding it is that breathing itin can cause major health problems such as lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Hammond said that intense activity in certain areas of the school, such as classrooms, hallways and gyms,can contribute to asbestos disturbance and put the school at risk.

He believes the province should have a public registry for buildings that contain asbestos, includingpublic schools.

Spokesperson Carla Pereira told the News that asbestos should often not be a concern as long as it is maintained properly.

“It’s important to understand that the presence of asbestos in our schools is not a health risk. Healthconcerns only arise if asbestos is crumbled or pulverized,” said Pereira, who mentioned that the schools inquestion were built before 1985 back when asbestos use was more prevalent.

A list was released showing the names of all Peel District School Board locations that contain asbestos - 148 total, more than half of Peel's 250 schools.

Your email address. Subscribe

Sponsored

Spring Sales on Now!heartlandtown.com

Download Our App – Daily Promotions, 163+ Store Listings, Interactive Map & Routing

Top 5 Under the Radar Indian Restaurants1. Udupi Madras Cafe2. Masala Bites3. Guru's4. Ancila's5. Bukhara Grill

View all top 5 >

5 Restaurants That Expanded & Took Over Their NeTop 5 Bars to Watch Sports in MississaugaTop 5 Make-Out Spots in MississaugaTop 5 Unique Fast Food Choices in MississaugaTop 5 Mac & Cheese Dishes in Mississauga

View all top 5 >

Coming soon! Be the first to hear about all things Mississauga.

Many Mississauga Schools Contain Asbestos ThatCause Health Problemsby Jonah Shinuda on May 1, 2016

Elementary school teachers in Ontario are pushing for a ban on asbestos: a type of mineral fibre present in the building material of quite a few older Peel public schools.

The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) is supporting a request from the Canadian Labour Congress to ban asbestos in Canada, according to a recent Mississauga News article.

“We are concerned for our members, students and school communities as asbestos-containing materials such as ceiling tiles and pipe insulation can be present in aging school buildings within view and within reach,” said Sam Hammond, president of the EFTO, in a statement released on Tuesday.

While asbestos is not used as commonly as before, the current concern surrounding it is that breathing it in can cause major health problems such as lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Hammond said that intense activity in certain areas of the school, such as classrooms, hallways and gyms, can contribute to asbestos disturbance and put the school at risk.

He believes the province should have a public registry for buildings that contain asbestos, including public schools.

Spokesperson Carla Pereira told the News that asbestos should often not be a concern as long as it is maintained properly.

“It’s important to understand that the presence of asbestos in our schools is not a health risk. Health concerns only arise if asbestos is crumbled or pulverized,” said Pereira, who mentioned that the schools in question were built before 1985 back when asbestos use was more prevalent.

A list was released showing the names of all Peel District School Board locations that contain asbestos - 148 total, more than half of Peel's 250 schools.

Your email address. Subscribe

Sponsored

Spring Sales on Now!heartlandtown.com

Download Our App – Daily Promotions, 163+ Store Listings, Interactive Map & Routing

Top 5 Under the Radar Indian Restaurants1. Udupi Madras Cafe2. Masala Bites3. Guru's4. Ancila's5. Bukhara Grill

View all top 5 >

5 Restaurants That Expanded & Took Over Their NeTop 5 Bars to Watch Sports in MississaugaTop 5 Make-Out Spots in MississaugaTop 5 Unique Fast Food Choices in MississaugaTop 5 Mac & Cheese Dishes in Mississauga

View all top 5 >

Coming soon! Be the first to hear about all things Mississauga.

A similar list shows all of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board sites that are suspected of containing asbestos. Catholic board spokesperson Bruce Campbell said that all their buildings constructedbefore 2000 are being suspected as a precaution.

“Many older buildings continue to have friable and non-friable materials, that, if maintained, do not pose ahealth risk,” Campbell said as reported by The News.

Both school boards have an asbestos management program to adhere to provincial regulations concerning materials that contain asbestos. New Openings: El Jefe

One of Mississauga's most highly anticipatedrestaurants has its soft opening today!

Will you still attend Ribfest this summer evenif there is a cover?

Choices

Yes

No

Vote

View all polls >

H 1 Pg. 47

From:Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 10:06 AM To: PAR - Info; del Rosario, Luz Subject: Keep St. Valentine Catholic Elementary School open!

Dear Honorable Trustee,

It is with utter shock and dismay that I received the news of St. Valentine elementary school being on the ‘modified plan A’ list as an option listed for closure. I currently have two children who attend this amazing school.

St. Valentine elementary school is a newer school among the others and one of the best located in the heart of the Mississauga area. St. Valentine elementary school’s ultra-modern building with plush interiors, innovate and state-of-the-art facilities give it a cutting edge in terms of infrastructure and enhances learning. The school has a dedicated prayer room for virtue celebrations and praying of the rosary which enhances our future generations’ faith and spirituality in being a Catholic. We have always considered it as a blessing to have the school located so close to the Church.

I find it both ironical and strange that a Catholic school (St. Valentine elementary school) which is within 500 meters of vicinity of St. Francis Xavier Church has been considered as an option for closure. For many of us the church is within minutes of walking distance and relocating to another school will mean relocating to a newer parish which is by no means walkable. This will significantly increase the number of inconveniences caused and will result in decline of spiritual participation in church activities by the community as a whole. We are already witnessing a rapid decline in our religion in this ever so fast paced and modern world. The DPCSB report states that the number of Catholic families moving in the area is declining but the statistics differ in the case of St. Valentine elementary school which shows a continuous steady increase in enrollment over the next 10 years.

It has come to my understanding that if the students are moved to another school, they will be placed in portables. This move is very unsafe and we will be forced to move our kids to a public school with a safer environment. At a public school, our children will not be learning about our faith and hence I'm afraid that if St. Valentine elementary school closes, it will result in a catastrophic decline in the number of Catholics in the area which is in contrast to why the school was originally built.

At present, due to its proximity, many of our children experience great joy while they visit the church daily before going to school and when they walk to church from school to attend Monthly Masses. They experience the love of Christ in a unique way and their core values in our faith are further strengthened. It is very essential that our future generation continues to experience this grace otherwise we who are a majority will soon become a minority. St. Francis Xavier Church will lose many parishioners. Mother Mary will not be pleased to see fewer children visiting the church.

APPENDIX 5 LH 1 Pg. 48

St. Valentine Catholic School is an amazing community and we feel a sense of oneness belonging to a large loving family. Our children call it their second home.

May the Holy Spirit guide you when you make an important decision concerning the future of our children. Please see that their future is not jeopardized as their learning encompasses the core values of Catholic teachings.

Please save our School and our Bravehearts!!!

Thanks,

APPENDIX 5 LH 1 Pg. 49

Good afternoon Ms. del Rosario,

I am writing to you today regarding the new modified options for the Pupil Accommodation Review. St. Valentine is now on the modified option A to close. I cannot begin to comprehend why the newest school out of the 8 other schools is on the chopping block. It was also stated that should St. Valentine close, the indication is that the entire school will be moved over to St. Herbert. I have some concerns about that. First of all, we would lose the Catholic presence in our community. St. Herbert doesn’t have the capacity to accommodate all of the students from St. Valentine. So where would the rest of the students go? Portables? When I attended your last board meeting, it was very obvious that nobody was in favor of using or getting portables put in schools. Having an over capacitated school is also a safety concern for all students and Teacher’s involved.

What would really make more sense is to move all of the students from St. Herbert to St. Valentine. St. Valentine is a larger school can easily accommodate all of the students from St. Herbert.

St. Valentine also has a room that is specifically designated for children with learning disabilities such as Autism. It has an eco outdoor classroom, a music room, a Chapel, a computer lab, is fully air-conditioned and our kindergarten yard was the 1st out of 25 with the newly enhanced outdoor learning environment. St. Valentine is also up to date with the latest technology; every classroom has a smart board and they also have iPads for the kids to do research with.

Another option is to go back and look at the original preferred option #1 that was made back in November. That option stated to close St. Dustan (1993), Our Lady of Good Voyage (1989) and St. Gertrude (1993). These 3 schools are the oldest schools out of the 8 schools.

A twist to the original preferred option #1 would be to close St. Dustan; all of the students from St. Dustan would go to St. Bernadette. Close Our Lady of Good Voyage, and all of the Our Lady of Good Voyage students would go to St. Raymond. Close St. Gertrude and all of the non French students from St. Gertrude would go to St. Valentine, and all of the French Immersion students could go to San Lorenzo Ruiz since it already has an extended French program.

As a parent, I know that nobody wants to see their child’s school close. It’s a no win, win situation because at the end of this process, there will be schools that are going to close and students, parents and teachers will all be disappointed, sad and/or angry with the decision. All I can suggest is, if you’re going to close schools, start with the older ones first. There’re the ones that are going to cost you the most amount of money to keep it maintained for the next 5 years.

Sincerely,

APPENDIX 5 m

H 1 Pg. 50

From:Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 11:48 To: del Rosario, Luz Cc: Pascucci, Mario Subject: St Valentin school

Good Morning Luz and Mario,

I have questions and or concerns regarding the school closing. (St Valentine?)

1. Why close a school that is newer, with air conditioning ?If St. Valentine closes they have to go to a school that needs portables with no heat and airconditioning. If children are hot or cold not comfortable this impacts their learning. Not tomention in our winter's that are minus 30's inturn students will get sick and miss out learning dueto the fact they have to stay home because they are sick.

2. How is this safe for the children? (If there needs to be a lock down?How are they protected?(In portables)

3.St Valentines has a school chapel, a facility to work with children with disabilities. Newerareas for children to play. Also,with every glasses room with smart bordes. Not to mentiontablets and iPads to help our students with understanding certain subjects.

4.This school is safer for morning's and afternoon's pick ups and drops offs.

We as parents are seriously concerned about our children's safety. Our children are our future. Dont deprive them of a fantastic school with so much possibilities.

Thank you,

APPENDIX 5nH 1 Pg. 51

From: MSGR.Edgardo Pan [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 5:38 PM To: del Rosario, Luz; Pascucci, Mario Cc:Subject:

Dear Ms. del Rosario and Mr. Pascucci,

I have concerns, to say the least, about the plan to close St. Valentine School and St. Gertrude, which are under the care of St. Francis Xavier . St. Valentine is so close to the church that the students walk to St. Francis Xavier Church for their school Masses, and since their families live within the area, they come to our church for their liturgical, sacramental and other spiritual needs. The same thing is true with the families of the students of St. Gertrude School, which is just five minutes drive from our church. I don’t see the wisdom of closing a school and requiring new and current students of St. Valentine, for example, to go to St. Raymond School and St. Herbert School respectively, which are under other parishes that the students’ families don’t go to.

If these two schools are closed, how many of the students will go to other Catholic schools and not to public schools which are closer to their homes? Are we sacrificing Catholic education for other “practical” considerations? As I said at the start of this email, I have serious concerns about this plan.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Msgr. Edgardo Pan Pastor St. Francis Xavier Church 5650 Mavis road, Mississauga, On L5V 2N6

APPENDIX 5 oH 1 Pg. 52

Original Message From:Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:06 PM To: Thomas, Thomas Subject: ST. GERTRUDE

Dear Mr. Thomas,

I have been to all the public meetings as well as the board meetings and have fully reviewed all the ARC correspondence. We are really concerned that St. Gertrude is even on the table at all for closing and only hope that the trustees look at the facts and not just moving the biggest numbers around as the initial staff report seems to do. St. Gertrude has the HIGHEST utilization of all the schools (87%). The board staff at the first public meeting said “well that’s including the F.I.”. Well of course it is. How can you NOT use the F.I. numbers for utilization % for St. Gertrude but then use the same numbers to increase a poor utilization at St. Gregory. Hypocritical. Even if you remove the F.I. numbers ( and you fully can’t because trustees should be aware that 81 of these F.I. are WITHIN St. Gertrude boundary), the utilization remains high. Do we even know if these 81 F.I. students in St. Gertrude will commit to the program moving to St. Gregory and having to drive theirchildren to school, or will they choose to follow the regular track thereby really throwing off our alreadyprojected overcapacity at the receiving school. The option of closing St. Gertrude already projects anovercapacity at St. Valentine. You are moving more people from out of boundary to up a decliningutilization %. We immediately need portables (please keep in mind St. Valentine can only accommodate4). We’ve read all these charts with which schools have air conditioning but no weight given to puttingour children in these “boxes” with poor ventilation, poor heating and cooling and increase in safety andsecurity risk. Unacceptable.On the topic of safety……Mavis. St. Gertrude has the LOWEST average walking distance to school (.9km), 95% of our students are NOT eligible for busing. The option to close St. Gertrude is a logistical nightmare with busing almost 300 students a few kilometres. Increased traffic and safety concerns on an already busy Mavis Rd. as well as increased pollution. There would be up to 5 extra buses at this intersection and let’s face it, a lot of parents will be driving adding more and more cars, when as my previous experience with Sopr proves, you become frustrated at why a 2km bus trip takes 30 minutes. Furthermore almost 100 grade 7 and 8 students will be crossing Mavis and Lafayette with 6 lanes and 70km/hr traffic. The Highway act forbids crossing guards on over 60km/hr roads because of SAFETY but our students are expected to cross there. We brought up this concern several times and were told that a recommendation for safety review would be asked of Stopr and the Mississauga traffic safety council AFTER the board of trustee’s final decision. A safety decision made AFTER the board’s final decision is ridiculous and unacceptable. Isn’t safety one of the discussions the board should do BEFORE making a decision? Also, we encourage the trustees to review the Stopr policy for reassessing sites for boundary changes (on Stopr website). It takes months. Even if is decided that all students be bused, it doesn’t make any sense. The cost, traffic, safety and pollution concerns of busing 400 students to join a school that has approx 300 (because 63 are out of boundary )is ridiculous. The huge density of housing east of Mavis without a Catholic Elementary School is unacceptable. Also, you would not only be changing our boundary but our ward. St.Gertrude is the only school under review in ward 5. We would vote for a school trustee based on our address and yet they would not be responsible for our child’s school which is out of boundary. Also, some would have children in boundary for high school and out of boundary for elementary at the same time.

APPENDIX 5pH 1 Pg. 53

In conclusion, St. Gertrude has:

— HIGHEST utilization 87% 646/752 —NO decline in future growth (in fact we have a waiting list for F.I.) ---LOWEST average walking distance of all the schools .9km —-95% of students are not eligible for busing (compare to St. Dunstan where 64% of students are bused 199/312) —LOWER than board average FCI (10.93) —LOWEST per student expenditure (120.17)

We thank you for your consideration of these facts.

Regards,

St. Gertrude parents

APPENDIX 5pH 1 Pg. 54

From:Sent: May 12, 2016 01:04 To: Pascucci, Mario Subject: P.A.R. Process - ARC Member Feedback

Dear Trustee Pascucci,

I will thank you in advance for taking the time to read this letter. I have been at several Board Meetings and the Delegation Nights and believe that you take your role of Chair seriously and with great professionalism. That is what leads me to write to you in particular.

I am hoping that you can either take action based on my observations or point me toward a more relevant avenue, if you deem that appropriate.

I confess to not generally being very involved with the community. Taking part in the P.A.R. process and becoming an ARC representative for St. Gertrude is extraordinary for me. Subsequently taking the time to follow up on this participation with observations on the process is unprecedented.

First and foremost, credit to where it is due. Superintendent Amaral, Superintendent Del Bianco, Senior Manager Cox and their respective staff did a tremendous job. From the very beginning they were forthright, candid and completely transparent, acting with complete integrity. Additionally, their commitment to the process in terms of time and inclusiveness cannot be questioned. Finally, the support functions that came in to inform the process were generally well prepared, responsive and informative.

The reason that I need to qualify that last sentence is that all the functions, bar Finance, did an excellent job. Given the fundamentally financial nature of the problem the school board is facing with funding cuts, I was initially surprised that Finance was not a prescribed member of the P.A.R. process with representation at every meeting. The ARC members needed to request a presentation from Finance in order to gain clarity on what was provided in the School Information Packages.

After requesting a briefing from Finance, two senior level Finance leaders provided a ‘high level’ briefing of Board cost structure. Frankly it was a presentation that any Finance professional could have delivered with a ten minute briefing. It was ‘motherhood and apple-pie’ and while, interesting perhaps, it did not address anything relevant to the SIP or what the ARC members needed to know. When questioned on specific details it was immediately obvious that no preparation had taken place. They had no packages, no backup, no obvious understanding of the data contained in the SIP’s. After being provided a copy of the financial section of the SIP’s by a planning staff member, they were still unable to provide clear answers, responding with platitudes and generalities. Beyond wasting time, it left most people more confused than when we began. This failed presentation lead to the requirement to follow up with additional questions.

I followed up with questions. After a delay, we were told that they were not detailed enough. I expected that a finance professional would their professional judgement and be able to

APPENDIX 5q

H 1 Pg. 55

understand the intent, as the line of questioning was clear enough. To that end, I provided more specific questions. Weeks went by and we were provided with responses which I consider ‘compliance verbatim’. In fact, when you analyze the responses, there was virtually no content, however they deemed that they had answered the questions. Being persistent, on round three, I specified in painful detail exactly what I was asking for from the Finance group. The response to this varied but basically fell into a couple categories of ‘our systems don’t do that’ or ‘we don’t track that’ and finally, reading between the lines the ‘we just won’t tell you’ responses. I have an example of one paragraph of Finance response where they indicated they were going to extraordinary lengths to be transparent and in the next indirectly refuse to release requested information.

I documented most all of this and can provide examples, but wonder if there is a point in spending more time and effort if it won’t initiate some change in the process and accountability. The net outcome of all of this is that despite all of the data requests, no useful information was ever derived from anything beyond the initial SIP documents.

Although my Finance days are behind me, I did spend 7 years at four universities in three countries studying Finance. I have working in Finance, partnered with Finance and had Finance work for me. From all this, there are three things I know. One is that my original requests were fair and reasonable. Two is when a Finance group is being deliberately difficult in their responses. Three is that, in all my interactions with Finance communities in eight countries where I have worked, the Dufferin-Peel group is the least cooperative and least engaged group I have ever encountered.

After all this, could the ARC group have been better educated and better served? Absolutely. Would this have changed the way ARC options were formulated? Perhaps. Would this change to overall outcome? Maybe, maybe not. If nothing else, it is a gaping hole in an otherwise difficult, but fairly robust process.

Please let me know your thoughts as to how to proceed. Just to be very clear, I am not contesting anything regarding the current PAR process, just noting process improvements. More than anything, I would hate to see a repeat of this in the next PAR process.

With thanks for your time and consideration,

APPENDIX 5 q

H 1 Pg. 56

From:Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:39 PM To: del Rosario, Luz Subject: May 9 FAQ Positioning Concern

I recently had the opportunity to review the May 9 FAQ that was posted by the planning team. It appears that the planning team has failed to acknowledge that with their proposed Interim Report modified option A, the option to transition students from St. Valentine to St. Herbert a “receiving school” meets ZERO of the receiving school criteria where the community has indicated are a priority.

I would like to highlight the Top 5 priority items the community has requested and how the revised option fails to meet any of them.

1. Maintain classroom space for future growth - No. There won’t be enough classroom space for thecurrent proposed move of St. Valentine to St. Herbert. The school would be overpopulated immediatelyby about 158 students with the transition. This is very concerning as there is ZERO space for futuregrowth. The comments around the stabilization in 2017 may hold true for the receiving school only.

2. Minimize need for portables Long Term – No. Due to the size of the receiving school, St. Herbert,portables would be needed right away and with no end in sight. The school doesn’t have enoughclassroom space to house the population in the proposed move. Again because of the projected growthof St. Valentine and St. Dunstan (greater than 80 students) there would be a long term need forportables. It would be a more logical decision to transition the students of St. Herbert to St. Valentine asthere are classrooms to accommodate the transition and St.Valentine is a larger newer school.

3. Retain schools with lower renewal costs – No. St. Valentine has one of the lowest renewal costs in thePAR because it is the newest and larger facility. There are other schools with higher renewal costs.

4. Ensure barrier-free school facilities for all learners - No. The receiving school St. Herbert, does nothave a sensory room that St. Valentine has. There would be expenses to move this room. In additionthe receiving school would lose 1 classroom space to accommodate a sensory room. The receivingschool is already in short supply of classrooms. The loss of another classroom would increase the needfor more portables. By the calculations there could be the need of about 2-7 portables way to manywhen we have schools large enough to accommodate students. In addition I would like to inform youthat St. Valentines school supports 15+ exceptional students and their families. The importance of suchresources like the sensory room are far deeper than the room itself. These exceptional children arereliant on that space, their routine and moving is not that simple, there are risk factors involved such asregression.

5. Maintain access to on-site child care (1.5 to 3.5 yrs) - No. If St. Valentine moves to St. Herbert with ourhigh population and with the lack of classroom space at St. Herbert the on-site child care would be atrisk for closure. The classroom space the childcare centre is occupying would be prime space needed forstudents. Moving St. Valentine to St. Herbert doesn’t maintain on-site child care. Why overpopulate aschool or move a school to a location that doesn’t have sufficient classroom space.

Also I would sincerely ask that the board revisit the comments made by planning indicating that thestaggered school start times around St. Herbert work well for traffic flow, there are 3 schools inextremely close proximity and a lot of congestion. I challenge this as I have taken the opportunity to be

APPENDIX 5rH 1 Pg. 57

present at the start and close of the school day. I am not sure if the planning team has taken the time to be present during these times but a visual assessment is much more impactful then simply reviewing timing on paper.

Thank you for taking the time to review my comments. I appreciate your time.

Sincerely,

APPENDIX 5rH 1 Pg. 58

From:Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 10:30 PM To: del Rosario, Luz Subject: Delegation - Correspondence 65

Hi Luz,

My name is and I was delegate yesterday (May 11th). I made reference to correspondence 65 in the meeting minutes from February 3rd and the conversation that occurred around that correspondence. It is found on page 6 of the February 3rd minutes. I have also included a highlighted screenshot of the important discussion that occurred around the correspondence, namely that the resource staff said there were "no best practices, only lessons learned", which is not true because in the Ministry of Education Guidelines for a PAR review, they outline the Guiding Principles that I stated in my delegation powerpoint (which you have a copy of). Then in the second highlighted section, it clearly shows that the board was not familiar with the document at all. My question was, how can they conduct a PAR review without having gone through the Ministry of Education documents? That alone should cast much doubt as to how the PAR review was conducted. On top of that, it also supports my point that by the Board not including you in the ARC meetings, you miss the context of the information. Again, another reason this PAR Review should be halted. I hope that you share this with your fellow Trustees.

Yours in education

APPENDIX 5sH 1 Pg. 59

Contact Media Careers Staff Login Other Sites Social Media

Home Parents Students Schools Catholic Community

Programs & Services

News About Us

Home > News > Pupil Accommodation Review FAQs Share :

Pupil Accommodation Review FAQs

Updated May 17, 2016

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board will update Frequently Asked Questions as questions arise from the community through the trustees and staff related to the East Credit Pupil Accommodation Review process. Points of clarification will also be addressed in the FAQs. Correspondence received by trustees will be included as part of the Final Report submitted to the Board of Trustees for consideration on May 24, 2016.

Research shows that children with special needs who transition from one school to another school poses additional challenges as well as can delay the learning that is designed for the child. How many Special Needs students attend schools in the East Credit Review area?

The number of students enrolled in special education resource classes are identified in each of the School Information Profiles. The Board has a practice in ensuring smooth transitions for all students, in particular, for those students who may require special supports. Students with special needs will continue to be supported to reach their fullest potential, regardless of the school in which they are registered.

Why does St Gertrude Elementary School not appear on the list of schools suspected of containing asbestos and constructed before the year 2000?

St. Gertrude was not included on the list because it had undergone a partial survey prior to renovation work done in the past. Following the board’s Asbestos Management Protocol, it was deemed that it was unlikely the remainder of the school contained asbestos. Nevertheless, following protocol, should any renovation or construction work be initiated at St. Gertrude in the future, the board would again conduct a survey prior to any work being done.

Why were original staff options 1 and 3 from the Initial Staff Report not considered and developed further to be presented as alternative for new staff options?

Keeping school communities together is the most important rationale identified by the community at large through Survey #2. With respect to Initial Staff Option 1, none of the schools in the East Credit review area would be able to accommodate the entire St Gertrude population as a whole (regular track and French Immersion), nor can St Gertrude accommodate any other school communities as a whole without the need for a significant number of portables. In Initial Staff Option 3, the distribution of the remaining receiving schools is such that the new boundaries created cross over major roads such as Britannia Road and Eglinton Avenue. This rationale is also true for regular track students being directed from St Gertrude to St Valentine school in Option 1, potentially requiring some students to cross Mavis Road. Furthermore, the distribution of the remaining schools in Option 3 does not represent an even distribution of schools within the review area.

What is the cost of installing and maintaining portables? What about surveillance of portables for student safety?

The board has a surplus of portables. The relocation of portables could be approximately $20,000/unit, depending on the site, the scope of work required and the number of portables needed. It is not the board’s practice to provide surveillance of portables.

Appendix 1 of the Interim Staff Report indicates that ARC Option 5 “Maintains Catholic Presence: ALL Areas of East Credit)”, however this option eliminates any presence west of Creditview Road and east of Mavis Rd. Can you explain?

Back

Pupil Accommodation Review FAQs

Pupil Accommodation Review

News

EventsBoard MeetingsMediaBudget Consultation 2016-17Provincial Negotiations

Update

News

Quick Links

Policies

School Directory

School Year Calendar

Student Success Stories

Weather Cancellations

Connect to a School SiteElementary Schools

Secondary Schools

Extraordinary Lives Start With a Great Catholic Education Search

5/19/2016http://www.dpcdsb.org/CEC/News/Pupil+Accommodation+Review+FAQs.htm

APPENDIX 6

H 1 Pg. 60

The wording in Appendix 1 is directly extracted from the ARC Options as they were identified by the individual ARC groups that selected the option and as presented at Public Open House #2. Catholic presence is subject to interpretation in all options.

How are transportation costs calculated?

A number of factors are used to calculate transportation costs: the annual cost to operate a large school bus (approximately $45,000/year), the number of students being transported, where students live, bus routes and the number of runs a single bus can achieve during the morning and afternoon drives. Transportation costs are NOT calculated on a per pupil basis.

Why is a newer school like St Valentine being proposed to close, with students being directed to an older and smaller school like St Herbert?

St Valentine was built in 2001 with a capacity of 651. Recommended Modified Staff Option A proposes directing all existing students to St Herbert which was built in 2000 with a capacity of 533. The final boundaries would redirect any new students moving into the St Valentine area who live north of Bristol Road to St Raymond. St Raymond was built in the same year (2001) and has the same capacity (651) as St Valentine. These three schools are the youngest schools in East Credit. Directing students to St Herbert and St Raymond makes the most sense when determining an accommodation solution for the entire East Credit review area because they are the schools directly to the west of the St Valentine catchment area and central to the new proposed catchment areas.

How will St Herbert be able to accommodate additional traffic from new students?

St Valentine has a unique site and traffic circulation because of the narrow frontage; the site has limited bus accommodation, allowing for up to 3 busses at one time. St Herbert is a more typical site design which would accommodate up to 5 busses at one time. St Valentine and St Herbert both have 59 on-site parking spaces.

St Valentine is a newer, larger, fully air-conditioned school – why would it be a logical solution to consolidate children to St Herbert?

School Year Built OTG Building Size (GFA)

Board Air Conditioning

St Valentine 2001 651 5,041 m2 YesSt Herbert 2000 533 5,614 m2 Yes

St Herbert already has limited parking for the current population. How will it accommodate the new student population?

St Herbert and St Valentine each have 59 on-site parking spaces. The design of the school is such that the number of parking spaces meet municipal by-law requirements and can accommodate staff and visitor parking for the capacity of the building and beyond.

In the "New Staff Option #1", St. Valentine is supposed to be moved to St. Herbert. BUT St. Valentine is the only school with significant growth in the 10-year enrolment projections. If St. Valentine students are directed to St. Herbert, immediately, the school will be 18% overpopulated. In 10 years, this school will be 30% overpopulated. It will require portables to house 158 students - that's about 6 portables. Why is this option even being considered?

While the status quo enrolment projections for St Valentine are projected to increase, the projections shown in Modified Staff Option A actually show projected enrolments declining at St Herbert after consolidation with St Valentine. St Herbert is projected to be over-capacity by 11% in 10-years, or over-capacity by 59 students, with the potential for 2 portables based strictly on a mathematical formula. Staff has identified that while portables are based on a mathematical formula, there are other factors that determine the number of portables required at a school such as class size requirements and classroom organization.

Was an evaluation completed with respect to the traffic congestion from parent drop-off and pick-up in the St Herbert area, with two other public schools in the area?

The design of the school is such that the parking lot and Kiss and Ride can accommodate busses for the capacity of the building and beyond. The start times of St Herbert, Fallingbrook Middle and Sherwood Mills are purposely staggered to alleviate traffic congestion in the interest of student safety. St Herbert is designed with a standard Kiss and Ride to accommodate busses and student drop-off and pick-up.

What forecasting numbers in new enrolment does the board anticipate for St Herbert?


APPENDIX 6

H 1 Pg. 61

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

40 Matheson Boulevard West, Mississauga, ON L5R 1C5

Phone: 905-890-1221 Toll Free: 1-800-387-9501Fax: 905-890-7610

Twitter Feed

Tweets by @DPCDSBSchools

“Let us allow God to fill our heaand mercy.” Pope Francis IDA#

DPCDSB @DPCDSBSchools

HomeHelp Your Child Learn

Getting Involved

ParentsStudent Resources

Catholic Graduate

Expectations

StudentsRegister for School

Child Care Centres

Student

Transportation

School Year Calendar

School Directory

SchoolsParishes

Catholic Education

Community Partners

Virtue of the Month

Catholic Community

Languages

International Students

Special Education

Adult Education

Programs & ServicesEvents

Board Meetings

NewsTrustees

Administration

Policies

Publications

About UsStaff Login

Employee Assistance

Program (EAP)

Staff

Copyright © 2016 Privacy Policy

St Herbert enrolment is projected to be relatively stable over the next 10 years between 230 to 247 students.

St Valentine is a new school compared to St Herbert, and is eco-friendly. Is this a consideration for non-closure?

St Valentine is one year newer than St Herbert. According to Ontario Eco-School Standards, all schools in the East Credit Review area are 100% eco-certified.

Policies Media Board Meetings Publications Events

Contact Media Careers Staff Login Other Sites Social Media SiteMap


APPENDIX 6

H 1 Pg. 62

¹½

!1!2

!3

!4!4

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL RD

W

RIVER CREDIT401

HWY

ST. BE

RNAD

ETTE

ST. HE

RBER

T

ST. RA

YMON

DST.

VAL

ENTIN

E

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RDST.

GRE

GORY

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

Origi

nal S

taff O

ption

1 - F

rom

Nov 2

4/15 S

taff R

epor

t

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5

Kilom

etres

St. R

aymo

ndPr

opos

ed B

ound

aries

¹½St.

Jose

ph S

SOu

r Lad

y of G

ood V

oyag

eSt.

Bern

adett

eSt.

Dun

stan

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

Februa

ry 2016

ÜDu

fferin

-Pee

lCa

tholi

c Dist

rict

Scho

ol Bo

ard

OTG

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

St B

erna

dett

e48

720

119

820

120

621

7So

uth

St D

unst

an16

016

717

817

817

9St B

ernade

tte361

365379

384396

74%

74%

74%

74%

74%

St G

rego

ry55

628

527

726

627

528

0FI

309

304

301

302

302

St Greg

ory594

581567

577582

107%

104%

102%

104%

105%

St H

erbe

rt53

323

722

723

223

924

2N

orth

St D

unst

an17

117

918

719

219

0St H

erbert

408406

419431

43277

%76

%79

%81

%81

%

St R

aym

ond

651

368

321

275

241

232

OLG

V17

417

116

517

017

1St R

aymon

d542

492440

411403

83%

76%

68%

63%

62%

St V

alen

tine

651

394

416

429

443

449

St G

ertr

ude

347

334

312

315

322

St Vale

ntine

741750

741758

77111

4%11

5%11

4%11

6%11

8%

Overa

ll287

892%

90%88%

89%90%

Clos

e 3 sc

hools

(Our

Lady

of G

ood V

oyag

e, St

Dun

stan,

St G

retru

de)

MAP 1H 1 Pg. 63

¹½

!1

!2

!3

!4

!5

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL RD

W

RIVER CREDIT401

HWY

ST. BE

RNAD

ETTE

ST. HE

RBER

T

ST. RA

YMON

D

ST. G

ERTR

UDE

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RDST.

GRE

GORY

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

Clos

e 3 sc

hools

(Our

Lady

of G

ood V

oyag

e, St

Dun

stan,

St Va

lentin

e)

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5

Kilom

etres

St. R

aymo

ndPr

opos

ed B

ound

aries

¹½St.

Jose

ph S

SOu

r Lad

y of G

ood V

oyag

eSt.

Bern

adett

eSt.

Dun

stan

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

Februa

ry 2016

ÜDu

fferin

-Pee

lCa

tholi

c Dist

rict

Scho

ol Bo

ard

Origi

nal S

taff O

ption

2 - F

rom

Nov 2

4/15 S

taff R

epor

t

OTG

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

St B

erna

dett

e48

720

119

820

120

621

7So

uth

St D

unst

an16

016

717

817

817

9St B

ernade

tte361

365379

384396

74%

75%

78%

79%

81%

St H

erbe

rt53

323

722

723

223

924

2N

orth

St D

unst

an17

117

918

719

219

0So

uth

St V

alen

tine

144

148

153

158

159

St Herb

ert552

554572

589591

104%

104%

107%

111%

111%

St G

ertr

ude

752

347

334

312

315

322

FI30

930

430

130

230

2St G

ertrud

e656

638613

617624

87%

85%

82%

82%

83%

St G

rego

ry55

628

527

726

627

528

0N

orth

St V

alen

tine

250

268

276

285

290

St Greg

ory535

545542

560570

96%

98%

97%

101%

103%

St R

aym

ond

651

368

321

275

241

232

OLG

V17

417

116

517

017

1St R

aymon

d542

492440

411403

83%

76%

68%

63%

62%

Overa

ll297

989%

87%85%

86%87% MAP 2

H 1 Pg. 64

¹½

!1

!2

!3

!4!5

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL RD

W

RIVER CREDIT401

HWY

ST. BE

RNAD

ETTE

OUR L

ADY O

F GO

OD V

OYAG

E

ST. RA

YMON

D

ST. G

ERTR

UDE

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RD

ST. V

ALEN

TINE

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

Clos

e 3 sc

hools

(St D

unsta

n, St

Greg

ory,

St H

erbert

)

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5

Kilom

etres

St. R

aymo

ndPr

opos

ed B

ound

aries

¹½St.

Jose

ph S

SOu

r Lad

y of G

ood V

oyag

eSt.

Bern

adett

eSt.

Dun

stan

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

Februa

ry 2016

ÜDu

fferin

-Pee

lCa

tholi

c Dist

rict

Scho

ol Bo

ard

Origi

nal S

taff O

ption

3 - F

rom

Nov 2

4/15 S

taff R

epor

t

OTG

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

OLG

V28

017

417

116

517

017

1N

orth

St D

unst

an17

117

918

719

219

0OL

GV345

350352

362361

123%

125%

126%

129%

129%

St B

erna

dett

e48

720

119

820

120

621

7So

uth

St D

unst

an16

016

717

817

817

9W

est S

t Her

bert

141

134

134

139

140

St Bern

adette

502499

513523

53610

3%10

2%10

5%10

7%11

0%

St G

ertr

ude

752

347

334

312

315

322

FI30

930

430

130

230

2St G

ertrud

e656

638613

617624

87%

85%

82%

82%

83%

St R

aym

ond

651

368

321

275

241

232

St G

rego

ry28

527

726

627

528

0St

Ray

mon

d65

359

854

151

651

210

0%92

%83

%79

%79

%

St V

alen

tine

651

394

416

429

443

449

East

St H

erbe

rt96

9398

100

102

St Vale

ntine

490509

527543

55175

%78

%81

%83

%85

%

Overa

ll282

194%

92%90%

91%92%

MAP 3H 1 Pg. 65

¹½

!1

!3

!4

!2

!5!6

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL RD

W

RIVER CREDIT

401 HW

Y

ST. BE

RNAD

ETTE

ST. D

UNSTA

N

ST. RA

YMON

D

ST. G

ERTR

UDE

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RD

ST. V

ALEN

TINE

ST. G

REGO

RY

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

ARC

Optio

n 1 - C

lose 2

scho

ols (O

ur La

dy of

Goo

d Voy

age,

St H

erbert

) Add

EF pr

ogram

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5Kil

ometr

es

Febru

ary 20

16

ÜDu

fferin

-Peel

Catho

lic D

istric

tSc

hool

Boar

d

St. R

aymo

ndPr

opos

ed Bo

unda

ries

¹½St.

Jose

ph SS

Our L

ady o

f Goo

d Voy

age

St. Be

rnade

tteSt.

Dun

stan

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

ARC

Ratio

nale:

-Red

uctio

n of 8

13 pu

pil pl

aces

by 20

17-K

eeps

scho

ol co

mmun

ities t

ogeth

er-M

aintai

ns C

atholi

c pres

ence

: Nort

h, So

uth, W

est a

nd Ea

st-Le

ss im

pactf

ul on

ly clo

sing 2

scho

ols-A

ddres

ses s

choo

ls wit

h 50%

or le

ss ca

pacit

y- S

choo

ls wit

h proj

ected

incre

ased

utiliz

ation

rema

in op

en-R

eceiv

ing sc

hools

retai

n a lo

wer F

CI-R

eceiv

ing sc

hools

have

no ne

ed fo

r port

ables

- Mini

mize

s tran

sport

ation

costs

- Allo

ws fo

r pote

ntial

growt

h in E

ast C

redit/m

aintai

ns sp

ace f

or gro

wth

-Add

ition o

f new

Exten

ded F

rench

Prog

ram

OTG

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

St B

erna

dett

e48

720

119

820

120

621

7St

Her

bert

237

227

232

239

242

St Bern

adette

438425

433445

45990

%87

%89

%91

%94

%

St D

unst

an48

433

134

636

537

036

9EF

2781

9898

98St

Dun

stan

358427

463468

46774

%88

%96

%97

%96

%

St G

ertr

ude

752

347

334

312

315

322

FI

309

304

301

302

302

St Gert

rude

656638

613617

62487

%85

%82

%82

%83

%

St Greg

ory556

285277

266275

28051

%50

%48

%49

%50

%

St R

aym

ond

651

368

321

275

241

232

OLG

V 17

417

116

517

017

1St R

aymon

d542

492440

411403

83%

76%

68%

63%

62%

St Vale

ntine

651394

416429

443449

61%

64%

66%

68%

69%

Overa

ll358

175%

75%74%

74%75%

MAP 4

H 1 Pg. 66

¹½!2

!4

!1!3

!5!6

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL RD

W

RIVER CREDIT

401 HW

Y

ST. HE

RBER

T

ST. D

UNSTA

N

ST. RA

YMON

D

ST. G

ERTR

UDE

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RD

ST. V

ALEN

TINE

ST. G

REGO

RY

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

ARC

Optio

n 2 - C

lose 2

scho

ols (O

ur La

dy of

Goo

d Voy

age,

St B

ernad

ette)

ADD

EF Pr

ogram

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5Kil

ometr

es

Febru

ary 20

16

ÜDu

fferin

-Peel

Catho

lic D

istric

tSc

hool

Boar

d

St. R

aymo

ndPr

opos

ed Bo

unda

ries

¹½St.

Jose

ph SS

Our L

ady o

f Goo

d Voy

age

St. Be

rnade

tteSt.

Dun

stan

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

ARC

Ratio

nale:

-Red

uctio

n of 7

67 pu

pil pl

aces

by 20

17-In

creas

es ut

ilizati

on an

d red

uces

the n

umbe

r of s

choo

ls sig

nifica

ntly

unde

r cap

acity

-Kee

ps sc

hool

comm

unitie

s tog

ether

-Main

tains

Cath

olic p

resen

ce: n

orth/s

outh

of Br

istol,

centr

e corr

idor a

ndea

st/we

st-C

loses

2 sc

hools

versu

s 3 m

aintai

ning a

stron

g Cath

olic p

resen

ce-R

etains

the n

ewes

t sch

ools

with l

owes

t rene

wal c

osts

and l

owes

t FCI

-Doe

s not

requir

e the

need

for p

ortab

les-M

inimi

zes t

ransp

ortati

on co

sts-M

aintai

ns sp

ace f

or fut

ure gr

owth,

prog

rammi

ng an

d/or ro

oms u

sed f

orsp

ecial

purpo

ses

-Mini

mize

s risk

of lo

sing s

tuden

ts to

publi

c sch

ools

in Ea

st Cr

edit

-Dec

rease

s ren

ewal

costs

by $5

M (a

pprox

)OT

G201

7201

9202

1202

3202

5St

Dun

stan

484

331

346

365

370

369

EF27

8198

9898

St D

unst

an358

427463

468467

74%

88%

96%

97%

96%

St G

ertr

ude

752

347

334

312

315

322

FI

309

304

301

302

302

St Gert

rude

656638

613617

62487

%85

%82

%82

%83

%

St Greg

ory556

285277

266275

28051

%50

%48

%49

%50

%

St H

erbe

rt53

323

722

723

223

924

2St

Ber

nade

tte

201

198

201

206

217

St Herb

ert438

425433

445459

82%

80%

81%

83%

86%

St R

aym

ond

651

368

321

275

241

232

OLG

V 17

417

116

517

017

1St R

aymon

d542

492440

411403

83%

76%

68%

63%

62%

St Vale

ntine

651394

416429

443449

61%

64%

66%

68%

69%

Overa

ll362

775%

75%74%

74%75%

MAP 5H 1 Pg. 67

¹½

!1

!2

!3

!4

!5

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL RD

W

RIVER CREDIT401

HWY

ST. BE

RNAD

ETTE

ST. HE

RBER

T

ST. RA

YMON

D

ST. G

ERTR

UDE

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RD

OUR L

ADY O

FGO

OD V

OYAG

E

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

ARC

Optio

n 3 - C

lose 3

scho

ols (S

t Dun

stan,

St G

regor

y, St

Valen

tine)

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5

Kilom

etres

St. R

aymo

ndPr

opos

ed B

ound

aries

¹½St.

Jose

ph S

SOu

r Lad

y of G

ood V

oyag

eSt.

Bern

adett

eSt.

Dun

stan

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

Februa

ry 2016

ÜDu

fferin

-Pee

lCa

tholi

c Dist

rict

Scho

ol Bo

ard

ARC

Ratio

nale:

-Red

uctio

n of 1

691 p

upil p

laces

by 20

17-In

creas

es ov

erall u

tilizati

on by

38%

to 98

%-P

rojec

ts 90

%+ ov

erall u

tilizati

on ra

te ov

er ne

xt 10

years

-Main

tains

catho

lic pre

senc

e: we

st of

Cred

itview

Rd a

nd so

uth of

Eglin

ton Av

e-37

% sa

vings

on ut

ilities

-Plea

se no

te tha

t Our

Lady

of G

ood V

oyag

e has

6 RC

M un

itswh

ich ar

e not

includ

ed in

the O

TG ca

pacit

y or u

tilizati

on ra

tes.

OTG

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

OLG

V28

017

417

116

517

017

1St

Dun

stan

N17

117

918

719

219

0OL

GV345

350352

362361

123%

125%

126%

129%

129%

St B

erna

dett

e48

720

119

820

120

621

7St

Dun

stan

S16

016

717

817

817

9St

Ber

nade

tte

361365

379384

39674

%75

%78

%79

%81

%

St G

ertr

ude

752

347

334

312

315

322

St V

alen

tine

394

416

429

443

449

St Gert

rude

741750

741758

77199

%10

0%99

%10

1%10

3%

St H

erbe

rt53

323

722

723

223

924

2FI

309

304

301

302

302

St Herb

ert546

531533

541544

102%

100%

100%

102%

102%

St R

aym

ond

651

368

321

275

241

232

St G

rego

ry28

527

726

627

528

0St R

aymon

d653

598541

516512

100%

92%

83%

79%

79%

Overa

ll270

398%

96%94%

95%96%

MAP 6H 1 Pg. 68

¹½

!1

!3

!4

!2

!5

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL RD

W

RIVER CREDIT401

HWY

ST. BE

RNAD

ETTE

ST. D

UNSTA

N

ST. G

REGO

RY

ST. G

ERTR

UDE

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RD

ST. V

ALEN

TINE

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

ARC

Optio

n 4 - C

lose 3

scho

ols (O

ur La

dy of

Goo

d Voy

age,

St H

erbert

, St R

aymo

nd)

ARC

Ratio

nale:

-Red

uctio

n of 1

464 p

upil p

laces

by 20

17-In

creas

es ov

erall u

tilizati

on by

30%

-Kee

ps sc

hool

comm

unitie

s tog

ether

-Main

tains

Cath

olic p

resen

ce: N

orth,

South

, Eas

t and

Wes

t-D

ecrea

ses r

enew

al co

sts by

$4.2

M (ap

prox)

-St. R

aymo

nd un

able

to ac

comm

odate

porta

bles

-St. D

unsta

n only

scho

ol ov

er 10

0% ut

ilizati

on ov

er 10

years

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5Kil

ometr

esSt.

Ray

mond

Prop

osed

Bou

ndari

es¹½

St. Jo

seph

SS

Our L

ady o

f Goo

d Voy

age

St. B

ernad

ette

St. D

unsta

n

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

Februa

ry 2016

ÜDu

fferin

-Pee

lCa

tholi

c Dist

rict

Scho

ol Bo

ard

OTG

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

St B

erna

dett

e48

720

119

820

120

621

7St

Her

bert

237

227

232

239

242

St Bern

adette

438425

433445

45990

%87

%89

%91

%94

%

St D

unst

an48

433

134

636

537

036

9O

LGV

174

171

165

170

171

St D

unst

an505

517530

540540

104%

107%

110%

112%

112%

St G

ertr

ude

752

347

334

312

315

322

FI

309

304

301

302

302

St Gert

rude

656638

613617

62487

%85

%82

%82

%83

%

St G

rego

ry55

628

527

726

627

528

0St

Ray

mon

d36

832

127

524

123

2St G

regory

653598

541516

51211

7%10

8%97

%93

%92

%

St Vale

ntine

651394

416429

443449

61%

64%

66%

68%

69%

Overa

ll293

090%

89%87%

87%88%

MAP 7H 1 Pg. 69

¹½

!1!2

!3

!4!5

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL RD

W

RIVER CREDIT401

HWY

ST. BE

RNAD

ETTE

ST. HE

RBER

T

ST. RA

YMON

DST.

VAL

ENTIN

E

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RDST.

GRE

GORY

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

ARC

Optio

n 5 - C

lose 3

scho

ols (O

ur La

dy of

Goo

d Voy

age,

St D

unsta

n, St

Gert

rude

)

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5Kil

ometr

esSt.

Ray

mond

Prop

osed

Bou

ndari

es¹½

St. Jo

seph

SS

Our L

ady o

f Goo

d Voy

age

St. B

ernad

ette

St. D

unsta

n

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

Februa

ry 2016

ÜDu

fferin

-Pee

lCa

tholi

c Dist

rict

Scho

ol Bo

ard

ARC

Ratio

nale:

-Red

uctio

n of 1

516 p

upil p

laces

by 20

17-In

creas

es ov

erall u

tilizati

on by

32%

(mee

ting t

he m

inimu

m20

% req

uirem

ent)

-Main

tains

Cath

olic p

resen

ce: A

LL ar

eas o

f the E

ast C

redit

-Tran

sport

ation

costs

, utilit

y cos

ts an

d ren

ewal

costs

are w

ithin

avera

ge-Le

aves

appro

ximate

ly 8%

room

for g

rowth

in ea

ch ye

ar ov

er10

years

OTG

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

St B

erna

dett

e48

720

119

820

120

621

7So

uth

St D

unst

an16

016

717

817

817

9St B

ernade

tte361

365379

384396

74%

74%

74%

74%

74%

St G

rego

ry55

628

527

726

627

528

0FI

309

304

301

302

302

St Greg

ory594

581567

577582

107%

104%

102%

104%

105%

St H

erbe

rt53

323

722

723

223

924

2N

orth

St D

unst

an17

117

918

719

219

0St H

erbert

408406

419431

43277

%76

%79

%81

%81

%

St R

aym

ond

651

368

321

275

241

232

OLG

V17

417

116

517

017

1St R

aymon

d542

492440

411403

83%

76%

68%

63%

62%

St V

alen

tine

651

394

416

429

443

449

St G

ertr

ude

347

334

312

315

322

St Vale

ntine

741750

741758

77111

4%11

5%11

4%11

6%11

8%

Overa

ll287

892%

90%88%

89%90%

MAP 8H 1 Pg. 70

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

¹½

!1

!2

!3

!4

!5

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL R

D W

RIVER CREDIT401

HWY

ST. HE

RBER

T

ST. RA

YMON

D

ST. G

ERTR

UDE

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RD

McLAUGHLIN RDST.

BERN

ADETT

E

ST. G

REGO

RY

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

(Our

Lady

of G

ood V

oyag

e, St

Dun

stan,

St Va

lentin

e) AD

D EF

Prog

ram

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5Kil

ometr

esSt.

Ray

mond

Prop

osed

Boun

darie

s¹½

St. Jo

seph

SSOu

r Lad

y of G

ood V

oyag

eSt.

Berna

dette

St. D

unsta

n

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

April 2

016ÜDu

fferin

-Pee

lCa

tholi

c Dist

rict

Scho

ol Bo

ard

Exist

ing 20

16/17

St D

unsta

n stu

dents

and t

heir s

ibling

s, liv

ing

north

of E

glinto

n Ave

W

are gr

andfa

thered

to

St. B

ernad

ette

Exist

ing 20

16/17

St Va

lentin

estu

dents

and t

heir s

ibling

s, livi

ng no

rth of

Brist

ol Rd

W

are gr

andfa

thered

to

St. H

erbert

Exist

ing 20

16/17

Our

Lady

of G

ood V

oyag

estu

dents

and t

heir s

ibling

s, liv

ing

north

of B

ritann

ial R

d W ar

egra

ndfat

hered

to S

t. Ray

mond

New

Staff

Opti

on A

- Clos

e 3 sc

hools

OTG

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

St B

erna

dett

e48

720

119

820

120

621

7St

Dun

stan

Nor

th15

813

610

473

29St

Dun

stan

Sou

th16

016

717

817

817

9St B

ernade

tte519

501483

457425

107%

103%

99%

94%

87%

St G

ertr

ude

752

347

334

312

315

322

FI30

930

430

130

230

2St G

ertrud

e656

638613

617624

87%

85%

82%

82%

83%

St G

rego

ry55

628

527

726

627

528

0O

LGV

Nor

th2

615

2534

EF27

8198

9898

St Greg

ory314

364379

398412

56%

65%

68%

72%

74%

St H

erbe

rt53

323

722

723

223

924

2St

Dun

stan

Nor

th13

4383

119

161

St V

alen

tine

Nor

th22

018

613

181

30St

Val

entin

e So

uth

144

148

153

158

159

St Herb

ert614

604599

597592

115%

113%

112%

112%

111%

St R

aym

ond

651

368

321

275

241

232

OLG

V N

orth

3531

1811

3O

LGV

Sout

h13

713

413

213

413

4St

Val

entin

e N

orth

3082

145

204

260

St Raym

ond

570568

570590

62988

%87

%88

%91

%97

%

Overa

ll297

990%

90%89%

89%90%

MAP 9H 1 Pg. 71

¹½

!1

!2

!3

!4

!5!6

EGLIN

TON

AVE W

BRIST

OL R

D W

RIVER CREDIT401

HWY

ST. HE

RBER

T

ST. RA

YMON

D

ST. G

ERTR

UDE

TERRY FOX WAY

CREDITVIEW RD

McLAUGHLIN RDST.

BERN

ADETT

E

ST. V

ALEN

TINE

ST. G

REGO

RY

403 H

WY

BRITA

NNIA

RD

W

MAVIS RD

New

Staff

Opti

on B

- Clos

e 2 sc

hools

(Our

Lady

of G

ood V

oyag

e, St

Dun

stan)

Exist

ing B

ound

aries

01

0.5Kil

ometr

esSt.

Ray

mond

Prop

osed

Boun

darie

s¹½

St. Jo

seph

SSOu

r Lad

y of G

ood V

oyag

eSt.

Berna

dette

St. D

unsta

n

St. G

ertrud

eSt.

Greg

orySt.

Herb

ertSt.

Valen

tine

April 2

016ÜDu

fferin

-Pee

lCa

tholi

c Dist

rict

Scho

ol Bo

ard

Exist

ing 20

16/17

St D

unsta

n stu

dents

and t

heir s

ibling

s, liv

ing

north

of E

glinto

n Ave

W

are gr

andfa

thered

to

St. B

ernad

ette

Exist

ing 20

16/17

Our

Lady

of G

ood V

oyag

estu

dents

and t

heir s

ibling

s, liv

ing

north

of B

ritann

ial R

d W ar

egra

ndfat

hered

to S

t. Ray

mond

OTG

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

St B

erna

dett

e48

720

119

820

120

621

7St

Dun

stan

Nor

th15

813

610

473

29St

Dun

stan

Sou

th16

016

717

817

817

9St B

ernade

tte519

501483

457425

107%

103%

99%

94%

87%

St G

ertr

ude

752

347

334

312

315

322

FI30

930

430

130

230

2St G

ertrud

e656

638613

617624

87%

85%

82%

82%

83%

St G

rego

ry55

628

527

726

627

528

0O

LGV

Nor

th2

615

2534

EF27

8198

9898

St Greg

ory314

364379

398412

56%

65%

68%

72%

74%

St H

erbe

rt53

323

722

723

223

924

2St

Dun

stan

Nor

th13

4383

119

161

St Herb

ert250

270315

358403

47%

51%

59%

67%

76%

St R

aym

ond

651

368

321

275

241

232

OLG

V N

orth

3531

1811

3O

LGV

Sout

h13

713

413

213

413

4St R

aymon

d540

486425

386369

83%

75%

65%

59%

57%

St Vale

ntine

651394

416429

443449

61%

64%

66%

68%

69%

Overa

ll363

074%

74%73%

73%74%

ADD

EF Pr

ogram

MAP 10H 1 Pg. 72

¹½

!1

!2

!3

!4

!5

EGLINTON AVE W

BRISTOL RD W

RIVER

CRED

IT

401 HWY

ST. HERBERT

ST. RAYMOND

ST. GERTRUDE

TERRY FOX WAYCRED

ITVIEW

RD

McLAUGHLIN RD

ST. BERNADETTE

ST. GREGORY

403 HWY

BRITANNIA RD W MAVIS RD

New Staff Option A - Close 3 schoolsOur Lady of Good Voyage, St Dunstan, St Valentine

Proposed NEW Boundaries Effective July 1, 2016

New Proposed Boundaries

0 10.5Kilometres

May 2016Ü Dufferin-Peel

Catholic DistrictSchool Board

St. Raymond

St. Gregory

St. Herbert

St. Bernadette

St. Gertrude

Proposed Boundaries

¹½ St. Joseph SS

MAP 11H 1 Pg. 73

¹½

!1

!2

!3

!4

!5!6

EGLINTON AVE W

BRISTOL RD W

RIVER

CRED

IT

401 HWY

ST. HERBERT

ST. RAYMOND

ST. GERTRUDE

TERRY FOX WAY

CRED

ITVIEW

RD

McLAUGHLIN RD

ST. BERNADETTE

ST. VALENTINE

ST. GREGORY

403 HWY

BRITANNIA RD W MAVIS RD

New Staff Option B - Close 2 schoolsOur Lady of Good Voyage, St Dunstan

Proposed NEW Boundaries Effective July 1, 2016

0 10.5Kilometres

May 2016Ü Dufferin-Peel

Catholic DistrictSchool Board

New Proposed Boundaries

St. Raymond

St. Gregory

St. Herbert

St. Bernadette

St. Gertrude

Proposed Boundaries¹½ St. Joseph SS

St. Valentine

MAP 12

H 1 Pg. 74

› documents › appendix 5 finalreporteastcredit… · h 1 pg. 1 regular board meeting may 24,...

Documents