A few things became clear last night. One is that I really don't understand why these two school reviews are a part of the same process. There may be an intersection in the considerations but it was very clear to me that the Grosvenor situation is much more complex and contentious. With 18 scenarios to be considered for that school alone, why is the committee being tasked with considering unasked-for intervention at Park West?
There were a lot of numbers that were tossed around last night. A few that stood out for me were 85 and 102. The former is, according to a Grosvenor speaker (Robert Wooden) the maximum optimal capacity for an institution. The Grosvenor-concerned speakers talked a lot about their inability to accept higher numbers. They lack facilities, specialty classrooms and windows.
The 102 is the actual standing capacity of Park West. We are at 102% and we are A-okay with that. Sure we have portables, but our classrooms have windows, we have specialty spaces, and our facilities are newer and in good condition. The demographic data indicates a levelling out of numbers, and indeed, a drop in the next five years.
I wanted to speak last night. I wanted to share, in my own voice, my feelings about this process. I left before this, though, because with over 60 people signed up to speak, and absolutely no effort made to cap the time per speaker, at 9:30 there was easily another 45 plus minutes before my turn would come. Democracy should not be an exercise in endurance. There were children there, students, on a Monday night and that meeting could easily have gone to midnight.
The two recommendations should have been dealt with in separate meetings. By not doing so, the committee curbed my ability to speak and share my thoughts, and likely did the same to others. This is counter-democratic.
Others spoke powerfully and eloquently about the undemocratic nature and problems with this review process so far. I offer my support to the statements made by the other Park West parents. We were led to believe by policy and statement that this would be an open transparent process, and instead secrecy and misinformation seem to have ruled with the resulting recommendation that, effectively, our junior high be closed.
So, on the matter of the recommendations, I feel strongly that the first priority of all the active members of the education system should be student outcomes. STUDENT OUTCOMES. Park West has excellent academic achievement, low bullying and has been termed a 'model school'. The components that make it special are the international, diverse, multicultural community in which it is embedded, and the respectful integration of the younger and older students in a P-9 setting.
We moved to Clayton Park, to Ross Street, to enable my daughter to attend Park West for Junior High. We were living in the West End prior to this, and she attended Westmount for Elementary. Now that she's at Park West, I'm disappointed we didn't move here sooner. It's a special place. Instead of disbanding it, pulling it apart, the School Board should be hosting an appreciative inquiry to determine how its success can be emulated in other schools.
The HRSB facility capacity issues that are the result of years of population shifts geographically are not the fault of our Junior High students, and they should not be made to bear the brunt of fixing them, by having to walk 3-4 times as long one way to a different school, crossing one of the most dangerous pedestrian intersections in the city.
I have empathy for the challenges of the school board in having to deal with dated facilities and immobile assets; however, I do not endorse this recommendation. Taking our 7-9 students out of our school will not solve the woes of HRSB. It will only add to ours.
Respectfully,
Charlene Boyce and Todd Denton (and Maddie Young, grade 8)
(address & phone)
ps - it is difficult to imagine that the committee members will all read thoroughly the transcripts of the Monday night meeting, plus all ensuing correspondence, before the next meeting. It was very disappointing that the committee were not more present and forthcoming. I understand as volunteers they may not wish to face emotional, impassioned parents... but I don't think they accomplished anything but enraging many.
