Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10f Delegation GG Kores re Allotment of EDC Funds//Y Pamela Morse, OCDSB Trustee - Zone 7 133 Greenbank Road Nepean, ON K211 6L3 May 25, 2000 Subject. Greely Eleuttmtary School- Maintenance, Renovation and Expansion Dear Pam, I am writing on behalf of the Greely Elementary School Council and the school community it represents to impress upon you the urgent need of various facility mai mmme, renovations and expansion. This letter follows the conversations we have recently had with you. Thank you for attending our school Council meeting of May 9, 2000 where you were personally able to hear the concerns of our school community as expressed through our Principal, Teacher Representative and other school council members. The attachment explains many of our arguments as to why Greely Elementary School should be considered high priority with regard to facility planning. We have a grave health and safety concern for our students and neighbouring commmmity due to the age and capacity of our septic system. Recent demogtapl oic projections argue our cast for a solutim io the current and future overcrowding. The trawling needs of our high proportion of special education students. integrated into regular classrooms within art open concept facility, speak strongly for the imrmedmte installation of dividing walls within our main facility. Expansion of our gym said library facilities would better serve the increased population of students that we expect in the next (W one to five years. We would appreciate being kept informed of the progress of this submission. As you know, the proposal was put together quickly in order to communicate the needs of ow school community prior to decisions being made by the stair' or Board If it errs, it will be on the side of conservatism with regard to the estiaaoated population growth. We trust you to communicate the intent of the proposal as well as out tlmWity with regard to timelines or Other solutions to the saustioris we have described. Yours sincerely, G.G.Kroes Chair, Greely Elementary School Council C.c. Rose -Marie Batley, Superinten dent of Planniog and Facilit es Jim Grieve, Director OCDSB John Brennan, S rimendent of Schools Michael Carson, Planning Department. Dave Hendrycks, Project Co ordinstor ( Greely ES) Attachment (6 pages) /�7 Subject: Expansion of Current Greely Eleme- D ry Seboal FaelUty Submitted by: Gredy Elanentary School Counell (GESP Submitted to; 0CDS3 Attn: Superintendent Rose -Marie Batky Dow May 10, 2000 Greely E.S. is set in a small village in the midst of a growing rural /suburban community in Osgoode Township. The current facility was built in September 1912 as an open concept building. Currently our students are grouped in a primary pod at one end of the school (with adjacent JK and SK classrooms) and a junior pod at the other end of the school. These area are separated by on open library. There are cutteady seven portables on site. Our schoolyard comprises three fenced acres, with one primary play. structure, one junior play- structure (that has been closed as of March 2000 until it can be upgraded to meet C_A.S. standards), two ball diamonds and a soccer field. Greely E. S. is an Wish/Core French school that serves students from grades JK to six. Our 2000/2001 projected student population is 309, with an F.T.E. of 282. Of these students, approximately 60 arc 1PltC'd while approximately 30 additional students, duc to their obvious exceptional needs, are served by our Special Education staff. These students, by their nature (e.g. limited concentration skills), require enclosed classrooms for purposes of learning. Due to many of the behaviour exceptionalities of our exceptional students, these learning areas should also be provided in the main facility, close to the office and other support staff. Our open concept school does not provide touch, if any. opportunity for this student leaning need. Greely E.S. is one of four schools in Osgoode Township that are identified by the OCDSB as a family of schools. The village of Greely is also the closest township community to the developed core of Ottawa. As such, our community is a prime location for young families who do not choose to live within the city. The Osgoode Township development department has confirmed current and/or new developments within the Only E.S. boundaries. They are: • Shadow Ridge (Phases 3 and 4, east off Old Ptnsoott Road); • Omely West (west of Stagecoach Road at Parkway): • Stanley Park (cast of Stagecoach Road south of Parkway). • Sunset lakes and Thunderbird (west off Old Proscott R(ad); and • Benson Subdivision (50 units off Highway 31). In addition. 570 single units have been approved for development on one hundred acres across from the Shadow Ridge developments. Although this last development has a ten - year projected build out plan. 150 units are expected in Phase One. The Osgoode Township planing department expem a minimum of 154 — 2w new families located in these developments by the end of 2001. w' dMIgMents wid in she Sideau Township that also fall lklWn the GredY es- Even if a modest 25% of tbm near faMM" re&Wed nne studcst eareh In an OCDSS Eagluh Core French pre►gram, the population at Greely E.S. soma grow by fifty (39) students by September 3001, pl eft the school at 190.x% of our capacltl. The current school populations (as per the most recent Ministry of Education capacities document) list the F T.E. for Grady at 284. With a Ministry capacity of 175 students, Grady ES. studs at 1623% capacity. Our neighbouring English/Core French schools also approach or exceed capacity levels (i.e. Metcalfe, 963% and Osgoode (107.496) and would, therefore, not be We toy- - -- mmodatt overflow with a minor boundary adjusmnent. However. ev*0 if this option were to be considered, the OCDSB Planing deparment and Board should now that these new Greely community developments are in dose proximity to our school thereby contributing to an increase in the "neighbourhood" school pop d4ou in nigh concentration. It is hiShly unlikely that a sufficient number of EnShshlCcre French students could be redirected to our Rideau Township family of schools (i.e. Manotick capacity 1073% and North Gower capacity 89.1%) without unnecessary increased transportation costs and tine. The GESC does not agree with transporting students a further distance simply to fill up empty space (i.e. students should be transported to the closest school). Grady E.S. is overcrowded and has been for many years. The GESC recognizes that we arc not the only OCDSB school community currently experiencing overcrowding. However, Greely is we of the communities eligible for a portion of the $14+ Million in /6 II Education Development Charges collected by the former Carleton Board of Fducation and recently released by the Province. Our school was built as an open concept school, long before the Hoard decided to increase integmion of exceptional students within the regular dammn. Gredy E.S. has approximately 35% special needs students. We have few options to provide these students and their teachers with an enclosed working space in which to learn effectively. Our student population has grown enormously since the original installation of our septic system in 1963. Most septic systems have a maximum life span of approximately 25 yesM Our septic system is thirty -seven years old and needs to be replaced NOW. In additim our school population of 282 F.T.E., plus approximately 25 staff members, is straining the limits of our existing septic system. The capacity and age of our current septic system makes it impossible to =qx more portables on our site. Additional students under the current conditions would therefore add to the possible environmental and health hazard. Alternately, our school might be forced to turn away the very students in its neighbourhood that it should serve. Our gymnasium (sixty feet by thirty-eight feet) can 1epHy only hold a maximum capacity of 282 persons (sued) and 530 pmons (standing). Technically can accommodate our current school community population. it does not led itself well for curriculum or schod community purposes. Our proposed 11.5 classes (for the 2000/01 school year) will not be able to schedule the required (and prefered) number of physical education and heath dams for our students without using recess times -for our kindergarten students. Our school community O.e. students' families) cannot gather together at any one time for assembliesteelebrations. Within the last five years, our school canmunity bas cc operated to accommodate this situation. Creative solutions have included: venting the community centre limiting attendance to the event (requiring ticket production and distribution in order to mam the situation); and/or • scheduling the school activity two consecutive times in order to accommodate the full school community At the very least, the latter two options require: a) increased volunteer teacher organizatiorwl and preparation time: 3 b) iaoonvemeace for out families (e.g. parents cmmot attend both nights; child care costs because younger siblings trust be kit at home due to lack of space; exclusion for acme of ft family, friends and school cornmunity); c) increased stress on the children as they "perform" on two cormecutive occasions; d) reduced ciaastoom time; and e) reduced we of the gym facility for curriculum purposes (wheys the event takes place during school hours; e.g. NAC jazz gamble, JOQUOT► etc) due to multiple bookings of the gymnasium for the some event. As previously stated, oar main facility, constructed as an open - concept, only provides two enclosed regular classroom -size areas and are withdrawal -aged area for the students served by our SEAT. Although we do have seven portables, our school administration, under the advisement of the school council, makes every effort to enstim that students in each grade revel have the *priors of being placed in a portable or the train facility. We do this in order to aoconamodate the specific needs of our school population. Planning for this option allows students with special medical needs (i.e. anaphylaxis: medication administration; bladder problems; asthma and other respiMWry difficulties who exper,ence Mgative health and wcilneaa effects from being in pombies due to poor air quality; children who experienve historical nak to heat exhaustion and/or beat woke). This only allows one extra portable for withdrawal use for exceptional students and those . 6 vemedial assistance. Although portables have served the school community for a number of years, they were never mesat to provide a permanent learning environment for students. The MOE has recently adjusted its school capacity formula to count - portapecs" at uro (as they do portable). it is our belief that modifications to the Orreely E.S. facility should be applied with a long -germ improvement plan, rather than any shy -term solution. This reoot mendation is submitted with a vision for a school that will serve our students for Mal than a couple of years. A "pottapac ". planned in conjunction with the following r0cummCndadons will eliminate outside trips to the library. gymnasium, waehrvoms. of fin, and water - fountains for alnwet 175 (56.6%) of our students. A "Porgy" should also eliminate or reduce the multiple health fish to our smdents and teachers that are documented and km MG as being related to portables. Of the two reasons given, we oort"y believe the health and safety issue is reason enough to provide a "portapac" for a school community dot will NOT decrease in its population, but will be experiencing even greater growth in the next year. 4 CW library barely meets the needs of our current student population. The original adjoining area first conceived to be the future computer lab has been given over to one of our SERUs in order to provide an en lewd leartung space for our exceptional students. Fortunately, we have been able to realize a computer lab in an area closely situated to the library, but separated by a hallway. However, the current space allocated for our library can barely aaaamodate one full class. With reduced library staff resources to service our school commmunity combined with increasing student population projectis, it seems reasonable that this "hub" of the school should be expanded to accommodate the students' literacy needs. The Greely Elementary School Council (OEM strongly urges that a portion of the F-D.C. w2d saku QCDSR funds. as appropriate and required, be allocated to Chcely Elementary School for implemenetion, in whole or its part during July and August 2000. We would also request that, if the Hoard should alternately approve a staggered development of the school facilities. the proposed timeline be considered and, if rejected, the rationale for any other decision be communicated to our school council. Our school cotntcii submits this proposal for Hoard consideration in the Facilities Master Plan currently under development. Our facility modifications are listed below in priority of their importance to the school community. The GE,SC also requests than the Board plans ate developed and finalized under the advisement of the school principal &tad school council. • Replacenneat of Septic Bed and/or Talc to aevornmodaw the current and projected school population and comply with current health and safety standards (July and August 2000) • Fixed and/or retractabk wails in order to provide effective and efficient use of the current flow space, i.t. create self - contained classrooms (July and August 2000, see attached floor plans) • Installation of are additional set of Wet facilities (July and August 2000) • Eupaesioe of the gyrmmasiu m facility with a retractable wall to enable use as "are" or "two" gyrmraaimms (July and august 2041) Y40TE: Vm eVansion should be pivtned to include a seagc be draeaa, ebwal sad other rhos Performances 5 • Replace seven parables with a "pvttapec" ( i.e. RMC) (July and August 2001) • Expansion of library facility to allow multiple simuiumeous use (July and August 2001) The 4B„SC is prepared to help the Board realize these requests in any way that we are able. We have many parents within our school community who are concerned about the current situation and are willing to improve the school environment and facility that their children attend. With regard to the current proposal for buk malls to divide learning arm (WOO -11 tted early this year udder the Superintendency Alloatlon Projects), the GESC asks that the requests contained in our submission be reviewed and 1worparated into the original request prior to finallAn any decision. There are some new Ideas contained in this proposg that may preclude the original submision and be biter suited for our students in the ho g term. The Bond and plamtlng pall wadd ,note that this aebool council proposal has been formed to eonsadtatlon with an memo prwkw and with input from staff, and praents a viable end improved option to the or*MW MUSIC. In addition, the GESC understands that the original request has been approved 'tin theory" to an amount of $6, 000. Therefore, we suggest that, if our current proposal is appmon►ed, ;6000 of the total costs can be allocated from the Superintendency Allocation prnjeets while the remaining costs be offset by monies within our R.D. C. entitlement and otber Capital Reserves budgeted for the Facilities Master Plan. Our school mil also requests that the Board substantiate any refusal for or deferral of our requests IN WRITING#, directed to our school CM061 Chair OW Principal. Greet' F,ka"N"ry School Council, Facility Ad Hoc Coraadttee Contacts: G.G. Ktoes, GESC Chair Denyse Braid, GESC vice —Cater MwQke Doke, Principal Cynthda Pobran, GESC Member C.c. Pam Morse. OCDSB Trustee for Ckeely Elementary School Jim Grieve, Director OCDSB John Brennan, superintendent of Schools Michael Canon, Planning Department Dave HaWrycb, Project Co ordinstoc (Gredy ES) 6 —f Ue�A� ' h � to j?r,NC4IC E sIrIOX4 wr'L*- Y fe�'i�t1CC w/dty�o�p,,rrJ W�4L eve PRO PO.ic b FcM9 P+-A4 MA %l ol, 2,0� 4w (wo., somma = 6 xl s 1►JG WIA�.► -� ..._.__ . YR4P ,2»P NA"4 I f df 4 . rre:l $y