HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 Report 99-122 School Closure Study ReportOTTAWA-CARLETON
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
26 May 1999
Report No. 99 -122 to the Chair's Committee
Re: School Closure Study Report
ORIGINATORS: Rose -Marie Batley, Superintendent of Facilities and Physical Planning
Michael Carson, Manager, Facilities /Planning /Transportation
Estelle Butler, Planner
Phil Dawes, Planner
Marc Labelle, Planner
Janet Sauriol, Planner
Mark Smith, Planner
Ian Baxter, Planning Technician
Diana Dolezal, Planning Technician
Wendy Norton, Planning Technician
PURPOSE:
1.0 To submit for approval, a preliminary outline of activities pertaining to Phase II of the School
Closure Study process and a revised policy regarding Attendance Boundary/Area
Review /School Closure Studies.
BACKGROUND:
2.0 On 12 April 1999, staff submitted report no. 99 -076 to Board titled, "Outline of Preliminary
Activities Pertaining to Phase II of the Area Review /School Closure /Attendance Boundary
Review'. Phase I of the process closed approximately 1100 elementary pupil places and
approximately 889 secondary pupil places. In spite of these closures, there is still excess space
remaining within the OCDSB; this consists of approximately 10,200 pupil places
(approximately 6,000 elementary; approximately 4,000 secondary). This figure of 10,200 does
not include approximately 1,100 pupil places for administrative facilities/ other closed schools
(Borden, Brook Lane, Parkway and Ramsayville), some of which are currently housing
administrative programs.
3.0 Prior to proposing a Phase II process, planning staff gathered feedback on Phase I and input to
the Phase II process through structured interviews (approximately 1 hour in length), from
Trustees, a representative group from OCASC, the Principals' Associations (consisting of the
Presidents and 3 -4 Principals) and the Students' Presidents Council.
STATUS:
4.0 Some of the key issues that consistently emerged during the structured interviews with respect
to Phase I of the process were: (Please note that these issues are not listed in any particular
order.)
4.1 The report that staff submits with recommendations for closures should represent the
complete package consisting of the attendance boundaries resulting from the
recommended closures, the identification of any program changes as a result of the
closures, the relocation of students, assisting in the relocation of any child care centres
(where possible),grade configurations, etc.
4.2 The criteria to be used in determining school closures must be clearly identified and
more specific.
4.3 Clear decisions need to be made concerning groups of schools and the latitude of
realigning programs within the groups of schools.
4.4 The size, scope and timing of the study have to be such that Trustees can effectively
use the data provided by staff to make informed decisions. The data should be
summarized for ease of reading. The study should be a more manageable size for staff.
5.0 A synopsis of additional comments received during the structured interviews and through
written submissions is attached as Appendix 1.
6.0 A summary of the results of the processes used by other school board is attached as
Appendix 2. In general, some boards approved the closure of some of the recommended sites and
some boards chose not to close schools. Of the boards contacted, almost all have plans to begin a
new school closure process that would result in the identification of additional facilities for
closure.
7.0 Phase I of the process included the production of extensive information in relationship to the
process, Ministry of Education and Training rules and regulations, school capacities, relocation
of students as a result of the proposed closures, etc. Since Phase I of the process was a review of
the entire OCDSB jurisdiction, staff was not able to produce the level of detail requested
within the proposed time frame.
8.0 Staff believes that Phase II of the process needs to be reduced in scope in order to meet the
expectations regarding the level of detail and supporting data required to make informed
decisions with respect to school closures.
9.0 The Ministry decision in November 1998 to allow Boards to annually dispose of capacity,
provides the Board with the opportunity to proceed with an extended approach to
rationalization of school space.
10.0 The additional "top -up" funding by the Province provided additional funds for the operation of
existing spaces. Furthermore, partial decisions around school closures (i.e., less than 100%
utilization) will not result in the Board becoming eligible for New Pupil Place Grants (NPPG)
until all of the closures have been implemented.
11.0 As a result, staff was able to consider options which would provide additional time for the
collection of data, development of options and decision - making by Trustees.
12.0 Of the various options explored for Phase II, the following option is the recommended
approach. The initial focus would be to address the decommissioning and disposal of surplus
Board property by the end of December 1999 followed by the reconciliation of excess elementary
and secondary space, within specific study area locations, over a slightly longer period of time
(decisions before June 2000 for implementation September 2001). A schematic representation of
this approach is attached as Appendix 3. Appendix 4 provides a more detailed representation
of the approach and includes approximate dates for the various activities.
13.0 With respect to the first part of the process which would be concluded in December 1999, it
would be staff's intention to examine and make recommendations on the future use and /or
disposal of the schools closed in Phase I of the process and those previously closed by both
former Boards in addition to any vacant school sites /properties deemed to be surplus to the
Board's future needs. A policy and procedure on the disposition of properties will be
forthcoming in September 1999. Notwithstanding the above, staff may be required to bring
forth proposals in the meantime for disposition of some facilities, sites, or properties.
14.0 The second portion of the process (the rationalization of space in both the elementary and
secondary panels before June 2000, within specific study areas) would address concerns
expressed by Trustee feedback regarding the size and scope of the study.
15.0 Limiting the study to a reduced number of areas will allow staff to focus on only those areas
where excess space exists as opposed to conducting an examination of the entire jurisdiction, and
would result in more manageable study areas for the collection of data. This in turn, will ensure
that the data can be more effectively used by Trustees and others as well as providing for more
manageable demands on staff.
16.0 The extension of the decision - making portion to the end of May 2000 will give staff the
additional time needed to prepare and present a complete package of information consisting of
attendance boundaries resulting from the recommended closures, the identification of any
program changes as a result of the closures, the relocation of students, etc. The issue of having
one complete report, containing all the necessary information needed to make informed
decisions, was a common concern amongst all of the individuals interviewed.
17.0 A decision - making date of the end of May 2000 will also allow staff to incorporate any
decisions arising out of the budget process that may have a direct affect on school closures such
as location of special education programs, addition or relocation of existing programs, etc.
18.0 Given an extended time frame, staff will be able to incorporate/ analyze the impact of any
early information arising out of secondary school reform.
19.0 There are four major components constituting Phase II of the study. The following information
represents a brief summary of the major activities that would take place in each section.
A more detailed listing of all of the activities and corresponding dates associated with
the following tasks will be forthcoming in the revised procedures for the Attendance
Boundary/Area Review /School Closure Studies.
19.1 The first component: Trustee Workshops
The first component proposes two Trustee workshops. The first workshop would clarify
the disposition process arising out of Phase I of the study as well as reviewing the
school closure criteria, the study areas and the proposed time frame. As a result of
feedback obtained from the Trustees, staff would refine the school closure criteria to be
used in Phase II prior to the second workshop. Final approval of the school closure
criteria to be used in Phase II of the study should be determined in the second workshop.
ti
19.2 The second component: Disposition of Properties
This component would include an analysis of vacant sites, administration buildings and
previously closed schools. A policy and procedure on the disposition of properties will
be forthcoming in September 1999. Notwithstanding the above, staff may be required
to bring forth proposals prior to the September 1999 date to deal with the disposition of
some properties. Staff would anticipate that decisions with respect to the disposition
of properties from Phase I of the study process would be made by December 1999.
19.3 The third component: Data Collection and Option Development
Some of the activities that would occur throughout this time period would be the
generation of long and short term enrolment projections, preparation of a summary of
urban developments, the preparation of school data such as student tallies, capacities
and utilization factors, analysis of the impact of the student transfer and
transportation policies on OCDSB schools, the collection of facility data such as site
descriptions, plant evaluation statistics, community use of schools information, program
decisions, etc. Preliminary options would be developed for submission to the School
Study Committees (SSCs) for input. The detailed information provided by the
Community Working Groups (CWGs) in Phase I of the process will also be utilized in
the development of preliminary options.
19.4 The fourth comoonent: Consultation. Final. Revort and Recommendations
This component includes the formation of the School Study Committees (SSCs) for the
purposes of reviewing and providing feedback on staff's preliminary options. Actual
details regarding the composition of the SSCs, their role /mandate, etc., will be
forthcoming. Prior to the formation of the SSCs, staff will provide finalized data such
as utilization factors, projections, etc., to Trustees, School Councils and OCASC for
input.
The final report would be submitted to Board for decisions before the end of May 2000
(for implementation September 2001).
20.0 Staff estimates the budget for Phase II to be approximately $275, 000.00, some of which may be
available from the carry forward of the Facilities budget of 1998/99.
21.0 It should be noted that under this proposal, the facilities funding envelope must continue to
carry the operational and maintenance costs associated with all of the sites for an additional
two years.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. That Board approve, in principle, the preliminary timelines for the School Closure Study and
that staff be directed to bring forward a more detailed timeline indicating specific dates and
activities.
B. That Board approve the revised policy for Attendance Boundary/Area Review /School Closure
Study Process attached as Appendix 5.
James P. Grieve
Director of Educa on /Secretary of the Board
Rose -Marie Batley
Superintendent of Facilities and
Physical Planning
s
APPENDIX 1
OTTAWA-CARLETON
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Synopsis of Comments Received from Input from Trustees, a representative group
from OCASC the Principals' Associations and the Students' Presidents Council
Staff met with Trustees, a representative group from OCASC, the Principals' Associations
(consisting of the Presidents and 3 -4 Principals) and the Students' Presidents Council to obtain
feedback on Phase I of the Attendance Boundary/Area Review /School Closure Study process.
A blank copy of the questionnaire used to obtain input from the various groups is attached. The
questionnaire was divided into two parts; feedback on Phase I and input on Phase II. The
"feedback on Phase I' section focused on the CWGs, staff report and responses to questions, and
the process. The "input on Phase II" section focused on MOET /Provincial changes to new capital
funding, the process, timing and numbers, the format, groups of schools, Trustee workshop,
policy and procedure and disposition of property.
Some of the key issues /quotes that emerged from the first section titled, "Feedback on Phase 1"
are as follows:
Community Working Groups
• at points, this process became political and out of control
• integrity of the process was lost as a result of some political intervention
• limited value as many of the results were quite predictable
• school council rep brought forward concerns from the school
•CWGs did not properly understand their mandate
*most CWGs were too large to function well
*most felt there was a hidden agenda
• there was never really an acceptance that there needed to be closures
•process got people involved
• lack of full community representation
*behaviour in Board room was disruptive
• there needs to be a change in the number of CWG reps for any one area
•would appoint an arms -length committee whose recommendations will have some credibility
among parents and the general public and whose experience justifies their making
recommendations re school closures
• it got people looking at the situation in the area, got the community involved, started talking
to other schools, appreciate their differences
*sometimes they forgot the bigger picture the Board must make
•CWG process was not worth the investment and expense
• it allowed communities to get involved
•not sure the fit was appropriate
owe tried to use a traditional approach to a unique problem
*the process could have been more helpful but was rather frustrating at times
• timelines were out of control and unrealistic
*level of data was very useful in decision - making
*CWGs got off track
*problem with stronger school councils versus weaker school councils
page 2 of 4 - Synopsis of Comments
•significant number of interviews indicated that they preferred to receive community input as a
response to staff recommendation(s)
Staff Report and Response to Questions
*found it difficult to deal with all of the info, info overload
-most useful was the final turquoise report with options and good reasoning behind one option
chosen over another
• too much info to be able to comprehend
91st black binder had a lot of needed info
*sometimes the CWGs got info that wasn't useful
-not all info in the same report
-should have been closer to OCCSB model
-the reports lacked a complete analysis of the CWG info
•a lot of extra work but the reports were not all in the same format
Process: Timing, Opportunity for Input. Meetings
•timelines relatively appropriate
•the delay in timelines to February assisted in making decision
•too much time taken up with question period and delegations which cut into discussion time
and debate time
*amount of time for input was overkill
• time was adequate for input
*quality not quantity of time was the problem for input received
•too many questions on the same topic were allowed
•debate time was long, presentations made were long when people read reports
•student councils weren't clear of their role in the process
• too much time, same issues were repeated over and over again
•there is a trustee management issue around use of the time allotted
•need better control over the gallery and demonstrations at meetings
-debate - didn't make good use of the time allowed
-more time needed to ask direct questions of staff
•not enough lead time for stakeholders
-need a more tighter process in terms of presentations
•communities were too rushed under this process
•need a mechanism to identify COW meetings "off track"
•not enough debate time over pros and cons
•need more time to deal with the issues rather than questions and answers
Some of the key issues /quotes that emerged from the second section titled, "Input on Phase II"
are as follows:
MOET/Provincial Changes to New Capital Grants
•overwhelmingly most don't see major changes, maybe some movement off the 100% figure or
day care spaces but nothing more
page 3 of 4 - Synopsis of Comments
Process
•it would be good to have a complete snapshot of the entire system at once
•update on MOET rules/ regulations is essential
•majority of comments related to having one summary document containing all of the
information
-most comments indicated that the impact on students, busing times, specialty programs and
staff needs to be clearly identified
•need to agree ahead of time about the information that will be generated
•Phase II has to have very clear parameters established and communicated to everyone
•would like to see options that would get you to X% capacity
*more options for a defined area where surplus space exists which addresses the location of
programs and boundaries within a group of schools such that one or more schools could be closed
within the group
*recommendations that provide two sets of data based on 90% or 95% for example
-don't anticipate that Trustees will decide on all of the closures, phased approach may be
better
*need better rationalization
-need to see the whole picture in terms of impacts
•need to have the criteria, the mandate and analysis decided by Trustees before hand
• deal with 90%
• same as Phase I
•don't need to look at all areas
Timing; and Numbers
• November
-February for budget
•2 -3 years to do it properly by areas
-delay closures for as long as possible
-Board should act to close schools
-preferably November 1999
*reach target of 90%
• a large number of respondents indicated December 1999
*Board can not continue to bite off more than it can chew
-end of budget
-January/February
Format of Phase II
-put all secondary in one group
*if time permits, a phased approach
•some elementary, some secondary
-the response was almost evenly split over A and B, a few people indicated none of the options
Groups of Schools. Families of Schools
• all mainstream programs should be comprised in a group of schools
-students should have access to all programs provided it doesn't translate into significant
transportation costs
-need to offer equal access only if there is space
•can't offer all programs to all students
*all students should go where they are designated
•need to have some limit on choice
-the student transfer mechanism should be maintained to permit a form of controlled choice
0
page 4 of 4 - Synopsis of Comments
•philosophically yes if they meet qualifications however in practical terms there may be some
difficulties
*cut some programs, cap enrollment, no transfers for program of choice
• this is the optimum, can't deliver all programs in all areas, i.e., rural areas
*groups of schools should be as program -rich as possible within the bounds of viability
*more flexible on choice
*elementary and secondary should have separate families of schools
*not all programs will be in a group of schools
• the programs should be there, there should be fewer programs offered
Trustee Workshop
•the overwhelming response to this question was yes and at the outset /prior to Phase II
Area Review Policy and Procedure Amendments
•a large number of comments around providing clearer expectations with respect to consultation
with more defined criteria and mandate
•need to be more transparent
*grants and collective agreements with teachers
•more publicized information on the timelines and dates of meetings
Disposition of Property
*any and all properties available for sale
*appraisal is greater than need for school in an alternative use
•properties that are clearly surplus to our future needs or facilities that are worn out or badly
located in relation to student population
*provided the facility has no other uses including other than day school
•don't dispose of anything until all program issues are resolved
•responses were equally divided between using a school for other than day school but the
majority indicated that use other than day school should be done on an operation cost recovery
and replacement of the lost GNPP
Additional Comments
•Trustees should have a clear understanding of how to communicate the rationale from the
beginning
*need to understand the time constraints and their implications for what can be expected from
staff and from the consultation process
*need to keep Phase II to a manageable size
*need an effective communication plan
•more attention needs to be paid to CWGs
•there should be a budget applied to the project but use it more effectively
•it is not staff's job to market a school or find alternative uses for the building
APPENDIX 2
Summary of Selected School Board Closure Processes to Date
1. Approval achieved for two of three (maximum) staff recommended closures following
working committee review from December 1998 to March 1999. Review of the third school
identified by staff for closure continues, with working committee recommendations to be
presented to Board in June 1999. Four recently established working committees will report
to Board in November 1999 re: staff recommended closure of an additional four
(maximum) schools.
2. Approval achieved for three of five (maximum) staff recommended closures in 1997 -98,
prior to issuance of MOET pupil accommodation funding formula. Approval achieved for
three additional staff recommended closures following working committee review from
October 1998 to December 1998. Consideration of one additional staff recommended
closure to take place in fall 1999 following working committee review currently in progress.
3. Approval achieved for two of eight (maximum) staff recommended closures following an
independent panel review from January 1999 to March 1999. Consideration of additional
closures may occur in fall 1999 following the presentation of an additional staff report -
scope and timing of study yet to be determined.
4. No closures approved to date. Consideration of ten staff recommended closures to occur
in fall 1999 following a six week working committee review currently in progress.
Additional consideration of twenty staff recommended closures to occur between years
2000 and 2001 (ten closures per year).
5. No approval achieved for three (maximum) staff recommended closures following school
community task force presentations at two public meetings in October 1998.
Recommendations of an additional task force (established in January 1999) re: potential
alternative uses for surplus capacity will be considered by Board at the end of May 1999.
Staff recommendations re: system capacity reduction needs will also be considered by
Board at the end of May 1999.
6. No approval achieved for two (maximum) staff recommended closures following working
committee review from September 1998 to April 1999. No immediate plans to begin a new
school closure process.
7. No approval achieved to begin a process to close any of twenty (maximum) schools
identified in a preliminary staff report presented to Board in October 1998. New
consideration to begin a closure process will follow the presentation of a more detailed staff
report to the Board in fall 1999.
Jul 1999
Ottawa - Carleton District School Board Appendix 3
School Closure Study Report
OVERVIEW OF FACILITIES STUDY
Development of Recommendations for Development of Recommendations for
Disposition of Properties, closed effective further closures and /or relocation of
September 1, 1999 programs
Vacant Sites
Admin Facilities
Previously closed schools
1999 (Staff report on disposition
Jan 2000
Apr 2000 ............................. ...............................
.................................................... ...............................
Jul 2000
DATA COLLECTION:
a) Student Data
• Short-term projections
• Long -term projections
b) Facilities Information
• Building condition
Capital costs
• Operating costs
• Disposal options
c) Community Use of Schools
d) Data on Future Development and
Growth
Development of Options for Closures,
Boundary Changes and Programs
Presentation of Options to Board and
Review by School Study Committees
(SSCs)
Analysis of Feedback from SSCs and
preparation of Final Staff Report
Trustee Decisions
(for September 2001 Implementation)
DRAFT
r r A
Ottawa- Carleton CrI.It School Board Appendix 4
School Closure Study Report
TIMELINES
Task
1999
1 2000
June
July August September
October November December
January February March April May June
Trustee Workshops (2)
Planning - Section 1
Data Collection Re: Disposition
.................. .................. ................... .................. .................. ................... ................... ...................
Policy &Procedure Re: Disposition '
..................................................................... ...............................
Final Report Writing Re: Disposition
urner uepartmenrsIL on
Database Implementation
............................ ...............................
Plant Evaluation of Facilities
............................ ...............................
Facility Site Descriptions
............................ ...............................
Program Decisions
....G.r.o... u........ o...f . .. S.. ch. c "i..00l..........................
ps s
Transportation Entitlements
............................ ...............................
Community Use Information
........................... ...............................
Adult Education /Adult ESL
............................s ..........................
Budget Process
Note:
• Dates noted above are preliminary and are subject to change.
DRAFT
Physical Planning and Transportation
21/5/99
is
TITLE:
Date issued:
Revised:
Authorization:
Next review:
OTTAWA - CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
APPENDIX S
POLICY NO. P.013.PLG
ATTENDANCE BOUNDARY /AREA REVIEW /SCHOOL CLOSURE STUDIES
1.0 OBJECTIVE
12 March 1998
Board 98/02/09
06/2000
To provide a framework for attendance boundary, area review, and school closure studies.
2:0 DEFINITIONS
2.1 "Study" refers to the process to be followed to ensure adequate review prior to changing school
attendance boundaries and numbers/ locations of schools in operation within the jurisdiction of
the Board, based on demographic data and on program, school and community needs.
The "process" includes the steps to be taken and the timelines to be respected when conducting
attendance boundary, area review and school closure studies.
3.0 POLICY
3.1 The Board recognizes its primary mandate is to provide educational programs and services in
suitable facilities located as closely as practicable to the residences of the students served
therein. A fair and reasonable distribution of programs, staff, resources and facilities shall be
provided throughout the Board community taking into consideration student populations,
special needs of local communities, and the demand for programs.
3.2 The Board shall determine the number and kinds of schools to be established and maintained,
and the attendance area for each school, in a manner which is open to community input and
consultation, either within a broad community or within a particular sector of the community,
as appropriate.
3.3 Attendance boundary /area review /school closure studies of the Board shall follow a process
which provides resources and adequate time for consultation:
a) when considering the need for new school construction or for closure of a school or
schools in accordance with Ministry of Education or other requirements; and /or
b) when responding to changing demographic patterns, program needs, and
accommodation concerns or other factors which will impact on the school communities
it serves.
PC
/3
4.0 SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES
4.1 The Board shall endeavour to ensure that its facilities, including portable or temporary
structures, are used to maximum effectiveness, and that excess spaces not required for regular
day school student purposes are put to other uses within the system, or declared surplus to
system needs.
4.2 The Board shall ensure that a comprehensive system plan is developed outlining projected
facilities needs and general deployment of spaces, and taking into account student enrolment
patterns, population growth, program /curriculum needs and program locations. This plan
shall be reviewed at least once every ten years.
4.3 The Board shall conduct a study to address the construction of new schools or major additions
or renovations to existing schools; or the potential closure of schools; or responding to
population or program changes; or Ministry requirements/ funding changes.
4.4 Staff shall submit to the Business Services Committee /Board a specific plan to be approved for
the study which includes a specific time frame, a communication plan for community
involvement, and the type of process, including objectives, information- sharing, consultation,
and final decision - making.
4.5 Should a school be identified for closure, either as a result of the Board's review process or due
to exceptional circumstances arising, for example, from legislative changes to which the Board
must respond, the Board shall ensure that:
a) public notice is provided in the community or communities affected by the potential
closure;
b) specific information is available for public inspection regarding enrolment projections
and the impact of closure or non - closure on programs and services;
C) as shown on the chart in the Procedure, a minimum period of six (6) weeks is provided
from the notice referred to in a) above, to a final decision by the Board;
d) following the identification of a school as a candidate for closure, reports regarding the
following are presented to the Board in public session:
i) the effects of closure on community activities of a social, educational, cultural or
recreational nature which take place on the school premises;
ii) the effects of closure of a specific school on:
- the attendance area defined for that school
- attendance at other schools
- the need and extent of busing;
iii) analysis of the implications for the program and for students both in the school
under consideration for closing and in the school or schools where programs may
be affected by the school closing;
iv) the financial effects of closing or not closing the school including any capital
implications; and
v) the possible alternative use or disposition of the school if it is closed.
4.6 The Director of Education is authorized to issue such procedures as may be necessary to
support this policy.
5.0 REFERENCES
Financial /Architectural Memorandum, Ontario Ministry of Education, issued 1 April 1992
Board Procedure PR.508.PLG: Attendance Boundaries /Area Review /School Closure Studies