Submissions and Presentations made to the Vancouver School Board during the Public Consultation Process of the EFR

• Valuable info has been presented to the Vancouver School Board and the City Council at public meetings.
• This web page was created to post ALL of these submissions.
• If you have any other information or copies of correspondence to the VSB that you would like to make public, please send them via email to Martha Kertesz: Content Manager

FINALLY COMPLTETED - NO MORE SUBMISSIONS

Points relevant to the Facilities Planning process

1. Secondary schools should have enough capacity to create a secondary French Immersion program in the study area.

2. The extensive seismic upgrades required at Jules Quesnel are an opportunity to better disperse French Immersion elementary children between that site at the Queen Elizabeth Annex site.

3. Ideally, EVERY elementary school should have enough capacity to offer the expected early childhood program to children in the catchment.

Part 22c: Photo Essay Comparing School Facility Quality
The VSB’s “Educational Facilities Review” was originally intended to include consideration of the “quality of facilities to support education programming” (see January 10, 2008, Phase 1 report, page 12). To date, however, the VSB’s analysis seems to have omitted any such consideration.

In this submission, a photographic comparison of the quality of facilities available at all of the public elementary schools in the UBC-Dunbar-Pt.Grey study area.

A Trustee's Response to Cost Comparison email
Julee Kaye's response to Carol Gibson's response - trying to understand VSB data on school costs

Part 22b: Cost Comparison for UBC - Dunbar Schools
School-based costs per student at each elementary school in the UBC-Dunbar study area.

Part 22a: Updated Enrolment Data
Enrolment figures as of April 1, 2008

Part 21: Plot Synopsis: All You Need to Know
Educational and Financial Benefits from keeping QEA open until at least June 2011

Part 20: VSB’s “Feedback Form” Results are Meaningless

Part 19: Other Misleading cost Data in VSB's Feedback Report

Part 18: Misleading Cost Data in VSB's Feedback Report

Part 17: Omissions in the VSB's Feedback Summary.

Part 16: Documenting Deceptions from the VSB Staff.

Presentation to Vancouver City Council: EcoDensity, VSB Facilities, Walking / Cycling with children

• Click above to view a video clip from the Vancouver City Council EcoDensity meeting - A 5 minute talk with lots of questions, ultimately about 15 minutes total.

Presentation to Vancouver City Council: Part 15: Accounting for Schools in Density Planning? (Powerpoint Presentation 2.6MB)

• Word Document to accompany slides (72KB)
• Also - you can view the video clip from the Vancouver City Council meeting - select the March 13, 2008, 7:30 p.m. council session and click 'watch this video'.  The first presenter that evening is Eric Mazzi (see above).  Julee Kaye time mark 2:14:05.  

March 11th Presentation to the VSB Board (Powerpoint Presentation 1.3MB)

• Things to Consider: Catch - 22, Demographics, Costs, Independent Schools.

Part 14: A simple Test of the VSB's Proposal

• It can easily be shown that there is insufficient usable capacity in UBC-Dunbar elementary schools to permit the closure of the Queen Elizabeth Elementary Annex. To test the VSB’s “Phase 1” proposal, we should consider the expected usable capacity of each school after required seismic remediation's, not the capacity in their current dangerous configurations.

Feb. 12th Presentation to VSB Board of Trustees - Economics

• Economic Issues, Seismic and Capacity, EFR Comparison with Mission, BC, Immediate Actions
• Economic Notes to Trustees

Feb. 11th Presentation to VSB Board of Trustees - Legal issues

• Legal perspective on the issue of process, and the need for meaningful public consultation

Feb. 11th Presentation to VSB Board of Trustees - QEA PAC

An overview of the issues

Feb. 12th Presentation to the VSB Board of Trustees - Annexes

1. Annexes benefit ALL young children in the catchment.
2. Educating young children in annexes has not been shown to cost more.

Feb. 11th Presentation to the VSB Board of Trustees - Student Enrolment issues (PowerPoint 1.75MB)

• An analysis of present & near-future residential development & UBC-Dunbar K-7 student enrolment
• Follow-up on facilities needs: a call for action on development population growth
  
  

In this submission, I clarify two facts about school annexes that are broadly misunderstood in the community. I also re-calculate current % capacity utilization in the study area to reflect two recent developments. I then present a new analysis which shows the final capacity levels in the study area if all of the VSB’s current proposals are implemented: there will be hundreds more students than available spaces both within the UBC catchment AND outside of it. Finally, I suggest what it will take to fix the current crisis in public schools in this area.

Part 12: Erratum Southlands School to become an International Baccalaureate school

It came to my attention late in the evening on February 5th that Southlands elementary school is indeed expected to be converted to an International Baccalaureate school in September of this year (witness the December 14, 2007, newsletter available on the school web site). It will be the only such school in the Vancouver School District, and as such will be drawing students from a greatly enlarged catchment. While students currently enrolled at the school are expected to be included in the new program, what now appears as ‘surplus capacity’ at the school should be assumed to be unavailable to regular track students in the study area.

The VSB failed in its duty to disclose this information in its current proposal and report. In fact, with Southlands only at 62% capacity, the inclusion of Southlands in the VSB’s data tables (such as VSB’s Figure #12 on page 23) is unfair to other area schools affected by the VSB’s proposal and risks leading reviewers astray. Southlands has by far the worst capacity utilization of any school in the study area, and is ‘dragging down’ the average data.

All of the analyses in my submissions would be even less favourable to the VSB’s proposal had the data of Southlands been properly excluded. With Southlands removed from the study area, the remaining elementary and secondary schools in the study area are already at 101% capacity (not 98.5% as shown in Part 5 of my submission) and are forecast by the VSB itself to rise to 111% by 2012 (as opposed to 107% shown here).

I have forecast (Part 5) that if current excess capacity at Southlands were not fully available to students in the rest of the study area, then under the VSB’s proposal there could be 600 excess elementary children accommodated at 24 portables in the study area. Far from being an extreme possibility, this scenario now seems more likely than not.

As can be seen from the VSB’s map of catchment boundaries (VSB January 29th Diagram #1), with no regular-track public school available at Southlands, the Queen Elizabeth Annex will be even more essential to servicing students to the south and west than it was before.

Part 11 - A Message from our Children

The banner in the picture below shows 130 sets of hand prints, one for every child currently attending QEA. What it cannot show are the younger siblings and future generations of children all hoping to go to their neighbourhood school. S’il vous plait – PLEASE – Save Our School!!

Final Submission for School Closure Meeting- February 6th - 26 page document - all of the 11 Sections submitted and listed below

"Prov. of BC provides infusion of cash to save Public Education. In the background, VSB provides concerned hearts and minds"

Against the Sale of QEA Land

• Negotiate with UBC, the province to increase available funding (as per Stephen Owen’s plans).
• Demand UEL developers contribute funds for schools for the 1000 new residents.
• Establish fair funding contributions for schools from new developments: EcoDensity & Musqueam.

Part 10: Our Plea to the Trustees

Part 9: The Only Satisfactory Solution

RE: Part 8: Better Options for Consideration

Printable version Part 8: Better Options for Consideration

Dear VSB Trustees, Hon. Shirley Bond, Colin Hansen and Gordon Campbell,

I realize that it may not be enough to attack the VSB’s proposal if I can not suggest a better solution to the problems they are facing. Here I will present four preferable options. The first two would more fully utilize ‘capacity’ in the study area, the third would provide an alternative means of raising capital, and the fourth could offer a fairly complete solution with ELEVEN advantages over the current VSB proposal.

Some of these preferred options, including the last, would be unequivocally ruled out under the proposed sale of QEA. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE VSB FINISH THEIR HOMEWORK BEFORE MAKING IRREVERSIBLE DECISIONS ON THE FATE OF QEA.

1. Shut down part of QM earlier than proposed. QE appears to have still about 50 spaces available that could be filled with more of the students that will otherwise be bused to QM. QM would then have about 170 empty spaces, which might be enough to immediately shut down some of the areas intended to be phased out in the as-yet-unscheduled seismic mitigation work. This would immediately eliminate more spaces in the study area than would be achieved by the sale of QEA (130 spaces). Note that my suggestion of this option should not be taken as indicating that I believe all students in the study area could subsequently be properly accommodated during growth at UBC and seismic mitigation at JQ. Rather, I am proposing it as a more desirable way to eliminate capacity in the near future if that is what VSB is set on doing (in spite of all advice to the contrary).

2. Proceed with implementing the already-mandated pre-kindergarten programs. If one pre-K class were to be created for each K class currently in area schools, this would create about 14 new classes of 20 students each – requiring 280 student spaces (or 140 if it is a half-day program). Again, this option does as much as the closure of QEA to increase % capacity utilization (a.k.a crowding) in schools in the study area.

3. Find something else to sell. Why assume that the VSB must sell a SCHOOL to raise money? What other assets could they sell?? In these challenging times, when the provincial budget surplus is only $2.1 BILLION, if we really can’t afford to give our public school children safe classrooms without selling something, then maybe the VSB should move themselves into the ‘excess capacity’ in their crumbling schools and get some cash out of their office space.

4. Gradually move streams of French Immersion (FI) students from JQ back to their neighbourhood schools.

The rest of this submission explores the option of putting FI classes back into neighbourhood schools, as has been done with happy result at QEA. Unlike the VSB’s current proposal, this option:

• could solve immediate capacity-utilization problems across all neighbourhood schools, allowing them to be kept at their current size;
• allows for immediate reduction in occupancy of the seismically-unsound JQ buildings;
• allows UBC elementary children to be moved into their new school as soon as it can be made ready – several years earlier than under the VSB’s proposal;
• requires the relocation of no more than 430 kids (those currently at JQ; depending on options described below) instead of the 975 kids to be relocated under the VSB’s proposal (QEA + JQ + QE);
• allows for immediate increase in access to elementary FI programs (which the VSB suggests would keep more students in the public system (as noted by VSB report page 22-23) – and thus increase funding levels provided to the VSB);
• does not require any children be put into portables in the near term;
• allows affected children (FI children who would otherwise be at JQ) to go to school nearer to their homes, not further (as would be the case for QEA children under the Phase 1 proposal);
• allows affected children the use of the superior outdoor play spaces available at neighbourhood schools;
• allows, after a suitable phase-out period and after the new school is ready at UBC, for the sale of some or all of the current JQ site (depending on construction of a 3rd elementary school at UBC, and other factors – please see below);
• saves the VSB some or all of the enormous costs it would otherwise incur performing seismic upgrades at JQ;
• allows the VSB to access money that the Government of Canada has allocated to promote bilingual schools; and
• is genuinely well-intentioned and SHOULD NOT BE SEEN, PLEASE, AS SIMPLY AN ATTACK ON A DIFFERENT SCHOOL. As a QEA parent of a FI student, I am scheduled to become a JQ parent in 2010. The proposed changes will affect my own children as well as those currently at JQ. And JQ, which I am proposing phasing out, is actually the closest school to our home.

To understand this possible option, we must first look at a serious misinterpretation of the VSB’s data. The VSB reports that “the in-catchment … student populations for Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth have been declining” (Phase 1 report, pg. 24). But the QM and QE catchments are completely overlapped by JQ. If we look at the VSB’s data (Figure #12), we see that the student population resident in JQ’s ‘catchment’ is growing substantially (44%) over the same time period. It is of interest, then, to consider the total FI + English elementary populations in the study area outside of UBC (which we already know is increasing). Table 2 below (or in the attached file) presents these data.

Table 2: Number of Elementary Students Resident in the Study Area Outside UBC.

- See downloadable version of Julee's submission.

The data in Table 2 above show that the number of VSB students resident in the study area outside of UBC is holding constant – not declining. The difference between 2007 and 2003 is much less than the variation between consecutive years. While most of the English ‘catchments’ show declining student populations, that drop is fully compensated by the increasing student population in JQ’s ‘catchment’ (which appears by the way to include all of QEA’s French students).

STUDENT POPULATIONS OUTSIDE UBC ARE NOT DECLINING, THEY ARE SIMPLY SWITCHING TO FRENCH IMMERSION!

In the 6 year period shown in Table 2, enrolment in FI has increased by 44% (VSB Figure #12). It now represents 20% of VSB enrolment in the study area - and still demand for FI exceeds supply.

The doomed buildings and cramped courtyards of JQ have become more and more crowded while some lovely neighbourhood schools have become more and more underutilized. But this need not be accepted as the status quo.

French Immersion used to be concentrated in one school serving an enlarged catchment because it was a minority program. But now, in this study area, it is so popular and has grown so large that it could be put back into some neighbourhood schools (not every school). Its concentration in a single school is unnecessarily causing large numbers of children to need to be driven to school when they might otherwise walk.

Perhaps the VSB should SAVE NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS BY GIVING THEM BACK THEIR FRENCH IMMERSION STUDENTS.

There are myriad possibilities for how to implement the transfer of FI streams back to neighbourhood schools. The phase-in process could start with a single K class moved from JQ to one of the other schools in the study area in Sept. 2009, or a block of grades could be moved at the same time (with perhaps 1 class of each grade kept at JQ to serve siblings in the interim?). It is too late to change the intake lottery for the two 2008 K classes at JQ, but an additional K class could be opened at another neighbourhood school this September. Note that the creation of incremental FI classes under this scheme need not require incremental facilities, since the classes will be mostly be filled with students who would otherwise be using space in the regular track in the same neighbourhood. My personal bias is that, because we just don’t know when an earthquake might strike, the reduction of occupancy in the JQ buildings should be a matter of high priority. Our babysitter was ‘scared’ to be at JQ; apparently grade 7’s cannot fit under their desks as suggested in the earthquake drills. Obviously, however, the parents currently at JQ should be consulted about the preferred phase-in process.

The ultimate goal may be to move the two K-3 streams currently at JQ to one each at two separate schools. The 3 grade 4-7 streams could either be moved to the same schools (with the 3rd one at QE receiving students from the K-3 program at QEA), or aggregated at a single school (equivalent to creating a ‘middle-school’ for FI, located at one of the neighbourhood. schools). The aggregated option requires that about 240 spaces be available at the same school, but it looks like QM would have this much space available once new schools are ready at UBC. QE would be a more central site in the study area, however.

I am not in a position to propose a single optimal arrangement, but I can say that the VSB’s data suggest that all students currently at JQ could be fit into other non-UBC schools in the study area once students from UBC are able to be accommodated in their own catchment. As soon as the new elementary school is ready at UBC – as soon as 2011 in the VSB’s January 29th Diagram 2 – enough space would become available in other schools in the study area to absorb all of the students now at JQ. Table 3 (on the next page) presents the data.

Please note that this scenario assumes the first new elementary school at UBC has been built before any other assets in the neighbourhood. have been sold. If no other financing were available, this could be achieved by taking out a reverse mortgage on the JQ property. In any case, the VSB’s January 29 Diagram #2 suggests that it is possible for work at UBC to proceed before any assets have been sold.

Please note that the data DO NOT SHOW that the accommodation of all FI students at other neighbourhood. schools could work indefinitely. In the year 2011, the study area is forecast to have only 88 empty spaces – even without accounting for growth in Dunbar or any implementation of the VSB’s mandate regarding pre-Kindergarten services. It may therefore be necessary to renovate part of JQ and keep some students there. A preferred solution, however, would be to build a new addition at QEA. This may not cost significantly more than renovating JQ would otherwise cost, and it would then allow the sale of all of the current JQ site.

Please also note that:

- under any scenario, ongoing growth at UBC beyond 2011 will quickly overwhelm all of the area’s schools unless a third UBC elementary school is created in a timely manner (see lines 6 and 7 of Table 3 below); and

- this proposal assumes that seismic upgrades at QE can be done without relocating students (by for example concentrating the most disruptive work into school vacation periods, as was done for seismic upgrades at Lord Byng a couple years ago).

The example of QEA shows that even a single K-3 FI stream is viable in a bilingual school – in fact, it’s great. QE’s principal and QEA’s vice principal can testify that it is possible to look after both language streams in the same school. The only incremental cost that I can see is the need to duplicate FI library materials in multiple neighbourhood. schools. This cost could be offset by money from the Government of Canada that is meant to promote the creation of bilingual schools. Anyway the cost would be offset many times over by the money that would otherwise have to be spent on seismic upgrades at JQ. And in the short-term, the cost need not be borne at all: library materials could be split up and periodically swapped between schools.

Table 3: Could FI students fit into neighbourhood. schools?

- See downloadable version of Julee's submission. to view the table.
UBC will need a 3rd elementary school before it completes its growth plans in 2021.

My guess is that, because it is in a wholly developed area and adjacent to other large buildings, the dispensation of the site at JQ would prove much more straightforward than that at QEA would have. The JQ site could prove a welcome opportunity for Vancouver City Council to move forward with its eco-densification plans. I can imagine that, for example, downsizing seniors would be pleased to buy an apartment in the (suitably upgraded) heritage buildings at JQ and thus enable themselves to stay in their home neighbourhood.

Please note that I do NOT recommend that each neighbourhood. school operate an independent lottery system for FI. This would be unnecessarily restrictive – and potentially unfair - as demand may fluctuate more strongly in smaller catchments. Perhaps all the schools currently in JQ’s catchment could operate a joint lottery – as JQ and QEA currently do – with applicants invited to rank schools in order of preference.

While not perfect, this option could at least get Dunbar children into safe schools and get UBC children into a home-catchment school much faster than does the current VSB proposal. Due to the considerable advantages of this option over that in the Phase 1 report, I ask that the VSB and trustees give it due consideration. YOU WILL ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS HAPPIER, LONGER-TERM OPTION IF YOU PROCEED WITH THE SALE OF QEA.

None of the options offered in this submission are ideal. An ideal solution to the problems facing the VSB in the UBC-Dunbar study area would require more money from the Province of B.C. This will be the topic of my next submission to you.

Julee Kaye

RE: Part 7: More on the Case for Saving QEA

My submissions so far have focused on why QEA is needed to help accommodate the area’s school children during a time of seismic upgrades and rapid growth over the next 10 years. Now I must elaborate on some of the other reasons why it is important to keep this school:

I was not always at QEA parent. Before that, I was a preschool parent needing to choose my son’s kindergarten. JQ is the closest to our home, but it was the first one that I ruled out. Not because I didn’t like the program or the lovely kindergarten teacher – I did – but because I could not abide the cramped playgrounds, lack of greenspace, and the fear that three floors of bricks would come crashing down upon my children in even a modest earthquake. In the end, I enrolled my son at QEA before I even decided if I would prefer French or English education for him.

I am not the only one who has been impressed with QEA. QEA is FULL, every year, with neighbourhood children. All but 4 of the out-of-catchment children there come from catchments that are below capacity; they have presumably chosen QEA by choice because it works for them. What is so special about QEA that attracts these people? And why should the VSB care about saving QEA? In the points below, I will first answer the latter question and then the former.

1) The QEA site is irreplaceable. Twelve decades ago, there were only 100 houses in Vancouver. Four decades ago, city planners were able to endow a system of neighbourhood schools and annexes on still vacant land. Houses in the Dunbar neighbourhood could be bought for thirteen thousand dollars. Times have changed! The pioneer days are gone. Once we sell QEA, we will never again get another parcel of land like it.

2) QEA WILL BE REQUIRED to meet future educational demands beyond the next 10 years. BC Stats predicts that Vancouver’s 2006 population of 618,000 will increase to 753,000 by 2036 – a 22% increase over current population levels. This much population increase cannot occur without a corresponding increase in the number of school-aged children in the district. And recall that schools in the Dunbar-UBC area are already at 98.5% capacity, and further growth is expected through densification projects on Dunbar St. and the city’s promotion of secondary suites. Would a school board 20 years from now be looking at closing QEA? NO, they’d be enlarging it.

3) As I showed in my previous submissions (Parts 3, 4, and 5), QEA will also be required during the next 10 years, to help accommodate the area’s students during seismic renovations and the rapid growth phase at UBC.

4) In reviewing the changing number of students resident in each ‘catchment’ (VSB Figure #12), QEA should properly be considered part of JQ’s catchment since most of QEA’s intake is also French Immersion students. I believe the VSB has actually rolled most of QEA’s students into the JQ data line in this table.

Between 2001 and 2007, THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS RESIDENT IN THE JOINT QEA/JQ CATCHMENT INCREASED BY A WHOPPING 44% !!

5) The QEA site can provide much more flexibility to meet changing needs than can JQ. JQ’s school grounds are too tiny to accommodate a single portable. Future school boards have room to add permanent classrooms at QEA.

6) The QE catchment is by necessity a very odd shape, tending towards an extended ‘L’ shape wrapped around two sides of Pacific Spirit Park. Far from being redundant in the neighbourhood, the QEA annex appears to have been sensibly designed to accommodate students in the southern leg of the ‘L’, who are no closer to the main QE than QE is to QM (and further from QE than Caravan and Kitchener are from each other). QEA is, in fact, sensibly located at the midway point between QE and Southlands.

7) Closing QEA will further the decline of public education in the study area. Within about 1 mile of our house, private elementary schools already outnumber public ones. The VSB and Trustees should fight to preserve public education in this neighbourhood.

8) The VSB has not done its homework. The VSB would like to argue that the EFR’s phased approach “provides more flexibility to respond to evolving civic issues and developments, such as considering potential impacts associated with City of Vancouver Eco-Density planning initiatives” (Phase 1 report, pg. 20). This is AN ADMISSION that the VSB has not yet accounted for the city’s densification plans. Far from providing more flexibility, the early liquidation of QEA would actually eliminate the VSB’s ability to respond to densification in the Dunbar neighbourhood.

PLEASE DO NOT FORCE THESE IRREPARABLE LOSSES ON OUR COMMUNITY JUST BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE FIRST STUDY AREA!!!!

9) The long list of data gaps that I have identified (my submission Part 6) definitively shows that the VSB’s “Feedback Form” might better ask “How do you feel about the proposals?” than whether the proposals are “a very effective use of educational resources”. How can anyone be expected to decide whether schools should be closed when the VSB has offered no demonstration that such closures will allow it to still meet its goals, and such data as are available suggest that it definitely will not be able to meet its goals? (see my Part 5).

10) The VSB’s proposal would negatively impact the security of many area students, and especially those at QEA. Yet the Phase 1 report makes multiple references to the importance of security to young students. For example, the report says: “it is well known that having a feeling of attachment to a place … is very important to a young person’s … confidence and motivation as a learner. Connected to this is the importance of … continuity …” (page 7; see also page 10). The little kids at QEA are strongly attached to their precious school. Please do not destroy their security.

11) QEA is a community school for early elementary children. All of the teachers know all of the students by name. It IS ‘cosy’. It is functioning exactly the way that must have been envisioned when annexes were created: allowing the smallest children to attend the smallest schools near their homes.

Is this unfair to children in ‘typical’ schools? NO! Wherever possible, larger elementary schools also organize themselves to keep their youngest students somewhat separate from the older ones. At the main QE, for example, early elementary children have a separate set of classroom buildings surrounding their own playground. These larger schools are effectively functioning like an early elementary annex and a ‘typical’ school that happen to be built on adjacent lots.

THE VSB HAS NOT SHOWN THAT IT COSTS MORE TO EDUCATE A K-3 STUDENT AT QEA THAN AT QE OR THAN IT WILL COST AT THE NEW UBC ELEMENTARY. K-3 students cost more per year because they require smaller class sizes. This may create the misperception that K-3 annexes are more expensive per student than K-7 ‘typical’ schools.

12) QEA has excellent outdoor facilities, promoting fitness and connection with nature. Note that the playing field is heavily booked by community sports associations on weekends. The playground is deficient in man-made apparatus, but rich in natural materials. Young children benefit enormously from daily immersion in green space (for demonstration consider ‘Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder”, Richard Louv, 2005). Children in a green playground develop more creative play scenarios over much longer time frames, and play in a more egalitarian way than children using a paved playground (ref. Louv 2005). My son, together with much of his class, spent most of his kindergarten lunch breaks gathering materials from under the trees to stock a pretend ‘store’. Now in Grade 1, the recurring themes concern the construction of ‘forts’ and ‘paths’ between them, sometimes with alien invasions. All of the required props are gathered from under the trees.

Do you suppose that only private school children deserve green space? PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN IN VANCOUVER DESERVE GREEN SPACE, and this city and this province are rich enough to provide them. If the VSB further erodes the quality of services to public school children, then the VSB will be pushing more and more families towards private schools.

13) Every teacher at QEA is incredible. They have created a model bilingual program at the school. Thanks to them, QEA is tremendously successful, and much-beloved by the children and families who pass through it. QEA is like a big, happy family. It is working!! And working well!!

14) Children are less likely to die in an earthquake at QEA than in JQ. This was a big, big consideration for me. QEA is in a one-story building built relatively recently. (I suspect in fact that St. George’s is wanting the QEA site because of its own safety concerns about the old stone building in which they house their elementary students).

15) The issue here is not just the 135 kids currently attending QEA. It is also the 2 kindergarten classes that enroll at QEA every year. By 2016, when UBC kids would finally get their new elementary school under the VSB’s proposal, 455 DUNBAR KIDS WILL HAVE BEEN DENIED THE CHANCE TO GO TO THEIR AMAZING NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL!! (135 kids in current attendance + 8 years of enrolment at 40 kids per year). There has to be a better way, and we are counting on the VSB to find it.

Yes, UBC needs more schools. But Dunbar still needs its schools! The VSB has gone looking for school closures in an arbitrarily designated ‘study area’ that is already at 98.5% capacity AND is slated for continued growth in both the UBC and Dunbar neighbourhoods. QEA was proposed for closure just because it is near UBC. But being near the burgeoning neighbourhoods at UBC is actually all the more reason that it must remain open to help accommodate all the Dunbar-UBC students during this phase of concurrent rapid growth at UBC and desperately needed seismic renovations in other area schools. The VSB simply started looking for something to sell in the wrong study area! PLEASE don’t make our children suffer and our community incur irreparable losses all because of that one small mistake.

The QEA site is a LEGACY that the VSB will need in changing times. Do not squander it for the perception of short-term gain!!! In my next submission, I will try to propose a strategy that could offer a better long-term solution to the VSB’s capacity concerns while still allowing for the eventual liquidation of some assets.

Julee Kaye

Reflections and an Alternate Proposal or the EFR - UBC to Dunbar St. Study Area

Outlines 5 proposals, including: maintaining all annexes, postponing decision, applying the capacity figure for all schools in the area, reevaluating catchment areas, using preschools and/or before/after school care when/if excess capacity exists.
 

RE: Part 6: Critical Data Gaps and Concerns

The VSB has not compiled enough data to determine which of the district’s schools are most suitable for closure, or even whether any schools must be closed. To avoid grievous errors, the process MUST be supported by additional data. The following deficiencies and unanswered questions arise from the EFR Phase 1 report:

i) Present and Future excess capacity must be mapped at the district level. As shown in my last submission, the school district as a whole may be operating at only 86% capacity, but the Phase 1 study area is already at 98.5% capacity. And the VSB forecasts that will increase to 107% capacity by 2012. The study area is not where the problem is. QEA is actually like U. Hill in having been operating continuously at capacity.

ii) What are the other options to reduce capacity, more quickly and less painfully? Note that about 50 more spaces at QE could be filled by UBC students already being bused to QM, and this would leave 170 empty spaces at QM, perhaps enough to shut down now some of the areas intended to be phased out in seismic upgrades.

iii) What are the actual costs to the taxpayer of educating students in each specific school? The district averages on EFR page 12 are inadequate for selecting individual schools for closure. Annexes in fact probably have greater cost efficiencies than small ‘typical’ schools.

iv) Is renovating the NRC building really cost effective?? The VSB’s report says that it will cost $30 million to RENOVATE the NRC building into a 675 space school but it would only have cost $9.6 million to BUILD a new 350 space school (page 30). This suggests the VSB would do better to spend only $19.2 (twice $9.6 million) and build a brand new 700 space school in lieu of renovating NRC.

v) Why is Southlands elementary left out of the VSB’s recommendations? At only 62% capacity currently, it has by far the worst utilization of any school in the study area. Serving 199 children, it is comparable in size to QEA and probably has higher operational costs per student (because, for example, it does not share administration with a larger school).

vi) Is it cost-effective to perform seismic upgrades on JQ, or might the whole school have to be re-built (i.e., upgrade cost exceeds 70% of replacement costs; Phase 1 Report pg.19)? In this case, JQ should be rebuilt at QEA (see following point). VSB says (page 24) that the seismic feasibility study for JQ – results of which are crucial to the decision to liquidate QEA – is actually on hold because there wouldn’t be enough space to proceed with the renovations anyway!!!

iii) As noted in the VSB’s report, an assessment of school spaces should factor in “the condition of school buildings… and quality of facilities” (page 12). But nowhere in the process has this been done!! Indeed, the suggestion to close QEA seems to be wholly based on the current capacity of each school site!! QEA came up just because it currently has the fewest classrooms.

In fact, the buildings at QEA are far more sound structurally than those at JQ, and QEA offers an adjacent playing field and forested playground to the immense benefit of the children. This may be particularly critical to the education of boys. JQ, on the other hand, offers only small courtyards for play at lunch. Since the enlargement of Lord Byng a few years ago, JQ probably offers fewer square metres per student outside than it does inside!!

vii) Do the people of Vancouver not want neighbourhood schools?

viii) Are young children better served at small schools? As a parent and former child, I certainly think so. Does the VSB have data to the contrary, that would support their closure of QEA? The city's legacy of annexes was originally created with the vision of allowing the smallest children to attend the smallest schools close to their homes.

ix) How many portables would be required to amalgamate QEA and QE schools as proposed? (How many of our excellent teachers would be expected to abandon the schools in favour of more stable and comfortable schools elsewhere? How many families would opt out of public education like rats fleeing a sinking ship – causing further reductions in the VSB’s budgets?)

x) What are the other options for funding new schools at UBC? What non-educational assets does the VSB hold that it might reasonably sell to raise money?

xi) Why does the VSB think out-of-catchment enrolment at a school supports the closure of that school, when in fact enrolment from catchments that are below capacity actually supports the retention of the school??? Almost all of the out-of-catchment students at QEA come from home catchments that are below capacity. This simply shows that QEA IS SO DESIRABLE TO AREA PARENTS THAT THEY VOLUNTARILY TRAVEL OUT OF CATCHMENT TO GET THEIR CHILDREN IN QEA; and THE CATCHMENT LINES ARE ABITRARILY DRAWN IN THE WRONG PLACE (families with early elementary children living northwest of Dunbar and 29th would rather come to QEA than cross Dunbar to go to Kitchener.

xii) How will the VSB achieve its vision of “Neighbourhoods of Learning within a Network of Learning” if it reduces the capacity of each school to match its CURRENT “in-catchment student population” (e.g., pg. 36)? The VSB envisions a future in which students “have choice and access to … programs … in neighbouring … schools” (Phase 1 report, pg. 9). They state that “a learner should … be given access to other schools … in a broader neighbourhood or region of the city … [or] other sites across the city” (page 8). But the reduced capacity of schools in the study area suggests that “choice” will only be possible to the extent that equal numbers of people want to swap in and out of each catchment. And in fact, the VSB proposes to “direct” students to attend their “‘home’ attendance area school" (page 28-29). In other words, the VSB’s proposal appears to be the antithesis of its vision. (And, obviously, the VSB is leaving no flexibility to deal with densification and reasonably foreseeable social-demographic changes).

xiii) How many alternative solutions will be lost due to unreasonably short time-frame permitted for public input? I was out of the country from January 9th until 2 a.m. January 21. (Imagine my shock on my return). I didn’t obtain the VSB’s report until January 27. Since then, I have had to use every possible minute to prepare my submission to the VSB – but I am being forced to work in isolation. There is no time to read the volumes of work produced by others. The VSB’s rushed timeframe is severely curtailing the collaboration that could lead to an optimal solution.

In my submissions to you thus far, I have focused on the data gaps in the VSB's proposal and on the intense capacity pressures that schools in the study area will suffer in the coming decade as UBC undergoes a phase of rapid growth and critical seismic upgrades must be performed (AND the VSB possibly fulfills its mandate to provide pre-kindergarten services). My next submission will describe other factors that support the case for saving QEA. After that, I will submit to you what I hope may be a happier solution to your capacity problems.
 

Julee Kaye

Printable version of Part 5: Adding Up Growth in Portables

RE: Part 5: Adding Up Growth in Portables

Dear VSB Trustees, Ministry of Education, Colin Hansen and Gordon Campbell,

In this submission, I will calculate % capacity in the study area under the VSB’s proposal, and estimate how many portables would have to be added to elementary school grounds. The procedure is summarized in the table below; if the table is badly formatted in your email, then please print the attached Word document for easier reference.

What the table and subsequent explanation show is that the VSB’s proposal will result in at least 200 and more likely 600 elementary children in the study area being accommodated in portables at the point when seismic upgrades are undertaken at QE. Needless to say, there will be no music rooms, art rooms, or learning assistance rooms under this scenario. At an average of 25 children per portable, 8 to 24 portables will be needed. The portables will be spread between JQ, QM, Kitchener, U. Hill, the new UBC elementary, for an average 1.5 to 5 portables per school. I wonder if the forecast ratio of students-to-toilets will even be legal under this proposal? IT WOULD SURE BE NICE IF QEA WERE STILL AVAILABLE AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY!!

You just don’t close schools when you know that you will need portables in a couple years.

I also show below that schools in the study area are already at 98.5% capacity (elementary and secondary combined), and are forecast by the VSB itself to be at 107% capacity in 2012 - EVEN IF QEA REMAINS OPEN, no seismic upgrades are undertaken, and no pre-kindergarten services are added. Thus the study area already exceeds the Provincial requirement that districts be at 95% capacity to receive funding for seismic upgrades or new construction. THE STUDY AREA IS NOT WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. If the district as a whole is only at 86% capacity, then there must be other areas of the district with lower current & forecast capacity utilization. Perhaps it is appropriate to look for school closures there.

In the VSB’s “Diagram #2” (released as a stand-alone supplement, January 29) they seem to assume that work at UBC can proceed long before profits are realized in the sale of QEA. However, even if it is indeed true that the VSB must liquidate some school to pay for new schools at UBC, there is no reason at all that the school chosen for liquidation must be near UBC. The data presented below, in fact, show that all school space near UBC will absolutely be required in the coming years to accommodate the area’s students during critical seismic upgrades and the interim growth phase at UBC.

Why then has QEA been put forward for closure? I believe it was because the Phase 1 report neglected to forecast elementary student enrolment growth in the study area. There are, in fact, many other critical data gaps in the Phase 1 report. Any rationale decision on the best school(s) for closure will need to be supported by additional data. In my next submission to you, I will list some of these data gaps. Subsequent submissions will put forward more considerations relevant to the fate of QEA, explain what appears to be a serious misinterpretation of the VSB’s enrolment data, and even SUGGEST WHAT I HOPE IS A HAPPIER SOLUTION TO THE CAPACITY ISSUES. Stay tuned!

Table 1: Adding-Up the VSB’s Proposed Changes. - see PDF

Let me now briefly explain the table. Line 1 of the table shows data from the VSB’s Figure #12 (Phase 1 report pg. 23). Line 2 shows the proposed closure of facilities at QEA; affected students are moved to other schools in the study area.

There is a lot of confusion about the VSB’s proposed timeline. Under the VSB’s written proposal, the new elementary at UBC is used to house JQ students until seismic upgrades at JQ and QE are completed during 2015 (see Phase 1 report, page 37, Figure 19 "QE Proposal Map”; clarified at bottom of page 36). However, the VSB’s Diagram #2, revealed on January 29th, suggests this could happen as soon as 2011. Although this BELIES THE VSB’S CLAIM THAT MONEY FROM THE SALE OF QEA IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW WORK AT UBC TO PROCEED, I have calculated the consequences of each timeline separately.

So line 3 adds on the expected growth in student numbers for the years 2007 to 2011, and line 4 shows spaces in the new elementary school becoming available. JQ students are moved to the new elementary, and line 5 subtracts the current spaces at JQ which become unavailable during seismic upgrades. Adding up these numbers, line 6 shows that the number of students enrolled in the study area as a whole will exceed the number of spaces available by 42 spaces. At this point, all learning assistance, music and art rooms have presumably been taken over for classroom space, and about 42 children are accommodated in 2 portables. Note that expected growth in the Dunbar area (e.g., see my Part 4, also VSB’s Figure #5) is not accounted for in these numbers or any of the ones which follow in this submission.

The next section of Table 1, lines 7 to 12, extends the data to the year 2012: there are 52 additional children at UBC, JQ’s renovated buildings (optimistically) return to use but with reduced capacity, and QE’s buildings are taken out of use for seismic upgrades. This results in 209 children being put into 8 portables.

The next section shows what happens if, as proposed in the VSB’s Phase 1 report, the process proceeds more slowly and buildings at QE are not under renovation until 2015. There have then been an additional 3 years of growth at UBC, and 365 students need to be accommodated in 14 portables. Learning Assistance is presumably being conducted in the hallways. This is the scenario proposed in the Phase 1 report, still without accounting for the addition of pre-K services (see below) or any growth in the Dunbar area.

The final part of the table accounts for two other factors of concern. One is that the VSB has a ‘mandate’ to begin providing pre-Kindergarten services. I have assumed that they begin modestly with just one class of 20 children at each elementary that is still open: this adds 120 children to the total enrolled in the study area.

The other consideration is the mysterious fate of Southlands. Up to this point, I have included Southlands’ 315 space capacity and much smaller 199 student enrollment in all the calculations (as per VSB’s Figure #12, page 23). However, rumour has it that Southlands is to be converted to an International Baccalaureate school (presumably serving a much larger catchment as the only such elementary in the VSB) in 1 or 2 years, and it will thus be unavailable to accommodate regular program students in the study area. It is otherwise inexplicable that the VSB’s Phase 1 report makes no recommendation on Southlands, since the school is only at 62% capacity - by far the worst % utilization of any school in the study area – and is comparably small to the fully-enrolled QEA. Arguably, Southlands facilities should be excluded from the calculations but their enrolment accounted for (since regular program students at Southlands will need to go to other area schools) but to be conservative I have at this point in the table subtracted both the capacity and enrollment of Southlands, just as if it had never been included in the VSB’s Figure #12.

The last row of the table reflects the actual conditions that should be expected in 2015 as accurately as I can. Either some 600 students require accommodation in portables or the VSB has failed in its mandate to offer pre-K services in the study area.

Below is how the study area can be seen to be at 98.5% total capacity already, even if the VSB’s data (page 23, Figure #12, top part) are taken at face value:

Elementary + Secondary 2007 Enrolment = 4362 = 0.985

Elementary + Secondary Capacity 4430

Moreover, the same data set shows that VSB expects % capacity in the study area to rise to 107% by 2012, even if QEA remains open and there are no seismic upgrades under way:

Elementary + Secondary 2012 Enrolment = 4750 = 1.072

Elementary + Secondary Capacity 4430

This calculation is conservative in that it assumes that there is no growth in student numbers except at UBC, no provision of pre-K services, no seismic upgrades underway and QEA is open.

It is clear from the data presented here that even just taking account of the reasonably expected growth at UBC and the need for seismic upgrades in surrounding schools absolutely proves that space at QEA will be required for the coming decade.
 

RE: Part 4: Other expected capacity demands on QEA and QE

Dear VSB Trustees, Ministry of Education, Colin Hansen and Gordon Campbell,

In this submission, I will summarize some of the reasons why the Queen Elizabeth Annex - and all other available elementary student space in the VSB’s study area – will be required in the years 2009-2016 and beyond. I believe that a decade from now, it will be laughable that QEA could have been identified for closure at this point in history.

• To help accommodate students from UBC that cannot be accommodated on the UEL during the community’s rapid growth phase. Recall from my last submission that 644 excess students from UBC will have to be absorbed by surrounding schools in the year 2015!!!

• To provide the so-called ‘swing’ space for essential seismic upgrades at all public schools in the study area.

• Because population density is increasing in the QEA and QE neighbourhoods, not just at UBC (see EFR Figure #5). Densification on Dunbar St. is proceeding each year, and the Vancouver City Council is considering requiring new houses to include secondary suites, allowing second secondary suites, and permitting laneway housing (Courier newspaper, January 25, 2008).

• Because the real-estate cycle in this neighbourhood is such that many more houses are about to be turned over to young families in the coming years. For many years now, demand for housing in the area has exceeded supply. This is one of the most in-demand neighbourhoods for raising children! However, many houses are occupied by older couples with grown children who are nearing the time when they will be selling long-held properties.
  
  Consider our own block: we were able to buy our house when the elderly owner died after 50 years of occupancy. Next to us lives a late-60’s gentleman who has been in the same house since he was a child. Next to him is a building site where a retired couple lived until last October. Next to that are two new houses with two new families with school children on a lot formerly occupied by one elderly lady.
  
  

• Because the percentage of children in private school is not a reliable constant. Any change in the broader economic environment will send families back to public schools. Recall that in the 1980’s, interest rates surpassed 20%. Even at 10%, many families would find themselves paying 10’s of thousands of dollars extra on interest charges and private schools would be hemorrhaging students back to the public system. You must maintain at least SOME flexibility to deal with changes like this.

• Because the VSB now has an “expanded mandate to serve early childhood learning and development (pre-kindergarten)” (Phase 1 report, page 8). Where will this program be accommodated if Phase 1 of the EFR eliminates all of the required space???

HOW DOES THE VSB EXPECT TO SIMULTANEOUSLY ACCOMMODATE ALL ELEMENTARY STUDENTS IN THESE GROWING NEIGHBORHOODS, PERFORM CRITICAL SEISMIC UPGRADES, AND ADD A PRE-K PROGRAM IF IT ELIMINATES QEA????

THE VSB HAS NOT EVEN TRIED TO SHOW THAT IT CAN MEET THESE GOALS.

In my next submission to you, I will add up the implications of these pressures. I will forecast % capacity at the study area’s elementary schools in the year 2015, and show how many portables would have to be added to each school under the VSB’s proposals.

RE: Part 3: Forecasting Elementary Student Growth at UBC

Dear VSB Trustees, Ministry of Education, Colin Hansen and Gordon Campbell,

In this submission, I will explore how many VSB elementary students from UBC will need to be accommodated outside of their home catchment under the VSB’s proposal for the coming decade. Recall from my last submission that the VSB’s proposal does not provide any new space at UBC for regular-track elementary students until the year 2016.

One of many data deficiencies in the VSB’s Educational Facilities Review Phase-1 report is that they have not forecast the expected increase in the elementary student population at UBC. However, we can use numbers in the report to obtain two different estimates of the expected annual increase. An additional estimate may be obtained from Stephen Owen’s revelation (Vancouver Sun, January 29) that UBC is going to double its current residential population (non-UBC-students) by the year 2012.

All data here are from the EFR Phase 1 Proposal, Figure #12.

1. The VSB forecasts (without explanation) that secondary enrolment at U. Hill will increase from 513 children to 675 children in 5 years. This suggests an annual increase of 32.4 children spread across 5 grades, or 6.5 children per grade per year. Applied to the 8 grades in elementary school, this growth rate in secondary enrolment suggests an increase of 51.8 children per year in elementary school.

2. The number of VSB elementary students resident in the U. Hill catchment has increased from 525 to 743 children in the 6 years preceding 2007. This suggests an current annual increase of 36.3 elementary children per year.

3. If UBC’s residential population is going to be double its current level by 2016, then we might assume that the 743 children resident in the U. Hill catchment in 2007 is going to also double by 2016. An increase of 743 children in 9 years suggests an increase of 53.1 elementary children per year.

Since the first and third estimates so closely match one another, I will proceed here with an estimated increase of 52 children per year. The results are qualitatively the same even if the lower value of 36.3 children is used.

(743 children in 2007) + [(52 new children per year) * (9 years)] = 1211 children in 2016

In other words, in 2016, when the new elementary school at UBC finally becomes available to English students residing at UBC there will be 1211 children waiting for the 450 new spaces available. If U. Hill continues to accommodate 515 students (already 75 more than its stated capacity), 246 children will still have to be accommodated at surrounding schools in the year the new U. Hill elementary finally opens! Even more the following year (246 + 52 = 298). And a whopping 644 children the year before the new school opens (743 now + 8*52 growth = 1159, then subtract the 515 kids at U.Hill).

Thus there will be no year in the foreseeable future that surrounding schools do not need to accommodate students residing at UBC AND 644 CHILDREN FROM UBC WILL HAVE TO BE ACCOMODATED IN SURROUNDING CATCHMENTS IN THE YEAR 2015!!!

The VSB has not shown that these children will fit anywhere in the study area – or anywhere else either. QEA, with its spacious portable-accommodating grounds, must remain available through this period of rapid growth in the study area!!!

The projected rapid increase in elementary students at UBC would seem in itself enough to prove that all existing capacity in neighbouring schools will be required during the coming decade. However, there are at least 5 additional factors that will further increase capacity demands on QEA, QE and JQ. I will elaborate on these factors in my next email to you.
 

RE: Part 2: Understanding the VSB's Proposed Timeline

Dear VSB Trustees, Ministry of Education, Colin Hansen and Gordon Campbell,

As promised, I will elaborate here on the VSB’s proposed timeline for change in the UBC-Dunbar area:

• June 2009: QEA is closed. QEA’s regular and French-immersion students allegedly fit into Queen Elizabeth school (although this has not been demonstrated). The VSB embarks on a lengthy consultation process with all levels of government, at the end of which VSB hopes to see some profit from the sale. Money from the sale is used to pay for the creation of new schools at UBC.
• June 2011: work to turn the former NRC office at UBC into the new U. Hill secondary school has been completed. UBC secondary students vacate their current building. Work begins to turn the vacated building into a new UBC elementary school.
  
  Note that if it is indeed true that the VSB may not carry a deficit from one year to the next, and that profits from the sale of QEA are required to pay for these sets of renovations, then in fact ALL WORK WILL LIKELY STILL BE ON HOLD as the sale of QEA proceeds through the court system.
  
  
• January 2013: the former U. Hill secondary has been renovated to become a new elementary school with a capacity of 450 students. The 435 French-immersion students then at Jules Quesnel (JQ) are moved into this new UBC elementary school. Seismic upgrades – which are URGENTLY needed – are begun at JQ.
• June 2014: the students at Queen Elizabeth (QE) are moved to the former JQ site, which has now been renovated. Seismic upgrades begin at QE.
• January 2016: The French-immersion students formerly at JQ are moved from UBC to the renovated QE site. For the first time, English-program students residing at UBC may occupy the new UBC elementary school.

In other words, under the VSB’s proposed timeline, ELEMENTARY STUDENTS AT UBC WILL HAVE NO NEW SPACES AVAILABLE IN THEIR CATCHMENT UNTIL 2016.

In my next submission to you, I will demonstrate how many elementary students should be expected to be residing in the U. Hill catchment by 2016. One of the numerous critical data gaps in the VSB’s report is that they neglect to forecast this number. INSTEAD, IT HAS BEEN LEFT TO ME TO DO IT AS AN UNPAID (AND INCREASINGLY RESENTFUL) VOLUNTEER WITH A LONELY 4-YEAR OLD UNSUPERVISED IN HIS BEDROOM.

Thank you again for your attention to these grave matters.
 

Critical Concerns about VSB's Proposal

Dear VSB Trustees, Ministry of Education, Colin Hansen and Gordon Campbell,

Please be advised of the following points regarding the Vancouver School Board’s proposal to close and liquidate the Queen Elizabeth Annex in the Dunbar area. I will demonstrate all of these points in this and subsequent emails. My hope is that by keeping each email brief, you will be encouraged to read every word.

1. Under the VSB’s proposed timeline, from two to six HUNDRED elementary children residing at UBC will need to be accommodated in surrounding schools every year in the next 10 years (and beyond).

2. During this time, at least 4 other factors will also increase pressure on surrounding schools: the need to juggle student populations during essential seismic upgrades, the increasing population density in the Dunbar area, the VSB’s expanded MANDATE to add pre-kindergarten services, and expected changes in the real-estate cycle.

3. The VSB’s Educational Facilities Review Phase 1 report is DANGEROUSLY INCOMPLETE, omitting for example any consideration of the condition of school buildings, the quality of facilities, the geographic location of ‘excess capacity’, any other options for funding new schools at UBC or where the excess students from UBC will be accommodated in the interim.

I submit to you that the QEA site is a LEGACY that will absolutely be needed at all points in the foreseeable future. Please do not squander it for the perception of short-term gain!!!

This matter gravely concerns all families - indeed, all residents - in the Dunbar / UBC area. Thank you for your attention to it.
 

Blog discussion between Charles Menzies and Eric

ON the Vancouver Sun Reporter's Blog, Professor Charles Menzies keeps a Blog site on public schools. Professor Emeritus Ned Glick's public letter (also on this web site under #2 above) to UBC. Charles replied, and I have replied again today. I've laid out my thoughts around the UBC responsibility issue that I thought would be good to share with others -- see attached. Warning !! it's also 4 pages long (including Ned's letter).
 

Letter to Trustees

Some points:

• Please extend public consultation to provide time for exploring all funding
  options before making a commitment regarding the NRC building.
• Selling one school to fund construction of another school in the Vancouver School District will set a dangerous precedent. Will UBC then expect the VSB
  to fund phase 2 secondary school construction at UBC in the future, possibly by selling another school?
   

Great 4 page document outlining some issues

• Under the VSB’s proposed timeline, from two to six HUNDRED elementary children residing at UBC will need to be accommodated in surrounding schools every year in the next 10 years (and beyond).
• During this time, at least 4 other factors will also increase pressure on surrounding schools: the need to juggle student populations during essential seismic upgrades, the increasing population density in the Dunbar area, the VSB’s expanded MANDATE to add pre-kindergarten services, and expected changes in the real-estate cycle.
• The VSB’s Educational Facilities Review Phase 1 report is DANGEROUSLY INCOMPLETE, omitting for example any consideration of the condition of school buildings, the quality of facilities, the geographic location of ‘excess capacity’, any other options for funding new schools at UBC or where the excess students from UBC will be accommodated in the interim.

Julee presented her ideas at the Jan. 29th meeting and Chris Kelly, VSB CEO/Superintendent said "a great piece of homework" and asked her to submit her paper for review.

UBC's Educational and Community Roles (web page)- a Letter from a UBC Professor Emeritus,
To: Stephen Toope, UBC President, Stephen Owen, VP External, Legal and Community Affairs, UBC Board of Governors
 

Focus: Child Welfare: VSB Proposal and the unnecessary risks for the children who would be impacted. Our children are the most salient stakeholders in this situation. This submission requests a proposal that puts kids’ educational, emotional, and developmental needs as the top priority, not financial advantage.
 

Theresa's Submission (web page)

Eric's Submission at January 16th Consultation Meeting

UBC's commitment to provide school facilities, and the proposed “Closure and sale of Queen Elizabeth Annex in order to finance the purchase of the vacant National Research Council (NRC) building at UBC”