Half of inner city schools facing closure

[Green Grovenor]

The administration of the Edmonton Public School Board is asking trustees to close half of the schools located in poor neighbourhoods near the centre of the city.

The doors at Eastwood, Parkdale and McCauley would be shut at the end of the June. As well, Spruce Avenue School would no longer offer elementary education.

In their place, new schools will open in some of Edmonton's richest suburban areas.

There are currently seven public schools in the inner city; three and half would remain.

The recommendation can viewed here: http://www.epsb.ca/board/feb09_10/item06.pdf.

Specifically, the EPSB is declaring no confidence in Edmonton's ability to achieve revitalized neighbourhoods. The reports argues that none of the Boyle Renaissance, Quarters or Stadium Station redevelopments will attract significant numbers of school-aged children (p. 25). It also predicts failure for the rejuvenation of the Alberta Avenue.

Administration is also asking for closure of Capilano and Fulton Place Schools.

[Green Grovenor]

3.5.2.5 Promote the development of family oriented housing... in support of existing school and institutional infrastructure.

4.2.1.5 Collaborate with Edmonton's school boards to support the City of Edmonton's long-term intensification efforts in established communities.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...P_Jan_2010.pdf

Gotta love how well the new Municipal Development Plan meshes with the vision of the Edmonton Public School Board...

[armin]

Why don't we conglomerate the Catholic school system in with the Edmonton school system? Then we could close a bunch of schools, open up some new ones that are more capable of supporting more students.

[sweetcrude]

It does make sense to me to close schools that aren't being as fully utilized as they could be. What doesn't make sense to me is why there isn't a more concerted effort in figuring out how to re-shape these communities where schools are being closed. What I mean is that a significant reason for closures is that there simply aren't enough kids around (i.e. average household age of many neighborhoods is growing). I'd like to know some of this information. I'd bet that there is a very strong correlation between the two (average household age within a neighborhood and school closures).

One term that I've heard used before to describe this is "monoculture" where members within a particular neighborhood are typically of the same age range and therefore would supply something like a school for only so long. I think, at least in part, this is what we're seeing today. The question is how do we address the need for turnover in these neighborhoods? Do we really have to build more housing in them, or could there be another mechanism to have a better mix of demographics such that we maintain student numbers at an appropriate level.

Or perhaps we simply start bussing kids around. Seems a more reasonable option than to simply build new schools and demolish old ones.

What say you?

[edmontonenthusiast]

What's very interesting about this is the very central schools in Oliver, North Edge, Strathcona, etc. seem to do fine, but go a little further out into much more specific residential communities like Norwood, Capilano, area around Kingsway, etc. and they are in huge trouble. I think it's because neighborhoods like Strathcona and Oliver are exempt from what is being discussed above because they are so central and used by a variety of people that there is a variety of age groups. That, and they seem to be able to attract students from further away.

[highlander]

Part of the problem is declining family size, but there are other issues. For instance, the size of a typical house in these central areas is typically smaller than in areas developed mid 50's or later. I have former neighbours who moved out to the burbs because the 1950 bungalow wasn't big enough for 2 kids. Ours won't be big enough for 3 kids, so we're looking at adding a floor.

I don't know how EPSB could bet against Alberta Avenue's comeback though. It's really happening. Soon it will have the required density of educated, active(ist) parents to make some of those schools desirable again, and an ever-growing demographic is immigrants from poorer nations, who tend to have more kids then the average, and are very motivated to see their children educated to get ahead.

[Chmilz]

A lot of it can be the fact that these schools are dumps and kids will travel further to a better school. Upgrade a few of the other inner-city schools to current standards, expand them as necessary to accomodate the students from these schools, and voila, magic.

[Transplanted_Edm]

It is hard for me to support my tax dollars going towards keeping schools half-full. (Each of which requires a principal, admin staff, groundskeeping for the playgrounds, etc.) Similarly, it's a lot easier to justify spending money to upgrade/modernize a school if it's being fully used.

It is an unfortunate chicken-and-egg situation (areas with strong schools attract families with children of that age) but young families have been moving to the outer areas of the city for a large variety of other reasons as well, and I don't think it's reasonable to ignore that and not provide schools in that area (which implies building new schools).

Looking at the map of the schools that are closing, it is hard to argue that the EPSB is not continuing to offer schools within a reasonable distance of all the central neighbourhoods.

McCauley and Norwood schools are 1.1 km apart. Norwood to Spruce Ave. is 1.3 km. Eastwood is 900m from Delton school.

Being within walking distance of your school is wonderful but looking at those distances they remain very reasonable and look amazing compared to many other areas (esp. rural areas).

[Transplanted_Edm]

p.s., I don't think this necessarily implies that nobody expects some of the central areas to grow and improve from where they are today, I think it just implies that they're not necessarily expected to reach the population levels attained in earlier generations:

McCauley School opened in 1912, during a time when the city grew at an unbelievable pace, and during a time when the average family size was much bigger than today. Similarly, Norwood was built in 1908 and Parkdale dates from 1912.

Fulton Place school was built in 1957, during a demographic period you may have heard of called the baby boom, when the number of school aged children soared.

[Komrade]

Neighbourhoods will continue to fail if they dont have the basic necessities (ie: schools) to build family areas. With this being said I dont think all the closures are unreasonable, but it does seem to be the EPSB giving up on the inner city to a degree.

[andy8244]

Originally Posted by Komrade

Neighbourhoods will continue to fail if they dont have the basic necessities (ie: schools) to build family areas. With this being said I dont think all the closures are unreasonable, but it does seem to be the EPSB giving up on the inner city to a degree.

...Get used to it. Once schools go the only way is down.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by andy8244

...Get used to it. Once schools go the only way is down.

according to the edmonton journal:

"...37,000 empty student spaces in mature neighbourhoods, including areas built in the 1970s and 1980s.
...
Closing Eastwood, McCauley, Parkdale, Capilano and Fulton Place would reduce the surplus space by about 2,600 spots.

But it would affect about 950 students who would have to relocate in September. All of the schools, built when the neighbourhoods were brimming with children, have seen declining numbers since 2005 and are well below their capacity."

are you saying that keeping 2,600 spaces and 5 sets of everything from principals to custodial staff for 950 students instead of moving their provincial per student funding to neighboring schools without having to dupicate that overhead would be using our resources more wisely on some sort of an upward path?

[highlander]

Originally Posted by kcantor

according to the edmonton journal:

"...37,000 empty student spaces in mature neighbourhoods, including areas built in the 1970s and 1980s.
...
Closing Eastwood, McCauley, Parkdale, Capilano and Fulton Place would reduce the surplus space by about 2,600 spots.

But it would affect about 950 students who would have to relocate in September. All of the schools, built when the neighbourhoods were brimming with children, have seen declining numbers since 2005 and are well below their capacity."

are you saying that keeping 2,600 spaces and 5 sets of everything from principals to custodial staff for 950 students instead of moving their provincial per student funding to neighboring schools without having to dupicate that overhead would be using our resources more wisely on some sort of an upward path?

It could be possible to twin schools under one principal. it's been done before.

The fact they have all seen declining enrollment since 2005 is interesting, but not really relevant, as these neighbourhoods have been mature for decades. Why have these schools been declining in the past 5 years? The age of the neighbourhood shouldn't cause school enrollment to drop significantly from when a school is 90 to when it's 95. From the report there are neighbouring schools that are doing well, why is that?

It's impossible to say that all these schools are essential - as Transplanted_Edm pointed out Eastwood is easily within walking distance of Delton school, which is doing fine, according to the report.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Transplanted_Edm

p.s., I don't think this necessarily implies that nobody expects some of the central areas to grow and improve from where they are today, I think it just implies that they're not necessarily expected to reach the population levels attained in earlier generations:

It depends on how serious the city is about densification, inner city revival and recycling / sustainability. There is no reason why these neighborhoods couldn't have many new family friendly housing forms, more duplexs, row houses, etc., that could increase the potential for children. Neighborhoods cycle as well, even mature neighborhoods vary in the number of kids from year to year. Big changes can occur when original residents hit an age to move out.

Without the school though, the future is very bleak for these communities, they will be totally undersirable to young families compared to mature neighborhoods that have kept their schools, so they will decline over time relative to those neighborhoods. Facilites will go unused / will start to decay. I guess it is not in the schoolboards mandate though to care about that, but it is in the cities, and that is where we have a problem right now I think. It is pretty sad when when our urban planning consists of taking from poor neighborhoods to give to rich, but I guess that is nothing new. At the end of the day the reality is that poor families without autos (who need to walk to the local school) don't have as much political clout as the suburban families (who will drive their kids anyway regardless of where the school is).

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by moahunter

It depends on how serious the city is about densification, and inner city revival. There is no reason why these neighborhoods couldn't have many new family friendly housing forms, more duplexs, row houses, etc., that could increase the potential for children. Neighborhoods cycle as well, even mature neighborhoods vary in the number of kids from year to year. Big changes can occur when original residents hit an age to move out.

Without the school though, the future is very bleak for these communities, they will be totally undersirable to young families, so their facilites will go unused / will start to decay. I guess that's not in the schoolboards mandate though to care about that, but it is in the Cities, and that is where we have a problem right now I think, its pretty sad when we take from poor neighborhoods to give to rich. At the end of the day though, I guess poor families who need to walk to the local school don't have as much political clout as the suburban soccer mums in their minivans and SUV's.

those 37,000 empty spaces aren't "in the suburbs". they're within walking distance of those families you say you're so concerned about, as are the schools they will be consolidated with. besides, these closures will only reduce those empty spaces from 37,000 to 34,400 - more than enough to handle the student needs of much more densification thab most of those neighborhoods could accomodate in the foreseeable future.

[highlander]

You might want to check out this thread.

http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=14968

If you weight severe need students 3:1 according to the amount of classroom resources they actually require, there are more like 24000 extra spaces, and many of those 24,000 spaces are in classrooms that are currently used (and rented) by preschools programs, or daycare or afterschool care or other community uses that are as beneficial to the community as the schools is, they're just not within EPSB's narrow mandate. Some of the schools do have lots of extra space - from the report McCauley schools is one, mostly because it's a bigger facility - some of the schools proposed for closure have half their enrollment in special programs. I'm not sure if they are al in programs that should be counted 3:1, but if they are then the picture isn't nearly so bleak as the raw numbers portray.

[Green Grovenor]

I've gone through the numbers for the inner city schools and discovered some interesting stuff. Although the EPSB is blaming demographics for low enrolment, that is only part of the problem.

There are about 350 students attending junior high in the CCEP area. However, the number of EPSB junior high students living in those communities is closer to 550. That means the CCEP schools are losing about 200 more junior high students through open boundaries than they are attracting.

The EPSB viability benchmark for junior high school enrolment is 150 students. If the balance of students coming and going was equalized, there would (in theory) be sufficient enrolment to sustain three EPSB junior high schools -- the status quo.

Education funding in Alberta is attached to the student. When a child from the inner city goes to school elsewhere in Edmonton, that money follows them: essentially, a wealth transfer from poor to rich. Best practice in other districts is to put magnet programming in less prosperous communities. However, none of the CCEP schools offers bilingual or immersion education -- or hockey or ballet or academic challenge -- that can be found in richer, more suburban neighbourhoods.

The attendance area for Parkdale School (southside of 118th Avenue) includes more than 300 junior high students. Enrolment in junior high at Parkdale is less than 100. Clearly the problem is not a lack of kids in the neighbourhood. Rather, the school is not delivering programming that serves the majority of families in the community. I don't know why -- perhaps because CCEP is perceived as focusing on ESL and special needs students, while new families moving into the Alberta Avenue area identify as middle class. The EPSB should probably remove Parkdale from CCEP, but there are plenty of kids who live nearby, more than enough to sustain a school.

With the emergence of an arts-minded enclave along Alberta Avenue, perhaps turn Parkdale into a feeder school for Victoria.

The savings to the district when it closes a school is less than $200,000, the principal's salary and some maintanance and administrative costs. The loss of social capital to the each of the inner city neighbourhoods losing a school is much greater than that, and you, I and other taxpayers will end up having to pay the difference.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Green Grovenor

I've gone through the numbers for the inner city schools and discovered some interesting stuff. Although the EPSB is blaming demographics for low enrolment, that is only part of the problem.

There are about 350 students attending junior high in the CCEP area. However, the number of EPSB junior high students living in those communities is closer to 550. That means the CCEP schools are losing about 200 more junior high students through open boundaries than they are attracting.

The EPSB viability benchmark for junior high school enrolment is 150 students. If the balance of students coming and going was equalized, there would (in theory) be sufficient enrolment to sustain three EPSB junior high schools -- the status quo.

Education funding in Alberta is attached to the student. When a child from the inner city goes to school elsewhere in Edmonton, that money follows them: essentially, a wealth transfer from poor to rich. Best practice in other districts is to put magnet programming in less prosperous communities. However, none of the CCEP schools offers bilingual or immersion education -- or hockey or ballet or academic challenge -- that can be found in richer, more suburban neighbourhoods.

The attendance area for Parkdale School (southside of 118th Avenue) includes more than 300 junior high students. Enrolment in junior high at Parkdale is less than 100. Clearly the problem is not a lack of kids in the neighbourhood. Rather, the school is not delivering programming that serves the majority of families in the community. I don't know why -- perhaps because CCEP is perceived as focusing on ESL and special needs students, while new families moving into the Alberta Avenue area identify as middle class. The EPSB should probably remove Parkdale from CCEP, but there are plenty of kids who live nearby, more than enough to sustain a school.

With the emergence of an arts-minded enclave along Alberta Avenue, perhaps turn Parkdale into a feeder school for Victoria.

The savings to the district when it closes a school is less than $200,000, the principal's salary and some maintanance and administrative costs. The loss of social capital to the each of the inner city neighbourhoods losing a school is much greater than that, and you, I and other taxpayers will end up having to pay the difference.

but even if epsb does what you suggest, you haven't "discovered" any new epsb students. if those 200 junior high students from ccep are "returned", they will simply be vacating 200 desks in the schools they currently attend. the same thing would happen with your parkdale example. again, you wouldn't be "discovering" any new epsb students or filling any of those tens of thousands of vacant spaces, you would still be shuffling insufficient students like deck chairs on the titanic.

as for your 200,000 per school savings estimate, i would think that is an awfully low estimate. what are the costs of having teachers in front of half full classes or trying to teach combined grade classrooms? what are the ongoing capital costs of boiler and roof replacements? what about the better use of capital dollars that might be repatriated from the disposal of some their superfluous buildings or sites? besides, they don't have to be forever underutilized schools to provide social capital.

i would doubt if there is much difference between what either of us wants from our education system at the end of the day or the values that we place on it. i just don't think the status quo is - or is capable of - providing that. this isn't a matter of "if it ain't broke, it don't need fixing". it may not have collapsed yet but we certainly do need to figure out a better way to keep it running before it does.

[Green Grovenor]

Originally Posted by kcantor

but even if epsb does what you suggest, you haven't "discovered" any new epsb students. if those 200 junior high students from ccep are "returned", they will simply be vacating 200 desks in the schools they currently attend. the same thing would happen with your parkdale example. again, you wouldn't be "discovering" any new epsb students or filling any of those tens of thousands of vacant spaces, you would still be shuffling insufficient students like deck chairs on the titanic.

as for your 200,000 per school savings estimate, i would think that is an awfully low estimate. what are the costs of having teachers in front of half full classes or trying to teach combined grade classrooms? what are the ongoing capital costs of boiler and roof replacements? what about the better use of capital dollars that might be repatriated from the disposal of some their superfluous buildings or sites? besides, they don't have to be forever underutilized schools to provide social capital.

The $200,000 figure is from the EPSB, in a document on the closure of Woodcroft School, distributed on March 3rd, 2008.

There are no teachers in front of "half full classes." Class sizes are set by provincial government rules. Most schools have multi-grade configurations, as enrolment rarely matches the ideal as established by Alberta Education. For example, if a school has 25 Grade 1 students and 26 Grade 2 students, it will create three classes, including one with a Grade 1/2 split, in order to have 17 bodies in each room.

As Highlander notes, there is a high percentage of special needs students in CCEP schools, and the province mandates smaller class sizes in that situation. Additionally, many rooms are used for early education, child care and ABC Head Start, and these groups are not reflected in utilization rates.

You are right that I haven't discovered any new EPSB students. I'm noting that a lot more children are leaving the inner city, taking their funding with them to more prosperous neighbourhoods, than are coming to schools such as Parkdale. That's not a demographic problem. It means that parents do not perceive the programming offered in CCEP as right for their kids -- an issue for the EPSB, not a fault of bad urban planning.

The Catholic system deliberately set up its Holy Cross Academie in Canora, just off Stony Plain Road, because it recognized a moral duty to bring resources to poor neighbourhoods. The EPSB is taking money out of the inner city and subsidizing richer communities.

That is unethical.

[Green Grovenor]

Perhaps an example of how the EPSB treats poor and rich neighbourhoods would be helpful in this discussion.

Parkdale and Crestwood are about the same size, were initially developed at about the same time and consist mainly of single family detached housing. The major difference is income: the average Parkdale household earned $36,807 in 2001, while Crestwood reported an average of $109,376.

Both communities have K-9 public schools. Capacity at Parkdale is 473, while Crestwood would be full with 383 students. Currently two portables are used in Crestwood to increase the size of the school. Enrolment at Parkdale is 187, while 398 kids go to Crestwood.

("Unused" space in Parkdale School is used by the Parkdale Out-of-School Care Society, the Edmonton City Centre Church Corporation's Art Start initiative and the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Edmonton.)

EPSB has placed two "magnet" district centres at Crestwood, Academic Alternative and Challenge, to help ensure strong enrolment.

Both buildings are rated as being in "acceptable" condition. Parkdale School was completed in 1912, while the original Crestwood School was replaced with a new facility in 1954.

The number of children, K-9, registered in EPSB schools and living in the Parkdale attendance area is 452. The same measurement for Crestwood is 160.

Between 2005 and 2009, the number of preschool children residing in Parkdale increased 9.7 per cent, from 133 to 146. The number of preschool children residing in Crestwood decreased 35 per cent, from 112 to 73.

On Tuesday, trustees will almost certainly vote to begin closing Parkdale School, to save $200,000. Meanwhile, in the EPSB's three-year capital plan, trustees have decided to spend $9,794,00 upgrading Crestwood School, which is already in "acceptable" condition.

Here's the kicker (remembering now that Parkdale has 452 EPSB kids living in the vicinity while Crestwood has 160, and its preschool population has declined 35 per cent over four years.) On the Crestwood viability profile (http://districtsite.epsb.ca/root/ViabilityPDF/503.pdf) the EPSB has added a tag:

"Shifting demographics in the community toward younger kids therefore needing a community school."

Your tax dollars at work, making sure the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

[moahunter]

^It is partly the school board, but partly parents. Like it or not, many parents like their kids going to wealthy schools to hob nob with the "better" kids. Even when new suburban schools open, often they aren't as popular as the "better" and "established" schools closer in, in the "right" neighborhoods. You can look at the new suburbs now, and predict quite accurately which areas will have "popular" schools eventually (like Windermere), and which ones won't (like just outside Millwoods). I'm surprised the school board aren't more explicit about it, if they truley like and support this model (note, I don't), they should stop opening schools in suburbs that will almost certaintly end up low income one day.

[Gemini]

Originally Posted by armin

Why don't we conglomerate the Catholic school system in with the Edmonton school system? Then we could close a bunch of schools, open up some new ones that are more capable of supporting more students.

I'm with you on this one. Do away with this two school board system.
Have a inter-faith service in the morning that is optional. If you want your kids to learn your religion take them to your church. In this day and age two school systems are a waste. Maybe some of these school closures could be prevented if this was implemented. Of course, it would put a lot of pen pushers out of a job. They would have to protect their turf somehow.

[Transplanted_Edm]

If parents get to send their child to the schoool of their choice and "the funding will follow the child" (paraphrased from above) and parents are doing this by their own choice, then aren't the majority voting with their feet? Crestwood gets the money because Crestwood has the enrollment. EPSB is trying to direct money towards the students...gasp, those villains.

I highly doubt the cost of $200k per year for closing a school. A 90-100 yr old building must not have very efficient heating systems. Insurance, electricity, custodial....it's probably $75-100 grand for the principal's salary alone.

Based on the annual budget for operating my smallish 25 year old condo building that number seems out to lunch to me.

If you want to get really financially creative you could look at the opportunity cost of sitting on that land.

[Green Grovenor]

^ I'm sorry that you doubt me. The figure is included in an EPSB document dated Mar. 3rd, 2008. If you have evidence that the number is wrong, please provide it.

As for Crestwood, enrolment is subsidized by the special programming located in the school. Why do rich areas get this kind of support but not places such as Parkdale? Perhaps parents would vote to send their kids to that area of Edmonton, if it had access to same sort of programming available in rich and nearly childless parts of the city.

[Titanium48]

The $200,000 figure sounds reasonable to me. Remember that the school in question (Woodcroft) hasn't been sold by the ESPB, but rather turned into office space for the "Institute for Innovations in Second Language Education". ESPB saves the cost of leasing other office space, but still pays to operate and maintain the school building. Also remember that administrative staff is assigned based on enrollment, just like teaching staff, so cutting schools doesn't necessarily cut the administration budget. A small school will have no assistant principals and the principal may have to teach part of the time, while a bigger one might have a full time principal and a full time assistant principal (or two assistant principals that teach part time).

[Transplanted_Edm]

I don't doubt the fact that the EPSB provided a figure of $200k in a report and that the figure was repeated on this board.

I'm just doubting that the cost represents the true savings of "closing" a school. As indicated above, EPSB continued to operate the Woodcroft building as office space. In that scenario they wouldn't save insurance, utilities, or maintenance/custodial charges. All they would save would be some admin costs which are quite soft as I have no doubt the personnel were redeployed elsewhere.

If you truly remove a school from the system, sell the property, and eliminate excess staff (hard to do in a union environment) I believe the savings would be higher. No proof other than my life experience and judgement.

[Green Grovenor]

Closure at Capilano was supported by all trustees. As for the other ones, Dave Colburn and Sue Huff tried to persuade their peers that revitalization of inner city communities and schools was a worthy goal, but the majority of trustees concluded redevelopment to bring families back to core neighbourhoods would fail. McCauley, Parkdale, Eastwood, Spruce Avenue (elementary), Fulton and Capilano are now in a formal closure process.

[moahunter]

^pathetic. Seems the inner city isn't as important as the suburbs in Edmonton, but I guess we have all known that for some time now. I don't blame young families for following the money, but I do blame the fools who are running the gong show, and presumably profiting from it at the cost of the health of our city.

[Green Grovenor]

Really good thoughts from Trustee Huff:

EPSB is currently leasing space, from other providers, to meet some of our District needs. Have we examined how many of these leases could be cancelled and relocated into our excess space in schools, especially if entire wings of schools were closed and separated?

Have we approached potential partners like the provincial government, the City of Edmonton, other school boards, agencies, businesses and community leagues to discuss alternative solutions through joint ownership models?

Have we gone way outside the box to consider moving the adults instead of moving the kids? For instance, have we considered closing down the Blue Building, renting out this prime downtown real estate and moving central and board operations into schools?

The answer to these questions is, in my opinion: “No, not really.”

Full text at http://suefortrustee.blogspot.com/.

[Green Grovenor]

The EPSB has set the dates for the public meetings on school closures, as required in provincial legislation. All events start at 7 p.m.

If you believe in an approach that favours revitalization instead of simply giving up on mature neighbourhoods, please consider attending and voicing your opinion.

Thursday, March 4 Eastwood School 12023 – 81 Street

Monday, March 8 McCauley School 9538 – 107 Avenue

Wednesday, March 10 Parkdale School 11648 – 85 Street

Thursday, March 11 Spruce Avenue School 11424 – 102 Street

Monday, March 15 Capilano School 10720 – 54 Street

Wednesday, March 17 Fulton Place School 10310 – 56 Street

[moahunter]

^what is the point, if the decision has already been taken?

[Green Grovenor]

Technically, trustees have only voted to start the closure process. The final decision is still more than a month away.

But you are right, moa. The EPSB has not, in recent years, addressed objections raised at similar public meetings.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Titanium48

The $200,000 figure sounds reasonable to me. Remember that the school in question (Woodcroft) hasn't been sold by the ESPB, but rather turned into office space for the "Institute for Innovations in Second Language Education". ESPB saves the cost of leasing other office space, but still pays to operate and maintain the school building. Also remember that administrative staff is assigned based on enrollment, just like teaching staff, so cutting schools doesn't necessarily cut the administration budget. A small school will have no assistant principals and the principal may have to teach part of the time, while a bigger one might have a full time principal and a full time assistant principal (or two assistant principals that teach part time).

it still doesn't sound reasonable to me and i note that the journal this morning is quoting mccauley's 2009-2010 budget at 1.8 million per year. it's also my understanding that the city of edmonton has been in discussions about acquiring some of those schools so they could remain in our civic inventory and be available in the future as demographic changes warrant their reopening as schools. the current status of alex taylor might be one example of how that might be accomplished without our school boards having to subsidize it at the cost of their current student enrolment. this is something we will all have to be creative with because the status quo - regardless of how eloquently it may defended - is pretty clearly not working.

[IanO]

Letters off to:

Jane/Ben
Laurie
EPSB

[Titanium48]

Originally Posted by kcantor

it still doesn't sound reasonable to me and i note that the journal this morning is quoting mccauley's 2009-2010 budget at 1.8 million per year. it's also my understanding that the city of edmonton has been in discussions about acquiring some of those schools so they could remain in our civic inventory and be available in the future as demographic changes warrant their reopening as schools. the current status of alex taylor might be one example of how that might be accomplished without our school boards having to subsidize it at the cost of their current student enrolment. this is something we will all have to be creative with because the status quo - regardless of how eloquently it may defended - is pretty clearly not working.

Most of that M$1.8 is teaching staff salaries. That money will not be saved if the school closes, because the teaching positions will simply move with the students. There may be some gains in administrative efficiency, as the principal's job might be replaced by less than a full FTE of assistant principal positions elsewhere, and likewise for administrative assistants and custodians, but I would be very surprised if the total savings was over $200,000 / year.

I agree that the city should get involved, but I'd rather see them lease the excess space in schools that remain open instead of buying up closed ones. Having the city buy closed schools to keep them available for future reopening would be pointless. There will be no justification for reopening a school unless more families move to the neighborhood, but families won't move to the neighborhood until there is an open school. Leasing the space would give the EPSB a reason to keep the schools open now, and the space will still be available when student populations increase in the future. In the meantime, the city could offer the space to non-profit child care providers, community groups, or even use it as office or storage space.

I'm not completely against all school closures. The best option for some schools that are in poor condition and that are very close to multiple other schools might still be closure. Of the current proposed closures, Eastwood appears to be the most in need of repairs, and most of the community is within reasonable elementary student walking distance to either Delton or Parkdale. Parkdale also has nearby alternative schools in all directions (Delton, Eastwood and Norwood), so closing either Eastwood or Parkdale (but not both) might be reasonable. On the other hand, McCauley was recently upgraded and is the only school within reasonable elementary student walking distance for Boyle Street (including the Quarters) and most of McCauley. Closing it would be a mistake.

[Green Grovenor]

Originally Posted by kcantor

it still doesn't sound reasonable to me and i note that the journal this morning is quoting mccauley's 2009-2010 budget at 1.8 million per year. it's also my understanding that the city of edmonton has been in discussions about acquiring some of those schools so they could remain in our civic inventory and be available in the future as demographic changes warrant their reopening as schools. the current status of alex taylor might be one example of how that might be accomplished without our school boards having to subsidize it at the cost of their current student enrolment. this is something we will all have to be creative with because the status quo - regardless of how eloquently it may defended - is pretty clearly not working.

Ninety per cent of McCauley's budget is staff costs. The number of teachers required in the district depends on the number of students in the district. Moving McCauley students to other buildings does not change that fact. Class sizes are mandated by provincial regulations.

The savings to the district is the salary of the principal plus some maintanance costs. That $200,000 will be redirected across the city (in other words, to richer communities).

As for the status quo, it has not been established that McCauley School is a failure. Current parents don't think it is. There is some available space in the building that could be put to use for the provision of social services, benefiting students and generating revenue for the district.

The estimated future population of the Quarters is 20,000. I can't see any reason why that number shouldn't include 200 more school-aged kids.

The Urban Land Institute, in its Emerging Trends in 2010 report on real estate investing, warns against putting any money into sprawl. The emerging generation of parents "will orient to infill locations and less edge. Increasing numbers of suburban school systems will lose advantages as tax bases falter.”

(Excepted at http://thecityfix.com/the-end-of-the...ath-of-sprawl/)

The trend is most evident is big cities. As recently reported in the Globe and Mail, the child population of downtown Vancouver has doubled over the last 10 years.

(Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-...+-+Latest+News)

The article mentions Vancouver's bylaw on requiring family housing in large infill projects. The new Municipal Development Plan imports that initiative using almost exactly the same language. Recently city council rejected early plans for redeveloping the Municipal Airport site because not enough units were designated for families with young children.

That's all great news: the changes needed to stop the squandering of billions of dollars on new sprawl infrastructure are starting to happen.

What isn't working is the idea of transferring social capital from core, working class communities to richer suburban areas. People get that, which is why there's so much resistance to closing McCauley School.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Green Grovenor

Ninety per cent of McCauley's budget is staff costs. The number of teachers required in the district depends on the number of students in the district. Moving McCauley students to other buildings does not change that fact. Class sizes are mandated by provincial regulations.

The savings to the district is the salary of the principal plus some maintanance costs. That $200,000 will be redirected across the city (in other words, to richer communities).

As for the status quo, it has not been established that McCauley School is a failure. Current parents don't think it is. There is some available space in the building that could be put to use for the provision of social services, benefiting students and generating revenue for the district.

The estimated future population of the Quarters is 20,000. I can't see any reason why that number shouldn't include 200 more school-aged kids.

The Urban Land Institute, in its Emerging Trends in 2010 report on real estate investing, warns against putting any money into sprawl. The emerging generation of parents "will orient to infill locations and less edge. Increasing numbers of suburban school systems will lose advantages as tax bases falter.”

(Excepted at http://thecityfix.com/the-end-of-the...ath-of-sprawl/)

The trend is most evident is big cities. As recently reported in the Globe and Mail, the child population of downtown Vancouver has doubled over the last 10 years.

(Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-...+-+Latest+News)

The article mentions Vancouver's bylaw on requiring family housing in large infill projects. The new Municipal Development Plan imports that initiative using almost exactly the same language. Recently city council rejected early plans for redeveloping the Municipal Airport site because not enough units were designated for families with young children.

That's all great news: the changes needed to stop the squandering of billions of dollars on new sprawl infrastructure are starting to happen.

What isn't working is the idea of transferring social capital from core, working class communities to richer suburban areas. People get that, which is why there's so much resistance to closing McCauley School.

you are putting forward many of the arguments i put forward when alex taylor was closed. but you are ignoring the fact that many of the schools and communities involved aren't inner city schools. many of the schools are in the middle of established communities consisting largely of nothing but the most family friendly housing forms there are - relatively small and economical single family homes - and they still cannot fill their spaces and never will be able to fill the cumulative number of spaces they have. maybe if a problem which encompasses the entire city was being addressed more appropriately and less eloquently, there would be additional funds and additional students for the true inner city schools like mccauley instead of putting them in the front of the firing line.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Green Grovenor

Really good thoughts from Trustee Huff:

EPSB is currently leasing space, from other providers, to meet some of our District needs. Have we examined how many of these leases could be cancelled and relocated into our excess space in schools, especially if entire wings of schools were closed and separated?

Have we approached potential partners like the provincial government, the City of Edmonton, other school boards, agencies, businesses and community leagues to discuss alternative solutions through joint ownership models?

Have we gone way outside the box to consider moving the adults instead of moving the kids? For instance, have we considered closing down the Blue Building, renting out this prime downtown real estate and moving central and board operations into schools?

The answer to these questions is, in my opinion: “No, not really.”

Full text at http://suefortrustee.blogspot.com/.

I like the idea of turning some school space over to the community league. Most schools have recreational facilities (gym, field, etc), and there may be more parking, and more space than there is available at the community league hall.

I think the school board may be doing this already, but what about offering more night classes geared to adult learning? Or renting rooms to private schools (the various computer schools, payroll accounting, etc,...)? We used to rent the gym in Westmount school years ago to play pickup basketball. Renting rooms to small clubs or organizations for meetings? Using the rooms to bring in speakers on a range of topics? Basically, you'd need to cover the cost of the custodian/security.

You couldn't hope for buildings better located to serve neighbourhoods than the schools.

[Taras]

Originally Posted by armin

Why don't we conglomerate the Catholic school system in with the Edmonton school system? Then we could close a bunch of schools, open up some new ones that are more capable of supporting more students.

If all of Edmonton's Catholic schools closed tomorrow, Edmonton Public Schools would have room for all of their students and still have leftover room.

One could easily argue that EPSB Trustees are not closing schools at a nearly fast enough rate, and are wasting precious education dollars on inefficient buildings.

The Education Ministry makes school boards look like the bad guy, leaving them to close schools while the Minister gets to announce new schools being built.

[Green Grovenor]

^ Yup, if Edmonton Public Schools decided to operate without libraries, music rooms, computer centres and science laboratories, with average class sizes of 23 at the elementary level, it would be possible to squeeze the Catholic children into existing facilities.

Interesting calculation from Dale Hudjik at http://www.knowyourtrustee.com, which he presented at tonight's meeting of trustees. According to the best practices of the National School Boards Association, buildings should be sized to allow 11.6 square metres for every elementary student enrolled. Middle schools require 13.5 square metres per student. At the high school level, the ideal is 15.6 square metres.

The EPSB provides an average of just nine square metres, meaning that, by best American practices, the district is actually overcrowded, and the only buildings operating in proper proportion are located in mature neighbourhoods.

[240GLT]

Parkdale a victim of open boundaries

Parental choice and a wide array of options can leave traditional schools short on students

If all 450 children living in Parkdale area went to the big, brick neighbourhood school northeast of downtown, it would be nearly full instead of facing closure this June.

Only a quarter of the elementary and junior high students who live in Parkdale's attendance zone go to school there.

That reality is part of a larger issue cropping up in discussions around the city as public school trustees consider whether to close five schools, including Parkdale, this year and prepare to review 70 more schools next year.

Half of Edmonton public students today go outside their neighbourhood for their education.

Along with open boundaries, more than 30 alternative programs are on offer in more than 90 of the school district's 195 schools. Sports academies, language specialties, all-girls' programs and faith-directed Christian learning are a few examples.

Some question whether, by catering to choice, the school district has forsaken the traditional neighbourhood school.


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...287/story.html

[Komrade]

the school district has forsaken the traditional neighbourhood school.

^

Yes they have. The sense of community is gone for many people. If you are driven to your special arts or hockey school, then afterwards driven to a variety of sports groups or dance classes ect ect why does it matter where you live?

Homes are moving towards being nothing more than a refueling station for many families.

[rod in edmonton]

[QUOTE=240GLT;262990]Parkdale a victim of open boundaries

Parental choice and a wide array of options can leave traditional schools short on students

This is not something new ... it has been about 4 decades since I attended Junior High School at Highlands.

Living in the neighborhood of Cromdale (79 Street and 114 Avenue) at the time, I had a pretty healthy walk to get there.

I do remember Highlands having a pretty good wood working shop 'way back then'. That helped me decide where I wanted to attend Junior High School.

Rather than riding the Number 1 ... I would save many of those precious green bus tickets given to students for travel on Edmonton Transit to get to school; and used 'em for my Saturday trips downtown.

Anyway, I plan to attend the meeting at Parkdale tonight.
Anybody else in ?

Hmmmn - maybe this is better posted (or double-posted) in 'I Remember When'

[Green Grovenor]

From the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues:

Recommendation: March 11, 2010
Item 6.5 School Closure Policy Position (Approved Unanimously)

That the EFCL ask each public school board to step up its efforts to keep schools open by working with the local community to find partners for vacant space before announcing any closures and by taking steps to eliminate vacant space.

That each school board be invited to join the EFCL's Living Local campaign by promoting the concept of students attending schools close to where they live.

That the EFCL go on record as opposing the process currently used to close schools and communicate its concerns about the impact of school closures to the school boards, the City of Edmonton, the Province of Alberta and other key stakeholders.

Report:

Closing a neighborhood school, in short, runs directly counter to virtually everything community leagues are attempting to accomplish.

Just as we attempt to build friendships among children and strengthen neighborhood networks so that people feel good about their community and want to volunteer to make it better, the closure of a local school becomes a major force pulling it apart.

Once a school is closed, families are then faced with the prospect of transporting their children to other locations. Once on the road, they then use a variety of factors to select another school (i.e. specialized programs, proximity to work, proximity to daycare and/or relatives, to name three). Consequently, it is commonplace for the local students to then be sent to a multitude of different locations. One such example is Sherbrooke public school, where a survey found that parents chose a total of 19 different schools for their children, the year after the local school closed.

Closure of the school also prompts families to leave the neighborhood in search of another location. This again breaks down neighborhood networks and is particularly hard on the local community league, as it commonly loses key leaders during this process.

The physical presence of a closed school in a neighborhood is also a negative force on local community spirit and discourages some families from wanting to move into the area, which inhibits the neighborhood's ability to regenerate itself. Again, all of this puts more pressure on the community league to try to fill the void that the school leaves behind.

The EFCL is well aware of the pressures faced by the local school boards, which are attempting to deal with surplus space in many older schools. Changing demographics, aging infrastructure and financial pressures have all forced the school boards to address this issue.

However, what the community leagues have not seen and have commented on repeatedly is a sincere effort by the boards to work with the leagues and other local partners to address the problem.

Specifically, we have not seen concerted efforts to work with local groups to find users of vacant space, well before a school is targeted for closure. Instead, the boards have continually chosen to announce that certain schools are on the chopping block, which triggers a flight of students and families and makes efforts to save the school nearly impossible.

We have also not seen efforts made to physically reduce vacant space in under subscribed schools. We still see many schools with "portables" that contribute to the number of vacant seats, yet few efforts are being made to remove these "portables" now that they are not needed.

Thirdly, we have also seen each school board—through their individual schools—pour a tremendous amount of resources into promoting specialized programs, such as enhanced academic programs, second language programs and sports programs. This has had the effect of encouraging many parents to seek out a specialized program that they feel might work for their child regardless of the distance it is from their home.

At the same time, we see no effort on the part of the board to promote going to the school nearest your residence, in order to develop friendships between students and families and create a strong sense of community with the school being an important hub.

This trend is becoming increasingly apparent and problematic for leagues and is something the EFCL would like to address as part of its "Living Local" initiative.

Finally, if there was ever a time for the EFCL to speak up on this matter it is now.

In the next six weeks, the public school board is considering the closure of six neighborhood schools and is ready to use the same school consolidation process to place many more on the chopping block in the next couple of years.

The federation and its member leagues need to do what they can to develop positive alternatives and to go on record as opposing a city-wide exercise that will damage community building efforts for decades to come.

[Komrade]

^

Great post

[Cardinal Fang]

According to Garth Tuner, the cycle will come full circle and people will start moving away from the burbs, back towards the city.

Tougher mortgage regulations means young couple will not qualify for big mortgages. Ad din the fact that when the people that live in the burbs now are empty nesters, there will not find buyers for their big homes. The burbs will become ghettos.

SO the school boards have absolutely NO vision. They rarely do. They just follow the popular trendy thing.

I know one thing that should be done immediately, blend the 2 boards together. Edmonton Catholic can be a choice within the public system. THIS IS THE REAL REASON FOR ALL THAT "WE ARE A CATHOLIC SCHOOL AND DIFFERENT FROM THE PUBLIC" CRAP. NO YOU ARE NOT.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang

According to Garth Tuner, the cycle will come full circle and people will start moving away from the burbs, back towards the city.

Price of Oil would need to go through the roof to change that. Right now, it is still much cheaper to buy a new home on converted farmland that has zero infrastructure, than a new home in an established neighborhood that has infrastructure. The reason for this, is the cost of the infrastructure isn't fully built in to a new home price on the edge (e.g. new interchanges, new freeways, new recration centres). All of that is given to new neighborhoods for free off the backs of Edmonton's 107 existing mature neighborhoods, who get minimal upgrades or reinvestment from the City.

[Cardinal Fang]

NO its not! I know many people that have purchased homes in established neighbourhoods. The price was $50,000 + cheaper than a similar home in the burbs.

[moahunter]

^2000sq foot plus new homes with Granit counter tops?

[Green Grovenor]

Wow! The government actually listened to me. Faith restored in the system, a little bit...

http://edmjr.nl/c7QJYX

Alberta’s education minister says the province is reviewing its formula calculating how many students each school can hold.

It is a calculation that has become a lightning rod for criticism in the debate about potential school closures in Edmonton.

Education Minister Dave Hancock told The Journal this week that people have rightly pointed out the formula now used fails to take many factors into account. For example, he said, “you cannot put a class in a wide hallway just because you’ve got a wide hallway.”

“We’re talking about daycare and after-school care,” Hancock said. “We’re also talking about how we use schools after school and in the summers.”

[The_Cat]

One proposal that might work would be having the Edmonton Public and Edmonton Catholic inner city schools sharing sites. Having one Public/Catholic school would have enough population to support them.

[glasshead]

^^ good news, and congrats on your efforts

[rod in edmonton]

[QUOTE=Green Grovenor;265518]Wow! The government actually listened to me. Faith restored in the system, a little bit...

http://edmjr.nl/c7QJYX

Well maybe this will slow down EPSB schools closures a wee bit. Hope restored ? Not yet ... not for me !
Stay tuned folks.

[Komrade]

On a side note, is there a solid reason on why the Catholic and Public school boards have to be to seperate institutions? Could they not all be under one roof with the option of allowing a faith based ciriculum to students who wish it?

[moahunter]

^no, I want them separate. I think the competition between the two boards is good for both of them. Also, I don't wan't public schools anymore tainted by religion than they already have been.

On the issue of the schools closing, does anyone really think this issue being "looked at" will result in a change? I'm a bit skeptical, given the power base of the PC's includes farmers/speculators around Edmonton hoping to convert land to suburbs. PC supporters / funders probably include property companies, who would like to see new schools keep being built to support the sprawl they are pushing. To fund that, inner city schools will close (which also increases the attractivness of new suburbs being built).

[Medwards]

Consoldating the public and catholic inner city schools doesn't really address the problem that every community league wants their own school so lil'johnny doesn't have to ride the school bus to another area, even if keeping the many half-vacant schools open is unsupportable.
Edmonton built too many schools during the post-war boom. I don't think we realized that once all those kids grew up, that the neighbourhoods wouldn't see as many children ever again, and overbuilt schools.

[Titanium48]

^ Closures and consolidation isn't the only solution to having more classroom space than is needed for elementary education in the mature neighborhoods. Putting daycare, preschool and after school care programs in unused classrooms is an obvious way to use the surplus space in a way that benefits the community and provides the school board with some rental revenue. Little Johnny might even be able to make his own way to school for his first day of grade 1 after having been strollered and walked to the same building since he was 1 or 2.

[Cardinal Fang]

Originally Posted by Komrade

On a side note, is there a solid reason on why the Catholic and Public school boards have to be to seperate institutions? Could they not all be under one roof with the option of allowing a faith based ciriculum to students who wish it?

The catholic school board head office people do not want to lose their posh jobs! Thats why! Why do you think they took out those ads on TV ? So they trot out this BS about how different they are from the public board.

Catholic education can be a choice within Edmonton public.

[Green Grovenor]

Thanks glasshead and rodinedmonton. Below is a release that was sent out Thursday afternoon:

A statement from the Community Schools Coaltion, Edmonton:

On March 17th, Education Minister Dave Hancock confirmed that the formula used to measure instructional space in Alberta schools is unrealistic and unfair.

The Minister specifically noted that wide hallways should not be considered as potential classrooms. He supported dedicated music and art rooms. He added that, through provincial initiatives to limit class sizes, the number of children that can be accommodated in a classroom has decreased.

Minister Hancock also supported year-round community use of schools and embraced partnerships with daycares and other providers of services to children.

Once implemented, these changes will potentially eliminate tens of thousands of "surplus" spaces in Edmonton Public Schools -- spaces which may really only have existed on paper.

When utilization is measured in terms of real instructional space, not overall square footage, the student capacity of some of the inner city schools under consideration for closure decreases by up to 250 spaces. All schools in the Alberta Avenue, McCauley and Hardisty areas host a range of community partners, including preschools, daycares, hot lunch providers and not-for-profit programming such as Art Start.

The Edmonton Public School Board cannot fairly continue the current school closure processes when the utilization formula is about to change, and buildings now considered to be more than half-empty will soon be recognized for their full value to the community.

Nor should the Board pursue recently announced sector reviews until after Alberta Education has had an opportunity to finalize the new rules.

We hope and expect trustees will suspend school closures and sector reviews at their next meeting, on March 23rd. If not, the Minister should use his power under the Schools Act to declare a moratorium on closures while Alberta Education implements the new formula and refines its vision of schools as community hubs.

Thank you.

- 30 -

The Community Schools Coalition, Edmonton, is comprised of individuals who've been affected by recent closure, sector or sustainability reviews initiated by the Edmonton Public School Board. We support the community hub model of schooling, in which space not currently needed for district instructional purposes is used to deliver other services to children, such as early education and daycare. We favour family-oriented infill redevelopment near existing schools as a way of maximizing resources, reducing suburban sprawl and lowering taxes. We recognize that sometimes closure may become necessary, but we believe schools should been given a chance to succeed before they are declared failures.