Last night, we had a meeting with the Winnipeg School Division and the Trustees where both Earl Grey and LaVerendrye school's had a chance to present their arguements both for and against a potential school swap.
One of the most frustrating aspects of this entire process is battling an important piece of information, which is the student capacity of Earl Grey School. The number that continues to be used is a figure of roughly 600 students. Given that the reasoning for a school swap is that Earl Grey supposedly has such a large capacity, LaVerendrye School can move in and have an abundance of room to grow. This is not actually correct, and is only falsely propping up the hopes of LaVerendrye parents desperately looking for a solution to their overcrowding issues.
The following is a letter sent by one of Earl Grey's Parent Council representatives to Trustee Babinsky seeking clarification of this number, and explaining why it is completely inaccurate.
Dear Mr. Babinsky,
I have chosen to write specifically to you because in the two meetings in which we have both been present, I have seen you ask for clarification and seek real facts pertaining to the school swap issue. I believe that you are doing your due diligence in this matter and so it for this reason that I ask you to look further into the Earl Grey capacity discrepancy.
At the WSD meeting tonight, you asked the administration for a real number on the school capacity. Mr. Chartrand seemed at first unsure and then referred to a document and without citing the source, said 600. This number has been repeated throughout this process despite our efforts to show in both visual and verbal representations that this is not accurate.
The building was built in 1915. Since then many renovations have occurred that has reduced the number of individual classroom space by amalgamating into larger areas for music, art, science, computer, offices, lounges, etc. The actual number of home room classrooms is not what it once was and, by today's educational standards, it is no longer appropriate to have rows of desks with 40 students per room. Additionally, specialized programming such as our LAC program and elementary class cap sizes further reduces the real capacity, not just the on paper capacity. As programming can change from year to year, I think it is reasonable to state that capacity is somewhat variable but even with generous estimations, Earl Grey would fall between 400-450. That would NOT include any dedicated rooms for onsite childcare which would put the actual 'bums in seats' for home room capacity at approximately 350-375. This is based on my calculations from having the floor plans and seeing how the space is currently used. To my knowledge, no onsite assessment has been completed by the division administration and my understanding is that outdated division metrics do not allow for any space to be counted as dedicated educational space. They simply take the number of rooms as though they are all home room classrooms.
This is very significant because using false or outdated data drastically affects perceptions, for both sides. It is unfair for Earl Grey to continuously be represented in reports and media as being extremely under utilized because it is not, at least not to the extent that continues to be reported. While it is true we have some room for growth, our enrolment and use of space has never before been identified as an issue by the division until now. It is being held against us instead of being commended for meeting divisional mandates on class size and use of space for specialized programs and dedicated music, art, science and computer labs. Perhaps even more importantly is that LaVerendrye, without actually having done a real space analysis in our building, is expecting that they can move almost 400 elementary students, add a junior high and maintain a Kindercare and parent run daycare program. They cannot. If they did, they would be in exactly the same position of losing dedicated common educational space to make individual home room space again.
So, Mr. Babinsky, you can understand my frustration with this one issue in particular. In a process that has been inherently flawed, I am very disappointed that the administration who is responsible for these schools does not seem to know the actual facts on the buildings themselves and the real logistics of space utilization from both sides. When asked by you what the capacity was, it should have been something our superintendent knew, for a FACT, citing the source and the metrics used.
I implore you to please hold our division accountable for doing some actual fact finding and to make accurate information known for all. Regardless of the outcome, I personally need to know the decision was made with integrity and real data and I believe you do too.
Thank you for your time,
One of the most frustrating aspects of this entire process is battling an important piece of information, which is the student capacity of Earl Grey School. The number that continues to be used is a figure of roughly 600 students. Given that the reasoning for a school swap is that Earl Grey supposedly has such a large capacity, LaVerendrye School can move in and have an abundance of room to grow. This is not actually correct, and is only falsely propping up the hopes of LaVerendrye parents desperately looking for a solution to their overcrowding issues.
The following is a letter sent by one of Earl Grey's Parent Council representatives to Trustee Babinsky seeking clarification of this number, and explaining why it is completely inaccurate.
Dear Mr. Babinsky,
I have chosen to write specifically to you because in the two meetings in which we have both been present, I have seen you ask for clarification and seek real facts pertaining to the school swap issue. I believe that you are doing your due diligence in this matter and so it for this reason that I ask you to look further into the Earl Grey capacity discrepancy.
At the WSD meeting tonight, you asked the administration for a real number on the school capacity. Mr. Chartrand seemed at first unsure and then referred to a document and without citing the source, said 600. This number has been repeated throughout this process despite our efforts to show in both visual and verbal representations that this is not accurate.
The building was built in 1915. Since then many renovations have occurred that has reduced the number of individual classroom space by amalgamating into larger areas for music, art, science, computer, offices, lounges, etc. The actual number of home room classrooms is not what it once was and, by today's educational standards, it is no longer appropriate to have rows of desks with 40 students per room. Additionally, specialized programming such as our LAC program and elementary class cap sizes further reduces the real capacity, not just the on paper capacity. As programming can change from year to year, I think it is reasonable to state that capacity is somewhat variable but even with generous estimations, Earl Grey would fall between 400-450. That would NOT include any dedicated rooms for onsite childcare which would put the actual 'bums in seats' for home room capacity at approximately 350-375. This is based on my calculations from having the floor plans and seeing how the space is currently used. To my knowledge, no onsite assessment has been completed by the division administration and my understanding is that outdated division metrics do not allow for any space to be counted as dedicated educational space. They simply take the number of rooms as though they are all home room classrooms.
This is very significant because using false or outdated data drastically affects perceptions, for both sides. It is unfair for Earl Grey to continuously be represented in reports and media as being extremely under utilized because it is not, at least not to the extent that continues to be reported. While it is true we have some room for growth, our enrolment and use of space has never before been identified as an issue by the division until now. It is being held against us instead of being commended for meeting divisional mandates on class size and use of space for specialized programs and dedicated music, art, science and computer labs. Perhaps even more importantly is that LaVerendrye, without actually having done a real space analysis in our building, is expecting that they can move almost 400 elementary students, add a junior high and maintain a Kindercare and parent run daycare program. They cannot. If they did, they would be in exactly the same position of losing dedicated common educational space to make individual home room space again.
So, Mr. Babinsky, you can understand my frustration with this one issue in particular. In a process that has been inherently flawed, I am very disappointed that the administration who is responsible for these schools does not seem to know the actual facts on the buildings themselves and the real logistics of space utilization from both sides. When asked by you what the capacity was, it should have been something our superintendent knew, for a FACT, citing the source and the metrics used.
I implore you to please hold our division accountable for doing some actual fact finding and to make accurate information known for all. Regardless of the outcome, I personally need to know the decision was made with integrity and real data and I believe you do too.
Thank you for your time,
No comments:
Post a Comment