BOUNDARY CHANGE FOR A. LORNE CASSIDY SCHOOL

To:
Lynn Scott
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Trustee,
Zone 1: West Carleton-March, Stittsville, Rideau-Goulbourn

Good morning Ms Scott,

I have been advised recently that you are moving forward in order for the Munster Elementary School (MES) to implement an Early French Immersion (EFI) program. I currently live in the community of the Country Club Village which is within the boundary of MES for the English program but within the boundary of A. Lorne Cassidy Elementary School (ALC) for the EFI program. I am under the impression that if EFI is offered at MES as suggested then the boundaries for our community would change so that we would be included within the MES EFI boundary. In the current school year, I have a son in Grade 4 EFI and a daughter in Grade 2 EFI.

I DO NOT SUPPORT CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES FOR COUNTY CLUB VILLAGE (CCV) TO ATTEND MES FOR EFI. While I can appreciate that the enrollment numbers at MES are low and they would like to increase them , I do not feel that my family should have to be disrupted in order for them to meet their quota, nor do I feel that the OCDSB should be spending their limited resources on such a short term solution. My reasons for not supporting a change in the boundary for CCV are as follows:

1. Continuous boundary changes: The boundaries for ALC were changed in 2011. While I can appreciate that the enrollment numbers in Stittsville schools are increasing, the Board needs to have more insight as to how to deal with these population changes instead of a band-aid approach which seems very reactionary instead of proactive. Why is the OCDSB focussed on a school such as MES with declining enrollment. If we look at the bigger picture, it seems to make more sense to send the kids from Munster to Richmond and expect to improve the school infrastructure for Richmond that is growing instead of spending Board resources and make desperate attempts to save a school where enrollment is declining. Where do you see the MES in 5 or 10 years? With limited resources, why is OCDSB considering a band-aid approach to saving MES which is not a long term solution?

2. Programming: Even with the larger enrollment, MES cannot offer the same level of programming as ALC. Looking at their numbers, they currently have less than 90 students in MES and would like to bring in 150 from surrounding areas for the EFI program. Even with 240 students, I do not see how a school in a small village such as Munster can offer the same programming as a school that has a larger enrollment and can offer much more from an educational, sporting and social perspective.

3. Community Offerings: We live in a rural area, however, we are very active in the Stittsville community with respect to not only our school but with our sporting activities and supporting local businesses. Munster is not in a position to offer to my family what I currently enjoy in Stittsville.

4. Location: According to Mapquest we are 15 km from ALC and 12 km from MEC so the distance is basically the same. However, I work downtown so instead of picking up my kids on my way home from work in Stittsville, which I must drive past anyway, I would have to drive much further to Munster to get them which makes for a much longer day for myself and them and will limit their extra-curricular activities and has an impact on the environment.

5. After-school care: ALC offers a before and after-school care program which we utilize and expect to continue to do so. I am not aware that MES offers the same.

6. Disruption: I am very happy with my children’s experience at ALC – the administrators, the programming and the teachers. Moving my children from ALC where they have settled in very nicely will be very disruptive as all of a sudden they have to leave their social network (where they not only learn together but play sports together and socialize together). Removing them from the ALC classroom will create a huge disruption in their lives as well as mine as the parent.

7. CCV Population: There are only approximately 150 homes in CCV. I am not aware of the number of children but the few that attend ALC for EFI will not greatly impact the numbers at MES.

8. Grade phase in: In September 2015, my children will be in starting grades 4 and 6. If the phase in is similar to the last boundary change, which was Grade 5, I would have one child who was able to remain at ALC and one who had to move to MES. This is NOT an acceptable solution for me as a parent. I will not have my children attend 2 different elementary schools. It is difficult enough to be active in one school as a working parent, so it would be next to impossible for 2 different schools.

9. Middle School: Even though I mentioned the disruption above, I would like to emphasize another aspect of that disruption. One of the nice things about ALC is that we can avoid middle school as ALC currently goes to Grade 8. This is another benefit of attending ALC which MES does not offer. If either of my children had to attend MES, they would be forced to change schools twice in a couple of years. This is also not acceptable and very disruptive.

Ms Scott, this potential change in boundary causes me a lot of concern. I do not see the cost-benefit of focussing on MES as opposed to other longer term solutions. I would appreciate if you could provide some insight and advise of the longer term solutions the Board has considered. I will be attending the OCDSB meeting on Tuesday evening to learn more.

Regards,