On what basis do you decide to close a school? That was the task given to the Burlington Program & Accommodation Review Committee (PARC) of 14 parents. We had 13 criteria to assess school closure options to eliminate 1800 empty pupil spaces across seven high schools in Burlington.
As one of two parent representatives on the PARC for Burlington Central High School, I came into this process with a commitment to do what is best for all our students, and go where the evidence takes us. I entered the discussion with an open mind - but not an empty mind. Knowing the community as I do, it made no sense to me to close Central - the director's initial recommendation along with closing Pearson.
The more we have learned through months of discussion and mountains of data, the less sense it makes to close Central.
There are five options left on the table. One option to close Central & Pearson - 19b - was dropped because it is too similar to option 28c. Of the remaining options, which include closing Central & Pearson, closing Bateman, closing Bateman & Pearson, and closing Nelson, where does the evidence point? The evidence only suggests that there are some options that are worse than others, and none that are great. There will be community disruption no matter what the board does, including closing no schools. At minimum, boundary changes will be required to address overenrolment at Hayden and underenrolment at MMRobinson, Pearson and Bateman.
There is growing support in the community and around the PARC table for a no schools close option, supplemented with boundary changes, community use of schools, cooperation with the Catholic board, and innovative programming to increase the student body, through such ideas as creating regional programs (for example, a cabinet making program in Burlington; the closest is in Georgetown; or an arts program so Burlington students don't need to go to Etobicoke School of the Arts).
Those are some of the ideas being discussed at the final PARC meetings, which are set to wrap up March 27.
Below is a snapshot of some of the criteria across all of the schools, showing just how difficult the school closure decision is - as it should be.
Programming challenges
One of two reasons the PAR began was to address programming conflicts and challenges, largely assumed to be driven by low enrolment.
So do you close the school with the highest course conflict rate? Data on timetable conflicts provided to the PARC found Lester B Pearson has the highest at 44%, followed by Aldershot at 38%, Central at 32%, MM Robinson at 25%, Bateman at 21%, Nelson at 18% and Hayden at 11%.
However, boundary changes directing students from Pearson to the now-overflowing Hayden have led to low enrolment at Pearson. Redirecting students back to Pearson would address two issues: Hayden overcrowding and Pearson under-enrolment.
The next highest school with course conflicts is Aldershot - not even on the closure list (and shouldn't be).
Enrolment
Let's turn to low enrolment below 65% of capacity - the other reason the PAR was called.
Do you close the emptiest school? That would be MM Robinson - also not one of the closure options.
According to 2016-2017 projections MM Robinson's utlization rate is 50%, followed by Bateman at 56%, Pearson at 59%, Central at 68%, Nelson at 79% and Aldershot at 83%. Hayden is overcapacity, at 139%, but again this could be addressed by directing students to the three lowest enrolment schools: MM Robinson or Pearson (both North of the QEW like Hayden) or Bateman (South of Hayden, South of the QEW).
Further, a PARC member has done a detailed analysis of school size and enrolment and found that while generally the fewer students the more potential for course conflicts, there is no statistical correlation between the two.
Presently Burlington as a whole has a course conflict rate of 23%, which would minimally drop to 18.7 % with a one school closure or 15.6% with a two school closure. It doesn't make sense to close one or more schools and push enrolment over 100% at some schools for such a small (almost negligible) improvement in course selection for students.
Costs
One of the criteria for evaluating school closure options is "fiscal responsibility." So let's look at costs, namely the five year projected renewal needs, annual operating costs and costs for compliance with accessibility legislation.
Should you close the most expensive school to renew? That would be Bateman (see chart below).
However, the data we received has been roundly criticized by the PARC and public for several reasons. The renewal costs have changed dramatically over several months, by a factor of $23m between the release of the first set of costs in December and the latest version in January. For Central (and possibly other schools) some of the costs included work already completed - to the tune of more than $1 million. Finally, the time horizons for each school vary from six years to 19 years - like comparing apples and oranges. The data is so suspect the PARC has been advised not to focus on costs.
Nevertheless, here are the numbers: (excluding Hayden; as a new school its renewal costs are negligible):
|
Aldershot |
Bateman |
Central |
MM Robinson |
Pearson |
Nelson |
Dec 2016 |
$1.8m |
$17m |
$1.9m |
$10.8m |
$9.3m |
$7.8m |
Jan 2017 |
$3.8m |
$10.4m |
$8.6m |
$8.1m |
$5.4m |
$6.4m |
Time Horizon |
2003 -
2014
|
2013 -
2018
|
2003 -
2021
|
2003 -
2021
|
2014 -
2018
|
2003 -
2015
|
Range |
12 yrs |
6 yrs |
19 yrs |
19 yrs |
5 yrs |
13 yrs |
Do you close the school with the highest annual operating costs? Here's how those numbers compare across schools (presented as "operating savings" should that school close):
|
Aldershot |
Bateman |
Central |
MM Robinson |
Pearson |
Nelson |
Operating savings by facility 2015/2016 |
$490k |
$764k |
$584k |
$671k |
$564k |
$595k |
Additionally, all schools are required to come into compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) legislation by 2025, meaning elevators, accessible doors, ramps, and other features. Those costs are below for each school, however they do not include the cost for a recommended upgrade in elevators for Aldershot, Pearson and Nelson from their current LULA (Limited Use, Limited Access) elevator, or a required new elevator at MM Robinson. In addition, Central's AODA costs contain a higher percentage of overall costs than other schools for asbestos abatement during construction - however, most of the the school was built in 1922, before asbestos was used.
|
Aldershot* |
Bateman |
Central |
MM Robinson |
Pearson* |
Nelson* |
AODA |
$1.6m |
$925k |
$3.2m |
$1.4m |
$1.5m |
$1.7m |
*These schools have a LULA, which the report recommends be upgraded, the cost of which is not included in the above totals. Read full AODA report
AODA are one-time expenses required under legislation for all schools, and can be phased in over the next seven years. To put these costs in perspective, the cost to bring Central into compliance phased in over seven years is $457k per year. That's not much more than the $378k annual cost to bus an additional 600 students (at $630 per student) if Central & Pearson were closed (see busing chart below). Plus, busing costs continue in perpetuity every year, whereas AODA are one time expenses.
In addition, closing Central & Pearson will lead to overcrowding at Aldershot (capacity jumps to 129% in 2018), Aldershot can accommodate 10 portables, at $60,000 each in installation (plus annual operating), for a total of $600,000.
Thus, any "savings" from closing Central to avoid AODA costs will vanish within about five years, leaving only ongoing busing and portable costs.
Walkability:
One of the 13 criteria is "proximity to other schools (non-bus distances, natural boundaries, walking routes)." Student groups and programs can move to different schools, but nothing changes geography.
So, do you close a school in close proximity to another school? In the south that would be either Nelson or Bateman, 1.9km apart. This close proximity to each other is one of the reasons PARC members added Bateman and Nelson to the closure list.
In the North, that would be Pearson, whose catchment overlaps with MM Robinson and Hayden. However, Pearson could take some of the overflow from Hayden if it remained open.
The map above provides the walking distance for each school, shown by the circles.
The following chart shows the percent of students who are not eligible for busing because they live within walking distance of 3.2km or attend an optional program for which there is no busing:
|
Aldershot |
Bateman |
Central |
MM Robinson |
Pearson |
Nelson |
Hayden |
% of students not bused |
62% |
76% |
93% |
93% |
99% |
90% |
62% |
The director's initial recommendation to close Central & Pearson would create an 11.4km hole in the heart of the city with no school, in an intensification area with the highest growth targets of the whole city. A school where 93% of kids live within walking distance would turn into a school where 100% of kids are bused outside the neighbourhood. This is not a one-time transition. Closing Central would permanently remove the only school from a thriving community and bus kids out of their neighbourhood.
Busing
The increase in students bused under each option is below:
No schools close (Option 7b): 131
Close Bateman (Option 4b): 262 students
Close Bateman and Pearson (Option 23d): 286
Close Nelson (Option 3c:) 364
Pearson/Central Close (Option 28c): 615
When Hayden was built, part of the rationale was to keep kids within their community and promote walking to school. Before the new school opened, a Boundary Review Committee was struck to set boundaries. Among their criteria for measuring boundary options was "proximity to schools (walking distances, safe school routes, natural boundaries)." The Committee's preferred recommendation was presented to the Board of Trustees in a report May 16, 2012. The recommendation satisfied several criteria including that "the majority of students attending the new Burlington NE high school will be able to walk to school."
Read: HDSB Boundary Review Committee report on Hayden May 16 2012
The principle here is that you put schools where students are, and you keep schools where students live. That the same rationale must apply today to keeping Central open.
Minimal disruption:
There is significant variation among the options in terms of the number of kids who will have to change schools, as well as the number of "split cohorts" meaning Grade 6, or Grade 7-8 classes will go to different high schools, separating friends who've gone to school together since kindergarten.
The summary outlines the estimated number of students impacted by each option:
No school closure (Option 7b):
Reduced Hayden catchment: 568 students redirected
IB program moves to Pearson: 174
Gifted program moves to Pearson: 110
Total students impacted (must move schools): 852
PLUS:
Three split cohorts
One elementary school redirected
Bateman closes (Option 4b):
Bateman students redirected: 747
Central boundary expands to Guelph Line: 43
Total students impacted (must move schools): 790
PLUS:
No split cohorts
Two elementary schools redirected
Nelson closes (Option 3c):
Nelson students redirected: 1006
FI moves Central to Aldershot: 61
FI moves Hayden to Bateman: 276
Total students impacted (must move schools): 1343
PLUS:
Five split cohorts
Two elementary schools redirected
Bateman & Pearson Close (Option 23d):
Bateman students redirected: 747
Pearson students redirected: 379
FI moves Hayden to MM Robinson: 276
Central boundary expands: 184
Total students impacted (must move schools): 1586
PLUS:
Four split cohorts
No elementary schools redirected
Central & Pearson Close (Option 28c):
Central students redirected: 593
Pearson students redirected: 379
Bateman expands to include Nelson/Hayden students: 388
FI moves Hayden to MM Robinson: 276
PAR required for 7/8s at Central: 260
Total students impacted (must move schools): 1896
PLUS:
Six split cohorts
Three elementary schools redirected
Based on the above analysis, the most disruptive option to students of the five is closing Central/Pearson, with close to 2000 students uprooted and changing schools, not counting the impact on elementary students from split cohorts (kids from an elementary school going to different high schools) and elementary schools redirected from their current high school to another high school.
Don't swing from undercapacity to overcapacity
Several of the options swing from undercapacity to overcapacity at some schools, putting students in portables, the very thing that we are trying to correct at Hayden. One of the criteria for the PAR to consider in evaluating options is the "goals and focus of the current multi-year plan". The school utilization goal of the plan is 90%. When schools drop below 65%, a Program & Accommodation Review can be called. In the options below, where there is overcapacity at some schools and also undercapacity (below 65%) at others, further boundary changes could address both under and over capacity.
Here is how the utilization rate for schools compares among the options by 2018 (the date any school closure/boundary change is expected to begin):
No schools close (Option 7b):
- Overall utilization: 74%-80%
- Schools overcapacity: Pearson 116%
- Schools below 65%: Bateman 54%; MMRobinson 64%
Nelson closes (Option 3c):
- Overall utilization: 91%-98%
- Schools overcapacity: Bateman 107%; Pearson 109%;
- Schools below 65%: None
Bateman closes (Option 4b):
- Overall utilization: 91%-97%
- Schools overcapacity: Nelson 114%; Pearson 131%; Hayden 112%
- Schools below 65%: MMRobinson 62%
Bateman & Pearson close (Option 23d):
- Overall utilization: 102%-109%
- Schools overcapacity: Nelson 121%; MMRobinson 104%; Hayden 116%
- Schools below 65%: None
Central & Pearson Close (Option 28c):
- Overall utilization: 94%-101%
- Schools over capacity: Aldershot 129%; Hayden 104%
- Schools below 65%: None
Next Steps:
The final PARC meeting is March 27, the director's recommendation report is expected April 21, the public delegation evenings to trustees are May 8 and 11, and the trustees vote on an option June 7. More information is available here: Next Steps
|