ARCs and school closings - what's working and what's not

[Annie Kidder]

People are writing to us about their Accommodation Review Committees(ARC). There are hundreds of schools under review right now, and in some areas the ARCs seem to be going well, but in other areas there have been concerns.
So here are some questions:

 Is the length of time for the process too long? Too short?

 Are there too many public meetings? Not enough?

 Is the valuation of the schools useful and/or helpful and does it measure the right things?

 Do parents have enough input? Too much?

 Do you think there is the right balance of people on your committee – parents, trustees, board staff?

 Is the general community represented well on the ARCs in your board?

 Is there at least one representative from the municipality on your ARC?

 Does your ARC vote on recommendations and decisions, or are decisions made by consensus?

[Erin Lepine]

I live in a neighborhood called Beacon Hill North in Ottawa. I live two houses down from one of three high schools being considered for closure by the Ottawa Carleton District School Board (OCDSB). I am also the parent of three boys aged 8, 6, and 1. I have to say that I am impressed with the level of transparency observed by the Board and mandated by the province in this process. I am however utterly dismayed at the criteria for the School Valuation Report and the total lack of analysis of the data being used in the process. Sure the data is posted on the website, but in some cases the data itself is questionable. For instance, the time spent traveling by bus is rated, but it is not cross-tabulated against the actual number of kids traveling by bus. In our neighborhood, most of the kids walk to school! And, with childhood obesity rates soaring, wouldn't you rather your kid walk to school? I'm positive that there is not a single statistician at the Board capable of actually manipulating the data so that it tells a compelling story, which is what the "valuation" is suppose to do. The proof that there has not been any kind of substantive analysis done is that all of the options presented to the ARC by the Board for discussion are solely based on enrollment figures. To make matters worse, the Board has not and cannot provide any financial information to the ARC in order to better understand the cost-benefit of any of the options presented. Having read the Ministry's guidelines, I was under the impression that the School Valuation Report was to drive the options analysis and final recommendation. Does anyone out there have an example where this was the case?

[Sarah]

Our board just pretty much did their own thing and didn't let the new process get in the way. I think it is because many other boards are finding that it is just a bad process that doesn't work to get to the bottom of things. It is a poorly thought out guideline, but it is only a guideline and no two boards will do exactly the same thing. It's working for us to do what is right for our schools and community. We would rather deal with our elected trustees than the board administration. We have found that sometimes the policies the Ministry puts in to place works against trustees and their relationship as advocates for their school regions. The board next to us - to our southwest followed the guidelines to the letter and at the end of the year last year they had an evaluation meeting with their ARCs where the ARCs gave the process a thumbs down.

I am glad we didn't follow the leader and waste our time but instead did things our own way.

One of the smartest things we did was start a dialogue with other ARC from other boards in our region (South-Central).

[Erin Lepine]

I'm not sure that Boards can "opt out" of the process. That being said, I would be curious to know what kind of analysis was done in your community. On what grounds did your board make its decision? Was it documented? Was it presented to the community? In what format?

[Sarah]

I've read through different board's policies as they reflect the Provincial Guidelines and I've noticed that some follow the guidelines to a tee, while others don't instead using some portions and not others. When I asked about this I was told that the guidelines were made to be flexible to meet the needs and or preferences of individual boards.
For example: the guidelines suggest using EQAO data to determine learning output. Some used them, mine did not. Same with including "fundraising" as part of the valuation.
The way it was presented to the community was through a public meeting. The problem that the ARCs had was that the footprint on what the board wanted to do was listed nicely in the 10yr. Capitol Plan, and trustees told the group that they were working toward that plan. If that was the case, then what essentially happened is that the ARC's were led by the chair of the meetings(a board administrator which we felt was wrong) toward an already set out plan, and were telling the groups at the same time that they were open to alternatives....when they really weren't. Does that make sense?

In the review meeting at the end of the process the ARCs felt that the chairing of the meetings should have been done by either a trustee or an independent facilitator. They felt that having a board administrator heading things up when this same person would be submitting an additional summary from the board admin. was a bit odd and unfair.

The ARCs also felt that the process in our case removed the trustees further away from the community discussions as all trustees weren't present at the ARC meetings. That meant they got things second or third hand through minutes and via the other board staff in attendance. I think all trustees should have attended all ARC meetings because we felt there was much lost in translation.

Does that help?

We're in the midst of another review currently and that one in another region of our board has a very different flavour to it and the board policy and implementation of the guidelines amended a bit.

[K. N. Ghiglione]

Hello;

I am new to this. My apologies. Perhaps you or someone can give me more direction.

I went to a meeting regarding the new TDSB initiative - B.S.B.F.. I am over the knee jerk of the schools closing. However, the ideas floated by the trustee didn't seem 'right'. It felt odd in such a way that a few parents are getting together to discuss what to do next. And we don't know. My gut feeling from the 'political speak' was that a general idea of what was going to happen has already been devised. Like in Sarah's reply below "...they were open to alternatives....when they really weren't.". I am afraid that political pressure on the board/trustee will vote in favour of the 'have' school. In idealogy - I want a better school for my children. Close the schools if that is the case, but make it better in the true sense of great education.

Quickly, here is the situation. Two Jk-6 schools are a few blocks from each other. They feed into a Middle School grade 7 and 8. It seems straightforward and simple.
One alternative would be to close one elementary school, combine that with the other, and feed the 7 to 8 MS. The middle school has always been a great community leveler.
Or 2.; close both elementary schools and make the middle school a JK to 8 school. The 'floated option is to 'close' the MS - and split the 7's and 8's to the elementary schools. The rub here is that there is an inequality between the two elementary schools. One has been idealized as a 'have' school and the other has been stigmatized as a 'have not' school. And I am afraid that the ARC will be swayed by political pressure rather than standing for true, great, public education. My gut feeling isn't sitting well with this already.

Please forward or direct or comment. I am not sure of our next steps.

Kevin

[Sheila Stewart]

Hi Kevin,
I am sure there is a lot to consider in this decision! I am very far removed from your area/situation, but have been through the experience of school closure and the JK-6 -- JK-8 options/debate. From what you have said here about the "floated" option makes me wonder what this will be like for the 7/8 grades/students to be splitting--at that grade level. Are there concerns/issues with that in itself? Have you had assurances for the continued support of the intermediate program/needs in the JK-8 configuration--if that becomes the decision? Keep asking questions! Maybe think about what is working well and ask yourself if that is "moveable" to another location?

Are you sitting on an "ARC" committee?

[K. N. Ghiglione]

Hi Sheila;

My concern is that the community will lose the only equalizer in the community. It is truly a time where all the students from all the schools meet as grade 7 students. Parents can't help but compare. It turns out that the 'perceived advantage/disadvantages' between the schools do not play out as wished. All the schools are favourably represented by the students they produce.

If the schools become JK-8, then the same old 'difference' is evident and prolonged. The equalizer or leveller of the community will be erased and this will make a further divide in the community and socialization of both communities. To me, this public education stands for the basic ideas of community, and peoples, learning side by side.

As far as moving to another location, I have a feeling that the more powerful school prefers the status quo and does not want to merge with our school. I am afraid political pressure will sway the decision. Same old same old. The 7-8 students lose.

I have had superintendents ask me if my children 'are happy'. I see no effort to make it a level playing field. That's why I am very concerned about the selection of the ARC committee. I am not sitting on it.

Thanks for listening.

k.

[Sheila Stewart]

What is your avenue for input to the ARC? Is your school council chair on it? I do relate to what you are saying.

[Bill MacPherson]

Having recently experienced an accomodation review process within the UCDSB, I wish to offer my comments on the overall process and some of my observations. As a trustee for the UCDSB, I was a member of 2 of the 4 ARC's appointed by the UCDSB Trustees. Both ( and all ) of the ARC's that I sat on as a member consisted of a very broad cross-section of those school communities, senior board staff, both elementary and secondary principals, custodial staff, community representatives, school council members, parents , municipal leaders and bring up the rear, the trustees. Most of our trustees , due to the geography of our board, served on more than one ARC, giving them a broader perspective of the issues ( or as the naysayers put it , a broader influence ). My journey began in June 2007 and ended in June 2008 after the final board decision.

The ARC (Accommodation Review Committee) process is not largely flawed but nor is it perfect, every solution creates a problem. It was established largely in response to the school communities and general public's need for more information when school boards propose school closures. This was instituted to address these needs in response to concerns expressed in the previous facilities reviews guidelines and policies. It should be noted that this followed a province wide freeze on school closures as these new policies were being developed and implemented by the Ministry. While the clock was stopped, the ticking of the enrolment bomb continued without pause, in essence creating a backlog of potential school closures and consolidations. This was most particularly felt in the rural boards in Ontario .

This process was intended to share the rationale behind school closures with a broader public base and institute a means of acknowledging that sharing in the form of an ARC report to a Board of Trustees. While to process is akin to “ Stop, Look and Listen” , the public perception of this increased participation was “ Look, Listen and Stop.” It must be acknowledged that sharing knowledge and rationale does not mean sharing the decision making responsibility of the Trustees. Accomodation review in itself is an emotional thing, schools often have an emotional attachment to communities. Parents were educated there, maybe Grandma taught there and my kids are going to go there come heck or high water. It is hard to combat emotional attachment with logic and statistics. School board stats are quite often seen as propaganda to justify closure of community based schools, the rural community especially feels this as they are quite often the thin edge of the wedge of declining enrolment. People will flock to hear guest speakers elocate on the hazards and pitfalls of demographic shifts in their communities, yet dismiss the same logistics when it comes knocking on their door with a proposed school closure or consolidation. ARC reports should be one more layer of information presented to the trustees as they formulate their final decision on school closures. This is in addition to enrolment trends, demographic shifts and all the other information required and presented by staff. In the sense of transparency all informnation that is presented to the trustees must and should be made available to both the ARC and the public at large.

The role of trustees on the ARC is in question, there is value in both sitting as a part of the committee, allowing one to network with the various members in an informal sitting. Given that it is an appointed body and has no parliamentary privilege or decision making powers, there is no real advantage in isolating the trustees from this role. However given the emotional volatility of school closures, it would be nice to remove oneself from the stewpot and let someone else sort it out until a final report is issued from the ARC in response to closure recommendations. One of the other misconceptions that arose during our recent ARC process was the concept of the trustees “ Having to do what they were told by the school communities.” While trustees are publicly elected and ultimately publicly accountable, they serve the larger communities of their wards and must balance the financial and human resources of a school system with the needs of the students and system and the desires of the parents.

The length of the process is decieving, from a trustee's perspective it can mean a journey of several years, as staff studies and recommendations are formulated after a board decision to conduct an accomodation review. Perhaps more public awareness of this initial decision would make parents more aware of the beginning of the review about to happen. However the actual public consultation and ARC process is intense and short, taking place within one school year, with a need for final decisions on closures by May / June of that school year. To a community facing the loss of a school, it seems a short and harsh process, even with the right of appeal as allowed in the legislation.

Lastly given the huge geography of some of our boards and within the province and the corresponding differences in demographics, it would be fruitless to attempt to design a comprehensive inclusive policy that met all needs. The current guidelines while not perfect, need only clarification to allow boards to tailor their needs within the parameters of the legislation.

Areas to be addressed -
Trustee participation
Geography covered by an ARC – nothing prevents a single ARC for an entire board
Role of ARC vs expectations of public – information sharing vs decision making
Role of ARC members – ie conflict of interest, outside lobby groups
Context of ARC reports – are they a report to trustees , vote on or not?
Who should chair ARC ? - who selects ?

It should be noted that the UCDSB conducted a system wide review of all of our schools in a single study, with 4 ARC's reporting to booard. It was known as Boundary 2020 and involved the ultimate closure of 13 elementary schools, reconfiguration of most secondary schools to 7 to 12 models and shifts in both Early French Immersion and Core French instruction. The initial process began with a board motion in May 2005 and ended with final approval in May 2008.



William MacPherson
Trustee, UCDSB

[Erin Lepine]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Having worked in the area of public involvement my entire career, I know that many of the issues you mention regarding public expectations, governance and decision-making, and transparency to be true.

My issue is the lack of analysis in the school valuation report and options being discussed by the ARC. Yes, many statistics have been provided by school board staff and posted for the public to see, but absolutely no substantive analysis has been done. What do the stats really mean? How are they inter-related? What are the contributing factors? What accounts for some of the differences? When questions get asked, more stats are thrown around, more tables are provided, more numbers are added. So, what has happened is that the ARC has reverted to discussing nothing more than declining enrollment in overlapping boundaries.

The Board objective stated in its report is that "the ARC will make recommendations to the Board that make the best use of our facilities and resources and strive to enhance the provision of high quality learning environments and superior programming for all students." I have sent a number of questions about the 45 criteria used in the school valuation report that would help me better understand how they contribute to the study objective. I have yet to hear anything back. As I mentioned earlier, it would seem that the whole issue has been boiled down to enrollment.

Finally, the public will get emotional, and the facilitator will "manage" the process on behalf of the ARC, but no-one seems to have a framework for how to quantify the public's input and link it to the criteria in the school valuation. I fear that without such a framework and any rational analysis, it will come down to who makes the biggest amount of fuss.

I believe the biggest problem to be resolved is the analysis. After that, the rest is gravy.

Erin Lepine

[Mike]

If our elected trustees had come to our community and told us what was up and what they were planning to do it would have taken half the time as does one of the new reviews. Most of the process is unnecessary. We were so well prepared by our board for what was coming that I think the new process really stalled things in my area. We were very ready for change so when we did a review of the process we pretty much told them it was unnecessary and that it was better for all of the trustees to meet with their communities and hear them out.

We found that as someone said above, that the school council better be working well and have people on it that parents trust because it does make a difference. You're not scrambling to find people.

[Erin Lepine]

I have just discovered a report that you might all find interesting. The report of the Declining Enrolment Working Group, Planning and Possibilities, was submitted to the Minister of Education in February 2009, and was released to the public in March 2009 (see Ministry's website). There is some attention paid to the ARC process and the need to "get the facts straight" before exploring the idea of school closures, which by the way, is not among the strategic recommendations for how to best deal with declining enrolment.