January 11, 2004
To:
The Vancouver School Board Trustees
Copy:
The Early French Immersion Boundary
Review Committee chair
The District Parent Representatives
Committee chair
The Canadian Parents for French,
Vancouver Chapter president
The Quilchena, Kerridale and Trafalgar
PAC Chairs
The Kerrisdale and Trafalgar CPF
Representatives
The Quilchena, Kerrisdale and Trafalgar
Principals.
Subject:
The proposal to replace the early
French immersion boundary that is shared by Trafalgar, Quilchena and Kerrisdale
with a separate boundary for each school.
I attended the VSB meeting on this subject January 8, 2004 at Kerrisdale.
At a CPF meeting in the fall I learned of the plan to review early French immersion boundaries including the subject shared boundary. I was told a committee was looking at all early French immersion boundaries, not just the subject shared boundary.
In 2002 the VSB revised English boundaries and implemented French immersion boundaries in a process that emphasized public consultation. After the public process was complete, the VSB changed the proposed separate boundaries for Quilchena/Kerrisdale and Trafalgar to a shared boundary - without consulting the Quilchena PAC. The Quilchena PAC wrote a letter February 1, 2002 asking the VSB to consult with them the next time a change is considered.
After the CPF meeting this fall, I gave a copy of that PAC letter to the Quilchena principal. The principal happened to be the Principal representative on the new Early French Immersion Boundary Review Committee. The principal looked into the matter and reported back from the new committee that the District Parent Representatives Committee had a representative on the new committee and that was how parents were being consulted.
The District Parent Representative Committee representative did not contact the Quilchena PAC.
For the November Quilchena PAC meeting the PAC chair asked the principal to report on the new French Immersion Boundary Review Committee work. The principal replied that the new committee felt it was too preliminary to make a report and the item was moved to the agenda for the January PAC meeting.
The week before the winter holiday break there was a small notice in the school newsletter that the week after the winter holiday there would be a meeting. The notice had the wrong location. Just before and after winter holiday break is not the best time to request parent attention.
I understand a notice was also in a small local paper (also at this same distracting time for parents) that is not widely read.
Parents were assured their students would not be affected by the proposed changes as they would be grandfathered.
The stake holders in this situation are parents of children not yet in the school system. The City of Vancouver is able to do mailings to any area of the city. The VSB could have mailed a notice to homeowners in the affected area.
At the Kerrisdale meeting, the format was presenting of information posters with staff to answer questions. There was not a format with someone to present and a follow-up question and answer period, that might have helped a group of parents get a feel for shared concerns.
At Kerrisdale on January 8th a poster about the process timeline included the information that a VSB decision would be made that evening and then presented to the trustees January 14th. This means parents were expected to learn of the proposal and provide feedback in one evening and there was no poster making it clear to parents to provide feedback to VSB staff at the meeting. This also means the VSB expected to make a decision without allowing time to reflect on parent feedback.
Also at the meeting, the fact that
the present boundary is shared by three schools was neglected. Trafalgar
was presented as though it had a working boundary (that had been reviewed
and found not needing change). The boundary for Trafalgar was approved
in 2002, but never implemented, so it was misleading to present it as though
it had a successful working boundary.
________________________________________________________________________
The whole VSB process seriously
lacks integrity.
________________________________________________________________________
The boundaries for early French immersion were implemented as the VSB’s way to move from the ‘draw’ system with limited capacity to a system intended to have capacity meet demand.
With the boundary system, there is a problem with these three schools (Quilchena, Kerrisdale and Trafalgar) being too close together.
Those three schools sharing a
boundary was a reasonable solution.
________________________________________________________________________
The problems Kerrisdale has had attracting students are due more to lack of visible support from the VSB than lack of a separate boundary.
The VSB has allowed cross boundary students from near Kerrisdale to attend schools like Queen Elizabeth Annex. These parents say they do not want their children in a school that to them looks like the VSB will close. One reason given for this feeling is it seems the VSB encouraged lead class students to transfer to other schools (mainly Queen Elizabeth Annex) so the VSB could close that class (the class was closed).
The VSB needs to show support for
the Kerrisdale program by letting parents know things like:
- if the VSB plans to support financially
the building of a French library,
- and if the VSB has encouraged
parents at the school to also support financially the building of a French
library.
- if the new lead class becomes
small the VSB will support them at Kerrisdale.
- and helping parents at Kerrisdale
become aware of the benefits of the parent support group for French immersion,
Canadian Parents for French. I acted as the interim CPF representative
at Kerrisdale when it commenced. I asked the Principal to encourage a Kerrisdale
parent to take this role on. This took a fair while and then the first
parent to do so was not an active representative. This is the kind of thing
that can contribute to parents having an impression there is not a well
supported program at Kerrisdale.
________________________________________________________________________
The Trafalgar CPF representative was at the Kerrisdale meeting and agreed with me that the Trafalgar boundary will not likely provide sufficient students to form a community school and they will have the same problem as in the past with too many students from too far a field. I was once a Trafalgar parent and experienced this first hand.
Under the old system, many early FI schools had student populations mainly from their neighbourhoods.
Trafalgar school’s immediate neighborhood
has historically not largely supported early FI (due to the demographics
of high ESL who opt for English or other programs like later immersion).
So, in the past, Trafalgar’s students came from the waitlists of other
schools.
________________________________________________________________________
Like Trafalgar’s boundary, the
proposed new Quilchena boundary will not likely provide sufficient students
to form a community school and they will have similar problems with
too many students from too far a field. Problems with the proposed
new Quilchena boundary are:
- it allows only the immediate
neighborhood or across Granville/Oak/Cambie streets which act like highways
that separate communities.
- Re the immediate neighborhood:
o Like Trafalgar, Quilchena’s immediate
neighborhood is not likely to largely support early FI (due to demographics
of high ESL who opt for English or other programs like later immersion).
o The immediate neighborhood also
has not much residential as it includes a high school, a community centre
skating arena, a large commercial area.
- Re across Granville/Oak/Cambie
streets which act like highways that separate communities
o the boundary system is supposed
to avoid major thoroughfares that divide communities.
o Historically the number of students
going on to high school from Quilchena has been low, and a significant
reason for this is the students find it difficult to travel to Churchill
which is across Granville and Oak (usually more than one bus). Many students
live near the Arbutus or MacDonald bus and would prefer to take one bus
to Kitsilano. If they are not able to go cross boundary to Kitsilano they
may switch to English. Parents did try to suggest in the previous boundary
review that there be an FI secondary program at Point Grey as there was
talk of space becoming available there. Another reason is the sense that
across those highway like streets is like another community, not theirs.
As these things are deterrents to high school students, they are likely
to be greater deterrents to elementary students.
o While the existing shared boundary
covers across those highway like streets and some students do come across,
the concern is that the area has not largely supported the Quilchena location
and will not provide sufficient students to form a community school and
there will be similar problems to Trafalgar’s with too many students
from too far a field.
________________________________________________________________________
Another reason those three schools sharing a boundary was a reasonable solution, given the schools are very close together, is due to geography. There is a ridge running near these schools. The schools are separated by large hills, and sharing avoided the problem of how the geography cut across the map. Parents were able to choose a school based on their sense of neighborhood due to changing elevation, ie. Little children are walked more level blocks to a park rather than fewer blocks with steep hills to a park. A sense of community comes from things like making neighborhood friends at a park.
__________________________________________________________________________________
The total number of students entering early French immersion at Quilchena, Kerrisdale and Trafalgar may well be lower if the proposed separate boundaries are implemented.
Kerrisdale is a startup program,
which means there are issues like, they do not have a strong French library,
a French speaking librarian, or older students for things like French reading
buddies. Despite this and the seeming lack of support from the VSB, some
families have chosen to enroll their children there. If there is more VSB
support for the program communicated to parents regarding issues like the
library, more parents may chose to enroll their children there. Some families
have preferred to enroll their students in the established programs at
Trafalgar and Quilchena. Separate boundaries will force those parents to
look at three options:
- Enroll in a startup program despite
their reservations,
- apply cross boundary to ie. Quilchena,
Trafalgar or elsewhere,
- or enroll in English and not
do early French immersion.
For many parents early French immersion
is an option they approach with trepidation, especially if they are not
familiar with the program. Being forced by a boundary to enroll in a startup
program may be a deterrent for them. Alternatively, applying cross boundary
can also be a deterrent for them, as it introduces uncertainty, they must
wait to get results instead of being able to have their child follow the
carefully planned introduction to kindergarten schedule (ie. the spring
visit to the new school). The uncertainty of waitlists was a problem with
the old limited capacity early French immersion system and was to end with
the new system goal of meeting capacity. Having the three nearby schools
share a workable boundary removes the uncertainty of cross boundary applications.
________________________________________________________________________
Some background information re Trafalgar, Quilchena and the boundary process:
During the 2002 public boundary process the VSB asked for feedback on their suggestion to make the two one class French immersion programs in the system, Trafalgar and Quilchena, operate with Quilchena reduced to a primary only annex to Trafalgar. The feedback was negative (due to things like no older student French reading buddies) and the VSB dropped their suggestion. One reason the VSB gave in support of the suggestion was Intermediate student class sizes would be larger. Parents argued strongly that while a two class program has some advantages, the one class program has worked well. Parents at Quilchena recommended there be one and a half kindergarten classes as had been done sometimes in the past. Those years had larger Intermediate numbers. The VSB advised there could not be one and a half kindergarten classes. As Quilchena had for sometime had many more applicants than spaces, the VSB opened Kerrisdale, sharing Quilchena’s proposed boundary.
Since introducing the Kerrisdale startup, the VSB has assured that Kerrisdale’s purpose is to handle excess demand for capacity, and the VSB fully supports the existing early FI programs at nearby schools.
Please note that at the same time as the VSB has told Quilchena there cannot be one and a half kindergarten classes other early French immersion schools have had one (or more) and a half kindergarten classes.
_______________________________________________________________________________
During this third year of Kerrisdale’s
FI program, CPF and the VSB:
- arranged that an annual
CPF parent information meeting was held at Kerrisdale.
- encouraged parents at Kerrisdale
to organize a French cultural entertainment at their school. Both
CPF and the VSB have explored possible financial assistance due to
the small FI parent body for fundraising. The VSB encouraged Quilchena
(and not Trafalgar) to attend and contribute parental financing for the
Kerrisdale entertainment. This is in the works. The VSB also encouraged
Quilchena (and not Trafalgar) to invite Kerrisdale to attend an event
at Quilchena. This is in the works.
________________________________________________________________________
This letter has been done in haste
due to the short time allowed between VSB meetings. If you have any questions
re this matter, please feel free to phone me at X or e-mail me at [email protected]
Unfortunately at Quilchena there has not been an opportunity for this issue to be reviewed at a PAC meeting. A number of parents have asked me to report on this issue. I will post this letter on the CPF section of the Quilchena PAC web site for information purposes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
L. W.
Quilchena CPF Representative
Subject:
CPF Vancouver letter Jan.
13/04 to Board
Date:
Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:08:37
-0800
From:
L W
To:
CC:
CPF Vancouver Co-chair,
A T , CPF Vancouver Co-chair, E F,
J M Q PAC Co-chair, M T
Q PAC Co-chair
To the Vancouver Board of School Trustees:
I was just putting away my papers from yesterday's committee meeting
and
noticed as part of the package of information available at the meeting
the letter of January 13, 2004 to the Vancouver School Board Trustees
from the CPF Vancouver Co-Chairs. I have not seen this letter before
now.
Their letter says:
"The views expressed in L. W's letter are those of an individual
parent and do not in any way represent those of the CPF Vancouver
Chapter. It is unfortunate that the author of the letter did not chose
to make that clear at the outset. I would ask the Trustees to please
clarify this issue should the letter be tabled as a document at any
committee meetings."
As a reminder my letter states:
"Unfortunately at Quilchena there has not been an opportunity for this
issue to be reviewed at a PAC meeting."
I thought that statement would make clear it was not possible for there
to be a Quilchena PAC opinion on this issue, so I would not be mistaken
as representing one.
The Quilchena CPF representative, represents the CPF members at
Quilchena at the regular CPF Vancouver Branch meetings. Generally,
as
the CPF membership at each school is not large, there are not regular
meetings at each school of the CPF membership. The Quilchena CPF
representative acts a a liaison between CPF Vancouver and Quilchena
PAC.
The Quilchena representative takes information from Quilchena PAC to
CPF
Vancouver and also takes information from CPF Vancouver to Quilchena
PAC. To help understanding of the role, a school CPF representative
volunteers at the school and at CPF Vancouver. For example, when
CPF
Vancouver is running a French dictionary sale, I volunteer to take
the
order forms to the school and arrange for their distribution, later
collection and forwarding, then pick up and deliver the book orders.
In
this case, another school rep. at CPF Vancouver is volunteering to
co-ordinate the French dictionary sale. There is an invitation to CPF
Vancouver membership letter that describes the role of CPF Vancouver
and
its many benefits. For your further information you can view this letter
at:
http://www.geocities.com/cpfvancouver/cpf-vancouver-invite-membership-letter-sample.html
I received an e-mail and a phone call from a CPF Vancouver Co-chair
indicating they had problems with my letter. In my response I have
expressed to them:
- that I was very sorry to hear they had problems with my letter
- my appreciation for the good work they do in support of CPF and French
immersion
- my hope and trust that we can come to a better understanding on these
issues and my willingness to meet with them in that regard
My letter describes CPF as a beneficial French immersion parent support
group. I have have been involved with CPF for some years and continue
to
value its role as a parent group supporting French educational
opportunities.
As I was aware before the committee meeting of criticism that my letter
did not make clear I did not represent Quilchena PAC's or CPF
Vancouver's opinion, I do appreciate that I was able to say at the
meeting:
- that I was not expressing CPF Vancouver's or Quilchena PAC's opinion
and point out my letter did state Quilchena PAC had not met
- that I thought it would be helpful for readers to be aware my
experience came from my role as a parent and CPF representative at
Quilchena.
I am hopeful and trusting that all groups involved in the current
boundary review issue will be able to work together successfully.
Sincerely,
L W
Subject:
Concerning L. W letter of
Jan. 11/04 to Trustees
Date:
Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:00:15
-0800
From:
L W
To:
Allan Wong Trustee
CC:
Marisa Tuzi Q PAC Co-chair,
John McLean Q PAC Co-chair
Hello Allan Wong, my letter of Jan. 11/04 to Trustees, said the following:
"During this third year of Kerrisdale’s FI program, CPF and the VSB:
- arranged that an annual CPF parent information meeting was
held at
Kerrisdale.
- encouraged parents at Kerrisdale to organize a French cultural
entertainment at their school. Both CPF and the VSB have explored
possible financial assistance due to the small FI parent body
for
fundraising. The VSB encouraged Quilchena (and not Trafalgar)
to attend
and contribute parental financing for the Kerrisdale entertainment.
This is in the works. The VSB also encouraged Quilchena (and not
Trafalgar) to invite Kerrisdale to attend an event at Quilchena. This
is
in the works."
Today was the French cultural entertainment at Kerrisdale and I was
a
volunteer on the field trip. I was surprised to see that Queen Elizabeth
Annex and Trafalgar were also in attendance. I was also surprised when
the recent field trip notice came home indicating the event was no
charge. In the fall I was asked to help Kerrisdale with this French
cultural entertainment, and in the process spoke to the principal and
a
lead teacher at Quilchena to find out if the teachers were willing
to
take their classes and to arrange for a cost per student to be collected
for the field trip (which Quilchena agreed to so long as the date and
cost when determined were reasonable). I have copied the following
message to help you understand my situation.
I would very much appreciate if you could let the other trustees know
that I was not aware of the change in plans to include other schools
and
to have the event be no charge.
Note: M is the Kerrisdale CPF Rep. A and E are the CPF
Vancouver Co-chairs.
Subject:
French Entertainer for Kerrisdale/Quilchena
Date:
Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:37:54
-0800
From:
A T
To:
M P, L W
CC:
E F
Hi M and L,
At the CPF meeting thursday evening we approved
putting $200 of our
soicio clutural grant funds towards a performer for
Kerrisdale/Quilchena. Hilary SPicer had indicated that she would
have
$100 to contribute as well towards such a performer. There will
be a
bit of book keeping to do in terms of the CPF grant, in that we need
to
submit volunteer hours that go towards coordinating and hosting the
event. One can include CPF meeting time in that as well.
I've asked Hilary to provide us with names of performers
who might
be in Vancouver. You may be able to locate some yourself. E
mentioned teh organization Art Starts which may be able to assist as
well.
Cheers, A