public meeting - waterloo region district school board filemay 15, 2008 ne waterloo public meeting...

Northeast Waterloo

Elementary Schools Boundary Study

2007-2008

Public Meeting

Thursday May 15, 2008 ● 7:00-9:00 p.m.

Lester B. Pearson Public School Gymnasium

May 15, 2008 NE Waterloo Public Meeting #2 2

Agenda

1. Welcome/Introductions2. Background on Boundary Study

Timelines and Objectives3. Presentation of Top Scenarios for LBP4. Small break-out groups for Lester B.

Pearson/Public information session for others

5. Wrap-up/Questions & Answer period


Background/Timeline

• December 2007 – Process began by inviting school council representation, learning services and municipal staff to participate in a working group

• January 2008 – March 2008 - Working group is formed and is presented with background information, enrolment numbers, and facility information. Group develops draft study objectives and scenarios

• March 25, 2008 – Northeast Waterloo Boundary Study Public Meeting –Information about the boundary study process and the current situation at Northeast Waterloo elementary schools

• April – May 2008 – Working Group analyses scenarios using study objectives

• May 15, 2008 – Northeast Waterloo Boundary Study Public Meeting –present top scenarios for Lester B. Pearson

• June 9, 2008 – Staff report to Board on recommendations for Lester B. Pearson

• Ongoing – Develop a recommendation for all other Northeast Waterloo elementary schools (BRP, ELZ, LEX, LNH, MCG, MGA, SND, WCP)


Study Area


Area A

A


Area B


Area B

B


Area C


Area C

C


Area D


Area D

D


Study Objectives

• Address size of Lester B. Pearson P.S.• Enrolment• Number of portables/impact on facility• Regard for Good Schools Standing Committee guidelines on school

size• Determine need for new school in Northeast Waterloo• Determine permanent option for Lexington P.S. facility/area• Declining enrolment/impact on program at other schools• Establish mid to long-term boundaries and viability of all the

schools involved in the study area• Support optimal use of facilities, capital and operating resources• Support equitable program opportunities• Address facility issues at existing schools• Address community schools/transportation

The following are the study objectives set out by the Northeast Waterloo Elementary Schools Boundary Study Working Group. These objectives have been used to evaluate all possible scenarios brought to the table.


Rural East Study Area


Rural East Potential Development Area


Scenario 1a – Scenario Description

A solution for Lester B. Pearson

• A new JK-6 school at a node on the east side of University Ave E.

• New school’s boundary takes in students from Areas A and D, feeding Lester B. Pearson for 7-8

• Lester B. Pearson P.S. boundary takes in students from Areas B and C

• New school site and building would be able to handle an addition if rural east lands yield additional students


Scenario 1a – Boundary Map


Scenario 1a – Enrolment Projections

102611291019112510181126985.51094962.510749391051Total

391.5441389441394.54483754290000400New School

634.5688630684623.5678610.5665962.510749391051604604LBP

FTETotalFTETotalFTETotalFTETotalFTETotalFTETotal

201320122011201020092008Built Capacity 2010-11

Built Capacity 2007-08School

Total

New School

LBP

School

604

Built Capacity 2007-08

400

604


964.51064982.5108299510951005110610101112

352398360406371.5418385.5433394.5443

612.5666622.5676623.5677619.5673615.5669

FTETotalFTETotalFTETotalFTETotalFTETotal

20182017201620152014

Projected Total Student Enrolment by School 2008-2018

• FTE refers to “Full Time Equivalent” – Kindergarten students counted as a half student• These numbers reflect changes as outlined in the scenario description if the changes were to happen in fall 2010. This date is not firm and is subject to

change.


Scenario 1a – Preliminary Costing

• A 400 pupil place JK-6 School:– approx. 41,600 sq ft– $154/sq ft*– Total cost of construction = $6,406,400

• Additional considerations:– Site acquisition costs– Designed to allow a potential addition in the future

* Based on sq ft cost used to formulate the Capital Plan with inflationary factor


Scenario 1b – Scenario Description


• A new JK-8 school at a node on the east side of University Ave E.

• New school’s boundary takes in students from Areas A and D

• Lester B. Pearson P.S. boundary takes in students from Areas B and C and remains JK-8

• New school site and building would be able to handle an addition if rural east lands yield additional students


Scenario 1b – Boundary Map


Scenario 1b – Enrolment Projections

102611291019112510181126985.51094962.510749391051Total

502.5552495547487.55414555090000500New School

523.5577524578530.5585530.5585962.510749391051604604LBP


201320122011201020092008Built Capacity 2010-11


Total

New School

LBP

School

604


500

604


964.51064982.5108299510951005110610101112

468514483529493.5540492.5540493.5542

496.5550499.5553501.5555512.5566516.5570


20182017201620152014



change.


Scenario 1b – Preliminary Costing

• A 500 pupil place JK-8 School:– approx. 52,210 sq ft– Double gym– $154/sq ft*– Total cost of construction = $8,040,000

• Additional considerations:– Site acquisition costs



Scenario 2 – Scenario Description


• A 400 pupil place permanent addition at Lester B. Pearson P.S. to accommodate students within current LBP boundaries (Areas A, B, C and D)

• No change to 2007-08 JK-8 boundaries


Scenario 2 – Boundary Map


Scenario 2 – Enrolment Projections

1019112510181126985.51094962.510749391051Total

1019112510181126985.51094962.5107493910511004604LBP


20122011201020092008Built Capacity 2010-11


Total

LBP

School

604


1004


964.51064982.510829951095100511061010111210261129

964.51064982.510829951095100511061010111210261129


201820172016201520142013



change.


Lester B. Pearson Site

Date of photography: Spring 2006

Lot size: 8.79 acres (3.56 ha)


Scenario 2 – Preliminary Costing

• A 400 pupil place addition:– approx. 41,600 sq ft– $154/sq ft*– Total cost of construction = $6,406,400

• Additional considerations:– Parking and play area– Adjustments to school facilities (office space,

computer labs, library, etc.)



Scenario 5 – Scenario Description


• A new JK-6 school at a site on Schooner Crescent

• New school’s boundary takes in students from Areas A and D, feeding Lester B. Pearson for 7-8

• Lester B. Pearson P.S. boundary takes in students from Areas B and C

• New school site and building would be less able to handle an addition if rural east lands yield additional students


Scenario 5 – Boundary Map


Scenario 5 – Enrolment Projections

102611291019112510181126985.51094962.510749391051Total

391.5441389441394.54483754290000400New School

634.5688630684623.5678610.5665962.510749391051604604LBP


201320122011201020092008Built Capacity 2010-11


Total

New School

LBP

School

604


400

604


964.51064982.5108299510951005110610101112

352398360406371.5418385.5433394.5443

612.5666622.5676623.5677619.5673615.5669


20182017201620152014



change.


Schooner Crescent Site

Date of photography: Spring 2006

Lot size: Approx. 5 acres


Scenario 5 – Preliminary Costing

• A 400 pupil place JK-6 School:– approx. 41,600 sq ft– $154/sq ft*– Total cost of construction = $6,406,400

• Additional considerations:– Site acquisition costs



Break-out groups


Board Website:www.wrdsb.on.ca

E-mail boundary comments & questions:

[email protected]

Telephone:

519-570-0003 extension 4459 or 4596


“SizeMost research on the subject suggests that smaller elementary schools can be excellent places to learn. Only two studies (Seller, Cotton) quantify an ideal small size, with both suggesting the 300 to 500 range.”

- Good Schools Standing Committee Report to the Committee of the Whole May 14, 2007

Elementary School Size and Configuration


“Suggested Guiding Principles:…the committee suggests that the following points

be considered when developing the preliminary guidelines:

• Be sensitive to the impact on elementary students of transitioning between schools;

• Minimize the number of schools with enrolments over 600 students;

• Where possible, have at least two (2) classes per grade in JK – 6 to support professional learning communities;

• Where possible, have more than two (2) classes per grade in Grades 7 and 8 to support program.”

- Good Schools Standing Committee Report to the Committee of the Whole May 14, 2007

Elementary School Size and Configuration


Scenario 1b – Enrolment Projections

Grades 7 & 8

122110102122109102891091008890100Total

60514660474633470000New School

62595662625656621008890100LBP

Gr. 8Gr. 7Gr. 8Gr. 7Gr. 8Gr. 7Gr. 8Gr. 7Gr. 8Gr. 7Gr. 8Gr. 7

201320122011201020092008

School

Total

New School

LBP

School

116112121116116121114116110114

60566360596348595148

56565856575866575966

Gr. 8Gr. 7Gr. 8Gr. 7Gr. 8Gr. 7Gr. 8Gr. 7Gr. 8Gr. 7

20182017201620152014


• These numbers reflect changes as outlined in the scenario description if the changes were to happen in fall 2010. This date is not firm and is subject to change.

“Number of Classes per Grade for Senior ElementarySenior elementary administrators and teachers, as well as program staff, highlighted the benefits of having more than two classes per grade at this level. The higher numbers of students allows teachers to specialize in their subject area, which provides students with a richer, more varies education. While there was no consensus on the specific numbers, it appears that a minimum of three to four classes per grade would best meet these goals.” – Good Schools Standing Committee Report to the Committee of the Whole, May 14, 2007

public meeting - waterloo region district school board filemay 15, 2008 ne waterloo public meeting...

Documents