a meeting of the ottawa-carleton district school board was ......minutes 22 april 2014 - 74 - a...

MINUTES 22 April 2014

- 74 -

A meeting of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board was held this evening

in the Board Room, 133 Greenbank Road, Ottawa, Ontario, commencing at 7:03 p.m. with Trustee Jennifer McKenzie in the chair and the following also in attendance: Trustees Christine Boothby, Rob Campbell, Mark Fisher, Bronwyn Funiciello (electronic communication), Katie Holtzhauer, Theresa Kavanagh, Jennifer McKenzie, Lynn Scott and John Shea (electronic communication).

STAFF: Director of Education, Jennifer Adams; Associate Director, Walter

Piovesan; Superintendent of Learning Support Services, Jill Bennett; Superintendent of Curriculum, Pino Buffone; Superintendent of Facilities, Michael Clarke; Executive Officer of Corporate Services, Michele Giroux; Manager of Planning, Karyn Carty Ostafichuk; Manager of Board Services, Monica Ceschia; Communications Media Relations Coordinator, Sharlene Hunter; Audio Visual Technician, John MacKinnon; and Senior Board Coordinator, Maureen Strittmatter.

On a motion by Trustee Holtzhauer, seconded by Trustee Scott, the Board

resolved into an in camera session. Trustee Seward assumed the Chair in camera and presented the report in the public session. (Board Minute 14-83 refers).

82. Call to Order Chair McKenzie called the public meeting to order at 8:14 p.m. and apologized

for the late start.

83. Report from In Camera Session Trustee Seward reported that Board met in camera this evening and reports and

recommends as follows: a. Personnel Item

Moved by Trustee Boothby, seconded by Trustee Seward,

THAT the Board proceed, as directed in Board in camera, with respect to the awarding of a contract for the Director Evaluation process.

- Carried -


- 75 -

A recorded vote was held and the motion was carried unanimously: FOR: Trustees Boothby, Campbell, Fisher,

Funiciello, Holtzhauer, Kavanagh, McKenzie, Scott, Seward and Shea

(10)

AGAINST: Nil

(0)

ABSTENTIONS: Nil (0)

b. Staffing Item Moved by Trustee Campbell, seconded by Trustee Seward,

THAT the Board proceed, as directed in Board in camera, with respect to a staffing item.

- Carried -



(10)

AGAINST: Nil

(0)


84. Approval of Agenda Moved by Trustee Scott, seconded by Trustee Kavanagh, THAT the agenda be approved. - Carried –

85. Briefing from the Chair Chair McKenzie noted that on Thursday, 17 April a memorandum was issued,

providing information on child care funding, the retrofits that are being completed this year, the retrofit requests for the 2014-2015 school year, and other possible retrofits projected for next year. The Child Care Program Policy report is scheduled for the 20 May Committee of the Whole meeting.

The letter expressing support for OPSBA’s position on Bill-23, Fair Elections

Act, in accordance with the motion carried at the April 8 Special Board meeting was issued last week to Mr. Preston, Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure & House Affairs, with copies to the local members of parliament, and OPSBA. At the last retreat a discussion was held regarding the orientation for new trustees. Since staff will be commencing the work on the new orientation program, it


- 76 -

would be appreciated if trustees could provide their input to Maureen Strittmatter by April 30, considering the questions raised in the memorandum issued on March 7.

86. Briefing from the Director Director Adams noted that on Friday, April 17 a memorandum was issued

providing information on the process for the selection of the specialized program classes. This information has also been shared with principals and school councils. The memorandum noted which schools had been selected for the 6 Autism classes, 2 General Learning Program classes, and the additional 2 General Learning Program classes for the phase-in of the Autism Program for the Geographic Model. Any questions regarding this should be directed to Superintendent Bennett.

In response to a query from Trustee Shea regarding whether the Director had

any new information from the Ministry of Education regarding the status of the funding for the three capital projects announced in March, Director Adams stated that no new information has been provided.

87. Delegations Chair McKenzie drew attention to the number of delegations that had

preregistered and registered at the meeting. Due to the limitations in the By-laws and Standing Rules, the Chair suggested that the 4-minute delegations speak for two minutes and the 2-minute delegations try to keep their speaking time to one minute.

a. 4-Minute Delegations

i. Mike Pot/Nicole Laing, Parents, Ottawa/West Rural Community

Mr. Pot expressed the view that the study to introduce Early French

Immersion (EFI) at Munster Elementary School was moving forward with a predetermined outcome, as a means of saving the school from consolidation. He noted that duplicating programs in many schools, especially when small, seemed inefficient and counter-productive. He added that students have the option of attending a school with the EFI program at A. Lorne Cassidy Elementary School.

He stressed that adding EFI to Munster Elementary School would

make it a small school with two programs under one roof with very limited sharing of resources. Teachers, classrooms, libraries, supplies, books in two languages would all need to be duplicated. Mr. Pot expressed concern with the quality of education should EFI be added to Munster Elementary School.

ii. Eryn Konkle, Parent

Eryn Konkle, who has two children attending EFI at A. Lorne Cassidy

E.S., expressed concern that students in the EFI program could be affected by the implementation of EFI at Munster E.S. While she sympathized with the


- 77 -

Munster families, she expressed the view that the motion had too narrow a focus and would negatively impact children both academically and socially. Ms. Konkle suggested that a study that evaluates the west Ottawa area schools, a full accommodation study, providing a long term solution, was required.

Ms. Konkle noted that at the April 1, 2014 public meeting they were

informed that implementing EFI at Munster E.S. was a short term solution and would need to be revisited again in the near future. She added that, with the projected growth in Stittsville and Richmond, it would not be beneficial to place a growing EFI program in a non-growing community and that the investment should be made where the majority of the students live.

Ms. Konkle expressed concern that the Stittsville school boundaries be

reviewed again, as they were changed in 2009 and in 2011. She stressed that the best interests of all children impacted need to be considered.

In response to a query from Trustee Fisher regarding whether, during

her outreach with other parents, the number of parents seeking a full accommodation review had increased, Ms. Konkle noted that many families have only recently found out about the Munster E.S. motion and would prefer a full accommodation review.

iii. Anne Marie Garbolinsky, Parent, Country Club Village

Ms. Garbolinsky, speaking in agreement with the previous two

delegations, noted that implementing EFI at Munster E.S. was a very short-term solution, satisfying the Munster E.S. supporters who are trying to save their school. She questioned how this would positively serve the children and families not living in the village of Munster.

She noted that her family lives in the Country Club Village subdivision,

which is between Stittsville and Carleton Place. Students are able to attend an English program at Munster E.S. and an EFI program at A. Lorne Cassidy E.S. She stressed that she did not wish to move her two children from the EFI program at A. Lorne Cassidy E.S.

Ms. Garbolinsky related her concerns to the OCDSB District Goals:

Student well-being - the school boundaries have been changed in 2009 and 2011, and with this change it would be three changes in five years;

Engagement - questioned why the Board would consider moving 150 students from Stittsville schools to save 80 students as a transition measure, until additional changes are required;

Leadership - questioned the high costs of maintaining an under-utilized school in a declining population and how this was an effective financial management practice; and


- 78 -

Learning – limited program availability that will be offered at Munster E.S. will not compare with what the students are currently receiving.

iv. Jemellee Seletaria, Parent, A. Lorne Cassidy E.S. Ms. Seletaria advised that she lives in the Country Club Village and is

within the boundary of Munster E.S. for the English program and A. Lorne Cassidy E.S. for the EFI program. She expressed opposition to changing the boundaries for the EFI program. Ms. Seletaria noted that, even with the larger population at Munster E.S., the Munster community would not be able to offer the same level of educational and sporting programs currently available at A. Lorne Cassidy E.S., nor would they be able to provide the same social environment. She added that they had chosen A. Lorne Cassidy E.S. for their children as it was a Junior Kindergarten to grade 8 school and Munster E.S. is only Junior Kindergarten to grade 5.

Ms. Seletaria noted that, although they live just outside Stittsville, their

lives are embedded in the Stittsville community. They participate in extra-curricular activities and spend most of their social time in the area. She added that she works in the downtown area and Stittsville is conveniently located on her route to and from work and the change would disrupt their lives. She noted that, if this change were made, her children would end up attending two different schools in September 2015. Ms. Seletaria requested that a full accommodation review be approved.

v. Erin Laporte, Parent, Country Club Village

Erin Laporte, a parent in Country Club Village, expressed concern with

the possible EFI boundary change. She noted that one of the factors her family considered when they purchased their home is where their children would attend school. Also, by having her children in Stittsville, it allows her husband a quick and efficient commute on his way to work in downtown Ottawa. She stressed that moving her children to Munster would result in incredible challenges with the commute and a substantial increase in time.

Ms. Laporte noted that another challenge would be childcare as

Stittsville offers a variety of childcare options, from daycare centres, to extended day programs, as well as a variety of home daycare options. She added that, should their children be moved, they would have to uproot their children from the security of the home daycare to which they have grown accustomed.

In response to a question from Trustee Fisher regarding their commute

to work, Ms. Laporte advised that she works shift work, so transporting her children is her husband’s responsibility and if he had to back track to Munster, it would add another hour to his daily transportation.


- 79 -

b. 2-Minute Delegations

i. Tina Allison, Chair Richmond P.S. School Council

Tina Allison, Chair of Richmond Public School, School Council, noted

that Richmond Public School is a dual track school offering English and Middle French Immersion (MFI). Currently the MFI enrollment reflects a fairly even split between students from the Munster and Richmond areas. She pointed out that it was obvious that the strength of their MFI program depends on the influx of children from the Munster area. Ms. Allison noted that this point, the change along with the District wide decline in enrollment would negatively impact the strength of future programming at Richmond Public School.

ii. Shauna Read-Overhoff, Parent, Munster E.S.

Shauna Read-Overhoff expressed support for the study of possibly

moving EFI to Munster E.S. She noted that, with the study encompassing such a large area, there is a need to commence now. She acknowledged the concerns of the parents who were trying to save Munster E.S.; however, she stressed that parents also want to have EFI in their respective community and currently nearly 200 children are bused out to schools in Stittsville, which are over capacity. Ms. Read-Overhoff noted that Munster E.S. has space, an expansive outdoor green space, and the projected growth in Stittsville will mean that there will be capacity issues in the future.

iii. Shannon Morrow, Chair, Munster E.S. School Council

Shannon Morrow agreed that having children attend different schools is

difficult but stressed that Munster is a small but great community, which has not changed for many years and there are no plans to expand the housing in the area. She noted that, in the past, the community has been able to support the school population, but now many parents are sending their children outside the community for Early French Immersion. She stressed that Munster has the same technology offered as in other schools, i.e., many iPads and a SMART Board and the school is also used for many activities by the community in the evening. Ms. Morrow stated that she was proud of Munster E.S., a small school full of heart, and invited other parents to come for a visit.

In response to a query from Trustee Fisher regarding whether she would

be opposed to a broader accommodation study, Ms. Morrow noted that changes are presently required and there was not time for a larger accommodation review. She added that currently there are 86 students from Munster bused into Stittsville.


- 80 -

iv. Jessica Breckenridge, Parent, Munster Elementary School

Jessica Breckenridge noted that, from what she has heard, the review in the fall will include all the communities and there is a strong chance that the students living in Country Club Village could end up at A. Lorne Cassidy E.S. She expressed concern that a full accommodation review would take too much time, and noted that Munster has an adequate number of students, who are currently being bused out, to support the new EFI program.

In response to a query from Trustee Seward regarding whether there

were enough students in the Munster area to support an EFI program, Ms. Breckenridge advised that there are 14 children currently being bused out of the neighbourhood. She added that new home sales were lower due to the requirement for the children to be bused to Stittsville. She expressed the view that there were enough children for the program, but noted that the review would confirm this.

v. Robyn Fraser, Parent, Richmond Public School

Robyn Fraser, a parent of two children attending Richmond Public

School, noted that the school is a heritage building, maintained and updated. With the recent addition the school provides plenty of space and is accessible.

vi. Laurie Neff, Parent, Munster Elementary School

Laurie Neff, speaking in agreement with the delegations supporting

having EFI at Munster Elementary School, noted that when the study commences, she will invite the surrounding communities to visit Munster Elementary School.

Trustee Fisher noted that the other delegations were not speaking

against Munster E.S. and Richmond P.S. but were highlighting the activities that are provided within the City.

vii. Janet Cottreau, Parent, Country Club Village

Janet Cottreau noted that she lives in Country Club Village, a community

of approximately 135 homes. She noted that her family moved there looking for a rural community which was linked to Stittsville, which is the key stop on the commuting route. She stressed that many new families have moved to this community with the understanding that the schooling options would not change. Ms. Cottreau advised that the community has lobbied successfully to have a direct route provided into Stittsville, and the work is to commence in 2015. She added that the community has formed strong ties with the Stittsville community.


- 81 -

viii. Chris Potts, Parent, Munster Elementary School Chris Potts noted that his daughter will be attending Munster E.S. for Junior Kindergarten in the fall. As a parent, he would like to have his children provided with the best opportunities. He stressed that the loss of the MFI program at Richmond P.S. would have a negative effect. The population is cyclical; there are new developments in Richmond. Students at Munster E.S. should be the first priority in the study as they will be directly impacted, so the decision should not be based on students who are currently not enrolled at the school.

ix. Doreen Manley

Doreen Manley advised that she has done some research and came

across a posting from the Munster Community Association on April 17 noting that if Munster continues to have low enrolment it could affect property values. She noted that her family lives in the Munster area, which is a beautiful community, but is small, and expressed the view that she was not interested in placing her children in the small school. Ms. Manley advised that families will transfer to the coterminous school board.

Chair McKenzie thanked all delegations for their presentations.

88. Confirmation of Board Minutes

25 March 2014 a.

Moved by Trustee Holtzhauer, seconded by Trustee Fisher, THAT the 25 March 2014 Board minutes be confirmed.

- Carried –

08 April 2014, Special b.

Moved by Trustee Fisher, seconded by Trustee Seward, THAT the 08 April 2014 Special Board minutes be confirmed.

- Carried –

89. Business Arising from the Minutes

25 March 2014 a. In response to a request from Trustee Shea regarding the supplemental

memorandum provided regarding immunizations, staff agreed to request the number of immunization exemptions (Statement of Conscience or Religious Belief Affidavits) that have been received for the District, from the Public Health Department.


- 82 -

08 April 2014, Special b.

There was no business arising from the minutes.

90. Matters for Action

Receipt of Committee of the Whole Minutes a. i. Receipt of Report 17, Committee of the Whole, 01 April 2014

Moved by Trustee Seward, seconded by Trustee Scott,

THAT Report 17, Committee of the Whole, dated 01 April 2014, be received.

- Carried –

ii. Receipt of Report 19, Committee of the Whole, 15 April 2014 Moved by Trustee Seward, seconded by Trustee Fisher,

THAT Report 19, Committee of the Whole, dated 15 April 2014, be received.

- Carried –

Consent Items:

1. Approval of the Consultation Plan for the Capital Plan Decision-Making Framework

Moved by Trustee Campbell, substituting for Trustee Blackburn, seconded by Trustee Seward,

THAT the consultation plan for the Capital Plan Decision-Making Framework be approved. (Attached as Appendix A)

- Carried by consent –



(10)

AGAINST: Nil

(0)



- 83 -

b. Non-Consent Items:

1. Approval to Proceed with the Study and Consultation re Introduction of Early French Immersion at Munster E.S.

Moved by Trustee Scott, seconded by Trustee Seward,

THAT staff be directed to proceed with such study and consultation as may be necessary to prepare a plan to introduce Early French Immersion at Munster Elementary School in September 2015, including such other recommendations as may be feasible to ensure viable programs at Munster Elementary School and Richmond Public School, with a preliminary report to the Board on the process to be followed no later than June 2014, and recommendations regarding the transition, beginning grade structure (including phase-in) and attendance boundaries no later than December 2014.

In introducing the motion, Trustee Scott noted that this proposal has occasioned a lot of interest in Munster, Richmond, Westwind and the A. Lorne Cassidy school area. She advised that, prior to bringing forward the motion she had spoken with the principals and chairs of the school councils of the affected schools, hoping that this would inform the communities. Trustee Scott noted that the motion is asking that staff bring forward a report and possibly recommendations. Staff has indicated that Munster Elementary School would be the logical place for an Early French Immersion program as there is space at the school. Trustee Scott advised that the expectation is that there will be consultation with the Munster community and all other affected schools. Only when the staff review is complete will the scope be known, including whether a full scale accommodation review is required. Trustee Scott stated that this motion, if approved, only commences the study and does not make the decision regarding the establishment of the EFI program at Munster E.S. and urged colleagues support. Trustee Campbell noted that he was in support of the commencement of a study by staff, but expressed the view that the motion should be revised to reflect this. A short recess was called at 9:18 p.m. to discuss with staff possible rewording of the motion. The meeting was called back to order at 9:25 p.m.

An amendment moved by Trustee Campbell, seconded by Trustee Scott,

THAT “including but not limited to the introduction of” be added after “necessary to prepare a plan”; delete “to introduce”; and “including scope of the study and consultation” be added after “on the process to be followed”.

- Carried, friendly -


- 84 -

In response to a concern from Trustee Holtzhauer regarding the impact on staff’s work as this was not originally in the Board’s Work Plan, Manager Carty Ostafichuk advised that this motion does broaden the deliverables, but noted that staff will seek to deliver a concise report. Trustees Fisher, McKenzie and Seward, speaking in support of the amended motion, noted that the approach is now expanded, taking into consideration the communities’ views. Trustee Kavanagh reminded trustees of the ripple effect; what may seem like a simple idea of putting one program in schools could have far extending implications for other schools. In wrap-up, Trustee Scott noted that the amendment clarifies the motion. She added that, in this area there is Stittsville at the top with three elementary schools with English and Early French Immersion (EFI), and then south is Goulbourn Middle School, a triple track grade 6 to 8 school, where all the students on the left side of the boundary are transported to either Stittsville for EFI or Richmond for MFI, and the students in the southern part are transported to Kars. Trustee Scott stressed that the area the motion covers is a large area that does not have an EFI program and the only MFI program is at Richmond Public School. Moved by Trustee Scott, seconded by Trustee Seward,

THAT staff be directed to proceed with such study and consultation as may be necessary to prepare a plan, including but not limited to the introduction of Early French Immersion at Munster Elementary School in September 2015, including such other recommendations as may be feasible to ensure viable programs at Munster Elementary School and Richmond Public School, with a preliminary report to the Board on the process to be followed, including scope of the study and consultation, no later than June 2014, and recommendations regarding the transition, beginning grade structure (including phase-in) and attendance boundaries no later than December 2014.

- Carried, unanimous –



(10)

AGAINST: Nil

(0)



- 85 -

2. Approval of the Extended Day Program Policy Moved by Trustee Campbell, seconded by Seward,

THAT the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board Policy P.035.SCO: Extended Day Programs be approved.

Trustee Seward assumed the Chair for the discussion of this agenda item. In introducing the motion, Trustee Campbell noted that staff has

addressed the concerns raised at Committee and recommended trustees’ support.

Moved by Trustee McKenzie, seconded by Trustee Scott, THAT the Board move to adopt the rules of Committee.

- Carried –

* * * * * * * * * *

The Board moved into Committee of the Whole, public at 9:40 p.m. Trustee McKenzie expressed concern with Section 4.18, noting that she has been informed from third party partners that there are instances where there are barriers and concerns regarding being able to offer a before-and – after program, moving away from a blended program. She added in small communities there are significant barriers. An amendment moved by Trustee McKenzie,

THAT in section 4.18, delete “including, but not limited to, flexibility in scheduling, fees, or program size,” and add “after consultation with the principal and other stakeholders who represent communities’ views”.

In introducing the amendment, Trustee McKenzie noted that some third party partners are paying a mortgage on the building where the service is being offered and the District has informed them that a break on the rent cannot be provided. Other partners, due to limited staffing, cannot offer the same flexibility or the before-and-after care as that of the District. Trustee McKenzie expressed the view that this should be discussed with the third party partners ensuring that issues are resolved in a way that is reasonable and fair across the District. Director Adams advised that there are parents seeking spaces and when the information is provided on the locations, the third party partners are consulted to see if they are able to expand to accommodate their needs. Associate Director Piovesan added that any concerns are raised through the principal and then discussions are held with the third party partners. He noted


- 86 -

that the agreement is not with the school but with the District, and staff seeks to resolve all issues. Trustee Campbell, speaking in favour of the amendment, expressed the view that this amendment would provide balance and would be reassuring for both parties. Trustee Fisher expressed concern with the amendment’s wording and noted that the discussions should be in consultation with the stakeholders and he questioned that should the third party partner not meet the demands, the District should reserve the right to cancel the third party program and run its own program and not have two programs running, competing against each other. Trustee Scott expressed concern with the wording “after discussion with the third party partner, the partner is still not able to meet needs” and questioned who the discussions would be between. A brief recess was called at 9:59 p.m. The Committee was called back to order at 10:06 p.m. With the Committee’s consent the amendment was withdrawn. Moved by Trustee McKenzie,

THAT section 4.18 read, “Where, after discussion between the District and the Third Party Partner, including consultation with the Principal and other community stakeholders, the Partner is still not able to meet community needs, the District reserves the right to run a parallel program.

- Carried, friendly - In response to a query from Trustee Boothby, Associate Director Piovesan confirmed that the third party partner agreements will be formatted with the same terms and requirements as the Districts. Trustee Boothby suggested that an annual report be brought forward to trustees regarding the concerns or complaints raised by parents on the extended day program. Trustee McKenzie expressed the view that equitable funding should be added to the policy. Associate Director Piovesan explained that a per capita amount is provided per student; however, further supplements could be provided for schools with socio-economic need. An amendment moved by Trustee McKenzie, THAT a new Section 4.16 be added: “Funding shall be provided

to Extended Day Programs in equitable manner according to socio-economic need.”


- 87 -

Trustee Campbell, although supporting the amendment, noted that due to the fee based nature he questioned the implementation and what factors would be considered, i.e., review general school demographics and location. Director Adams advised that there will be families receiving subsidies from the municipality, families who can afford to pay the fees, and families that do not qualify for subsidies and Trustee Campbell questioned how this could be operationalized. A sub-amendment moved by Trustee Fisher, THAT “an” be added prior to “equitable”.

- Carried, friendly – Trustee Fisher noted that the costs are covered from the rates charged

and expressed concern with the possible increase to the rates required. He then enquired whether the Ministry of Education has provided a definitive answer regarding subsidization of certain aspects of the program. Director Adams advised that the program is required to be cost recovery so any subsidies would need to be assumed through the cost of the program. Discussion ensued regarding the policy language. Executive Officer Giroux noted that the funds allocated to the schools for the program do not take into account school size or program size, which is a contributing factor. She questioned whether the issue of equity, in terms of program supports to schools should be addressed in section 3.2 e). With the Committee’s consent Trustee McKenzie withdrew the amendment. An amendment moved by Trustee McKenzie, THAT section 3.2 e) be revised to read “equity of access for all

students shall be a priority in the delivery of extended day programs, including location, fee structure, programming, and program support/funding to schools;

- Carried, friendly -

Speaking to the motion, Trustee Scott noted that there are many needs, other than socio-economic, within the District. She added that, although the revised wording in section 4.18 states that the District reserves the right to run a parallel program, in her opinion, the District would not compete with the third party partners. Trustee Fisher expressed concern that childcare programs should not be intertwined with the extended day program. He noted that there are different ways the third party partners are licenced and some have a lower limit for childcare, but for the extended day program, it is a matter of availability and


- 88 -

space in the schools and whether staff is available. Speaking in agreement, Director Adams added that, even for the extended day third party partners there are different rules than for District run programs. An amendment moved by Trustee McKenzie, THAT in section 4.19, add “annual schedules” prior to “daily

schedules”. - Carried, friendly –

Trustee McKenzie expressed concern that another barrier some parents have is with transportation if the students do not walk to school and noted that transportation should be provided when there are distance and socio-economic factors, including rural areas. She added that two buses could be provided, one at the end of the school day and one at 6 p.m. Director Adams submitted that providing transportation would have signficant implications for both finance and operations. She added that this would be a significant change and further information could be provided to trustees by way of a memorandum at a later date. An amendment moved by Trustee McKenzie, THAT a new section 4.21 be added, “That a minimum of two staff

be on site at all times.” Associate Director Piovesan expressed concern indicating that the Extended Day Program is a cost recovery program and this could result in the program running with three students and the requirement for two staff members. Trustee McKenzie noted that there were only a few sites with the minimum number of students in the program and expressed the view that the costs, spread over the District, would not make a significant difference to the fees charged. Trustee Campbell expressed the view that the provision does not specify the staff position and various options could be considered, for example, possibly a custodian could count as the additional staff in some instances. He expressed support for the amendment from a safety and security standpoint. In response to a query, Associate Director Piovesan noted that staffing ratios in the Ministry Regulation are clear that there be one staff, an Early Childhood Educator (ECE) for any programs under 13 children, and that for programs of 14 children or more, an Early Learning Assistant (ELA) be added. Trustee Fisher noted that the ratios are already defined, and cautioned against discussing the procedural aspects of identifying staff members. He requested that further information on the funding implications and how this would be put into practice be provided.


- 89 -

Trustee Scott noted that further information around health and safety for the program in general, should be provided.

*** The 10:30 p.m. vote obtained the required 2/3 majority to continue the meeting * * *

In wrap-up on the amendment, Trustee McKenzie noted that the amendment is being brought forward for safety reasons or in the event of an emergency. She expressed the view that this will not add a large increase to the fees charged and, if a good program is provided, more students will enrol. She urged trustees support for the sake of the security of staff and the children. An amendment moved by Trustee McKenzie, THAT a new section 4.21 be added, “That a minimum of two staff

be on site at all times.” - Carried –

In wrap-up on the motion, Trustee Campbell noted that there has been good

debate, many changes made and urged the trustees to support the motion. Moved by Trustee Campbell, seconded by Seward,

THAT the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board Policy P.035.SCO: Extended Day Programs be approved, as amended.

- Carried, unanimous - Moved by Trustee Scott, THAT the Committee move to end the rules of Committee.

- Carried –

* * * * * * * * * * The Board meeting was called back to order at 10:40 p.m.

Trustee Seward reported that Board met in Committee this evening and reports and recommends as follows:

Moved by Trustee Campbell, seconded by Seward,

THAT the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board Policy P.035.SCO: Extended Day Programs be approved, as amended. (attached as appendix B)

- Carried, unanimous -


- 90 -



(10)

AGAINST: Nil

(0)


91. Adjournment

Chair McKenzie suggested that, due to the lateness, the strategic objective discussion be delayed.

Moved by Trustee Seward, seconded by Trustee Boothby, THAT the meeting adjourn.

- Carried -

The meeting adjourned at 10:44 p.m. Jennifer Adams Jennifer McKenzie Director of Education and Chair of the Board Secretary of the Board

Appendix A to Board Minutes, 22 April 2014

OCDSB Form 644: Consultation Plan (April 2009)

CONSULTATION PLAN (REFERENCES: POLICY P.110.GOV AND PROCEDURE PR.644.GOV)

DATE: March 20, 2014

PROJECT:

(Project name, Letter of

Transmittal, etc.)

Capital Plan Decision Making Framework

CONTACT / PROJECT LEAD

(Name, telephone, email):

Karyn Carty Ostafichuk, Mgr Planning 613.596.8786

WHAT?

1. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSULTATION? (Describe project scope, nature of consultation, decision to be made, and any relevant information)

To outline the progress to date in developing a construct for future Capital Plan decision making

To receive feedback on the direction charted

To receive feedback on governing policy

WHY?

2. WHY ARE YOU CONSULTING? (Check all that apply)

__x___ To seek advice, informed opinion or input for consideration prior to decision-making?

__x__ To share information and/or create awareness about a subject/potential recommendations/decision yet to be made?

____ To share information and awareness about a subject/recommendation/decision that has been made?

____ Other? (Please explain)

3. HOW DOES THIS CONSULTATION LINK TO THE OCDSB STRATEGIC PLAN, DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT PLAN, BUDGET, ANNUAL DISTRICT

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND/OR RELEVANT MINISTRY / OCDSB POLICIES OR PROCEDURES (if applicable)?

Ensuring viable and quality learning spaces is a major component of the implementation of the Board’s strategic plan, impacting on curriculum

delivery, instructional conditions and community resources for long time frames. Developing a decision framework to prioritize capital needs will facilitate

the Board’s decision making, ensuring the integrity of decisions impacting over a twenty to fifty year timeframe.




WHO?

4. WHO WILL BE CONSULTED? (Key stakeholders) (Check all that apply)

OCDSB Community Internal to OCDSB External / Other (please identify)

__x__ Students _____ Trustees _____ Agencies/associations __________________

__x__ Parents/guardians _____ Superintendents _____ Community groups ____________________

__x___ School council(s) _____ Principals and/or Vice-principals __x___ General Public __________________

__x___ Ottawa Carleton Assembly of School Councils _____ Managers _____ Other governments ____________________

_____ Advisory committees (Specify below) _____ District staff _____ Other ______________________________

_____ Special Education Advisory Committee, etc _____ Federations

_____ Other ______________________ _____ Other __________________________

Please describe or expand on who will be consulted and any partners in the consultation:

There is proposed to be both targeted consultations and a general public meeting to discuss this matter

5. HAVE ANY OF THESE STAKEHOLDERS BEEN INVOLVED IN INFORMAL CONSULTATION AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PLAN?

In accordance with section 4.3 of Policy P.110.GOV, it is expected that informal consultation has taken place with representative stakeholders to obtain their suggestions prior to

finalizing this plan. Please describe below. (If this informal consultation did not take place, explain why it was not feasible.)

A series of reports regarding the process have been presented publicly. Most recent and comprehensive was Report 14-012 discussed in January 2014

HOW?

6. HOW WILL STAKEHOLDERS BE MADE AWARE OF THIS CONSULTATION PROCESS? (Check all that apply)

___x_ Media advertisement (print and/or radio) ______ School newsletter

____ Letter distribution __x____ Website (schools and/or OCDSB sites)

____ School council(s) ______ Other

__x__ Ottawa Carleton Assembly of School Councils

Please describe how stakeholders will be made aware of the consultation process and any special requirements for consultation (translation, alternate formats, etc)?

7. HOW WILL THE CONSULTATION BE CARRIED OUT? (Check all that apply)

__x__ Focus groups ______ Ottawa Carleton Assembly of School Councils

____ Interviews ___x___ Public meetings

____ Mail-out or email circulation ______ Survey / questionnaire

____ Open houses / workshops / cafes ___x___ Web-based notice / Web-based comments

____ School council(s) ______ Other

Please describe:




WHEN?

8. PROJECT PLAN FOR CONSULTATION (KEY ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS)1:

i.e. Identify plan approval dates; Timelines for awareness of consultation; Specific consultation initiatives; Timelines for analysis;

Date for Committee/Board deliberation; Evaluation of consultation

TARGETTED DATE FOR FINAL DECISION: October 2014

PROJECTED

DATE(S)

ACTIVITY/MILESTONE

NOTES**

8 May 2014

Ottawa Carleton Assembly of School Councils (OCASC)

Tentative

15 May 2014

Public Meeting

Tentative

1 Outline provides information on the minimal number of activities proposed, which may be amended to intensify the process if required.

Further information on the overall project/initiative and the specific consultation plan and process can be provided in the Letter of Transmittal to Board.




**In filling out this chart, please note:

the materials, reports or resources that will be distributed to stakeholders, either in advance or at the session;

any constraints such as necessary deadlines, availability of stakeholders; and

the timelines for communicating the outcome/related decisions reached to those consulted.

9. HOW WILL THE RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION AND THE RATIONALE OF THE FINAL DECISION BE COMMUNICATED TO ALL

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE PROCESS? (Check all that apply)

_____ Email circulation ________ School / principal communications / newsletter

_____ Letter distribution ________ Website (schools and/or OCDSB sites)

___x__ Letter of Transmittal to committee/Board ________ Media reports

________ Other

Please describe:

OTHER

10. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THE CONSULTATION* (i.e. advertising, facilities, translation, materials):

Within departmental budget

* Note that the consulting body bears responsibility for the costs of the consultation.

11. EVALUATION:

Please specify the method(s) you plan to use to assess the effectiveness and success of this consultation process. (e.g., outcomes/results, satisfaction of participants, debriefs,

questionnaires/evaluation sheet collected from participants, peer review, school council meeting discussion with date, etc.)

Approval of Policy

Appendix B, Board Minutes, 22 April 2014

-1- P.035.SCO

POLICY P.035.SCO

TITLE: EXTENDED DAY PROGRAMS

Date issued: 22 April 2014 Last revised: Authorization: Board: 22 April 2014

1.0 OBJECTIVE

To ensure the effective delivery of quality programming in Extended Day Programs offered by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board directly or by Third-Party Partners.

2.0 DEFINITIONS

In this policy,

2.1 Board refers to the Board of Trustees.

2.2 Core Day Learning refers to the programming offered to children during the regularly scheduled instructional day.

2.3 District refers to the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.

2.4 Early Learning refers to educational programming for children from 0-12 years of age.

2.5 Extended Day Program refers to educational programming and care for school aged children between the ages of 4-12 before school, after school, and on Professional Activity days, Christmas holidays, March Break and during the summer.

2.6 Municipality refers to the City of Ottawa.

2.7 Third-Party Partner refers to a licensed not-for-profit agency, a business or Municipality that has entered into an agreement with the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board to deliver the Extended Day Program on its behalf.

3.0 POLICY

Policy Statement 3.1 The District recognizes the value of Early Learning as a foundation for the lifelong

learning and well-being of children in support of their future success. Extended Day Programs are an extension of Core Day learning and will be offered in accordance with the Ministry of Education’s program directives.

-2- P.035.SCO

Guiding Principles 3.2 The following guiding principles shall govern the learning opportunities for students in all

Extended Day Programs no matter who delivers the program: a) the emotional well-being and physical safety of students shall be the first priority;

b) the District shall offer annually the opportunity for all students between the ages of 4 and 12 to register for an Extended Day Program;

c) all Extended Day Programs shall adhere to the Board’s educational values, beliefs, policies, and procedures and produce measureable benefits for students;

d) the District believes that every student enrolled in an Extended Day Program is able to learn and to benefit from learning, and upholds the right of each student with special education and/or second language needs to an extended day program appropriate to that student's needs which enables him or her to participate to the best of his or her ability;

e) Equity of access for all students shall be a priority in the delivery of extended day programs, including location, fee structure, programming, and program support/funding to schools;

f) the District values its long standing partnership with Third Party Partners in providing learning opportunities and care for all students. and will continue to work co-operatively with Third Party Partners to provide services that benefit the communities they jointly serve; and

g) community needs shall be considered in the operating parameters of an Extended Day Program.

4.0 SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES

4.1 The provision of the Extended Day Program is a priority for the District and as such shall have priority use of space for before and after school programming. Appropriate shared school space must be available to ensure effective program operation.

4.2 The Manager of Early Learning is responsible for the oversight of the District’s Extended Day Program and shall work in collaboration with the school principal.

4.3 The school principal is responsible for the supervision of the Extended Day Program at the school.

4.4 The Manager of Early Learning shall fulfill the duties of the principal for supervision of the Extended Day Program at the school during non-instructional periods including: Professional Activity days, Holidays, March Break and summer vacation.

4.5 The principal may delegate some or all of his or her duties as related to the on-site supervision of the Extended Day Program to a person other than the vice principal, as follows: a) the Manager of Early Learning;

b) the Supervisor, Early Learning Program; and

-3- P.035.SCO

c) in emergency situations, where none of the above noted positions are available, the principal may delegate authority to any person who the principal considers to be able to fulfill the duties responsibly for a specified period of time, for example the administrative designate or an Early Childhood Educator .

4.6 The delegation of authority shall be made in writing, except in emergency situations where it may be done orally.

4.7 Where the principal has designated authority to someone other than the vice-principal, he or she shall notify the Superintendent of Instruction.

4.8 The school council shall act in an advisory capacity to the principal on matters related to the Extended Day Program in the school.

4.9 Extended Day Programs shall comply with Ontario’s School Food and Beverage Policy.

District Extended Day Programs 4.10 All District programs shall adhere to the administrative directives as outlined in the

Education Act, Regulation 221/11.

4.11 The District shall offer the Extended Day Program at any school site where three or more students have registered and paid for the program and the District will expand the program capacity as required to meet increases in registration.

4.12 The hours of operation of the Extended Day Program shall be consistent across the District.

4.13 Fees for Extended Day Programs shall be established on a net cost-recovery basis, in accordance with Ministry directives and shall be approved on an annual basis by the Board.

4.14 The District shall establish a schedule for registration and fees in a manner which provides a range of options in the hours, days or months that a child can be enrolled in the program.

4.15 The Principal and Manager of Early Learning shall, in consultation, determine the specific school space(s) that will be shared for use with the Extended Day Program.

Third-Party Partners for Extended Day Programs 4.16 Where there is a Third-Party Partner delivering an Extended Day Program on behalf of

the District, a written agreement between the District and the Partner shall be made that shall include, but not be limited to, the following issues: a) the operational requirements of the program including: daily schedules, program

location, fee structures, hours of operation;

b) the roles and responsibilities of the partners;

c) the accountability structure of the program and the process for the review of any curriculum/program mandated by the province;

d) communication protocols;

-4- P.035.SCO

e) termination and dispute resolution mechanisms; and

f) any legal provisions as might be required by the Education Act and/or the Day Nurseries Act or any other pertinent legislation.

4.17 Where applicable, the Third-Party Partner shall be consulted in decisions regarding shared space.

4.18 Where, after discussion between the District and the Third Party Partner, including consultation with the Principal, and the other community stakeholders, the Partner is still not able to meet community needs, the District reserves the right to run a parallel program.

Parent/Guardian Communications 4.19 All Extended Day Programs, whether operated by a Third-Party Partner or the District

shall make available to all parents/guardians, information regarding: a) the operational requirements of the program including: annual schedules, daily

schedules, program location, fee structures, hours of operation;

b) communication protocols; and

c) parent/guardian dispute resolution processes.

4.20 The program Partner, whether it is the District or a Third-Party Partner, is responsible for communicating with parents who have registered children in the program in a timely fashion. Where a parent has a concern, he or she should first contact the program Partner. Where the operator is a Third-Party Partner, and the concern is not resolved, the parent may contact the District.

General 4.21 A minimum of two staff shall be on-site in all Extended Day Programs, at all times.

4.22 Transportation to and from Extended Day Programs is the responsibility of the parent/guardian.

4.23 The District shall establish a process for appropriate auditing and review of all Extended Day Programs.

4.24 The Director of Education is authorized to issue such procedures as may be necessary to implement this policy.

5.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

Education Act, Regulation 221/11 Day Nurseries Act R.R.O 1990, Regulation 262 Policy and Program Memorandum 150: School Food and Beverage Policy Board Policy P.014 SCO: School Councils Board Policy P.111 GOV: Advisory Committee for Extended Day and Child Care Programs

a meeting of the ottawa-carleton district school board was ......minutes 22 april 2014 - 74 - a...

Documents