Hudson Accommodation Review Advisory Committee

1
Hudson Accommodation Review Advisory Committee

• Public Consultation Meeting
• October 16, 2008
• Lost Lake Drop In Centre
• Hudson, Ontario

2
Agenda

• Introduction of Committee Members
• Role of the Hudson ARAC
• Purpose of the Consultation Meeting
• Study Area
• ARAC Process
• Enrolment Information
• Accommodation Options
• Comments and questions from the audience
• Adjournment

3
Introductions

• Voting Members
• Robert ODonohue, KPDSB Trustee
• Norma Kejick, KPDSB Trustee
• Donald Fenelon, Municipal Appointee
• Judy Paskaruk, Hudson PS School Council
• Ron Angeconeb, Lac Seul First Nation
• Evelyn Tinney, Hudson Rep
• Jennifer Manitowabi, Frenchmans Head Rep

4
Introductions

• Non-Voting Members
• Dean Carrie, Supt. Of Business
• Caryl Hron, Asst. to the Director of Education
• Chris Conquer, Principal, Hudson PS
• Phillipa Griffiths, Teacher, Hudson PS
• Ex-officio Members
• David Penney, Chair, KPDSB
• Cecile Marcino, Vice-Chair, KPDSB

5
Role of the Hudson ARAC

• From Policy 802, School Viability and Closure
• to prepare a report to the board with
  recommendations concerning the accommodation
  needs of the pupils residing within the study
  area, and with respect to the schools identified
  for potential closure

6
Purpose of the Meeting

• From Board Policy 802, School Viability and
  Closure
• Conduct at least four public meetings to consult
  and present the school valuation(s) and
  recommendations
• Tonights meeting purpose is to consult

7
Study Area

• The area currently served by Hudson Public School
  including
• The community of Hudson
• The community of Frenchmans Head

8
Potential Closures

• Hudson Public School has been identified to be
  studied for potential closure

9
ARAC Process Timelines

• Sept 18/08 Reviewed policy valuation tool,
  distributed staff reports, establish committee
  work plan
• Oct 2/08 Discussion of staff reports,
  identification discussion of options
• October 16/08 Further discussion of options,
  determine survey requirements
• October 16/08 Public Consultation 1 in Hudson
• October 22/08 Public Consultation 2 in
  Frenchmans Head

10
ARAC Process Timelines contd

• Oct 20/08 Conduct surveys
• Nov 13/08 Review results of surveys and
  consultations, develop draft recommendation(s)
• Nov 20/08 Public Consultation 3 in Hudson
• Nov 26/08 Public Consultation 4 in Frenchmans
  Head
• Dec 11/08 - Review results of consultations

11
ARAC Process Timelines contd

• Dec 19/08 End of public consultation period
• Jan 8/09 Develop final recommendation(s)
• Jan 27/09 Present final recommendation(s) to
  Board

12
School Valuation

• Prepared for any school identified for potential
  closure
• Considerations and Weightings
• 55 - Value to the student
• 20 - Value to the community
• 20 - Value to the school board
• 5 - Value to the local economy

13
School Valuation (Continued)

• Reports (www.kpdsb.on.ca/arac)
• School Enrolment
• School Programs
• Facility Condition
• School Operating Costs Funding
• School Transportation
• Surveys
• Parents
• Community Members

14
School Valuation (Continued)

• When considering an option each individual on the
  council must apply the considerations and
  weightings tool approved by the Ministry of
  Education. The tool does not have a set formula
  and is the interpretation of the individual.
• Example - 55 value to the student. How does the
  option fit the needs of the student in regard to
  class size, access to extra curricular,
  educational resources and anything else pertinent
  to the student? 55 of the decision to embrace
  or vote no to this option must be based on value
  to the student.

15
School Valuation (Continued)

• Example 20 value to the community. Is this
  option a benefit, or hindrance to the community?
  20 of the decision to embrace or vote no to this
  option must be based on value to the community.
• Same approach is used for 20 value to the school
  board and 5 value to the local economy
• The students needs weigh more than the community
  needs, the community needs weigh more than the
  board needs, etc. This way the individual
  committee member bases their decision to embrace
  or reject an option on the same criteria as the
  other members.

16
School Enrolment Capacity as at September 2008
17
Enrolment by Grade Hudson PS Sept 2008
18
Enrolment History Hudson PS
19
Enrolment Projection Hudson PS
20
Accommodation Options

• 1. Status Quo Continue to operate school and
  renovate as required
• 2. Build New School in Hudson likely on a new,
  larger site
• 3. Close Hudson PS addition to Sioux Mountain
  PS may be required

21
Option 1

• Status Quo
• No immediate capital needs
• In next 5 years, likely need to replace roofing
  (45,000) and septic field (50,000)
• Continue to live with shortcomings of building
  (no gym, no library in main building, use of
  portables, small site)

22
Option 2

• Build new school in Hudson
• Eligible for prohibitive-to-repair funding, but
  no allocation secured at this time
• Some concerns about building new school in Hudson
  if Frenchmans Head also gets a new school
• Would need to secure a suitable site

23
Option 3

• Close Hudson PS
• Resident Hudson pupils could be accommodated at
  Sioux Mountain PS
• Addition to Sioux Mountain PS would be required
  to accommodate Frenchmans Head pupils
• Hudson PS closure may enhance prospect for
  federal funding of school at Frenchmans Head

24
Comments and Questions

• Please identify yourself by name
• State whether you are a parent of a child
  attending Hudson PS
• Give us your comments or ask a question of the
  committee
• Please complete a survey form if you would like
  to provide written comments to the committee

25
Adjournment

• Thank you for your participation!