The following are the instructions to QEA supporters posted on their web page for filling out the feedback form along with suggested cut and paste options for the comments section.

We need to ensure that the Vancouver School Board hears our community’s objections to their proposal to close and sell our school from as many people as possible. One of the most important ways you can do this is to fill out the VSB On-Line Feedback form! (takes 5 Minutes). Make sure to put comments in the free form section of the form. If you want to refer to some comments/background info, please refer to this great letter Example #4 – you could even cut and paste into the OnLine form.

The VSB will tabulate data collected from these forms to assist with their decision re: closure of our school

As Dawn Steele pointed out in a comment on the Vancouver Sun Blog, the VSB consultative survey methodology is seriously flawed. Anyone can fill out the survey as many times as they wish. There is no mechanism in place to control block submissions or cut and paste answers on the feedback form. Let’s hope that when the school board makes their decision that they rely upon a sound methodological measure of community sentiment, not a vote once, vote often survey.

COPE | The Coalition of Progressive Electors

Seismic upgrading concerns emerge:
“I am appalled that since this NPA-dominated board has come to power in 2005, not a single Vancouver school has been approved for seismic upgrading,” said COPE Trustee Allan Wong.

Wong notes that the UBC/Dunbar Study schedules University Hill Secondary and Queen Elizabeth Main Elementary for seismic upgrading, bumping them above other schools that were accorded a higher priority on the VSB list of designated schools. Wong says this is as an example of how the current isolated approach is distorting district-wide planning.

There is a minor error in the COPE news release quoted above: -they state that U Hill Secondary is being bumped ahead of other schools for seismic. This is incorrect. U Hill Secondary is not up for seismic upgrades. Under the past COPE majority Board, U Hill Secondary was placed on the capital spending plan for a renovation to increase the school to 675 students. This isn’t jumping ahead, it’s barely keeping pace.

COPE School Trustees oppose sale of Queen Elizabeth school annex. | COPE

What is the solution that COPE offers for rebuilding our schools? It is clear they are opposed to the NPA’s approach (and with good reason); but what is their plan that will have students currently forced onto buses back into neighbourhood schools before they grow up? It is one thing to take an oppositional perspective, to speak for the ‘big picture,’ but what about the children right now who don’t have access to a proper school? What a bout the families without the means to drive their children across town to school? What about equity? It’s a hard solution and it takes courage to start reallocating public resources. Sometimes it is a job that has to be done.

Vancouver Sun blogs

Comments posted to Van Sun Blog :Page 1;Page 2.

Urgent demand for school spaces at UBC

Save Garibaldi Annex!: VSB REORGANIZATION AND FUTURE OF SCHOOL ANNEXES

Dear Prof. Menzies:

Thank you for your email in which you express concern about upcoming decisions of the Trustees of the Vancouver School Board in relation to various schools on the west side of Vancouver. I have read the consultation document of the VSB. First, let me be clear that UBC will not be directly involved in the decisions to be taken by the VSB. As you indicate, there is clearly a need for a new elementary school on or near the UBC campus. The demographic data in the VSB report is strong on that point. How the VSB wishes to address the issue is something with which the university would not wish to interfere. UBC’s offer to turn over the old NRC building to the VSB is merely meant to be facilitative, nothing more. I have asked that our VP External, Legal and Community Relations follow the VSB discussions on behalf of the university. It would be best for you to communicate with him directly. Best wishes for all your work,
Stephen

Stephen J.Toope
President and Vice-Chancellor
University of British Columbia

6328 Memorial Road
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T1Z2
Tel: 604 8228300
Fax 604 822 5055
e-mail:stephen.toope@ubc.ca

Dear Professor Toope,

I am writing to you in your capacity as the President of the University and also as a fellow parent concerned about the wellbeing of all students to request an opportunity for a representative group of parents from campus and nearby schools to meet with you to discuss the role that UBC might play in improving the educational opportunities for all of our children.

As you may be aware, last week (January 11, 2008) the Vancouver Board of Education released what they call Phase One of their Educational Facilities Review. This review contains proposals that will meet concerns that we, as parents and community members living in this area have long asked for -a renewed and expanded high school and an additional elementary school- all required to meet the rapid growth in school aged children that have resulted due to UBC’s development of housing. However, also included in this plan is the proposal to close a very effective and successful elementary school annex that has been lauded many times in the past for it’s amazing program and success.

This past Saturday, representatives from the Parent Advisory Councils of each of the affected schools (U Hill Elementary, U Hill Secondary, Jules Quesnel, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth Annex, Queen Mary, and Lord Byng Secondary) met to discuss our hopes and concerns as parents as related to the proposal.

We all recognize and understand the pressing need for improvements in schools at UBC. We also all appreciate that UBC, through it’s private development company, UBC Properties Trust, has made a commitment to offer the former NRC Building, provide some additional infrastructure, and has completed some initial preparation work as part of their contribution. Nonetheless, many of us were seriously concerned that only solution that seems to be available is the selling off of a highly effective neighbourhood school.

We are certain that with your consideration, with the support of development companies who are benefiting from the development of UBC lands, and with the commitment of parents such as those who met together this past Saturday, that we can find a solution that does not require the sacrifice of an excellent community school.

We look forward to hearing from you and trust that despite the business of your position that you can find a time to meet with us and discus a creative alternative to the sacrifice of Queen Elizabeth Annex.

With warm regards,

Charles Menzies
Member of U. Hill Secondary PAC and executive member of the Vancouver District Parents Advisory Council.

cc:
PAC reps from QEA, QE, QM, JQ, LB, U Hill Sec, U Hill Elem,
DPAC Chair, Julianne Doctor
VSB, Chris Kelly
UNA, Mike Feeley, Associate Chair

The Vancouver Board of Education publicly unveiled plans that had been circulating quieting in house since at lease December 18th, 2007. The Education Facilities Review report outlines plans to build a new secondary school at UBC using a former research building (the NRC Building at 16th and East Mall) and funds from from the sale of Queen Elizabeth Annex. The proposal also includes plans for seismic mitigation at three nearby elementary schools, the addition of a new elementary school at UBC, and the expansion of the current area French Immersion program.
Politically, the review manages to do a number of critical things. First, it answers a long standing demand from west Point Grey/UBC to address school growth needs, it avoids potentially controversial issues surrounding schools with declining enrolment in the northeast and center areas of the Vancouver.

The report itself was publicly released Thursday, January 10th at 5:30 pm. The day before closed door meetings were held with education partner groups (in the morning) and then with the affected schools ( in the afternoon). Meetings with administrators will be held Thursday morning and the trustees were briefed in a closed door meeting Tuesday evening.

My personal assessment is that the plan meets the demands that many of the people living in my community here in the growing UBC area have been calling for. But, as with any such plan of this magnitude, there are many details that have not been thought out and some there are some clear problems.

The most pressing concern is the impact of closing and selling Queen Elizabeth Annex (conservatively estimated to be worth 25 million dollars). Is this really the right thing to do? To close an excellent, functioning school and then selling it? What role should UBC play in funding the new school, what about the developers who are making a rich profit developing housing at UBC, shouldn’t they be expected to make a significant contribution?

While the plan, in general makes sense, there are many who will agree , I think that the money needs to be found elsewhere.

In their end of AGM press release the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils issued a statement saying that parents put safety first. Good idea -at least at first blush. But safety, according to the BCCPAC, sounds more like surveillance and discipline than about care and concern.

As noted in their press release the delegates at the annual convention voted to support the provincial governments new registry of teachers. In their resolution attending BCCPAC delegates voted that “the registry include the names of the educators, date of their criminal record checks, status of their teaching certificates, practicing status, education (including any specialty training) as well as their discipline histories, including a link to each history.” Why not insist that disciplined teachers wear a red letter ‘D.’

Safety at school is an important issue. Having public dissing-boards isn’t about safety -it’s about shaming and voyeurism.

On a related matter it would appear that the overwhelming support of the resolution implied in the press release is a big spin. One BCCPAC delegate who was at the annual convention has this to say on the matter:

I am concerned about . . . [the] resolutions and the news release that followed the AGM. Having spent my working life as a professional communicator/public relations practitioner, I note with surprise the emphasis put on the resolution regarding the teacher registry. Those at the conference will recall that this was a very close vote, which I believe (and please correct me if I’m wrong) passed with about 51.5% of votes cast in favour and 48.5% opposed. Given the low a representation of parents we had at the meeting (approx 327 proxies), I think it verges on misleading to make the statements included in the news release without some reference to how divided members are on the issue. In my own work, making a statement like this based on these kind of close numbers would raise a lot of ethical flags despite the technical validity of the vote, exposing the client for whom I was writing to potential criticism (and bad PR). I suggest some follow-up clarification is made to those to whom the release was distributed. Barring that, members may feel compelled to write their own letters of “clarification” along the lines of “While BCCPAC members, by a thin margin, voted in favor of a resolution supporting a public teacher registry, members were clearly divided on this issue, with some members raising concerns about…”

After being present at three BCCPAC AGMs I am continually struck by how often votes are so close that a hand count is required. What this indicates to me is that our membership is diverse and that on many issues, we don’t have a consensus or anything remotely resembling one. There is nothing wrong with that (and it’s a healthy sign of a democratic organization) but there is, in my opinion, something wrong with presenting a different “united” picture to the public, particularly in something so politically charged with legislation now at committee stage on this issue.