STAAR - Comments and Responses

Comment 73: Please reconsider keeping the current kids in the school that they are in. Going forward all kids moving into this area have them go to Forest Park. My kids' next year will be in Grade 6 and 4. Changing schools is very stressful for them. I’m an active mother in our school, parent council, volunteer, I plan the dances and help with so much more. We are all sad to leave and wish to stay. School is more then a building it’s our friends our home away from home. Keeping our kids in our school still keeps our numbers below Lockes Public School. Please reconsider. 

Response 73: Thank you for your correspondence and my apologies for the delay in my response. One of the main objectives of the St. Thomas Elementary Panel Attendance Area Review was to return the Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone to Mitchell Hepburn. In order to avoid Mitchell Hepburn becoming over its intended capacity, a portion of its boundary was approved to be designated to Forest Park.

We do understand your concerns, and our focus will be on transitioning any students that may possibly move, as well as those who remain at their current schools, with care and compassion. We are committed to providing support to all of our learners as they experience changes and as they adjust to their new surroundings. Any concerns about impact are encouraged to be raised by parents, teachers or students to school teams and individual supports will be explored.

Comment 72: Can someone please remind me of the progress and next stages of the STAAR? Are the trustees voting soon? When will we find out the result?

Response 72: The final decision for the St. Thomas Attendance Area Review will be made by the Board of Trustees on Tuesday June 20, 2023.

Comment 71: Can you please provide details about the Public Delegation? Will there be PowerPoint templates for use? How long is each presentation and is there an outline? Who is allowed to sign up for a time slot?

Response 71: Details for Public Delegations will be included in the final AAR report. Details will include the date, time, in-person location and/or virtual call-in details, and when and where participants must register in advance.

There is no specific presentation template for participants. Board Services staff must receive presentations well in advance. Participants can submit once the Public Delegations date has been set and the final report is prepared. Board Service's contact information will be provided in advance.

As per Thames Valley District School Board bylaws, each registered participant is allowed five (5) minutes to speak. There is no outline.

This meeting is open to anyone registered.

It is an opportunity for the public to provide feedback on the final report to Trustees directly before their final decision. The final report is informed by school community feedback reports. It may include potential changes to recommendations and options presented in the initial report.

Comment 70:

Could information about each school’s start and end time be shared along with each school’s availability of before & after (B&A) care?

Response 70: 

Comment 69: Has John Wise boundaries been considered to change, to take on the newer homes around Southdale line? It would make more sense to have them at a school which is essentially down the road, vs. bussing them out of the city. This would also decrease enrolment at Kettle Creek and increase John Wise enrolment (which is below capacity).

Response 69: Thank you for your correspondence. The residential development South of Southdale Line is within the Elgin Court PS boundary. The combination of potentially taking in a portion of the John Wise boundary along with growth from new development, the utilization of Elgin Court PS is projected to exceed 90% in the year of implementation.

The space created at John Wise PS by assigning portions of its attendance boundary to nearby underutilized schools, being Forest Park PS and Elgin Court PS is proposed to be used to accommodate students from the Lynhurst neighbourhood currently attending Southwold PS.

Comment 68: Is there a reason legacy agreement wasn’t offered in any proposal for schools, including Mitchell Hepburn which is stated to be a maturing school (43% of the school is grade 6-8), where Summerside in London was, which has 12 portables and just opened this past September (these children wouldn’t have the same bond with the school as all of St.Thomas students would have)? 

Response 68: Thank you for your correspondence. To ensure our objective of balancing enrolment throughout St. Thomas is achieved. The current options under consideration proposes to include all students who reside within a portion of a boundary that is recommended to be assigned to another school.

However, the suggestion to include Legacy Agreements may certainly be submitted for Trustees’ consideration as part of the Attendance Area Review Subcommittee Report.

Comment 67: For those of who's children attend Kettle Creek, specifically in the primary grades; when it comes time to attend Mitchell Hepburn will they continue to be bussed, or because of the proximity to the school will they now have to walk? 

Response 67: Thank you for your correspondence, The Southeast St. Thomas Holding would be within the Mitchell Hepburn PS non-transportation zone.  If the proposed boundary changes to assign the Southeast St. Thomas Holding to Mitchell Hepburn PS proceed, students within the holding area would not be eligible for busing.

Comment 66: We were wondering if there is a designated spot for parents attending the sub-committee meeting to ask questions after the meeting has concluded. E.g., a few days pass and then they think of a question. Would they submit a question to https://www.tvdsb.ca/en/our-board/staar-comments-and-responses.aspx or is it the responsibility of the Sub-Committee to field questions from the parents even after the meeting has concluded? 

Response 66: All parent questions are to be submitted through the website, please. 

Comment 65: It the proposal goes through and the holding zone is selected to go to Mitchell Hepburn in September 2024, will a grade 8 be allowed to remain at Kettle Creek and be grandfathered and will they be grandfathered in with transportation?

Response 65: Thank you for your correspondence. A decision regarding legacy agreements for current students has not been made. Trustees will consider this as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report, expected to be presented in June 2023 after the receipt of public feedback.

Comment 64: How do I find a detailed map of where the proposed boundary changes are? There is much confusion for the Southwold PS area.

Response 64: Thank you for your correspondence. The Southwold PS boundary change option recommends to assign existing students who reside east of Wellington Road to John Wise PS for the proposed implementation year of 2024. 

An interactive map displaying the current and proposed boundary changes are available on the St. Thomas Attendance Area Review homepage under the potential options tab. 

Comment 63: Is there a timeline for the newest build in Orchard Park?

Response 63: Construction has begun on the Orchard Park Meadows development and the first dwellings are projected to be occupied in the near future.

Comment 62: Has property been obtained, or looked into for the new school that the board is wanting to build? Belmont was approved (2017) and given funding (2020), but isn’t built because the lot chosen is owned by a developer.

Response 62: Thank you for your correspondence. One of the planned outcomes of the Attendance Area Review is to better position the Board to request capital investment from the Ministry of Education when student enrolment in St. Thomas supports the construction of a new school. The Ministry has requested that the Board ensure existing school space is better utilized before seeking funding for new schools and/or additions to accommodate growing enrolment.

Comment 61: When will the parents of families impacted/general public be able to address the board of trustees/administration at an in person meeting?

Response 61: There will be a further opportunity for public input through delegations to Trustees at a public meeting following the presentation of the final report. Details regarding this process will be shared with school communities this spring.

Comment 60: The STAAR committee needs clarification on the details of a typical Legacy Agreement: Is it usually limited to only Grades 7-8 that are allowed to stay at the affected school or would it be applicable to more/all Grades?

Response 60: Each school community is welcome to adjust the options that were initially presented and provide additional requests and rationale.  Trustees will consider this as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report. This final report is expected to be presented in June 2023 after receiving public feedback.

Comment 59: I am curious why the future projections only go to 2029 when a full elementary education is 10 years? With a potential change effective September 2024, the projection will only last for 5 years and I'm concerned based on significant planned development in St. Thomas things will need to change again in 2029.

Response 59: Thank you for your correspondence. We actively monitor all development activity across the district, including in St. Thomas and Elgin County. The presented boundary change options are intended to put TVDSB in the best position to receive students that will yield from new development in the short and long term.

Comment 58:

1. Can you please provide additional information on the reasons why Forest Park PS is unable to convert to a grade 7 and 8 school?
2. Do we know when the moratorium could be lifted?
3. What does a Pupil Accommodation Review entail?
4. Do trustees prefer the option of grade restructuring? The question was posed at the February 9 meeting, but no note as to whether they would prefer this method.
5. If a grade 7 and 8 is established, how would bussing be determined? Is it the same criteria (Safety and distance)?
6. Can you please provide the estimates for Mitchell Hepburn that were used to obtain the utilization rates for 2025 and 2029. In other words, what are the enrollment estimates for each grade for 2025 and 2029.
7. Is the Committee allowed to survey parents on their preferences? The survey would be distributed by the Committee via a variety of channels including the parent council facebook page and school messenger.
8. Can you provide information on how bussing would work for rezoning? Would the same criteria of safety and distance apply?
9. Why did Homedale (a previous middle school) close? Does the grade 7 and 8 model not work? And if not, why?
10. Can you please outline the specific street names for 2A, 2B and the Southeast Holding Zone. The maps do not clearly outline the street names and it is confusing for parents when they look at maps with no street names. We understand there is an interactive map, but a clear definition of the street names would be appreciated.

Response 58: Thank you for your correspondence. The answers to your questions are available below.

1. In order to move more than 50% of a school’s enrolment, a Pupil Accommodation Review rather than an Attendance Area Review would need to be completed.
2. We do not have a timetable as to when the moratorium will be lifted.
3. TVDSB Procedure 4015A outlines the process to be followed for Pupil Accommodation Reviews. The Process begins with the submission by TVDSB Senior Administration to the Trustees of an Initial Senior Administration Report containing one or more options to address pupil accommodation issues and which otherwise contains a recommendation to consolidate and/or close one or more Schools and create new Attendance Areas. Assuming the Trustees approve continuing with a Pupil Accommodation Review Process, the process ends when the students of the School(s) involved are accommodated pursuant to the final decision of the Trustees based on a Final Senior Administration Report. The question was posed at the February 9 meeting, but no note as to whether they would prefer this method.
4. A decision regarding grade reconfiguration has not been made. Trustees will consider this as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report, expected to be presented in June 2023 after the receipt of public feedback.  Should grade reconfiguration be the preferred option of Trustees following the public consultation process, we will work with the Ministry to implement it as soon as the moratorium is lifted, and we are able to do so.
5. The same established safety and distance requirements currently used by STS would apply to the grade configuration option.
6. Mitchell Hepburn projected enrolment numbers: 2024: 607 and 2029: 539.
7. Yes, the committee can collect information from parents through a survey.
8. The same distance and safety requirements that are currently used by STS would apply to the proposed boundary change options.
9. Homedale was closed after a Pupil Accommodation Review was completed. The students were then assigned to Mitchell Hepburn, John Wise and Forest Park. The facility was then reopened as Pierre Elliott Trudeau to accommodate the need for French Immersion in St. Thomas.
10. Southeast St. Thomas Holding Zone: Elm Street to the North, Centennial Rd to the East, Southdale Line to the South and the following areas to the west; Bridle Path, Empire Park way, Carolina Crescent, Arbor Trail, Fox Hollow Ct, Cortland Terrace, Melrose Court and Charter Creek. Please review Response 21 for the street names for area 2A and 2B. 

Comment 57: What sources were used in the creation of the development map?  Are you able to share this with us?

 Based on the development map, the bulk of the development in St. Thomas is in the South.  During the initial call, particularly during the Q&A portion of the call, the speaker had referenced that the bulk of the development in St. Thomas was happening in the North/West.  The development map indicates otherwise.  What are the plans for new school(s) in the South end of St. Thomas?  Would a new school in the area where the bulk of the development is to take place not serve to satisfy growing demand in both St Thomas South and Port Stanley?  If no plans for new schools in the south, but rather for a new school in the North/West? Why would consideration not be given to the area that is clearly the fastest growing?

Response 57: Thank you for your correspondence. The data used to create the development map (ex. number of units) was taken from their development applications. The proposed boundary adjustments outlined in this review looks to resolve the enrolment imbalance throughout the City and strengthen TVDSB’s future business case submission to the Ministry of Education for a new school in northwest St. Thomas. A new school in northwest St. Thomas has been proposed to manage the number of students that will yield from the approximately 1400 units expected to be built in the area. 

Although there is development occurring within the Elgin Court boundary, the school is well underutilized. The school facility has the space available to manage the enrolment that will yield from new development within its boundary. 

Comment 56: How are student projections calculated? 

Response 56: Enrolment projections are based on reviewing a number of factors that look at changing demographic patterns within an attendance area. That includes reviewing progression of students from one grade to the next each year, enrolment growth from the existing community as a result of migration to established neighbourhoods through housing turnover, and new births occurring within each attendance area. 

Planning staff also track development applications and apply a projected student yield to residential housing projects, to determine how many new students from these developments will enroll into TVDSB each year. The number of students forecasted to yield from future development applications are based on actual student counts from recent built developments, unit type and attendance area.  Below is a list of elementary student yields per unit type that were applied to future residential development in St. Thomas. 

Comment 55: How much longer will the parents be able to ask questions in regards to the STAAR?

Response 55: We will continue to answer questions for the entire duration of the review. Trustees are expected to make a decision later this Spring following the receipt of public feedback from attendance area review subcommittees in the form of school community reports.

Comment 54: A legacy agreement needs to be made for Southwold. Families have moved into the specific boundary for the school. Children have already developed friendships and relationships with staff and students. Priority should not be given to new builds with families who have not had their children attending Southwold. Where is the integrity of trustees that would do this to children who have already had their last 3 years turned upside down with the pandemic? You are taking the only stable ground some children have and ripping it out from underneath them. Schools are already overrun with mental health issues in children and struggle to provide the necessary support. This is going to exacerbate the situation and is not necessary. Children who haven’t started can move elsewhere. Where is your loyalty to already enrolled families?

Response 54: Thank you for your correspondence. The boundary adjustments are recommended in order to resolve the anticipated accommodation pressures at Southwold PS, due to the number of students that is projected to substantiate from future residential development in Northwest St. Thomas.

If these proposed options were to be approved TVDSB is committed to ensuring the most consistent transition possible for all students involved in this process. Parents and caregivers will have the opportunity for collaboration with staff as part of the student transition process.

Comment 53: After watching the video it isn’t clear what the three options for Southwold are. Could you advise what the options are and if one will be a legacy agreement?

Response 53: Thank you for your correspondence.

Option 1: Assign a portion of the Southwold attendance area located east of Wellington Road to John Wise

Option 2A: Creating a holding zone for the Northwest St. Thomas Residential Expansion Lands located within the Southwold Attendance Boundary and designating Elgin Court as its holding school.

Option 2B: Creating a holding zone for the Northwest St. Thomas Residential Expansion Lands located within the Southwold Attendance Boundary and designating Elgin Court and John Wise as its holding school.

All proposed options for Southwold do not include a legacy agreement. A decision regarding legacy agreements for current students has not been made. Trustees will consider this as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report, expected to be presented in June after the receipt of public feedback.

Comment 52: We are located at Meadowvale Drive. Will that be considered in the Locke’s zone?

Response 52: Thank you for your correspondence. One of the main objectives of the St. Thomas Elementary Panel Attendance Area Review is to balance enrolment across the city in order to alleviate enrolment pressure at overutilized schools, including Locke’s Public School. 

In order to alleviate pressure, a portion of the Locke’s boundary which includes Meadowvale Drive would be included in the proposal that would assign students from that area to either New Sarum PS or June Rose Callwood PS.

Comment 51: I am a parent who has children that attend Locke’s and was wondering where the proposed boundaries would be? The map online is difficult to understand. Would you be able to tell me where the west boundary of zone five is and what addresses are potentially impacted? 

Response 51: Thank you for your correspondence. The following street segments are included in Zone 5 proposed to be assigned to either June Rose Callwood PS or New Sarum PS: 

East of Burwell Rd:

• Riverbank Dr
• Cranberry Ct
• Goldenrod Ct
• Cottonwood Dr
• Linden Ln
• Amberwood Ct
• Magnolia Ct

 West of Burwell Rd:

• Brookside Dr
• Meadowvale Dr
• Glenview Ct 

Comment 50:

1. Boundaries - While we understand, based on the response provided below, that the data used to create the development map was based on existing development applications, we are interested to understand what, if any, consideration is being given to the South West area of St. Thomas?  Understanding that the South West area may not (yet) have as many development applications in the que, we are of the understanding that there is significant, if not more development planned for the South West Area of St. Thomas than the Talbotville area.  To this end, and as the South West area progresses in its development, will this have any effect on the proposed boundaries?  Our concern is that in the absence of the board taking this into consideration, there may be potential for yet another boundary review in the future, resulting in subsequent relocation for certain students.  
2. Access - At present, and while under capacity, access to Elgin Court Public School for drop-off and pick-up is problematic.  The existing parking lot is already at capacity, and is unable to accommodate parents for drop-off and pick-up.  There is no "kiss and ride" area, during peak hours as this is where the existing buses offload/load students, and the church directly behind the school (where parents currently park during peak hours) is already packed to the max.  Has the board considered this existing issue? If yes, are there plans to remedy the access situation in order accommodate the influx that we will see as a result of the AAR? 
3. Safety - This ties into the access situation, as parents are already parking on the street during peak pick-up and drop-off times.  The school does not have a designated crossing guard, and the streets (both in front of the school and behind the school) are high-traffic areas during pick-up and drop off times. 
4. Portables - What assurances, if any, can the board give us that with the proposed AAR, this will not result in the addition of portables on school property, thereby eliminating coveted outdoor area for recess, etc. 
5. Mitchell Hepburn - Given proximity to the Elgin Court, why has the proposed AAR not included relocation of Mitchell Hepburn students to Elgin Court? 

Response 50:

1. All options were taken into consideration when creating our initial boundary adjustments. Based on the current development patterns and available space, the need for a new school is currently within the Southwold attendance area. Should further boundary changes be required in the future, additional public consultation will need to be undertaken with our school communities at that time.
2. School Bus Transportation was taken into consideration when developing our current options.  If the proposed boundary adjustments were to be approved, we will work with Student Transportation Services and the school community to make the necessary changes needed to manage the drop-off and pick-up areas.
3. See answer above.
4. Option 1 would assign a portion of the John Wise Boundary to Elgin Court. Under this option we do not project portables will be needed to manage the additional enrolment Elgin Court is proposed to receive.  However, under the grade reconfiguration option, 5 portables would be required on site to manage the additional enrolment.  If portables are needed on site, we will work with the school community and facility department to minimize the impact on the playground area.
5. Assigning portions of Mitchell Hepburn to Elgin Court was reviewed in our initial assessment. We concluded that we would need to move students who reside within walking distance of Mitchell Hepburn to balance enrolment at its facility to make this move work.  This proposed move would increase the reliance on student transportation as many of those students would be outside the Elgin Court non-transportation zone.

Comment 49: Looking for some clarification. In the report for the status quo, it has Forest Park and Elgin Court with current usage numbers higher than enrolment numbers due to special needs students. Does this higher number reflect the accurate number for actual space and classrooms available? Such as 14 students for Forest Park, and 56 for Elgin Court.

Response 49: Thank you for your correspondence. The current usage number represents the functional capacity of a school. For both Elgin Court and Forest Park there are a number of non-purpose-built classrooms that are currently being used for special education, which changes the loading of these rooms from 23 to 9 students and reflects how the space is currently being used.

Comment 48: In the event of a boundary change of any kind, would students be given the opportunity to switch to their new school before the widespread implementation?

Response 48: This opportunity is not extended to students as it would have implications with respect to existing capacity. In addition, transportation will not be effective until the implementation date. However, if there are extenuating circumstances, families can complete an ‘out-of-area’ request that would be considered. TVDSB Procedure 4012a outlines the process followed for out-of-area requests.

Comment 47: In Locke’s boundary changes, Area 5 seems like a small residential area that is being impacted. Can we receive more clarification on how this boundary was determined?

Response 47: The chosen areas were selected, as they solve the issue of balancing enrolment by either alleviating or increasing a school’s enrolment for the long term. When creating our boundary adjustments, we did so by taking into consideration major roads and topological features.

In the case of Locke’s, the area that was selected follows a major thoroughfare, Burwell Rd, and would potentially alleviate the accommodation pressure at Locke’s if assigned to either June Rose Callwood PS or New Sarum.

Comment 46: In the event of a Legacy Agreement being enacted for students that wish to remain at Locke's PS, are there forms that need to be assigned (particularly for transportation) by parents, or is it expected that students will be automatically eligible for the Legacy Agreement without application?

Response 46: No forms will need to be completed; families are contacted as part of the school registration process in the year prior to implementation as it relates to any legacy agreement options that are available.

Comment 45: Who will ultimately be making the final decisions on what happens at each school if students have to move? The school board? Trustees? Both?

Response 45: Following the receipt of school feedback, Administration would prepare a final attendance area review report for Trustees’ consideration, which would include opportunities for additional public feedback through delegations to Trustees. A final decision regarding the review is expected to be made in June by the Board of Trustees, with implementation planned for September of 2024.

Comment 44: Where is the new school going to be located if we meet our attendance criteria and provincial funding is granted?

Response 44: The proposed location of the new school would be in Northwest St. Thomas.

Comment 43: What are the current Numbers and capacities at the two French immersion schools in our county?

Response 43: Please find October 31, 2022, enrollment numbers for Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Eva Circé-Côté below:

Comment 42: Just wondering how any of these boundary changes are going to be enforced? A guardian can just provide an address within the preferred school’s district whether the reside there or not. There is no way to prove otherwise.

Response 42: Thank you for your correspondence, families are contacted as part of the school registration process in the year prior to implementation as it relates to any boundary adjustment options. Guardians/parents would need to provide proof of the change of address in order to change schools. 

Comment 41: Is there a possibility that to help with numbers attending Southwold school that the boundary line be changed separating old Lynhurst and new Lynhurst as an option?

Old Lynhurst being grandfathered in to remain at Southwold, as no new development will happen in this area at all. New Lynhurst continues to have new builds and development. This would help with numbers.

Has this possibility been looked at? Or can it be considered please?

Response 41: Thank you for your correspondence,

The boundary change options were determined based on a number of factors, including available programming space, the location of student residences, transportation considerations, development activity and enrolment projections.

The recommended boundary changes proactively address the residential development within the Southwold attendance area, to ensure that the school facility will be used optimally through the planned horizon.

If the above option is a possibility the Southwold sub-committee would like us to consider, they may include it in their final report. Trustees will consider this feedback as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report, expected to be presented in May with a decision anticipated in June.

Comment 40: Can you please describe the updated attendance map for Locke's?

Response 40: Thank you for your correspondence.

The boundary for Locke’s Zone 5 is as follows:

Ron Mcneil Line to the north, Burwell RD (including the Brookside Dr, Glenview Ct, Riverbank DR and Cottonwood Dr Subdivisions), Highway 3 and First Ave to the west, Talbot St to the south and Highbury Ave to the East.

Comment 39: I’m curious for those of us who do not reside in St. Thomas and are part of Central Elgin why our families and children have anything to do with “balancing the enrolment across the city of St. Thomas”. We pay extreme taxes and water rates to reside in Central Elgin and many of us made the decision to reside here for the purpose of our children attending Southwold PS. Seems like those of us who reside on the border of St. Thomas are used as pawns for the benefit of whichever municipality it suits.

Response 39: Thank you for your correspondence,

It is expected that a number of residential units will be constructed within the Southwold attendance area, with much of the student enrolment likely to substantiate beyond the current planning horizon.

The proposed boundary adjustments are recommended in order to resolve the anticipated accommodation pressures at Southwold PS to ensure that we have the space available for the number of students that will yield from new development.  If left status quo Southwold is projected to become overutilized.

Comment 38: Please can someone confirm if the 7/8 grade reconfiguration for schools in St. Thomas is still being considered? And if so, will this mean that Southwold P.S. remains as is? No changes to Southwold as per the info stated in the November 29th meeting?

Response 38: Grade reconfigurations is an option that is still being considered.

Comment 37: What are the impacts on busing from the options under consideration?

Response 37: The following is a summary of impacts on busing based on the options being considered:

Comment 36: The proposed changes involve significant disruptions to students and families across the region, including Lockes PS. Could the board share how factors such as student mental health, learning environment comfort levels, fractures in established social circles and emotional development implications were factored into the options proposed?

Response 36: When developing our boundary adjustment options for this Attendance Area Review, we preferred options that would affect the least number of students and would cause the least amount of disruption favoring adjustments that assign students to the most proximal school and promote active transportation. If these proposed changes were to be approved TVDSB is committed to ensuring the most consistent transition possible for all students involved in this process. Parents and caregivers will have the opportunity for collaboration with staff as part of the student transition process.

Comment 35: It is stated that Locke’s would need to increase its compliment of portables to 9 temporarily before needing less portables by 2029.  Locke’s PS currently has an unused portable which makes 7 current portables instead of 6. Was this taken into consideration with the increase to 9? Or is there actually only a need for one more to facilitate the increase to 8? On the provided chart, if it was left at status quo, that would mean that there may not even be a need for the 8 portables by 2024 if everything was put into place.

Response 35: For this review the 2021-2022 figures we used and at the time all portables on site were in use. The use of portables is a temporary solution to provide an additional classroom space when a school is being used at its maximum capacity.  If left status quo several portables would still be needed to manage the projected enrolment expected in 2029. The objective is to remove the use of portables at Locke’s so the school can be used at its intended capacity.

Comment 34: With the turnover of grades 6/7/8 students leaving (which totals 200+ students) the boundary changes beginning in 2024, new students from the Dalewood area going to the new allotted school, and no currently projected residential development in the catchment area, would this issue not rectify itself within a few years?

Response 34: There are no current plans for development within the Locke’s attendance area but if left status quo, Locke’s would still be above capacity with a utilization rate of 110% and would necessitate 4 portables on site in 2029. The proposed options involving Locke’s resolve the overutilization and assist in potentially balancing enrolment at either June Rose Callwood or New Sarum.

Comment 33: With Lockes PS projected to be back to capacity by 2029 (if projections stayed status quo as per the provided chart) then, with new boundaries in effect beginning in 2024, could the current students be “grandfathered” into the system, therefore not being required to change schools until they graduate to high school?

Response 33: We do not use the term “grandfathered” due to the origin of the word.  Moving forward please use “legacy agreement” rather than “grandparenting” or “grandfathering”.

The current options that have been put forward, assign all students from a portion of an attendance area to another school, and would resolve one of the main objectives of this review of balancing enrolment.

If a legacy agreement is an option the Locke’s committee would like to consider, they can include it in their final report. Trustees will consider this feedback as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report, expected to be presented in May with a decision anticipated in June. 

Comment 32: It is stated that Lockes would need to increase its compliment of portables to 9 temporarily before needing less portables by 2029. Lockes PS currently has an unused portable which makes 7 current portables instead of 6. Was this taken into consideration with the increase to 9? Or is there actually only a need for one more to facilitate the increase to 8? On the provided chart, if it was left at status quo, that would mean that there may not even be a need for the 8 portables by 2024 if everything was put into place.

Response 32: For this review, we used 2021-2022 and at the time all portables on site were in use. The use of portables is a temporary solution to provide an additional classroom space when a school is being used at its maximum capacity. If left status quo several portables would still be needed to manage the projected enrolment expected in 2029. The objective is to remove the use of portables at Locke’s so the school can be used at its intended capacity.

Comment 31: With the turnover of grades 6/7/8 students leaving (which totals 200+ students) the boundary changes beginning in 2024, new students from the Dalewood area going to the new allotted school, and no currently projected residential development in the catchment area, would this issue not rectify itself within a few years?

Response 31: There are no current plans for development within Locke’s attendance area but if left status quo, Locke’s would still be above capacity with a utilization rate of 110% and would necessitate 4 portables on site in 2029. The proposed options involving Locke’s resolve the overutilization and assist in potentially balancing enrolment at either June Rose Callwood or New Sarum.

Comment 30: With Lockes PS projected to be back to capacity by 2029 (if projections stayed status quo as per the provided chart) then, with new boundaries in effect beginning in 2024, could the current students be “grandfathered” into the system, therefore not being required to change schools until they graduate to high school?

Response 30: TVDSB uses the term Legacy Agreement for students receiving an exemption.

The current options that have been put forward assign all students from a portion of an attendance area to another school, and would resolve one of the main objectives of this review of balancing enrolment.

If a legacy agreement is an option the Locke’s sub-committee would like us to consider, they may include it in their final report. Trustees will consider this feedback as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report, expected to be presented in May with a decision anticipated in June.

Comment 29: The proposed changes involve significant disruptions to students and families across the region, including Lockes PS. Could the board share how factors such as student mental health, learning environment comfort levels, fractures in established social circles and emotional development implications were factored into the options proposed?

Response 29: When developing our boundary adjustment options for this Attendance Area Review, we preferred options that would affect the least number of students and would cause the least amount of disruption favoring adjustments that assign students to the most proximal school and promote active transportation. If these proposed changes were to be approved, TVDSB is committed to ensuring the most consistent transition possible for all students involved in this process. Parents and caregivers will have the opportunity to collaborate with staff as part of the student transition process.

Comment 28: Can we expect an in-person attendee to represent the board at AARC subcommittee meetings?

Response 28: TVDSB Procedure 4015C outlines the process to be followed for attendance area reviews. Administration is not in attendance at subcommittee meetings as these are intended to be school community meetings through which Attendance Area Review Committee volunteers gather feedback from the school regarding the potential boundary changes under consideration. Should any additional information be required following these meetings in order to assist the school subcommittees in assembling the school community reports, Administration would be happy to provide this.

Comment 27: Are any board members confirmed to attend subcommittee meetings virtually?

Response 27: Trustees may attend the meetings as observers if they are able to do so. We would encourage each subcommittee to record their meetings so that these may be posted to the STAAR website in case individuals who could not attend wish to view the discussion after the fact. Please note that Trustees will be receiving copies of all school community reports as part of the presentation of the Final Attendance Area Review Report later this spring. There will also be another opportunity to public input through delegations to Trustees at a separate meeting following the presentation of the Final Attendance Area Review Report and recommendations. 

Comment 26: Are the board members likely to answer any questions from the public on the spot at subcommittee meetings?

Response 26: As these are school community meetings, Trustees would be attending to listen to the discussion. Please feel free to direct any questions regarding the options under review or the process to the STAAR website. 

Comment 25: Can you provide the per grade current enrolment numbers for Southwold?

Response 25: October 31^st , Enrolment

Comment 24: What are the current enrolment numbers per grade at Kettle Creek, Forest Park and in the holding zone?

Response 24: October 31^st , 2022 Enrolment

Comment 23: What are the numbers and grades of children choosing to switch to Mitchell Hepburn from Kettle Creek. Is there a deadline to switch schools?

Response 23: March 1, 2023 is the deadline to transfer from Kettle Creek to Mitchell Hepburn, currently 11 students have completed the transfer.

Comment 22: Is there any information on houses being built on the lot that is located just south of Wellington, near Highview?

Response 22: Phase 1 of the Manorwood development is near completion. Construction of Phase 2 is expected to begin this summer and estimated to be completed in the fall of 2025.

Comment 21: Could you please clarify the boundary streets for 2A and 2B for the Mitchell Hepburn area please? 

Response 21: The boundary lines for areas 2A and 2B are listed below:

• 2A - Wellington St to the north, Centennial Ave to the east, and Highview Dr and the Juno Dr area to the west
• 2B - Comprises Area 2A and the addition of Highview Dr and Lawton to the south, and the Cook and Carrie Crescent subdivisions to the West.

Comment 20: In the STAAR meeting held February 2, 2023, reference was repeatedly made to the possibility of a Legacy Agreement. Could you please provide a definition of what a Legacy Agreement is and kindly explain how that would work if this was implemented by the board of trustees? 

Response 20: A Legacy Agreement is an exemption to the potential boundary changes that would allow existing students to remain at their current school.

A decision regarding legacy agreements for current students has not been made. Trustees will consider this as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report, expected to be presented in June 2023 after the receipt of public feedback.

Comment 19: How will the proposed boundary changes affect busing/transportation across the school district? New Sarum Public's start time is already half an hour later than most schools (9:30 a.m. start) putting greater pressure on the before school program at the school. Will a change in boundaries affect busing levels at the schools? Will it result in an increase of busing availability to assist with later start dates at schools in the district, with the potential to adjust school start times?

Has the pressure on before and after school programs at schools been factored into the boundary changes?

Response 19: A Student Transportation Analysis was completed in order to review the potential impacts of the proposed boundary adjustments. Our analysis was done using current bell times for each school involved in the review and it was determined that one additional bus would be needed to accommodate the potential New Sarum PS boundary adjustments.

Comment 18: To move kids to June Rose or new Sarum makes zero sense. It's a small area that is close to Locke's...Is it too late to participate in the area review?

Response 18: Please follow up with the School Principal to express your interest in joining the Locke’s PS AARC committee.

One of the main objectives of the St. Thomas Elementary Panel Attendance Area Review is to balance enrolment across the city in order to alleviate enrollment pressure at overutilized schools, including Locke’s Public School. Changing development patterns and neighbourhood demographics necessitate the review of school attendance boundaries in order to ensure that school spaces are used optimally.

Comment 17: Will those children currently attending Southwold be allowed to continue to attend if the boundaries change?

Response 17: The Southwold PS boundary change option recommends to assign existing students to John Wise PS for the proposed implementation year of 2024. The boundary adjustments are recommended in order to resolve the anticipated accommodation pressures at Southwold PS, due to the number of students that is projected to substantiate from future residential development in Northwest St. Thomas. A decision regarding the legacy agreement for existing attendance areas for current students has not been made. Trustees will consider this as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report.

Comment 16: Are the current enrollment numbers for grade levels at Mitchell Hepburn PS available? We currently only have access to last years numbers. 

Response 16: Please find October 31, 2022 enrollment numbers for Mitchell Hepburn PS below:

Comment 15: We live on Meadowvale Drive (St. Thomas). Where would our child attend school?

Response 15: Meadowvale Drive would be included in the proposal that would assign students from that area to either New Sarum PS or June Rose Callwood PS.

Comment 14: We made the decision to move to the area eight years ago based on what school our child would be attending. It is incredibly unfair that people made the decision to move to this community, purchased houses and took employment near the area for their children to attend a certain school and now it is being discussed to have our children moved to a new school for people that haven't even moved here yet.

Students already enrolled in Southwold should at least be able to finish their education there and the change should take effect after the already enrolled students graduate. This will be devastating for my child who loves her school, teachers and her friends.

Response 14: Thank you for your correspondence. One of the main objectives of this review is to ensure we have the space available to accommodate changing development patterns within the St. Thomas area.

TVDSB is committed to working with school communities to obtain public input regarding the potential boundary changes under consideration in an effort to strengthen the options.

If the proposed boundary changes are approved, all impacted students will be reviewed by both the incoming and sending school and all needs will be considered.

Comment 13: I would like to oppose the decision of changing schools for my child due to the fact, that there are many social factors that seem not to have been included in the equation when making this decision. Children are more vulnerable to change, and local kids know each other while parents can support each other in case needed. By changing this it will affect how the whole neighborhood interacts and create negative social side-effect far outside a simple “change of school”...we have a lot of families with children who are currently visiting 2 schools: Locke’s and a Catholic school. Looking at the map it seems that you have separated the street into odd and even house numbers and the kids living in the odd-number houses are staying at Locke’s whereas kids in evens must transfer to June Rose Callwood. We live across the street from each other, and our children are always playing together, we support each other (when we need to meet the kids of other parents in case there is a need to assist with the pick-ups and some of the parents may be late) and you are simply creating a lot of disruption for such a small community.

I understand that some schools may be crowded, and you are trying to solve the issue at hand, but if the situation is better at June Rose why not to move everyone there? And if it isn’t, then why separate the street in such a strange way, making kids across the street go to different schools?

Response 13: Thank you for your question. One of the main objectives of the St. Thomas Elementary Panel Attendance Area Review is to balance enrolment across the city in order to alleviate enrolment pressure at overutilized schools, including Locke’s Public School.

In order to alleviate pressure, a portion of the Locke’s boundary which includes Meadowvale Drive would be included in the proposal that would assign students from that area to either New Sarum PS or June Rose Callwood PS.

Comment 12: I know there are children that are happy to move and some that are devastated. Has the thought of allowing the children to decide whether they want to move ever been considered? 

Response 12: Our focus will be on transitioning any students that may possibly move, as well as those who remain at their current schools, with care and compassion. We are committed to providing support to all of our learners as they experience changes and as they adjust to their new surroundings. Any concerns about impact are encouraged to be raised by parents, teachers or students to school teams and individual supports will be explored.

Comment 11: Let’s put the needs of all current students first and keep them at their schools. It makes the most sense to keep students at their current schools and reassign new enrolments to the schools you see fit. That way families can make an educated choice about where they purchase or rent a home and what schools their children will subsequently attend.

Response 11: If the proposed boundary changes proceed, impacted students will be reviewed by receiving and sending schools and all needs will be considered. Our educators are excellent across the district and TVDSB is committed to ensuring that the transition process considers the needs of our students through collaboration with parents and caregivers.

TVDSB will be seeking school community feedback in order to strengthen the options under consideration. We encourage members of each school community to participate in this process and provide input into the school community report that each school will be submitting for Trustees’ consideration.

Comment 10: Why are you moving students to a different schools for families that do not even exist in the area in houses that are not even built?

Response 10: One of the main objectives of the St. Thomas Elementary Panel Attendance Area Review is to balance enrolment across the city. If left status quo, the enrolment at Southwold PS is projected to increase above the facilities’ intended capacity due to the residential development within its boundary. The recommended boundary changes proactively address the residential development within the Southwold attendance area, to ensure that the school facility will be used optimally through the planned horizon.

Comment 9: How many potential school changes for children may happen over the next 10 years if we are approved for a new school in the future?

Response 9: Detailed analysis for the possible future attendance area involving the construction of a new school has not yet been undertaken and would form part of our work in preparing a business case when one is initiated.

Comment 8: Are there exemptions from boundary changes for children with special needs? 

Response 8: If the proposed boundary changes are approved, all impacted students will be reviewed by both the incoming and sending school and all needs will be considered. Parent and guardian partnership in this will be valued to ensure student needs are met. This process will ensure that all necessary accommodations and modifications to our programs are part of the transition process.

Comment 7: Would this affect children already enrolled in Southwold or new registrations only? Moving a child once they are comfortable, have made friends and established their school life is extremely detrimental to their mental health and general well being. These children have been through so much with COVID for the last 3 years and then to turn around and uproot their life would be ludicrous.

Response 7: The Southwold PS boundary change option recommends to assign existing students to John Wise PS for the proposed implementation year of 2024. The boundary adjustments are recommended in order to resolve the anticipated accommodation pressures at Southwold PS, due to the number of students that is projected to substantiate from future residential development in Northwest St. Thomas.

Comment 6: I think that these changes should be considered with the least amount of disruption to the children in Elgin county. Friendships and relationships are made in school which are crucial to children's development and can be damaging when taken away. Please consider the least amount of disruption when making your decision.

Response 6: The growing development within the City of St. Thomas necessitate the review of our school boundaries to ensure that our school facilities are used optimally. An attendance area review committee meeting is scheduled for February 2, 2023, with school-level public consultations to follow in the weeks after this meeting. Notices regarding these meetings will be provided to school communities throughout this process in order to ensure that all families have an opportunity to participate. TVDSB is committed to ensuring the most consistent transition possible for all students involved in this process. Parents and caregivers will have the opportunity for collaboration with staff as part of the student transition process.

Comment 5: Have any new students enrolling in schools been placed at the lower populated schools? New arrivals and kindergarten aged students have not bonded with other students yet; therefore, moving them would not ruin life relationships that have been made over many years. Pulling students from established relationships, especially after the disturbances of the pandemic already having an impact on our children, is a bad idea.

Response 5: Thank you for your correspondence and feedback. One of the objectives of the attendance area review is to create attendance areas that encourage active transportation (e.g. walking and cycling to school) by having students attend proximal schools in their neighbourhoods. We encourage school community members to participate in the public consultation process by volunteering for the Attendance Area Review Committee and also taking part in the school-level meetings that will be scheduled in the coming months. Additional communication will be distributed to all schools involved in the review as part of this process.

Comment 4: Was consideration made for the new subdivision located at Wellington and Manor in St. Thomas (Manorwood) as well as the new apartment building that is about to open there? This mixed density residential area is entirely in the Forest Park boundary and could potentially bring many new students to that school before September 2024.

My concern is that Forest Park will be overcrowded very quickly. Your model already shows that it may require five portables if you add all the students from Mitchell Hepburn (2a and 2b) , John Wise (Area 3) and New Sarum (Area 6). Is there room for that many portables at Forest Park? Do we really need to move all of these students? What if there is additional growth from the new builds? 

Response 4: TVDSB actively monitors all development activity across the district, including in St. Thomas and Elgin County. We complete enrolment projections on an annual basis and this process factors in student yields from new residential developments. The enrolment at Forest Park Public School is projected to decline over the long term. The school has available space in order to accommodate additional students and this is projected to continue.

TVDSB will be seeking school community feedback in order to strengthen the options under consideration. We encourage members of each school community to participate in this process and provide input into the school community report that each school will be submitting for Trustees’ consideration.

Comment 3: Your boundary lines make no sense at all. I live on Linden Lane just off Cottonwood Drive. This subdivision is a is on the very north end and you are basically cutting it off from Locke’s Public School.

The rest of the area in this new proposed plan to send to either New Sarum or June Rose is all industrial and businesses. There are no other residential areas at all. Why don't you take residential areas closer to June Rose Public School to be part of that boundary, rather than a subdivision nowhere near June Rose at all?

Response 3: We are familiar with the development patterns in St. Thomas and are aware of the student distribution within the Locke’s Public School attendance area.

We encourage families to participate in the Attendance Area Review process through the subcommittee meetings that will be held by each school community in the new year.

Please note that we are also seeking volunteers to represent each school community in the review in order to help gather school feedback and provide input into this process for Trustees’ consideration. This information was circulated via School Messenger and is available at www.tvdsb.ca/staar.

Comment 2: My children need to attend Before and After School Programs as my wife and I both commute to London to work. With this change you would be forcing me to drive totally out of my way everyday to get my children to and from school.

Response 2: One of the main objectives of the St. Thomas Elementary Panel Attendance Area Review is to balance enrolment across the city in order to alleviate enrolment pressure at overutilized schools, including Locke’s Public School. Changing development patterns and neighbourhood demographics necessitate the review of school attendance boundaries in order to ensure that school spaces are used optimally.

TVDSB is committed to working with school communities to obtain public input regarding the potential boundary changes under consideration in an effort to strengthen the options.

Trustees will consider this feedback as part of their deliberations regarding the Final Attendance Area Review Report, expected to be presented in May of 2023 with a decision anticipated in June 2023. An attendance area review committee meeting is scheduled for February 2, 2023, with school-level public consultations to follow in the weeks after this meeting. Notices regarding these meetings will be provided to school communities throughout this process in order to ensure that all families have an opportunity to participate.

Comment 1: What is the projected timeline on the potential new school? What would the schools proposed catchment area be? 

Response 1: TVDSB is undertaking an Attendance Area Review in St. Thomas for the purpose of balancing enrolment across English language schools in the city.

One of the planned outcomes of the Attendance Area Review is to better position the Board to request capital investment from the Ministry of Education when student enrolment in St. Thomas supports the construction of a new school. The Ministry has requested that the Board ensure existing school space is better utilized before seeking funding for new schools and/or additions to accommodate growing enrolment.

An attendance area would be established following the approval of a new school.