Letter to the Trustees

Letter by S. Abraham, April 9, 2008.

In October 2007 I sent a letter to SD 68 Trustees raising concerns about balance and lack of attention to key criteria with respect to the secondary school options in the Business Case for Facilities Renewal. It is disturbing to read the April 9, 2008 Report on the Consultation Process and see that these concerns have not been addressed.

The Business Case defined the options as closing both Woodlands and Nanaimo District (NDSS) secondary schools, and building a new school at one of the two sites. Input gathered during the consultation process has made it clear that both schools have excellent programming, and are equally important to their respective communities. However, once again a document has been produced which ignores the educational and practical value to high school students of the NDSS site, gives disproportionate weight to its commercial value and to interests outside the District’s mandate, and which shows signs of bias against NDSS in its analysis. Here are some examples:

(1) Limitation of analytical criteria: The analysis of the two sites is limited to financial and “social” aspects; the significantly superior practical and educational advantages of the NDSS site (described and not credibly contested in numerous presentations, and summarized in point # 5 below) are not considered. This is an absurd omission given the input received from parents about the importance of these factors, and given the mission of the school district.

(2) Lack of genuine social criteria: The Social/Risk Assessment evaluation relies completely on the Business Case document’s subjective and suspect higher scores for Woodlands in the ill-defined and overlapping categories of “Demonstrates Best Stewardship” and “Best Use of School District Assets”. These higher scores are heavily dependant on the financial criteria, and seem to be doing double duty in the social category. Indeed, it is hard to find any genuinely social criteria mentioned at all.

(3) Issues outside the SD 68 mandate: While ignoring the educational value of the NDSS property to SD 68 high school students, the report states “In addition to the higher sales value of the NDSS property, the potential of a sale to Malaspina University-College could provide significant social benefits not only to the entire education system in the district but also to the City of Nanaimo and surrounding areas.” Somehow the requirements of the Board’s policy No. 4005 “to provide the best possible learning environment” for its own students has been consumed by a commitment to interests outside its mandate. Why?

(4) Site size: In discussing site size, the fact that the Woodlands site is about 10% smaller than the Ministry Standard is not acknowledged, although it was repeatedly raised during the consultation process. In fact an effort is made to point out that the current playfield configuration at Woodlands is actually 0.2 hectares larger than at NDSS. This ignores the 3.1 hectares of Rotary Bowl to which NDSS students have immediate and daily access, and the extra space at NDSS in lawns etc that could increase the playing field size in a new school with a different configuration. The current building at NDSS can accommodate 1400 students, while the current Woodlands building has space for only 700; since the new school will have 1100 spaces it is hard to see how this playfield advantage, which even now is more apparent than real, could be maintained with a new, larger school at the Woodlands site. Therefore, its relevance to the analysis is questionable at best. The fact remains that, even if only school footprint, parking, roads, lawns and playfields are considered, the NDSS site at 5.8 hectares exceeds the Ministry Standard of 5.3, and at 4.8 the Woodlands site falls well below.

(5) Site influences: The immense advantages of the NDSS site are completely ignored in the analysis. The discussion of student use of Rotary Bowl is limited to “official” uses such as track meets and special events, and does not include “unofficial” casual and daily uses, which are considerable (e.g. training for NDSS track and other teams, NDSS PE classes and individual NDSS student use). With respect to future access after potential sale of the site the report observes that the District “would make every effort to ensure that access to these facilities is maintained for the use of our students”. It is hard to reconcile this statement with a genuine commitment to providing high school students with the best possible facilities. No mention is made of high participation, school-time educational use (multiple grades of NDSS PE classes) of the Nanaimo Aquatic Centre and Nanaimo Ice Centre, use that is made possible by the school’s adjacent location. The huge variety of enriched educational experiences made possible by the location of NDSS right next door to Malaspina is not discussed. The superior traffic and transit access to NDSS is not discussed. The potential for flexible use/lease of facilities in this prime neighbourhood is not discussed.

(6) Response to input: In summarizing the input received with respect to the two options, issues relevant to a superior site are listed for NDSS. This seems to be appropriate, given the subject of this consultation process. For Woodlands the points raised relate to the past history of the school, its place in the community and the recommendations made in the Business Case. There has been no suggestion that the Woodlands site could provide a superior educational facility, and there has been a clear indication that the NDSS site would. Yet in spite of the mandate of the District and the financial viability of the NDSS option, the Woodlands option continues to be recommended.

Altogether, this report ignores criteria that are to the advantage of NDSS, and ignores facts that are detrimental to Woodlands. Considerable weight is given to the surplus funds that would be generated by the Woodlands option, yet no need for these funds has been defined. Additional weight has inappropriately been given to factors that are outside the mandate of the District.

In my opinion, this report reflects a lack of attention to information received during the consultation process, and reinforces the perception of bias that was evident in the Business Case document. SD 68 Procedure No. 3605P requires the Board to consider “educational program/course implications” of school closures, and to “give fair consideration to all public input”. Its guiding policy (No. 3605) requires that “Consultation will be meaningful, and fair consideration will be given to all public input.” If this document is accepted without modification I do not believe that standard will have been met.