The challenge for Trustees is, when does enrollment get so low that the quality of education becomes compromised? One number that has been used as a guideline is 140 students for a K-6 school, or about 20 students per class. Funding comes on a per student basis, and the fewer students there are, the more you end up with split grades, and reduced resources for everything from computers, library materials, building maintenence, etc. In some cases, Edmonton Public has been able to offer specialized or alternative programs to boost enrollment at a particular school in order to keep it financially viable. In other cases, schools lease out excess space to community groups like daycares, and this helps offset utility and maitenence costs.
The current "sector reviews", if the new Board continues along this path, will likely end with more school consolidations and closures. With other closures, the school buildings have been repurposed for a new educational or community service use. For example, North Edmonton School was closed a few years ago and has now been re-opened as a continuing care facility. In light of our society's changing demographic make-up, this makes a lot of sense.
But make no mistake, when you close a neibourhood school, the local community will be very upset. In the current election, that angst is most likely to be manifest in the race for Ward G, where 2 schools were closed this year. At least we're not as bad off as some school districts like Kansas City, where the situation was so dire, they closed 26( or almost half) of their schools this year!!
Each school and each community is unique. Using the 140 students per school measure, which is one of EPSB's viability benchmarks, is a cookie-cutter approach that ignores unique circumstances within communities. The school in my community has had fewer than 140 students for at least 25 years. It was built with only eight classrooms and so it is small enough to meet EPSB's financial viability benchmarks. Our school has had multi-age grouped classes for some or all of its grades during this quarter century period of "low" enrolment and it consistently posts some of Edmonton's highest results on Grade 3 and Grade 6 PATs. Our community has a higher-than-average ratio of low-income and social housing. So here we have a school that is viable if you chose to measure it by student achievement. Yet our school is not considered viable if you chose to believe that 140 is the magic number for enrolment, or if you are swayed by arguments against multi-aged groupings, or "split classes" as the district likes to call them when they are referring to them as a bad thing. A decade ago EPSB's own resources development services staff wrote: "there are a growing number of educators who believe that combined-grade instruction has many advantages for students and, therefore, purposely design combined-grade classes on a school-wide basis. More educators are making the choice to group students in combined-grade groupings or multi-age classrooms, based on the education benefits for children (rather than making the decision based on economic pressures or fiscal restraint)." EPSB currently has some highly regarded alternative programs that offer multi-age groupings. I applaud you, Mr. Gibeault, for having the courage to write so candidly about your experience as a school trustee. I am afraid to say I am relieved that you will not be on the board this term when my community school comes up for review. I'm hoping this city elects some trustees who are able to look beyond the the current narrow approach and who are instead able to roll up their sleeves and work to resolve the issue of under-utilized schools by exploring alternatives to closure.
ReplyDeleteInteresting...The school I'm currently at had a daycare which rented one of the rooms and split grades for the higher levels when we first started there. It's in an area where there are probably about 20 other schools within walking distance that are the same level.
ReplyDeleteNow it has two classes all the way up, with the exception of kindergarten and three full portables.
The difference? The principal. She brought in a program that turned the school around during her 6 year tenure.
Why schools feel a need to move principals every 6 years is beyond me. The one we have now is turning off parents and we've seen a decrease in the number attending (kindergarten) for the first time in years.
Maybe we should be looking at staffing more than closures. My moving principals every 6 years (give or take) you manage to cover up the underlying problems with the system under certain leadership.