The DSBN: Where Public Consultation is not Consultation

School closures is an emotional issue. It is also a child health and security issue, an economic issue and massive social issue. We've been heavily impacted by school closures in Niagara and I wish I had more time to blog about it.

In Niagara the closure of public schools has been hugely controversial. Lies have been told, underhanded tricks have been played and public protests have been met with silence.

The population of Niagara is now the 4th oldest in the country. As baby boomers retire, they sell up their homes in Oakville, Toronto and other high-income centres and move to St. Catharines where they can re-invest as little as 25% of their real estate capital and live off the rest.

Except, that trend is a blip. In the next 15 now-active seniors will become less-active seniors who need more care, more facilities, more help. Who will provide that help when families have been chased out of the cities of the region by school closures, pool closures, and the re-distribution of resources to senior-centric activities?

It's a question that needs answering and, while I do have children right now, I know they are growing up fast and the way these issues are dealt with now will have a greater impact on my grandchildren than they will on my kids in the here and now. That's what political foresight is about. And that brings me to the District School Board Of Niagara
Pupil Accommodation Review Policy Update.

The DSBN is looking for commentary from the public and it has to be submitted today! I've been so busy with work and family obligations that I am getting mine in at the last minute. Here's what I have got:

Naturally, the red flags are immediately apparent. The first one I can respond to is in the preamble in paragraph 1.6 which states:

"The purpose of the accommodation review process is to develop viable accommodation options and solutions that support student success."

Up to now, all discussion about school closure has ignored student success. In fact, some of the schools that have been most successful in getting kids through high school, have high rates of alumni participation in post-secondary education and participation in civic and community life have all been closed or are slated for closure. The board has always used "student success" as its slogan in doing things that are ultimately harmful to students. Neighbourhood schools that children can walk to are considered the safest option because parents, who may not have easy access to transportation, are easily reachable, the children have safe spots in their neighbourhoods and, few people seem to realize that school buses are not public assets, but fee-based services we all have to pay for. Expanding their profit based in providing poorly-paid jobs and extending the school day with rides to and from school has never been a sign of student success. So, really, if the board is going to act in the interests of "student success" they had better define what that means for whom.

My next red flag comes in the Accommodation Review section. In section 2.1, item ii states:

"Declining enrolment (sic) has created a negative impact on learning opportunities for students at the
school or group of schools."

What we have seen is the migration of learning opportunities out of neighbourhood schools resulting in declining enrollment. The movement of ESL classes to central locations and the creation of a French Immersion-only school are just two examples of this.

In the same section, item vii states,

"Any other reason upon the recommendation of the Director of Education and subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees. Examples include, but are not limited to: health, safety or environmental conditions affecting the school or surrounding area; unforeseen changes in
funding, policy, or legislation; a request from the community; etc."

While the examples dress up the statement with some priorities that might arise, it ultimately means that the Director of Education can do whatever he likes as long as he garners the support of the board of trustees. Which basically makes all public consultation and commentary ultimately easy to dismiss.

If I were more careful about not wasting my time, I would have just stopped at section 2.1 item vii, but I'm a researcher, so I went on to read about the elements of a staff report in Section 3 called Planning Prior to an Accommodation Review. Item 3.3 includes the contents of an initial staff report. I am commenting item by item here:

"3.3 The Initial Staff Report must include the following:

"i. Supporting rationale for the accommodation option(s);"

This should tell us why the board is looking into closure. This should also include the supporting documentation and research sources used to inform this rationale.


"ii. A recommended option if more than one option is presented;"

Again, this should include the supporting documentation and sources that justify and all recommendations. In the past, these sources have not withstood examination when moved from one document to another. Fill disclosure at this stage would protect the integrity of staff and the board in future requests to the province and of the community.

"iii. A timeline for implementation;"

Again, this has to be research-based and all documentation of sources must be included at the most preliminary stages. Research has to be examined and validated to protect staff and build community trust.

"iv. A summary of accommodation issue(s) for the school(s) under review;"

Again, these issues have to be researched, examined and validated with a full inclusion of any and all documentation and sources.

"v. Where students would be accommodated;"

This should also include assurances of equal access to facilities of equal quality across the board. Students should not be housed in portables at one school while others have better learning environments, to use a broad example. Access to athletic and outdoor facilities has also long been unequal in our schools.

"vi. If proposed changes to the existing facility or facilities, or new facilities, are required;

"vii. Any program changes as a result of the proposed option;

"viii. Impact on student transportation;
ix. If new capital investment is required and how the DSBN intends to fund it or a proposal on how students would be accommodated if funding does not become available; and,"


This is huge. Quality and safety of transportation to school, coupled with time spent travelling to school, has been linked to both student well-being and academic success. These elements, not just funding, are huge considerations that have to be included in the draft.

"x. Any relevant information obtained from municipalities and other community partners prior to the commencement of the accommodation review including any confirmed interest in using
underutilized space."

This, also, is huge. It's difficult to believe that this is not already enshrined.

Right now there are three properties the city is hoping to redevelop as residential areas: the old GM site on Ontario Street, the old Hotel Dieu hospital on Ontario Street and the old General Hospital on Queenston Street. Memorial School and Maywood, which would have been the target schools for the Ontario Street sites are both slated for closure in September along with Alexandra and Queen Mary. The new school, Harriett Tubman, has just 30 more seats than all of the schools slated for closure combined. That means, if the GM and Hotel Dieu sites alone are redeveloped and homes for 200 more families with only one child each are created, 170 of those children won't have a school space.

Luckily, no one has to be Catholic to attend Catholic school any more. That may be the only option for many school age children in Niagara.