I have sent a letter to the consultants, and all the elected folks, in a reformat of the last post. I added on these requests:
I am requesting you consider incorporating the following concerns into this process:
• The calculation of capacity on the peninsula needs to be revised. If you accept that just one classroom in each school, as an average, is being used for ancillary program delivery but is being counted as empty, that removes almost 500 so called “empty people places” from the equation. I suspect it is far more! I am not willing to see money spent on a new building because we have ESL and student support rooms that are 650 square foot classrooms instead of 300 square foot seminar rooms. This shell game slight of hand has to stop, so we have a clear place to plan from.
• To truly future proof P-6 schools with 300 student capacity, you need to have ten elementary schools on the peninsula.
• There is little chance the community will accept just 2 junior highs on the peninsula.
• You need to engage the SACs in a real way. The SAC representatives need to be providing direction and making decisions, not sitting in a room being talked at. This is undermining any validity or community buy in you are hoping to achieve.
• You must stop discussion French Immersion or any program delivery. You did not poll the public about this, nor is it in your mandate, no matter who is pressuring you to include it now.
• You should work with HRM to develop a consensus population and enrollment model that reflects what is happening and planned on the peninsula.