TDSB ARCs may push out the poor

5 Responses to “TDSB ARCs may push out the poor”

1. 
   saveschools
   March 31, 2010 at 6:05 pm

   Thank you for this. I have been trying to point out the inequity of the school closing rampage on my blog saveschools.wordpress.com

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 
   Wasabi
   December 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm

   Thank you Diane for an interesting look at the ARC process in Toronto, you bring up some interesting albeit misleading points.

   The Accommodation Review Committee (ARC) or Program Area Review Team (PART) process as you know, is intended to support the development of appropriate accommodation options for students at the TDSB. It is an open process whereby all families, students and individuals in the community are entitled to present their options, opinions and recommendations to the board and trustees.

   You seem to point out a select group of schools that fit your argument, rather than providing a complete picture – this I find is disingenuous.

   In 2009-10 the following schools where involved in ARCs:
   – Blacksmith, Gosford, Driftwood, Shoreham, Brookview
   – Alpha 2, Brock Jr, Dovercourt, Kent, Pauline
   – Chief Dan George PS, Brooks, Meadowvale, John Diefenbaker, Highcastle
   – Davisville, Eglinton, Hodgson, Maurice Cody, Spectrum
   – Briar Hill, Fairbank, West Prep
   – Heron Park, Eastview, Joseph, Pector Secor, William G. Miller
   – Highland Heights, Lynnwood, Timerbank
   – JR Willcox, Cedervale, Arlington, Rawlinson, Humewood
   – Keelesdale, Silverthorn, Kane, CE Webster,
   – McCowan, Cedarbrook, Knob Hill, John McCrea, Pringdale Gardens, Charles Gordon
   http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=10118&menuid=24527&pageid=21235

   Interestingly, you fail to mention several of the other ARCs or/and or their outcomes. For example, in the case of Blacksmith, Gosford, Driftwood, Shoreham and Brookview the board and the community determined that “all five schools in the Accommodation Review are an essential part of the community and should all remain open and that increased capacity of the school facilities would be necessary to ensure space for additional students within their communities” (NW2_Ward_4_Accommodation_Review_Final_Report). All five of these schools are represented in the bottom LOI quintile and they did not close. Instead, all five school have increased their capacity and improved access to programming.

   Let’s look at another case, as a result of the Davisville, Eglinton, Hodgson Maurice Cody and Spectrum ARC “Spectrum Alternative Senior School was relocated to Davisville Junior Public School/Metropolitan Toronto School” (Davisville_Yonge_Arc_Decision_Lt_Oct4_2010). Number two in the top quintile.

   Given the above examples, it would seem that your theory that “twice as many schools under review are in the bottom half (the poorer half) of the school board’s Learning Opportunity Index (LOI) as compared to those in the top half. And, of the 16 schools being reviewed in the top half of the LOI, they are all less vulnerable to closure because they have higher enrolment and utilization rates”, is rather one sided.

   ARCs are meant to promote school consolidation in order to improve educational facilities, programs and most importantly student outcomes. That said, closing a school is never easy, but decisions are not based on low-performance, but rather the ability of school to provide an adequate learning environment.

   If a number of schools in a given geographic region are under-utilized, then they cannot sustain adequate programming. For example, if a specialized high-skills major program has only three kids in attendance, then the cost of supporting the program with a teacher is not viable, whereas schools with higher utilization can provide greater access to programs.

   It would be nice to keep every community school open in the province, but this is just not feasible, nor practical in light of declining enrolment. Instead, ARCs provide direction to the ongoing and sustained need for a new school, with new programs often within the community undergoing the ARC.

   It’s article like this that tend to incite peoples passions in the wrong direction. They imply that the board, communities and the government have some sort motive to close school if they underperform – this is simply not true. I caution all who read this to consider for themselves the future of public education in Ontario, and think about what they want for their children.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 
     Diane Dyson
     December 15, 2010 at 1:17 am

     I appreciate your careful and considered comments, and I don’t think we are that far apart. Each of the schools you list are part of my analysis of what schools were selected for review in the 2009-2010 round. We even link to the same webpage.

     Where you point out the schools in the lowest quintile of the LOI, around the Jane Finch community, escaped closure as evidence of the weakness of my argument, my point was broader – that they were selected for review versus some schools in the downtown core (where schools are emptier, but parents richer). The Jane-Finch ARC was unique because parents organized, and the decision to postpone the review only occurred after the Board of Trustees
     “saw protests, angry parent rallies, board meetings that dragged past midnight, and one committee meeting derailed by angry community members who accused the TDSB of institutional racism.” (Globe and Mail, November 9, 2010)
     While the ARC committee has recommended leaving the schools open, this decision has yet to be confirmed by a vote at the Board-level.

     However, the point I hoped to make in this blog post last spring (and was convinced to update recently) is not whether school closings are merited or regrettable (I think they are, but that’s another post or two!)

     Rather, I hoped to point out that those with less societal privilege are more likely to do poorly through any review process. I think the list shows that is so. Where richer schools were under review, the closure option was not on the table because the schools selected for review were not the high-LOI ones which are under-enrolled. (Another post I did on pool closings shows the same troubling pattern, in fact.) Classism is a strong, and often unseen, force in our education system.

     LikeLike

     Reply

Trackbacks

1. TDSB ARCs may push out the poor « Save Our Schools
   March 31, 2010 at 6:11 pm
2. Double Jeopardy for Poorer Schools In TDSB School Closing Process « Save Our Schools
   December 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm