Kenton Community Meeting School Review

1
Kenton Community MeetingSchool Review

• February 27, 2007

2
History of Kenton School Review Process

• Put under review by Board motion on April 5, 2004
  for program reasons. The only other reason for a
  school review under the previous policy was a K-8
  threshold number set at 30 students.
• Kenton school was removed from review on October
  20, 2005 by board motion based on the perceived
  improvement in program. No data or formal
  assessment on program was provided to place
  Kenton school under review or to remove it from
  review. Student numbers were 0.5 FTE greater than
  the required 30 student threshold.

3
Second review status

• A new school review policy was adopted by board
  motion on June 7, 2006 after a period of six
  months of discussion with all stakeholders.
• The new threshold student numbers in this policy
  are 42.5 FTE for a school with the grade
  configuration of Kenton.

4
Agenda for tonight's meeting

• Reasons for the Boards decisions to date,
  predicted cost savings, future programs, and to
  raise possible options or questions for the
  review committee.
• Representatives from the community would also
  present to the Board of Trustees and members of
  the public their preferred options for the future
  of Kenton school.
• The Review Policy allows for this process but
  additional members are required
• 1. Two parents with children attending Kenton
  School
• 2. Two non-parents from the community

5
Context for tonights meeting

• Under the present provincial government
  guidelines for school closure and the school
  review policy of the Park West School Division,
  the soonest date that Kenton school could be
  closed would be June 30, 2008. The Parent
  Council asked for this meeting to determine
  whether the community wished the school to remain
  open until that date or look at possible closure
  on June 30, 2007.
• Prior to any community decision they asked that
  information be presented on the new policy, the
  process of school review, future options for
  families, reasons for the Boards decisions to
  date, future division restructuring, predicted
  cost savings, future programs, possible options,
  and to answer your questions. Representatives
  from the parent council would also present to the
  Board of Trustees and members of the public their
  preferred options for the future of Kenton school.

6
Context for tonights meeting

• Following this information, discussion,
  questions, and answers, the Parent Advisory
  Council felt those in attendance could make a
  decision with respect to the school review
  process. Hopefully, this is what you understand
  the purpose of this meeting to be.
• Kenton school was placed back on review on June
  7, 2006 as the student numbers were 14 less than
  the required numbers under the new policy.
• A public meeting in Kenton was held on June 15,
  2006 to provide information on the reasons for
  review, the new policy, review committee
  membership, and a proposed transportation plan
  for students if they wished to attend Hamiota.

7
School Review Outcomes

• School facility could remain status quo.
• Some grades could be discontinued.
• The school could be closed.
• Depending on the timelines, it could be a
  combination of the first three.
• There is no option for the Division or any
  community to maintain the facilities and keep the
  same level of program and staff.

8
Future guarantees

• There is no individual, Board of Trustees, or
  senior government official that can make any
  guarantee for the future of Education in Park
  West School Division or the province.
• What we do know is that since 1998 our student
  numbers have decreased by 481 and our best
  predictions show a similar drop in the next eight
  to 10 years. We need to adjust our
  infrastructure and other costs in order to insure
  quality programming for both existing and
  emerging educational needs.

9
Future guarantees

• The decisions of the Board of Trustees are not
  leading these changes but simply reacting to them
  along with many businesses, human service
  agencies, churches, recreation facilities, and
  other community infrastructures.
• In fact, Boards of Trustees in this division and
  others have been very cautious to react which has
  put pressure on the local Levy and the
  maintenance of a full spectrum quality
  educational program.

10
Small schools research

• Advantages
• Raise student achievement
• Reduce incidents of disruptive behavior
• Raise student achievement
• Reduce student anonymity and isolation
• Increased attendance and graduation rates
• Elevate teacher satisfaction
• Improved school climate
• More cost effective
• Be as good as or better then large schools

11
Small schools research

• Definition of small schools
• Ontario- lt 400 students
• Manitoba- lt 15 students per grade level
• Saskatchewan- lt 20 students per grade level with
  small school funding based on the distance
  between schools and 10 or more students per grade
  level. In other words, they define a viability
  level as well.
• Alberta- small high schools are defined as those
  with less than 250 students
• Illinois- 100 to 350 students in elementary
  school and less than 500 students in secondary
  schools
• Park West School Division- all schools in our
  division would be defined as small schools under
  most definitions except for Major Pratt in
  Russell.

12
Small versus viable schools

• Schools with the population of Kenton are not
  discussed in any research document. The number
  25 only comes up in the research of a viable
  classroom and not a viable school.
• Obviously the ideal size of the school is one
  that is cost-effective, maximizes social
  benefits, and produces high academic achievement.
• There is no research to answer this question
  given the varying definitions of what is a small,
  middle, or large size of school.

13
Small versus viable schools

• Obviously larger schools are more cost efficient
  because of their economies of scale but they may
  not be more cost-effective if they have lower
  graduation rates.
• In any case, the discussion may be moot, as all
  schools but one in our division fall within the
  small school definition.
• It is clear that course development has assumed a
  single grade delivery and is not intended for
  cross-grade groupings or thematic studies. This
  means that any more than two grades per classroom
  is instructionally problematic given other
  educational challenges associated with inclusive
  education.

14
Division enrollment summary

• We are predicting and drop of 443 students by
  September 30, 2011 if there are no First Nation
  students under educational agreements attending
  our schools. Although this seems unlikely, if
  funding policy from the federal government does
  not change the probability does increase.
• This decrease may only be 343 students if there
  are changes in federal funding policy and First
  Nations students continue to attend with the same
  participation rates under our present educational
  agreements.

15
Student demographics for Kenton

• Students that are home-schooled - 4
• Students predicted Sept. 30, 2007 26.5
• K-8 students to other divisions 4
• K-8 students from other divisions - 1
• K-8 choice of school students - 11
• A significant number of families have already
  made
• their own choices through home-schooling, school
  of
• choice, and division of choice.

16
Other Division Data

• P. W. S. D. per-pupil actual costs for the past
  four years as compared to provincial average are
  as follows
• Year 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
  2006/07p
• Prov Average 8,000 8,365 8,767
  9,243
• Difference 349 394 404
  363
• We collected 3254.90 per student in special levy
  for the 2005/2006 school year which was about
  110 greater than the provincial average.
• Average costs of operation per student for Kenton
  school for the past three years as compared to
  the division average
• Year 2004/05
  2005/05 2006/07
• Kenton School 8,875 8,255
  8,890
• Division 5,608
  6,283 6,180
• Difference 3266 1972
  2701

17
School space

• We average 210.5 ft.² per student which is the
  fourth highest of the 24 rural divisions in
  Manitoba. The provincial average four rural
  divisions is 173.9 ft.² per student.
• The average for the province is 145 ft.² per
  student.
• We have too many square feet of space and too few
  little feet of students.

18
Transportation

• If Kenton School was closed parents could
  exercise School of Choice with respect to where
  their children would attend school.
• If all families select Hamiota Schools, we would
  be able to pick up all students within the
  Boards policy of no earlier than 730 am and
  eliminate one route in the Hamiota Kenton area.

19
Controlling Expenditures

• All school divisions use a combination three
  strategies to
• reduce or control expenditures
• Larger schools because of perceived economies of
  scale are asked to be more efficient in their use
  of resources and staff. (internal)
• Partnerships with other external human service
  agencies and other educational jurisdictions to
  improve the efficiency of staff and use of
  resources. (external)
• Limiting the range of services provided by the
  division and expanding the number of services
  that are fully or partially funded by a user pay
  model. (privatization)

20
Internal Strategies

• PWSD uses different staffing formula depending on
  the population of the school. These vary from
  15.0 to 19.5 for the pupil-teacher ratio.
• We also have threshold numbers which no school
  can fall below regardless of the student
  population. For instance we supply a minimum of
  0.20 FTE in school administration and 1 ½ hours
  of secretarial time regardless of student
  numbers.
• We could reduce our teacher numbers by 8.5 FTE if
  we staffed all schools at 19.5 and we would have
  to add 14 FTE teachers if we staffed at 15.0 PTR.
  
• Either decision would dramatically affect our
  budget given the average cost of a teacher is
  approximately 65,000.

21
Internal Strategies (cont)

• Our staffing formula allows for equity of outcome
  in the smaller schools by asking for a greater
  efficiency in the larger schools. This is a
  difficult area for Boards of Trustees to change
  given the impact on program and students in each
  school. The example provided above assumes no
  change in the allocation for administration,
  guidance, reading recovery, music, or resource
  time.
• Increasing the PTR is best done through the
  right-sizing of schools if meeting existing and
  emerging needs is important.

22
External Strategies

• Most school divisions have partnerships with
  other educational jurisdictions or human service
  agencies which create efficiencies for their
  employees or improve student services with a
  reduced cost.
• We have educational service agreements with four
  First Nations and one postsecondary institution.
  
• Each of these agreements creates a joint campus
  which both provides a wider range of course
  options, improved services, and efficiencies in
  the assignment of staff.

23
External Strategies (cont)

• The amalgamation of Birdtail River and Pelly
  Trail school divisions to create Park West school
  division would be a large example of this
  strategy.
• In this case, one that was demanded by the
  provincial government.
• We have excellent support from the business
  community and other agencies that provide
  placements for our students in apprenticeship or
  work experience courses. This is an area that
  the board would like to expand.

24
Privatization

• Park West does not use the strategy to any great
  extent.
• We do run vocational evening courses as an option
  for some students. Some of the costs of these
  courses are offset by direct charges to the
  students taking these courses.
• As well, most schools, particularly at the grade
  7 through 12 level, to charge for consumables in
  some courses and for how curricular activities.
• This is not an area that trustees wish to see
  expanded given the inherent inequities and policy
  constraints.

25
Funding Sources

• School divisions have access to the
• following sources of funding
• Provincial grants
• Local levy
• Tuition
• Surplus (if it exists)
• Charges to students

26
Changes in provincial funding and savings

• We took a look at the changes in provincial
  funding based on the 2005/2006 funding formula
  for two scenarios assuming Kenton School would be
  closed effective June 30, 2007.
• There would be a loss of 20,465 if all students
  opted for Hamiota School. This would increase to
  142,451 if all students opted out of Park West
  School Division.
• In the first scenario we are assuming that
  transportation costs will remain the same
  although there would be the reduction of one bus
  route and driver but no additional kilometers in
  the new Hamiota/Kenton catchment area. This would
  result in an additional predicted savings of
  14511.00. In scenario two there would be a
  predicted savings of 77,418.00 due to the loss
  of two bus routes.

27
Predicted savings

• Our predicted savings if all students went to
  Hamiota School would be 71053.00. This assumes
  a reduction of 20465.00 in provincial grants and
  no loss in the local levy.
• Our predicted savings if all families choose to
  send their children outside of the division would
  be 149,140.00. This assumes a loss of
  142,451.00 in grants, tuition fees of
  34,450.00, and no change in the local levy.
• The reason that there is not a greater savings is
  the categorical nature of provincial funding for
  building operation and transportation. For
  instance, the provincial government funds 68 of
  the operation costs of building regardless of the
  number of students. At present, there is no
  recognition from the province for efficiency
  measures in this area by a school division.
• Incredibly, the Division sees greater saving if
  all of the Kenton students leave. This is the
  problem with ineffective categorical nature of
  much of the provincial grant. This has been
  addressed with the deputy Minister of Education.

28
Future maintenance liabilities

• Kenton School is structurally sound.

29
Program Comparisons2006-2007

• Program Kenton
  Hamiota
• Pupil educator ratio 10
  15
• Grades per classroom 3 or 4
  1
• Band __
  yes
• Art multi-graded
  K 8
• Intramural ____
  yes
• Co-curricular 2 or 3
  all
• Special-education some
  full program
• Technology some
  strongest in division
• Specialized teachers multi-graded
  all areas
• Music French Phys Ed multi-graded all
  areas are strong
• Careers no
  yes
• Elementary program multi-graded
  full program
• Middle years program multi-graded full
  program Math ELA emphasis
• High school program not applicable
  academic and business streams (dual diploma)
• 
  limited vocational program
  
  

30
Program Comparisons 2007-2008

• The big difference for both HES and Kenton
  Schools for this fall is the number and nature of
  combined grade levels in both schools. Unless the
  Board assigns an additional 10 more staff to
  Kenton, approximately half of the day will see
  classrooms of 4 grade levels.
• HES will have some split grades in their
  classrooms because of fewer students and assigned
  staff.
• If both student populations were together, then
  you would have single grade classrooms with a
  wider access to special education programs such
  as Reading Recovery.

31
Other comments

• Is a community losing their school or are two
  communities gaining a better school?
• Rationalization and restructuring has been
  happening with businesses such as grain companies
  and machine agencies, recreation facilities such
  as rinks or ball diamonds and the teams that play
  on them, human services such as health, justice,
  and education (eg Pelly and Birdtail River),
  churches and service clubs.
• Farms are larger, families smaller, the
  population is aging, and senior government policy
  for rural areas is absent or nonexistent. The
  intergenerational transfer of businesses and
  farms is not occurring.
• Fort la Bosse School Division continues to lose
  students even with millions of dollars invested
  in the energy sector.

32
Other comments (cont)

• Additional closures and rationalization will
  occur within our division if our predicted
  reduction in student numbers of 400 students
  occurs in the next five years.
• This is why the Board of Trustees is moving
  proactively with all communities to develop a
  restructuring plan that is transparent and
  appropriate for our area.
• The Board of Trustees has met with the Minister
  of Education seeking assistance for this process
  and a provincial vision to articulate with our
  decisions and plan.
• We have also met with the four First Nation
  communities we have educational services
  agreements with and have jointly lobbied INAC
  regarding their funding formula.

33
Other comments (cont)

• We have had some initial meetings with
  surrounding divisions and the First Nation
  communities to discuss how we might create a
  shared services arrangement for the services of
  clinicians, technicians, administration,
  operations and maintenance.
• We have signed the joint agreement with
  Assiniboine Community College which provides
  access postsecondary credits for high school
  students in Park West School Division in return
  for office space in our facility.
• We have met with the Public Schools Finance Board
  and have agreed to be a pilot division for
  right-sizing of school facilities.
• The Board of Trustees and administration hope
  that families make a choice which both preserves
  and maintains a sense of community. We believe
  this would mean most if not all families would
  choose to send their children to Hamiota Schools
  if Kenton School closes.

34
Review Committee membership

• The Review Policy requires that additional
  members
• join the Review Committee
• 1. Two parents with children attending Kenton
  School
• 2. Two non-parents from the community
• Would anyone like to put their name forward?

35
In conclusion

• Thank you for your valued input and discussion
  regarding the present and future educational
  structure and program in the Park West School
  Division.