During the budget process this past spring, the Board directed staff to bring forward a list of schools for possible reconfiguration or closure. The list included a possible reconfiguration of John Peterson and Kamloops Secondary. It was determined that the Board would embark on a process of public consultation before making a final decision.

On June 6, 2002 the Board held a public meeting at the Henry Grube Education Centre to hear reactions to the proposal and to determine issues and questions that should be addressed in any staff report. The meeting was widely publicized in the local media and a letter was sent home to each parent of students at John Peterson and Kamloops Secondary, as well as all elementary schools feeding into those schools. An additional public meeting was held at Kamloops Secondary on June 20, 2002 for parents who could not be present at the public meeting on June 6th.

On September 9, 2002 a staff report on the proposed reconfiguration was presented to the Board. The report included seventy-two questions raised at the public meetings in June, as well as the staff responses to those questions. The Board determined that the staff report should be the topic for another public meeting, which was held on September 24, 2002 at the Henry Grube Education Centre. That meeting was also publicized through the local media and again letters were sent home to parents of students at John Peterson, Kamloops Secondary and their feeder elementary schools. In addition, a questionnaire was included with the letter to parents. Also, a letter was provided for students at John Peterson and Kamloops Secondary, which also included a questionnaire. The notes from the three public meetings have been distributed to all Board members and Board members also have access to the returned questionnaires from both parents and students.

Maintain the Existing Configuration

The Board can maintain the same configuration and still provide an excellent quality education to the students in both schools. However, if the enrolments continue to decline in both schools, the status quo cannot be maintained with respect to the academic program and possibly some extra-curricular programs.

All secondary schools are staffed according to a ratio. Therefore, teaching positions will be lost as enrollments decline providing less timetabling flexibility while at the same time meaning fewer staff to provide the extracurricular program. In addition, the Board will have to look elsewhere for any savings that would have been realized as a result of this proposal. Those savings will be necessary to balance the budget in years two and three of the Board’s three-year budget program.

In essence, a decision to maintain the existing configuration will mean the challenges facing John Peterson and Kamloops Secondary, due to declining enrollment, will be similar to those being confronted by most of our other secondary schools.

Deferral of the Decision

The Board may want to defer the decision. In that event the Board should clearly state the reasons for the deferral. Otherwise a decision to defer could cause a protracted state of uncertainty, which would not be in the best interest of either school community.

If the Board defers because it needs additional information, or it requires further analysis of information that has been provided, it should state clearly the additional information it requires or the additional analysis it wants completed. It should also indicate the time frame in which it wants those tasks to be completed.

Also, the Board could determine that it wants to defer the decision until the new Board takes office. In that eventuality, with a number of new trustees (all four rural trustees will be new), it will be necessary to restart the process. In effect, that would most likely mean that there would be insufficient time to proceed with implementation if a new Board determined it wanted to implement a reconfiguration. In effect, it would be a decision not to proceed at least for the 2003–2004 school year. As a result, savings would have to be found in other areas to balance the 2003–2004 budget.

A Third Option

This option is presented as a result of the input received at the public meetings in June and September. The predominant criticisms presented at the public meetings were related to parental concerns regarding the size of the new configuration, concerns over the possible loss of the AA designation for athletic extra-curricular activities and what that would mean for opportunities for student participation, as well as effects on the academic program. There was also a minority view expressed at the three public meetings and through the questionnaire responses that some parents wanted to proceed with the reconfigurations because of the possible increase in academic choices for students through fewer course conflicts. Therefore, the Board may want to consider providing an alternative that would allow both schools to maintain their separate identities and status while providing some degree of academic integration, which will provide the increase in timetable flexibility which some parents and students desire.

If the Board wants to consider a third option it is suggested that the timetable integration might only apply to the senior secondary students, specifically those in grades ten, eleven and twelve. Such an option will not realize the savings presented in the original proposal, may reduce some of the choices for students originally provided, and would not be without some significant challenges. However, it would provide some broader options to senior students in the context of declining enrollments while allowing both schools to maintain their present athletic designations. In addition, it will allow for some flexibility if there are fluctuations in enrollment due to changes in the local economy resulting from out migration or in migration of students. It is also anticipated that there would be some startup costs for such an option.

If the Board expresses a preference for this third option it should direct staff to examine it in more detail and report back to the Board. The report should include information on the effects on the academic program, possible efficiencies, startup costs, logistical issues, as well as any other matters the Board might determine.

Superintendent

TS/nr

cc: J. Sheldon