You are on page 1of 162

AGENDA – Revised September 19, 2012

School Board Meeting
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Reports attached following Agenda 1. CALL TO ORDER

6:00 pm

Board Chambers 33 Spectacle Lake Drive Dartmouth, NS

2.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

3.

AWARDS / PRESENTATIONS (Normally awards and presentations will be limited to 5 minutes – the Chair may extend the time limit under unique circumstances.)

4.

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Start2Finish Running and Reading Clubs – Silvia Ruegger, National Director Pathways to Education – Bonnie Ste-Croix, Co-Executive Director Chebucto Communities Development Association “Ban the Bottle” – Hannah Cameron, Student – Citadel High School

4.2

4.3

5.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES/BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES June 20, 2012 (Regular Board) June 8, 2011 (Finance Committee) September 7, 2011 (Planning, Policy & Priority Committee)

6.

CORRESPONDENCE

7.

CHAIR’S FOUR YEAR REPORT
Halifax Regional School Board 33 Spectacle Lake Drive Dartmouth NS B3B 1X7 T 902 464-2000 Ext. 2321 F 902 464-2420

The HRSB would appreciate the support of the public and staff in creating a scent-reduced environment at all meetings. During Board meetings, cell phone ringers should be switched to vibrate or turned off. Cell phone conversations must take place outside the Board Chambers. We appreciate your cooperation. Thank you.

8.

SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT

9.

ITEMS FOR DECISION 9.1 Report #12-04-1343 - Bottled Water Report – Selena Henderson, Corporate Secretary Report #12-09-1366 - Policy C.012 – Life-Threatening Allergies Policy – Selena Henderson, Corporate Secretary Report #12-09-1365 - E.001 Purchasing Policy – Selena Henderson, Corporate Secretary Report #12-08-1362 – Site Selection for a High School in Eastern Passage – Ron Heiman, Director, Operation Services Report #12-09-1367 - High School Grade Configuration Report – Danielle McNeil-Hessian, Director, School Administration (Revised
September 18, 201)

9.2

9.3

9.4

9.5

10.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (Committee reports will be limited to 5 minutes – the Chair may extend the time limit under unique circumstances.) 10.1 10.2 Audit Committee Nova Scotia School Boards Association

11.

INFORMATION ITEMS 11.1 Report #12-09-1364 – Annual Purchasing Report – Terri Thompson, Director, Financial Services, and Kathryn Burlton, Manager Accounting and Purchasing Report #12-08-1363 - Occupational Health & Safety – Quarterly Update – Q2 2012 - April 1, 2012 to June 31, 2012 – Mike Christie, Director, Human Resource Services, and John Swales, Manager, Occupational Health & Safety Report #12-09-1370 - Impact Assessment Reports – Eastern Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated and Sheet Harbour Elementary – Ron Heiman, Director, Operation Services

11.2

11.3

The HRSB would appreciate the support of the public and staff in creating a scent-reduced environment at all meetings. During Board meetings, cell phone ringers should be switched to vibrate or turned off. Cell phone conversations must take place outside the Board Chambers. We appreciate your cooperation. Thank you.

Halifax Regional School Board 33 Spectacle Lake Drive Dartmouth NS B3B 1X7 T 902 464-2000 Ext. 2321 F 902 464-2420

11.4

Report #12-09-1371 – C.007 Assessment, Evaluation, and Communication of Student Learning Policy – Selena Henderson, Corporate Secretary

12.

NOTICE OF MOTION

13.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING Board Meeting – November 28, 2012

14.

IN-CAMERA

15.

ADJOURNMENT

The HRSB would appreciate the support of the public and staff in creating a scent-reduced environment at all meetings. During Board meetings, cell phone ringers should be switched to vibrate or turned off. Cell phone conversations must take place outside the Board Chambers. We appreciate your cooperation. Thank you.

Halifax Regional School Board 33 Spectacle Lake Drive Dartmouth NS B3B 1X7 T 902 464-2000 Ext. 2321 F 902 464-2420

Public Private

x

Report No. 12-04-1343 Date : September 26, 2012

HALIFAX REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD BOTTLED WATER REPORT
PURPOSE: This report is for approval by the Governing Board following a request at the February 29, 2012, Regular Board meeting on the impact of eliminating the sale of bottled water from HRSB schools. n/a The Governing Board requested a staff report at the February 29, 2012, Regular Board meeting on the impact of eliminating the sale of bottled water in HRSB schools. This request followed a public presentation by students requesting the Board “Ban the Bottle.” Staff researched the impact of this request. This research included: - a review of the bottled water policies of other municipalities, boards, and governments; - access of safe municipal water in schools and the state of water fountains in schools; - impact on cafeteria and vending machine contracts; - student hydration requirements; and - impact of fundraising from bottle recycling. Presently, 28 municipalities, 12 colleges/universities and 4 school boards have approved bottled water bans. In addition, 120 municipalities, school boards and universities across Canada have rejected bottled water bans, and 19 are currently reviewing their options. Individual schools in the HRSB have independent contracts with cafeterias and vending machines. It would be challenging to eliminate the sale of bottled water from schools considering the number and variety of contracts. Water fountains are present in most HRSB schools but are expensive to maintain and are not always favored by students. An alternative to the traditional water fountain are water filling stations. This is a filtered water cooler device where students can fill their refillable water bottles. Such a station is currently being investigated in Dartmouth High. At many HRSB schools, bottle recycling is part of school fundraising. The impact of the loss of revenue for these schools is another consideration for the Board. Approximately 9 HRSB schools do not have access to safe municipal water. These schools depend on bottled water. Finally, the Board must consider the need for adequate student hydration in schools. There is often insufficient water fountains to

BUSINESS PLAN GOAL: BACKGROUND:

CONTENT:

meet the generally accepted hydration requirement of 8-10 glasses of water per day. Research from the Toronto District School Board in 2009 indicates that the majority of students who normally purchase bottled water will either choose to drink nothing or substitute a less healthy option if bottled water is not available. The HRSB understands that eliminating the sale of bottled water is a pressing environmental concern. However, with 137 schools in the Board, we have unique considerations at different schools. As a result, we recommend that individual schools are best positioned to make the decision on whether to eliminate bottled water at their site. Individual schools are also the best places to commit to the process of changing the culture of bottled water. We are encouraged that several schools in the HRSB have already “banned” the sale of bottle water. Possible future steps and considerations: - support schools efforts as they continue to educate students about the benefits of municipal tap water use and the importance of environmental responsibilities; and - eliminate the use of bottled water at Board meetings.

COST: FUNDING: TIMELINE: APPENDICES: RECOMMENDATIONS:

n/a n/a. Following Board approval. n/a It is recommended that the Governing Board give individual schools the authority to make their own decision regarding whether the sale of bottled water will be eliminated from their site.

COMMUNICATION: COMMUNICATIONS: RESPONSIBLE AUDIENCE Principals Danielle McNeilHessian, Director School Administration HRSB Communications Doug Hadley, Coordinator Communications TIMELINE Following Board approval

Following Board approval

From:

For further information please contact Selena Henderson, Corporate Secretary at shenderson@hrsb.ns.ca or 464-2000, ext. 2324.

Public Private

X

Report No.12-09-1366 Date: September 26, 2012

HALIFAX REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES POLICY
PURPOSE: The Life-Threatening Allergies Policy is being brought forward with a revision for the Board’s approval and the procedures are being brought forward for information. n/a The Life-Threatening Allergies Policy was originally approved by the Board in September, 2011. It is now being brought back with a revision for the Board’s approval and the procedures are being brought forward for information. The Food and Nutrition Policy for Nova Scotia Public Schools is recommended to be added to the Life-Threatening Allergies policy under the policy framework. In the procedures of this policy, it is recommended that the Board accept the addition of sections relating to students who require the storage of their epinephrine auto-injector at school, rather than on their person. COST: FUNDING: TIMELINE: APPENDICES: RECOMMENDATIONS: n/a n/a Upon Board approval. Life-Threatening Allergies Policy and Procedures. It is recommended that the Board approve the revision to the LifeThreatening Allergies policy and the procedures to be accepted for information.

BUSINESS PLAN GOAL: BACKGROUND:

CONTENT:

COMMUNICATIONS: AUDIENCE HRSB community RESPONSIBLE Selena Henderson, Corporate Secretary TIMELINE Upon Board approval

From:

For further information, please contact Selena Henderson at shenderson@hrsb.ns.ca or 464-2000; ext. 2324. Senior Staff – September 2012 Governing Board- September 26, 2012

To:

CODE: C.012 Program

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES

POLICY
CONTENTS 1.0 2.0 3.0 PRINCIPLES POLICY FRAMEWORK AUTHORIZATION

1.0

PRINCIPLES 1.1 Halifax Regional School Board will maximize the safety of students who may be subject to life-threatening allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Plans shall be put in place to minimize the risk of anaphylactic reactions among students by information and awareness, avoidance and emergency response. Anaphylaxis management is a shared responsibility that includes students with life-threatening allergies, their parent(s)/guardian(s), caregivers, and the entire school community.

1.2

1.3

2.0

POLICY FRAMEWORK 2.1 The Halifax Regional School Board is committed to ensuring this policy is in accordance with the following acts and policies: 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 Nova Scotia Education Act C.006 Special Education Policy C.009 Administration of Medication Policy B.014 School Trips Policy C.011 Severe Medical Conditions Policy Student Records Policy Food and Nutrition Policy for Nova Scotia Public Schools

3.0

AUTHORIZATION 3.1 The superintendent is authorized to develop and implement procedures in support of this policy.
Page 1 of 1

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES POLICY Approved: Revised: May 24, 2012

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES

PROCEDURES
CONTENTS 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 PRINCIPALS’ RESPONSIBILITIES SCHOOL STAFF RESPONSIBLITIES PARENT(S)’/GUARDIAN(S)’ RESPONSIBILITIES STUDENTS’ RESPONSIBILITIES ALLERGIC REACTION RESPONSE POLICY REVIEW

APPENDICES A. B. DEFINITIONS ANAPHYLAXIS EMERGENCY PLAN

1.0

PRINCIPALS’ RESPONSIBILITIES 1.1 The principal shall: 1.1.1 Ensure that schools are allergen-aware; 1.1.1.1 1.1.2 Post signage that the school is allergen-aware.

Ensure that parent(s)/guardian(s) of students with life-threatening allergies are provided with the Anaphylaxis Emergency Plan at registration and annually; Ensure that parent(s)/guardian(s) of a child with a life-threatening allergy have completed the Anaphylaxis Emergency Plan; Ensure parent(s)/guardian(s) of children with life-threatening allergies complete Form A, Administration of Prescribed Medication to Students, C.009 Administration of Medication Policy; Provide parent(s)/guardian(s) with criteria for documentation in the event the parent(s)/guardian(s)determine their child is not developmentally able to assume the responsibility of carrying the Epinephrine auto-injector on their person; 1.1.5.1 Signed documentation must be received by the parent /
Page 1 of 6

1.1.3

1.1.4

1.1.5

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES: PROCEDURES Adopted: Revised: May 24, 2012

guardian(s) stating they have read and understand the HRSB Life-Threatening Allergies Policy and Procedures C.012. The parent(s)/guardian(s) must indicate they are choosing to store their child’s epinephrine auto-injector at school. 1.1.5.2 The agreement to store the student’s epinephrine autoinjector at school must be reviewed annually in September.

1.1.6

Review policy and procedures and identify students with lifethreatening allergies as part of opening day procedures with all staff; 1.1.6.1 Establish a plan for informing substitute teachers, student teachers, and school volunteers of students with lifethreatening allergies and their Anaphylaxis Emergency Plans.

1.1.7

Ensure that all staff members who require training in preparation for working with students with life-threatening allergies and for administering an epinephrine auto-injector, have such training provided; Establish, and review with parent(s)/guardian(s), safe procedures for work experience, field trips, extracurricular activities and special events; Post names and pictures of students with Anaphylaxis Emergency Plans in the office and staff room;

1.1.8

1.1.9

1.1.10 Have copies of Anaphylaxis Emergency Plans in a file, readily available in the office and staff room; 1.1.11 Maintain up-to-date emergency contact information; 1.1.12 Obtain one unassigned epinephrine auto-injector for emergency use in the school; 1.1.12.1 The dose of epinephrine for the unassigned auto-injector will match that prescribed for the student(s) diagnosed with life-threatening allergies.

1.1.13 Store additional epinephrine auto-injectors in safe, unlocked and accessible locations;
LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES: PROCEDURES Adopted: Revised: May 24, 2012 Page 2 of 6

1.1.13.1 Inform staff of the location of epinephrine auto-injectors and review emergency routines. 1.1.13.2 Ensure used Epinephrine auto-injectors are disposed of in a puncture-resistant container (sharps container). 1.1.14 Ensure safe lunchroom/cafeteria eating procedures, including adherence to cleaning guidelines for the removal of substances which may be considered life-threatening allergens; 1.1.15 Take into consideration students with life-threatening allergies when purchasing supplies and materials; 1.1.16 In the event of a student transfer, ensure all relevant information pertaining to the student’s allergy is sent to the new school; 1.1.17 Take precautions to reduce student’s risk of exposure to insect venom; 1.1.17.1 Arrange for prompt removal of insect nests, ensuring grounds cleanliness, and close supervision of students when they are outside during bee/wasp season. Ensure exit doors remain closed during bee/wasp season.

1.1.17.2

1.1.18 When made aware that a student with a life-threatening allergy does not have their epinephrine auto-injector with them at school, contact parent(s)/guardian(s); 1.1.18.1 Notify parent(s)/guardian(s) of their responsibility to transport the epinephrine auto-injector to school immediately.

1.1.19 Include a copy of the Anaphylaxis Emergency Plan in the student’s cumulative file.

2.0

SCHOOL STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 School staff shall: 2.1.1 Discuss life-threatening allergies with the class, in age-appropriate terms; Discourage students from sharing or trading lunches or snacks;
Page 3 of 6

2.1.2

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES: PROCEDURES Adopted: Revised: May 24, 2012

2.1.3

Ensure steps be in place to protect the children with life-threatening allergies during class celebrations and/or school events; 2.1.3.1.1 Notify parents of food-allergic children when food is involved in class activities.

2.1.4 2.1.5

Reinforce hand-washing with soap and water before and after eating; Ensure that epinephrine auto-injectors are on the student when on school trips; 2.1.5.1 In the event there is an agreement for the epinephrine auto-injector to be stored at the school, a designated trained adult will carry the student’s epinephrine autoinjector for the duration of the school trip.

2.1.6

Contact the principal if they become aware of a student with a lifethreatening allergy who does not have their epinephrine auto-injector; Complete an entry in Form C, Administration of Prescribed Medication, C.009 Administration of Medication Policy in the event that an epinephrine auto-injector was administered. Take into consideration students with life-threatening allergies when using supplies and materials;

2.1.7

2.1.8

3.0

PARENT(S)’/GUARDIAN(S)’ RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Parent(s)/guardian(s) of a child with a life-threatening allergy shall: 3.1.1 Inform the school of their child’s allergy and complete the Anaphylaxis Emergency Plan provided by the school annually; Provide a photo of their child for the purpose of posting and placing it on the emergency plan; Notify the school immediately if any changes occur to the plan such as contact information, change in allergies or change in epinephrine dose; Be encouraged to provide a MedicAlert® bracelet or other means of medical identification for their child; Provide the child with an up-to-date epinephrine auto-injector(s);
Page 4 of 6

3.1.2

3.1.3

3.1.4

3.1.5

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES: PROCEDURES Adopted: Revised: May 24, 2012

3.1.5.1

The epinephrine auto-injector(s) will be clearly labeled with the child’s name.

3.1.6

Ensure their child carries an epinephrine auto-injector on them when they are attending school, as developmentally able and according to ability; 3.1.6.1 In the event the parent(s)/guardian(s) determines their child is not developmentally able to assume the responsibility of carrying their epinephrine auto-injector on their person, signed documentation will be submitted to the principal, annually in September. In the event that their child does not have their epinephrine auto-injector with them at school, parent(s)/guardian(s) will be asked to transport the epinephrine auto-injector to school immediately.

3.1.6.2

3.1.7 3.1.8 3.1.9

Provide school with up-to-date contact information; Provide support to school and teachers as requested; Provide safe foods for the student on special occasions;

3.1.10 Educate their child as to safe procedures including: 3.1.10.1 3.1.10.2 3.1.10.3 3.1.10.4 Strategies for avoiding exposure to allergens. Proper hand hygiene. Symptoms of an allergic reaction. How and when to tell an adult when there is an allergy related occurrence.

3.1.11 Complete Form A, Administration of Prescribed Medication to Students, C.009 Administration of Medication Policy annually and update as needed.

4.0

STUDENTS’ RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 Students with a life-threatening allergy shall: 4.1.1 Carry an epinephrine auto-injector device at all times while in school, participating in a school event, or on school trips; Take responsibility for avoiding relevant allergens, as age appropriate
Page 5 of 6

4.1.2

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES: PROCEDURES Adopted: Revised: May 24, 2012

and according to ability; 4.1.3 Be encouraged to wear a MedicAlert® bracelet, or other means of medical identification; Wash hands with soap and water before and after eating; Promptly inform an adult, as soon as exposure to an allergen occurs or symptoms of an allergic reaction appear; Know how to use the epinephrine auto-injector when age-appropriate (typically 7 years and up).

4.1.4 4.1.5

4.1.6

5.0

ALLERGIC REACTION RESPONSE 5.1 The following steps in order are to occur in the event of an allergic reaction: 5.1.1 Give epinephrine auto-injector immediately; 5.1.1.1 If the child wishes to self administer the epinephrine autoinjector, the school staff will support this action and assist if necessary. 5.1.2 5.1.3 Lay the child on his/her side; Call 9-1-1 and tell them someone is having a life-threatening allergic reaction; 5.1.3.1 If a second person is available, stay with the student and delegate them to call 9-1-1. 5.1.4 Give a second epinephrine auto-injector when available if the reaction continues or worsens in 5-15 minutes from the first dose of epinephrine; Ensure the student is transported to hospital immediately by ambulance for evaluation and observation; Call the student’s emergency contacts indicated on the Anaphylaxis Emergency Plan.

5.1.5

5.1.6

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES: PROCEDURES Adopted: Revised: May 24, 2012

Page 6 of 6

6.0

POLICY REVIEW 6.1 This policy will be reviewed every three years.

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES: PROCEDURES Adopted: Revised: May 24, 2012

Page 7 of 6

APPENDIX A LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES
DEFINITIONS Allergen: Anaphylaxis: Any substance that can cause an allergic reaction. A severe allergic reaction to a substance. The reaction may cause swelling, skin redness, itchiness, difficulty breathing, restlessness, abdominal cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, a rapid heart rate, loss of consciousness, and/or death. A hormone that mimics the actions of the sympathetic nervous system in response to stress (“fight or flight” response). Epinephrine stimulates heart rate and contractility (squeezing ability of the heart), as well as opens the airways. It is the drug of choice to use in the treatment of anaphylaxis.

Epinephrine:

Epinephrine auto-injector:

A device used to administer a specific, pre-measured dose of epinephrine intramuscularly (into a muscle).

LIFE-THREATENING ALLERGIES: APPENDIX Adopted: Revised: May 24, 2012

Page 1 of 1

Public Private

Report No. 12-09-1365 Date: September10, 2012

HALIFAX REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD
E.001 PURCHASING POLICY REVISION PURPOSE: To request approval from the Halifax Regional School Board for revisions to E.001 Purchasing Policy. In April 2012, the Board Chair and Vice-Chair received an email from the School Advisory Council Chair of Prince Andrew High School regarding a school committee that was organized around the principle of the “No Sweats” campaign. This campaign focused on an approach to the purchases of clothing and textiles from workplaces employing humane work practices rather than from “Sweat Shops”. The letter brought to the Board’s attention that in March 2006, the Board had agreed in principle with the “No Sweats” concept and referred it to the Policy and Program Committee for a decision

BACKGROUND:

(http://www.hrsb.ns.ca/files/Downloads/pdf/minutes/2006/29mar.pdf).
CONTENT: Following receipt of the letter from Prince Andrew High School, HRM were contacted regarding their Procurement Policy. In addition, Financial Services made inquiries to other boards regarding their practices. It was decided to add the wording of the HRM Procurement Policy as a revision to our current Purchasing Policy and to also revise the Guidelines to School Initiated Procurement to include this intent. Under the Rationale section of E.001 Purchasing Policy, a new clause will be added to read: 1.1.3 Procurement processes and decisions shall include consideration of environmental, economic and social factors.

E.001Purchasing Policy and the Guidelines to School Initiated Procurement have been edited to reflect this change. COST: FUNDING: TIMELINE: APPENDICES: N/A N/A Immediate Appendix 1: E.001 Purchasing Policy (page1) That the revised E.001 Purchasing Policy be approved by the Board and the revised accompanying Procedures be accepted for information.

RECOMMENDATION:

COMMUNICATIONS:

Audience
Financial Services Department Communications School Principals

Responsibility
Selena Henderson Corporate Secretary Selena Henderson Corporate Secretary Danielle McNeil-Hessian Director – School Administration

Timelines
Following the September 26 Board meeting Following the September 26 Board meeting Following the September 26 Board meeting

From:

For further information please contact Selena Henderson, Corporate Secretary, at Ext 2321 or by email at shenderson@hrsb.ns.ca. Senior Staff – September 10, 2012 Halifax Regional School Board – September 26, 2012
Report 12-09-1365.Purchasing PolicyReport.September2012 September 10, 2012

To:
file: date:

PURCHASING POLICY
1. Rationale
1.1 The Halifax Regional School Board is committed to ensuring that all: 1.1.1 Schools and board offices have access to goods and services that offer “best value” and are complying with all regulatory requirements including: • • • • 1.1.2 The Province of Nova Scotia Policy on Government Procurement (2005) The Atlantic Procurement Agreement (1996) Guidelines from the Canada Revenue Agency (RC4110(E) Rev. 06/12) The Agreement on Internal Trade (1995)

Goods and services are purchased in an open, fair, consistent, efficient, and competitive manner, by providing staff with the information and tools they need to implement best practices in purchasing. Procurement processes and decisions shall include consideration of environmental, economic and social factors.

1.1.3

2. Definition
2.1 Throughout the policy and procedural Handbook, “purchasing” refers to the work of identifying the need for goods and services in schools and at other board sites, and ensuring that the goods and services are bought responsibly, at the lowest possible cost, representing the best value available, and ensuring timely delivery. Definitions of other important terms used in this policy, are outlined in the ‘Glossary of Purchasing Terms’, in Part 2 – Procedures of the Handbook.

3. Scope
3.1 The Purchasing Policy applies to: 3.1.1 all board employees involved in purchasing, recommending purchases, or receiving any goods and/or services purchased by the board for use in the school system goods and services purchased by all schools or school board offices the purchase of goods and services regardless of the source of funds including Department of Education funding, board funds, school funds, or donations from parents or others.

3.1.2 3.1.3

Purchasing Policy & Handbook Approved

Policy ♦ Page 1

Public Private

X

Report No. 12-08-1362 Date: September 26, 2012

HALIFAX REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD Eastern Passage High School Site Review Recommendation

PURPOSE:

To seek approval from the Board for selection of one of the three elementary schools in the Eastern Passage area to be renovated to create a High School. This report supports Business Plan Goal #3: To ensure schools are safe and maintained to high standards. In April of 2012, the province announced a plan to invest $15 million in the renovation of an existing Eastern Passage school to create a high school serving the students of Eastern Passage. A Site Review Committee (SRC) was struck consisting of community members, school Principals, Vice-Principals, School Advisory Council (SAC) Chair persons, HRM Community and Recreation Services, HRSB School Administration, Program and Operations Staff. The mandate of the committee was to review the three existing elementary schools and provide a Site Review Report with a recommendation to the governing Board for a school to be renovated.

BUSINESS PLAN GOAL:

BACKGROUND:

CONTENT:

The Site Review Committee held four meetings which included a site visit of the three potential locations: Ocean View Elementary, Tallahassee Elementary and Seaside Elementary schools. The committee compiled logistical information on each school including building and grounds condition, existing enrolment, enrolment projections, school capacities, community impact and the advantages or disadvantages of each school if selected as the high school location. The data and recommendation are included in the Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report. The ability to relocate students to adjacent schools during the renovation is another factor considered within the report. The schedule for delivery of this project is September 2014. In order to meet this targeted timeline, it will be necessary to temporarily relocate the students from the selected school to other adjacent schools, allowing full access and construction site control by the contractor. It was hoped that the students at the recommended site could complete this year at their current school. However, it may be necessary to relocate the students to the other school(s) as early as April 2013 in order to accommodate the construction schedule. The final grade configuration of the remaining elementary and junior high schools in Eastern Passage will be determined within the next year through a boundary review process.

COST: FUNDING:

The cost of this renovation is $15 million. This project funding will be provided by the Province as an Additions/Alterations Capital project. The target date for the completion of the high school renovation is September 2014. Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report Based on the enclosed review, the Eastern Passage High School Site Review Committee recommends that Seaside Elementary School be approved as the school to be renovated for creation of a high school within the community of Eastern Passage.

TIMELINE:

APPENDICES: RECOMMENDATIONS:

COMMUNICATIONS: AUDIENCE Department of Education HRSB Communications RESPONSIBLE Ron Heiman, Director Operation Services Ron Heiman, Director Operation Services TIMELINE Following Board Approval Following Board Approval

From:

For further information please contact Ron Heiman, Director Operations Services. Phone: 464-2000 ext 2144 E-mail: rheiman@hrsb.ns.ca

To:

Senior Staff: Board:

September 10, 2012 September 26, 2012
2012 CHDHS EPH\Eastern

Filename:

\\columbia\departments\Facilities\Additions & Alterations\A&A Projects Initiated Passage\Meetings\Report to Board Eastern Passage High School Recommendation Sept 16, 2012

Date last revised:

EASTERN PASSAGE HIGH SCHOOL SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT

September 26, 2012

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report TABLE OF CONTENTS

17 Sep 12

Introduction Methodology Considerations Process Observations and Findings Conclusions Recommendation

page 3 page 4 page 4 page 6 page 8 page 11 page 11

Site Review Committee

Page 2 of 11

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report
INTRODUCTION Background
On April 2, 2012 the province announced a plan to invest in Eastern Passage students.

17 Sep 12

The province will fund up to $15 million to renovate an existing Eastern Passage school to provide a grade 9 to 12 high school in Eastern Passage. The Eastern Passage community has one junior high school and three elementary schools. As this renovation will be to an existing school, the Halifax Regional School Board (HRSB) will work with the Department of Education (DoE) and the Eastern Passage community to determine logistics associated with this project. It is the intent of the Nova Scotia Government to have the Eastern Passage High School (EPHS) open to students at the start of the 2014-2015 school year with a design capacity of 600 students. This review addresses the requirement by HRSB to determine which school is best suited, and ultimately recommended, for conversion to a High School. The review will also discuss the temporary and permanent relocation of the student populations associated with this project. The Site Review committee meetings, site visits and subject-matter expertise from the HRSB staff & their associates provided the requisite information for the committee to arrive at its final recommendation. Site Review Committee members: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. Ron Heiman - HRSB Coordinator Maintenance (COMMITTEE FACILITATOR) Chris Northrup - HRSB Manager Special Projects Roger Keefe - HRSB Coordinator Custodial Joe Walsh - Principal, Tallahassee Community School Chris Smith - Vice-Principal, Tallahassee Community School Cheryl Highmore - Principal, Ocean View Elementary School Louise Henman-Poirier -Principal, Seaside Elementary School (COMMITTEE SECRETARY) Barb Gromick – Principal, Eastern Passage Education Centre Scott Hickman- Vice Principal, Eastern Passage Education Centre Joanne Syms - School Administration Supervisor, Unit 2 Schools Jerry Thibeau – HRSB Facilitator, Curriculum Implementation Heather Constantine - SAC Chair, Tallahassee Community School (COMMITTEE CHAIR) Tanya Manthorne - SAC Chair, Seaside Elementary School Dawn-Lea Geizer - SAC Chair, Ocean View Elementary Joyce Treen - Community Member Rhonda Power - Community Member Nicole Jackson - Community Member John Heseltine – Stantec Betty Lou Killen & Cathy Nearing – HRM Community and Recreation Services Page 3 of 11

Site Review Committee

Purpose

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report

17 Sep 12

1. The purpose of this site review is to compile and submit a written report to the Governing Board of the HRSB regarding the future EPHS. The report will contain the site review process, the strengths and weaknesses of each potential site, and the committee’s final recommendation for the most suitable location. 2. It is intended that this report be advisory in nature only, with the final decision resting with the Governing Board of the HRSB. METHODOLOGY 3. The methodology in this report consisted of multiple committee meetings and a site visit to all potential locations. During the Site Review Committee (SRC) meetings, information was provided by committee members regarding school building conditions, existing enrolment, enrolment projections, school capacities and impact to the community. 4. It is important to note that this process is unique to this particular project as it is not a Site Selection process, which is used to determine locations for new construction, nor is it a school review process, which is used to determine whether a school will close. 5. Community input was achieved through SRC membership by the School Advisory Council (SAC) Chairs at each of the three local elementary schools, and by three members of the Eastern Passage community. CONSIDERATIONS School Options 6. Given the limited time line and the fact that capacity exists within the existing school facilities, as well as the inherent structural value of the existing schools, the three existing elementary schools were the options for the site review committee to consider. These schools include Seaside Elementary, Ocean View Elementary and Tallahassee Community School - all located on the Eastern Passage Common. The local Junior High School, Eastern Passage Educational Centre, was not considered as a potential site as it is a P3 school (Public-Private Partnership) and revisions could impact the existing contract between the owner and DoE. HRM Partnership 7. HRM was contacted by HRSB to advise of the project and seek confirmation of an enhancement by HRM. It is unknown at this time if a community enhancement will be recommended by HRM; HRM staff is considering the HRSB request and a decision on this matter is anticipated by December 2012 when the matter is presented to HRM Council. 8. All three potential site locations are on the Eastern Passage Common and as such the SRC liaised with HRM Community and Recreation Services to ensure consideration and compliance with the Nova Scotia Provincial Commons Act. The SRC was also provided with the field use of the Eastern Passage Site Review Committee Page 4 of 11

Common and reviewed this information to ensure a good understanding of how any changes would impact these facilities. 9. HRM is presently performing an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Eastern Passage Common. 10. HRM Community and Recreation Services offered to investigate the potential for partnership in the temporary use of facilities at the Tallahassee Recreation Centre for relocation of students during construction. 11. There will be ongoing dialog with HRM Community and Recreation Services to determine potential for relocation of programs affected by the construction. 12. During the site visit of 10 July, Karen Clarke, Recreation Director of the Tallahassee Recreation Centre explained what each room was used for, including daycare, and how she planned to expand usage in the upcoming year. The Youth program currently has 50+ children enrolled. Deferred Maintenance

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report

17 Sep 12

13. Deferred maintenance is defined as the practice of postponing maintenance activities such as repairs or upgrades to buildings or infrastructure in order to meet budget funding levels or realign available budget monies. 14. A high level list of deferred maintenance items was provided for the three sites being reviewed. It was noted that the level of repairs at Seaside Elementary was significantly greater than those at Tallahassee Community School and Ocean View Elementary. In order to identify all building system and code deficiencies to be considered as part of the renovation scope of work, a detailed building condition report will be submitted by a consultant upon confirmation of the site to be renovated. Enrollment 15. The HRSB uses Baragar Custom Planning Software for School Boards to provide population and enrollment projections to assist stakeholders in making data driven decisions related to Schools. The information contained in the attached reports are aligned using figures from the 2011/12 school year and are subject to change with enrollments in September of this year. Please see attached enrollment projections for all schools listed in this review below. 16. The following table highlights the potential impact that each school’s enrollment population would have on the other Eastern Passage schools if that school was selected as the High School. This information was used when considering where students would be placed temporarily during the construction process. It also identified building condition requirements at each school to accommodate increased enrollment. One of the guiding principles of this discussion was to align student cohorts so that older children would be directed to EPEC and French Immersion students would be assigned to schools where this program is already in place.

Site Review Committee

Page 5 of 11

Classroom Realignment Discussion

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report

17 Sep 12

17. This discussion proposed temporary classroom and grade configurations for each school based on that school’s consideration as the possible high school location. Note: There will be a separate process for Boundary Review prior to the completion of the new school to identify permanent grade configurations of the elementary and junior high schools. Seaside Elementary Option
To Seaside Elementary To Oceanview Elementary To Tallahassee Community School To Eastern Passage Education Centre

Three (3) classes of Grade 5 English

a. One (1) classes of Grade 4 French Immersion b.One (1) class of Grade 4/5 French Immersion

a. Two (2) classes of Grade 5/6 - one English and one French Immersion b. Four (4) classes of Grade 6 English c. One (1) class of Grade 6 French Immersion

Notes: i. Will require the Learning Centre at Tallahassee Community School to move to another space within the school. ii. Will require minimum of one and possibly two portable classrooms for students temporarily until project completion. iii. Will allow French Immersion students to remain in schools with other French Immersion students & supports.

Ocean View Elementary Option
To Seaside Elementary

To Oceanview Elementary

To Tallahassee Community School

To Eastern Passage Education Centre

Five (5) classes of Grades P, 1 &2
Notes:

NIL

Seven (7) classes of Grades 2, 3 & 4

Tallahassee Community School Option
To Seaside Elementary To Oceanview Elementary To Tallahassee Community School To Eastern Passage Education Centre

Eight (8) classes of Grade 1 & 2 – English and French Immersion
Notes:

Five (5) classes of Primary

Seven (7) classes of Grade 3&4

i. Three Portable classrooms would be required at Seaside Elementary ii. There is the potential to put students going to EPEC in one pod area

PROCESS 18. The SRC was struck with members from various local stakeholders including the principals and vice-principals of the four (4) schools, SAC chairs of the three elementary schools, HRSB Operations, Program & School Administration department staff, HRM Community & Recreation Services staff and Eastern Passage community members. 19. A Facilitator, Mr. Ron Heiman, the Coordinator of Maintenance for HRSB Operations Services, was assigned to assist the committee with the site review process. 20. The Facilitator acted as the Chair for the first meeting held on 4 July 2012 at the HRSB Office with a chair and a Secretary selected from within the committee prior to the end of this initial meeting. The selected Chair was Ms. Heather Constantine, SAC Chair at Tallahassee Community School, and the selected secretary was Ms. Louise Henman-Poirier, Principal at Seaside Elementary School. The Chair was assigned to explore all options, voice concerns and present the report to the HRSB and the

Site Review Committee

Page 6 of 11

Secretary was tasked with recording the minutes of the committee meetings and assisting with development of the final report. 21. Additionally, the site review process was explained to allow the SRC to better understand their role, with Terms of Reference distributed prior to the end of the first meeting. 22. A second meeting and site review of each potential location occurred on 10 July 2012. The principal and/or vice-principal of each potential site gave a walk-through of their respective location – including both the building and the school grounds. During these visits the advantages and disadvantages of each location were presented. As well, the Recreation Director for the Tallahassee Recreation Centre (co-located with Tallahassee Community School) provided a guided walk-through for the HRM portion of the facility, including the grounds. 23. The third meeting of the SRC took place on 8 August 2012 at the HRSB Office. The purpose of this meeting was to begin preparing a draft of the final report. Further discussion included enrollment impacts and HRM Enhancement process. A fourth meeting was scheduled to finalize the report and ensure maximum participation by members for the recommendation vote. 24. On 16 August 2012, the fourth and final meeting was held to review the final draft and determine the recommendation for the EPHS renovation site. The recommendation report will be presented to HRSB Senior Staff in early September 2012, with the report and presentation to the Governing Board of HRSB on 26 September 2012. Upon submission and presentation of the final report to the Governing Board of the HRSB, this group will become the School Steering Team (SST), with additional members from the Department of Education, a Project Manager, Design Consultant and other stakeholders. At that time standard operating Terms of Reference for a SST will apply.

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report

17 Sep 12

Site Review Committee

Page 7 of 11

OBSERVATIONS & FINDINGS

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report

17 Sep 12

• •

• • • •

SITE #1 – SEASIDE ELEMENTARY Site Characteristics 1. Square Footage = 44737 2. Constructed 1974 3. Capacity = 393 to 429 4. Current Enrolment 2011/12 = 321 5. Current Grade Range = English 05-06 French 04-06 6. 15 Classrooms, including: computer room, Art/ECO room, music room, band room, resource rooms, SLP, psychologist & guidance & core French coach office, Timeout/Calming areas, Learning Centre & Kitchen. 7. Library 8. Cafeteria 9. Junior High Sized Gym 10. HRM Tennis Courts ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES • The tennis court (skating rink in the There is not currently any significant HRM winter) would have to be relocated as it Community and Recreation infrastructure is adjacent to the current facility. directly adjacent to the school grounds. This provides greater flexibility for renovation • The front entry way does not have a line design of sight from the office. This was formerly a Junior High and would be • Topography – Elevation difference from more suitable to renovate into a High School. back to front. The site has had very little upgrade work since • The existing sports field is far from the its switch from the local Junior High School. It building. is in need of repairs to address deferred • The split level building and existing maintenance and would be the most cost elevator present unique design effective use of Capital Funds. challenges. Current students of Seaside may return to a more traditional grade configuration. Junior High Gym may be repurposed for a Fine Arts and Music program. The school is on a Public Transit Route. No additional spaces would be required at the other schools. Deferred Maintenance: Through- wall flashing replaced, window upgrade, rear exit doors replaced, electrical upgrade, washroom upgrade, boiler and burner replacement, floor tile replacement, ceiling tile replacement, and building controls upgrade.

Site Review Committee

Page 8 of 11

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report

SITE #2 – OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY Site Characteristics 1. Square Footage = 44061 2. Constructed 1954 3. Renovated in 1989 4. Capacity = 470 to 510 5. Current Enrolment 2011/12 = 300 6. Current Grade Range = PR - 04 7. 17 Classrooms, including: computer room, art room, music room, several small rooms used for Resource, ELT – English teacher, Timeout/Work station area, Excel classroom, Learning centre (two rooms) . 8. Elementary sized gymnasium. 9. Library 10. Soccer Field and HRM Baseball Diamond adjacent.

17 Sep 12

ADVANTAGES • A well maintained building. • Less impact to residential neighbours. • Unused capacity at Ocean View.

DISADVANTAGES • Topography - The elevation differences behind and to the side of the school would present significant challenges to expansion. • Single point of access. • Parking would be problematic • The field adjacent to the school limits flexibility of design. • Portable classrooms would be required at EPEC to accommodate some of this population.

Deferred Maintenance: Windows leaking, rear exit doors replaced, and interior lighting upgrade

Site Review Committee

Page 9 of 11

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report

17 Sep 12

SITE #3 – TALLAHASSEE COMMUNITY SCHOOL Site Characteristics 1. Square Footage = 64600 2. Constructed 1991 3. Capacity = 522 - 596 4. Current enrolment = 459 5. Current Grade Range =English PR-04 =French PR-03 6. 20 Classrooms, including: art room, High school sized gym), music room, several small rooms used for Resource, ELT – English teacher, ELT-French Immersion teacher, Learning centre and Cafeteria 7. High School Sized Gym (access to half of the gym during school hours) 8. Library 9. Community Center 10.Soccer Field, HRM Baseball Diamond, Playground and HRM Public Garden adjacent. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES • Well maintained building, there is less • Tallahassee Community School is currently infrastructure and interior finishes that require in a cost-share arrangement with HRM upgrade at this school. and reconfiguration of the facility may result in the renegotiation of current • High School sized Gym. contracts. This site is working well as a • The current site traffic design is very effective. Community Center. • Gym space shared with Community Center. • School is at full capacity now. • Impact of increased traffic volume would negatively affect the residential community. • Further additions to this school would negatively impact the existing site. Deferred Maintenance: Through- wall flashing repair, partial roof re-shingle, and controls system upgrade

Site Review Committee

Page 10 of 11

Aerial View Showing Tallahassee Community, Ocean View and Seaside Schools

Eastern Passage High School Site Review Report

17 Sep 12

CONCLUSIONS 25. It appears that the most fiscally responsible and efficient allocation of capital funds is through the renovation of Seaside Elementary as it has the greatest requirement for building and site improvements to address deferred maintenance. 26. There will be no significant renovations required at Ocean View Elementary and Tallahassee Community School to accommodate the relocation of students if Seaside Elementary is renovated. 27. The existing Community Center would be negatively impacted if Tallahassee is selected. 28. The temporary relocation of students, with appropriate grade alignments during the renovation construction process, is most easily accommodated by vacating Seaside Elementary School. RECOMMENDATIONS 29. It is the recommendation of the SRC, by a unanimous vote, that Seaside Elementary School be designated as the site for renovation to accommodate construction of Eastern Passage High School (EPHS).

Site Review Committee

Page 11 of 11

Public Private

X

Report No. 12-09-1367 Date: September 10, 2012

HALIFAX REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD HIGH SCHOOL GRADE CONFIGURATION (Revised September 18, 2012) PURPOSE: To seek Board approval for locating grade nine students in the current grade ten to twelve high schools in HRSB as soon as space becomes available. To continue to improve student achievement and learning for all students. Many jurisdictions in North America create high schools with a grade 9-12 configuration. Across Canada, students in grade nine can be in the last year of junior high or the first year of senior high school. The facilities and needs in the community are considered when assigning students to a school. In many cases in depends on the space available in the schools. Currently, in HRSB there are two high schools serving grades 7-12, one high school serving grades 9-12, with the remaining twelve high schools serving grades 10-12. The motion passed at the May Board Meeting on May 23, 2012 will result in Sackville High and Millwood High accommodating the grade 9 classes. CONTENT: The provincial multi-year plan for student success, kids & learning first, states the following: Review and improve grade 9, a critical transition year, so students stay interested in school and are better prepared for high school. The review involves - what students are being taught - how they are taught and tested - how students themselves can actively influence their learning - how to strengthen connections between what is taught in the classroom and what can be experienced in the community, workplace, and the world. Having more high schools include grades 9 to 12 students, versus 10 to 12, is one approach. Grade 9 students would then have access to larger programming spaces— from libraries to labs to gyms—and more specialist teachers. As well, high school programs like skilled trades could more easily expand to include grade 9 students. The opportunity to take advantage of the facilities and programs offered at the high school level would be beneficial to students in grade 9 and provide a setting that could create more student engagement a factor in keeping students in school. Staff recommends to the Board that, considering the following factors: • the direction of the province regarding grade 9 students; • declining enrolments; • ability to consolidate space; • ability to maximize the expertise of teachers; that the HRSB establish high schools that will serve students in grades 9-12 wherever and whenever it is possible to accommodate the students: COST: FUNDING: TIMELINE: N/A N/A N/A

BUSINESS PLAN GOAL: BACKGROUND:

APPENDICES: RECOMMENDATION:

N/A Senior Staff recommends to the Board to establish a high school configuration of Grade 9-12 where possible when space is available to accommodate the students.

COMMUNICATIONS: AUDIENCE Senior Staff Junior and Senior High School Principals RESPONSIBLE Danielle McNeil-Hessian Danielle McNeil-Hessian TIMELINE September 10, 2012 September 26, 2012

From:

For further information please contact Danielle McNeil-Hessian, Director – School Administration at dhessian@hrsb.ns.ca or by phone at 464-2000 (Ext 2275) or Ron Heiman, Director – Operation Services at rheiman@hrsb.ns.ca or by phone at 464-2000 (Ext 5110). Senior Staff – September 10, 2012 Full Board – September 26, 2012

To:

Public Private

[ X] [ ]

Report No. 12-09-1364 Date September 26, 2012

HALIFAX REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD Purchasing Annual Report – 2011-2012

PURPOSE:

To provide the Board with an annual report with respect to the implementation of and compliance with the Purchasing Policy. N/A The mandate of the Purchasing Division is to ensure that goods and services are purchased in an open, fair, consistent, efficient and competitive manner, by providing staff with information and tools to implement best practices in purchasing. In 2008, the Purchasing Division embarked on the development of a revised, comprehensive Purchasing Policy to assist and guide schools and Board offices with efficient and effective processes for acquiring goods and services needed for their operations. This policy http://www.hrsb.ns.ca/files/downloads/pdf/board/policy/sectione/e.00 1-purchasing.pdf was approved by the Board in June 2008. The Policy requires that the Purchasing Division provide an annual report to the Board “on the implementation of the policy, purchasing activities and any recommendations for improving the purchasing policy and procedures.”

BUSINESS PLAN GOAL: BACKGROUND:

CONTENT:

The attached report covers the period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012. As required, the report provides an overview of compliance with the policy, and major purchasing activities during the course of the 2011-2012 fiscal year. N/A N/A N/A Purchasing Annual Report – 2011-2012 It is recommended that the Board receive the Purchasing Annual Report – 2011-2012 for information.

COST: FUNDING: TIMELINE: APPENDICES: RECOMMENDATIONS:

COMMUNICATIONS:

Audience General Public via web site

Responsibility Corporate Secretary

Timeline Upon receipt by the Board

From:

For further information please contact Terri Thompson, Director of Financial Services at 464-2000, ext. 2220, or email at tthompson@hrsb.ns.ca, or Kathryn Burlton, Manager of Accounting and Purchasing, at 464-2000 ext 2843 or via e-mail kburlton@hrsb.ns.ca.

To:

Senior Staff – September 17, 2012 Board – September 26, 2012
Purchasing Annual Report 2011-2012 Rep 12-09-1364 September 17, 2012

File name: Date last revised:

Purchasing Annual Report – 2011-2012
Background Section 15 of the Purchasing Policy states that: “The Superintendent will submit an annual report to the Board on the implementation of this policy, purchasing activities and any recommendations for improving the purchasing policy and procedures.”

Implementation of the Policy The Purchasing Division monitors all purchasing activities for compliance with the Purchasing Policy. The Purchasing Division reviews all requisitions for the purchasing thresholds to ensure compliance with the policy and ensures an open, transparent and competitive process is undertaken consistent with public tendering guidelines. During 201112 several improvements were made to this process, in particular by working closely with the Project Managers of the Additions and Alterations projects. The Purchasing Division will continue regular communication with schools and departments and other partners to ensure compliance with the policy. The Purchasing Division will continue its ongoing cooperation and networking with other school boards, public groups, government departments and agencies to leverage combined expertise in promoting and maximizing purchasing best practices and to ensure accountability for public funds.

Purchasing Activities The Halifax Regional School Board purchased approximately $63 million in goods and services in 2011-12, including $11 million in capital expenditures. The Purchasing Division issued 55 tenders/RFP’s and 4,605 purchase orders from APRIL 2011 to MARCH 2012. Section 14 of the Policy requires all tenders, requests for proposals (RFP), and contracts with a value of $500,000 or more to be approved by the Board. The following contracts with a total contract value over $500,000 were approved by the Board in 2011/2012:
Contract Name New Gymnasium – Dartmouth High Student transportation Mod Bit Roof – Shannon Park Vendor Bird Construction Stock Transportation Flynn Canada Contract value $3,113,634 $66,651,941 $ 628,200 Date Approved by Board 9-Feb-11 18-May-11 21-Jul-11

Purchasing Annual Report 2011-2012

Page 1 of 2

Section 7 of the Policy permits alternative purchasing (sole sourcing) under certain circumstances. In 2011/2012, the following purchases were of values that should normally have been undertaken with tenders or RFP’s. However, alternative or sole sourcing is permissible under circumstances outlined in the Policy and these purchases all met the criteria and were approved for sole sourcing.
Item/Project French Language Publications French Language Publications Assistive Technology Software French Language Publications Hard Drive Storage Vendor Cheneliere Education Cheneliere Education Nectar Foundation Pearson Education Enterprise Management Systems Pearson Canada Assessment Enterprise Management Systems Groupe Modulo UNIS Lumin (Softchoice) Pearson Canada Softchoice Value $11,065 $16,385 $17,512 $25,381 $27,947 Reason for Sole Source Order direct from publisher - no alternative supplier. Order direct from publisher - no alternative supplier. Absence of competition – sole source. Order direct from publisher - no alternative supplier. Compatibility/warranty issue.

Early Literacy Publications McAfee Antivirus Licenses

$20,802 $42,000

Order direct from publisher - no alternative supplier. Compatibility with existing licenses. Order direct from publisher - no alternative supplier. Compatibility with existing systems. Order direct from publisher - no alternative supplier. Software Maintenance Renewal

French Language Books Wireless Access Points for schools Assessment Kits VOIP (Voice Over IP) Support Contract

$14,461 $14,250 $16,776 $31,544

Recommendations Recommendations for revisions to the Purchasing Policy and Handbook related to environmental, economic and social factors are being brought forward in a separate report. There are no other recommendations for changes at this time.

Purchasing Annual Report 2011-2012

Page 2 of 2

Public Private

X

Report No. 12-08-1363 Date: August 18th , 2012

HALIFAX REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD Occupational Health & Safety – Quarterly Update – Q2 2012 April 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012
PURPOSE: BUSINESS PLAN GOAL: BACKGROUND: To inform the Board of Occupational Health & Safety (OHS) issues. To continue to improve student achievement and learning for all students. Reporting on a quarterly basis is part of a due diligence process so the Board is aware of HRSB OHS significant statistics and activities. Please see Appendix A - Occupational Health & Safety Quarterly Update, Q2 2012, April 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012.

CONTENT:

COST: FUNDING: TIMELINE: APPENDIX:

n/a n/a n/a Appendix A - Occupational Health & Safety Quarterly Update, Q2 2012, April 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012. The Board accept the report for information. n/a

RECOMMENDATION: COMMUNICATIONS:

From:

John Swales, OHS Manager (2204)

jswales@hrsb.ns.ca

To:

Board

September 26th, 2012

OHS Report Q2_2012

Page 1 of 1

Report # 12-08-1363

12-08-1363 - APPENDIX A
Occupational Health & Safety Quarterly Update Q2 2012 April 1 to June 30, 2012

School Insurance Program (SIP) – Reported Incidents Incidents Year Before Quarter Apr 1 to Jun 30, ‘11
72 388

Group Employees: Other, incl. students:

Reporting Quarter Apr 1 to Jun 30, ‘12 99 465

Preceding Quarter Jan 1 to Mar 31, ‘12 100 423

SIP Incident Report forms are submitted by school administrators for incidents occurring to school community members during school related activities.

Nova Scotia Teacher’s Union (NSTU)
This group of employees is not covered by WCB.

NSTU

Injuries on Duty

Injury On Duty applications received Reporting Quarter Year Before Quarter Apr 1 to Jun 30, ‘12 Apr 1 to Jun 30, ‘11 3 12

Preceding Quarter Jan 1 to Mar 31, ‘12 5

OH&S Division of Department Labour and Workforce Development Workplaces Inspected: 1 Workplaces with Compliance Orders Issued: 1 Total Compliance Orders Issued: 1

There were no Compliance Orders issued due to inspections during the period. A workplace inspection closed the Compliance Order that was outstanding last quarter. The employee appeal to the OHS Division of the Department of Labour & Advanced Education regarding a work refusal was upheld. A Compliance Order was issued confirming the Officer’s decision that the workplace was safe and the workplace Joint Occupational Health & Safety Committee acted appropriately. The Compliance Order is posted at the workplace. Employee Training A group of 18 EXCEL employees were certified in Non-Violent Crisis Intervention at the end of the quarter.

Appendix A_OHS Quarterly Update Q2_2012

Page 1 of 2

12-08-1363 - APPENDIX A
Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) Claims The following graph shows 2nd Quarter 2012 WCB data in relation to previous 2nd Q data.

WCB Q2 Claim Data
70 63 55 $34 $27 36 28 16 19 13 27 $17 9 Q2_'09 27 19 9 $16,955 34 $19 38 33 30 $19 17 6 Q2_'10 38 34 12 $18,922 Q2_'11 30 33 6 $19,382 Q2_'12 70 42 17 $40,264 42 $40

70

$40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0

# of Claims or Weeks

50 40 30 20 10 0

12

Q2_'07 63 36 16 $33,787

Q2_'08 55 28 13 $27,051

Weeks of Benefits Submitted Claims Lost Time Claims Benefit $'s Paid

Quarter

Six of the 17 claims with lost time (wage benefits paid) were of six weeks or more in duration. Custodial workers accounted for nine and educational program workers accounted for seven of these 17 claims. (There was one other claim from an employee in another unit.) The “DOER’s” group continued to meet regularly with the objective of engaging the workers in the developing of goals to improve the safety management practices and to prevent workplace injuries within Operations Services. The Workplace Consultant of Worker’s Compensation Board Integrated Service Team is facilitating and providing some resources.

Requests for Action from workplace JOHS Committees (received) Two Request for Action forms were received by the Manager OH&S during the period. Both were addressed and resolved.

Appendix A_OHS Quarterly Update Q2_2012

Page 2 of 2

Benefits Paid in Q

60

Thousands

80

$45

Public Private

X

Report No. 12-09-1370 Date: September 26, 2012

HALIFAX REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD School Review Impact Assessment Reports Eastern Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated, Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary Schools

PURPOSE:

For information regarding the School Review Impact Assessment Reports for Eastern Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated and Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary schools. To ensure schools are safe and maintained to high standards. At the March 28, 2012 Board meeting, the Board received report # 12-3-1339 School Review Identification Reports and approved the following motion: It was moved and seconded (Brine/Poole) that the Board receive Report #12-3-1339 School Review Identification Reports for information; and direct staff to prepare the Impact Assessment Reports for the schools identified for review which include: Eastern Consolidated Elementary, Lakefront Consolidated Elementary, Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary and initiate the review process for the schools identified for review.

BUSINESS PLAN GOAL: BACKGROUND:

CONTENT:

A Facilitator was assigned to lead school review process and met with Board staff and the Planner to collect the information required for the Impact Assessment Reports, as determined by the Ministerial Education Act Regulation 17. The complete reports are attached as appendices. However, the following comments generally apply to all three locations. o Representatives from each school presented to the elected Board on March 28th, 2012 expressing their agreement with the building of a replacement school and the need to close the current schools. Population trends show a decline in population in the rural area serviced by the Duncan MacMillan Family of Schools and the forecast indicates that this decline will continue and will not likely rebound in the foreseeable future. The three schools are 1950’s vintage buildings. Sheet Harbour Consolidated has a gym addition dated early 1980’s. The facilities do not meet current building code standards including accessibility requirements and some areas of the buildings that are not sprinklered. In evaluating bussing, Operations staff suggested a possible boundary change at the Tangier River which might see a small number of students from Lakefront travelling to Oyster

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Pond Academy as their receiving school. This could create more efficient transport. As well, parents who travel into the suburban or urban part of the HRM for work may find it more convenient as they would drive by Oyster Pond Academy. So this scenario is presented as a possible option and would be resolved through a separate boundary review process. There will also likely be additional distances for buses transporting students currently attending Eastern Consolidated Elementary. A move to a larger school will have positive impacts on the students with regards to extra-curricular activity, increased socialization opportunities, and enhanced educational benefits. A new school will allow for the potential building of a wraparound facility to support the community within the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. It is anticipated that closure of these three schools will cause some financial benefit to the operating budget.

COST:

There would be operational efficiencies gained through operation of one school facility to replace four schools. This would include School Administration, Program and Operations staffing and associated instructional and operational resource. However, the new facility will also potentially cause an increase in utility operating costs due to the increased building systems to meet today’s standard.

FUNDING:

In April 2012, the HRSB has submitted a capital construction priority list to Department of Education, which included a new P-12 school construction project as the Board’s #1 priority. If approved, this capital construction project will be funded by the Department of Education. The school review process must follow the Education Act Regulation Requirements: First committee meeting Committee response to Board Board public meeting Public presentations Board decision by October 21, 2012 by February 1, 2013 by February 28, 2013 by March 24, 2013 by March 31, 2013

TIMELINE:

APPENDICES:

Impact Assessment Report Eastern Consolidated Elementary School Impact Assessment Report Lakefront Consolidated Elementary School Impact Assessment Report Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School It is recommended that the Board receive the Eastern Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated and Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary schools Impact Assessment Reports for information.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

COMMUNICATIONS: AUDIENCE School Review Committee HRSB Communications RESPONSIBLE Nancy O’Brien, Facilitator Ron Heiman, Director Operation Services TIMELINE Following Board Approval Following Board Approval

From:

For further information please contact Ron Heiman, Director Operations Services. Phone: 464-2000 ext 2144 E-mail: rheiman@hrsb.ns.ca Senior Staff: Board: September 17, 2012 September 26, 2012

To:

Filename:

\\columbia\departments\Facilities\Schools\Heiman-Keefe\School Reviews 2012/Report to Board Sheet Harbour Elementary Schools Impact Assessment Report Sept 2012 Sept 16, 2012

Date last revised:

SCHOOL REVIEW PROCESS
Impact Assessment Report Eastern Consolidated School

For more information, please contact Ron Heiman, 464-2000 ext. 2144

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 SCHOOL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 School Name .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 School Configuration........................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 School Location ................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Administration .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Population Patterns ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.5.1 Projection Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6 2.5.2 Halifax Regional Municipality Historical and Projected Population ............................................ 7 2.5.3 Eastern HRM Planning Area Historical and Projected Population ............................................... 9 2.6 Enrolment ......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.6.1 Historical and Projected Enrolment for HRSB 1998/1999 to 2017/2018 .................................. 11 2.6.2 Duncan MacMillan Family Historical and Projected Enrolment by Grade................................. 12 2.6.3 Eastern Consolidated School Historical and Projected Enrolments .......................................... 14 2.6.4 Eastern Consolidated School In and Out of Boundary Details ................................................... 14 2.6.5 Eastern Consolidated School Registered Enrolments for September 2012 .............................. 15 2.7 Capital Construction Planning ........................................................................................................... 15 2.7.1 Halifax Regional Municipality Regional Plan .............................................................................. 15 2.7.2 HRM Facility Master Plan ........................................................................................................... 17 2.7.3 Community Visioning ................................................................................................................. 17 2.7.4 Proposed Development ............................................................................................................. 17 2.8 Physical Condition of the Building .................................................................................................... 18 2.8.1 Condition of Building Envelope, Interior and Systems .............................................................. 18 2.8.2 Indoor Air Quality and Environmental Issues ............................................................................ 18 2.8.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance, Repair and Operation ..................................................... 19 2.8.4 Barrier Free Accessibility to Building and Grounds.................................................................... 19 2.9 Building Use ...................................................................................................................................... 19 2.9.1 Floor Plan ................................................................................................................................... 20 Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School 2.9.2 Building Details .......................................................................................................................... 22 Page 2

2.9.3 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage .......................................................................................... 22 2.9.4 Excess Teaching Spaces .............................................................................................................. 22 2.9.5 Eastern Consolidated School Boundary ..................................................................................... 23 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 24 3.1 Capability to Deliver Public School Program ..................................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Facility Program Delivery Review............................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Public School Programing .......................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Educational Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 25 3.3 Transportation .................................................................................................................................. 26 3.4 Extra-Curricular Activities ................................................................................................................. 26 3.5 Operational and Capital Requirements ............................................................................................ 27 3.5.1 Completed Capital Projects at Eastern Consolidated School..................................................... 27 3.5.2 Immediate Operating Needs (5 years) ....................................................................................... 27 3.5.3 Capital Investments on Current Building ................................................................................... 27 3.6 Property Service Efficiencies ............................................................................................................. 27 3.7 Impact on the Community ................................................................................................................ 28 3.8 Community Use of the School .......................................................................................................... 28 3.9 Impact of Potential Consolidation (if applicable).............................................................................. 28 4.0 PROPOSED RECEIVING SCHOOL INFORMATION ................................................................................... 29 4.1. School Name .................................................................................................................................... 29 4.2 School Location ................................................................................................................................. 29 4.3 Administration .................................................................................................................................. 29 4.4 Enrolment ......................................................................................................................................... 29 4.4.1 Proposed Receiving School Historical and Projected Enrolments ............................................. 29 4.4.2 Proposed Receiving School In and Out of Boundary Details ..................................................... 29 4.4.3 Registered Enrolment for Proposed Receiving School .............................................................. 29 4.4.4 Impact of the Review Outcome on Proposed Receiving School ................................................ 29 4.5 School Configuration......................................................................................................................... 29 4.6 Physical Condition of the Building .................................................................................................... 29 4.6.1 Facility Utilization ....................................................................................................................... 29 4.6.2 Condition of Building Structure and Systems ............................................................................ 29 Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School 4.6.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance and Operations ................................................................ 29 Page 3

4.6.4 Operation and Availability of Accessibility Ramps, Elevators, Accessible Playgrounds ............. 30 4.7 Building Use ...................................................................................................................................... 30 4.7.1 Excess Space............................................................................................................................... 30 4.7.2 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage .......................................................................................... 30 4.7.3 Impact of Increased Number of Students on Building Usage .................................................... 30 4.8 Transportation .................................................................................................................................. 30 4.9 Proposed Attendance Boundary ....................................................................................................... 31

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The information in this report has been compiled in accordance with Provincial School Review Regulations as dictated by the Nova Scotia Department of Education. It outlines information for the School Review Committee to consider regarding possible impacts of the Eastern Consolidated School review. Eastern Consolidated School has been identified for possible closure and consolidation. The school will then become part of a replacement New Primary to Grade 12 School scheduled for the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. In recent years, the Halifax Regional School Board has undertaken a 10 year facility master planning process which resulted in a staff report and recommendations which were presented to the elected Board in February 2010(http://www.hrsb.ns.ca/files/Downloads/pdf/reports/2009-2010/February/1001-1236.pdf). The elected Board requested the facility master plan be prepared and presented in smaller components. It was moved and seconded (Conrod/Finlayson) that the board request staff to develop an approach or process that would divide the capital construction master plan into more manageable components --- for example, area by area or family by family, and that the staff review this approach or process, including a timeline, with the Board before it begins. (CARRIED) During the 2010-2011 school year, staff prepared a facility master plan that is divided by family of schools. The plan outlines historical information, demographics, feeder system – existing and proposed, and the requested capital project for each area. The staff report on the proposed 10 Year Facilities Master Plan was tabled at the Board meeting of March 30th, 2011. The Capital Plan has identified a number of schools that should be considered for review as part of the ongoing planning process. Catchment areas that are experiencing enrolment decline provide opportunities to consolidate populations into existing infrastructure, renovated or replacement schools. The Department of Education then recently requested that the Board revise their capital projects and present a new priority list of capital projects. This list was prepared by staff and presented to the elected Board in February 2012. It was moved and seconded (Yee/Poole) that the Board approve the staff recommended prioritized School Capital Projects as listed below, and direct staff to prepare the required documentation for the April 20, 2012, submission to the Minister of Education. 1. New South Dartmouth Elementary School 2. Bicentennial School Addition and Alteration 3. New North Central Peninsula Elementary School 4. Energy Savings Project 5. New Eastern District P-12 School (Sheet Harbour) 6. New South Peninsula Elementary School 7. New Ravines High School

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 5

8. Cole Harbour District High School Addition and Alterations 9. Eastern Shore District High School Addition and Alterations 10. J. L. Ilsley High School Addition and Alterations It was moved and seconded (Brine/Poole) that the Sheet Harbor Consolidated, Eastern Consolidated and Lakefront Elementary schools be put up for potential review at our next board meeting in March so that the new P to 12 school for the Sheet Harbour area can be moved up higher on the priority list. These schools would only potentially close when the new P to 12 school is completed. (CARRIED) At a special meeting of the elected Board in April 2012:

It was moved and seconded (Brine/Blumenthal-Harrison) that the Board re-prioritize the School Capital Projects priority list by moving number five New Eastern District P-12 School to the number one priority with every other project moving down in descending order. (CARRIED)

2.0 SCHOOL INFORMATION
2.1 School Name
Eastern Consolidated School (ECS)

2.2 School Configuration
Primary to Grade 5 Regular Program

2.3 School Location
28875 Highway # 7 Moser River, NS B0J 2K0

2.4 Administration
Principal: Wanda Scott Vice Principal: Chris Boutilier

2.5 Population Patterns
2.5.1 Projection Methodology The Master Plan for HRSB facilities, Imagine Our Schools, was prepared in 2009 by CS&P Architects with demographic support provided by Paradigm Shift of Toronto and local consultants EDM - Environmental Management and Design. The current consultant, John Heseltine, was employed with EDM at the time and prepared the background population projections on which Paradigm Shift based future enrolment projections. The demographic work for Imagine our Schools was primarily based on data from the 2006 Census, which has recently been supplanted by the 2011 Census. Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School Page 6

Since the completion of Imagine Our Schools, HRSB has acquired Baragar Demographics software, which provides detailed projections for all schools under the jurisdiction of the Board. The Barager software relies on a similar cohort-survival based methodology as was used for Imagine Our Schools to project population, however, it employs more sophisticated approaches to estimating local births and determining the residential location of children. Key features of the Baragar projection methodology include: • Analysis of annual birth records • Determination of the number of children residing within specific boundaries by accessing the Universal Child Care Benefit Tax Records and Canada Child Care Benefits records annually • Application of Census of Canada information such as women of child-bearing age in the local population (i.e., cohorts from 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and so on through to 40 to 44 years) • Application of historical net migration rates within specific boundaries Baragar projections are also updated annually and are now, therefore, considerably more current than the Imagine Our Schools projections. Baragar projections are entirely based on historical trends. The predictions generated by the Barager software should be more closely scrutinized in areas where there is reason to believe that the established trend in land development and population change is likely to be altered. The Sheet Harbour district is one such area. The software allows the Board to enter anticipated housing developments within a school catchment area and calculate the school age population that they can be expected to generate. This is done based on the types of dwelling units to be constructed and the expected timing of their construction. Accurate estimation of future population change using this methodology can be very difficult given the need to thoroughly identify potential housing projects; accurately profile them in terms of the number and types of dwelling units to be constructed; and the ultimate uncertainty that developers will follow through on proposals in the context of a fluid and normally competitive housing market. Development trends in the Sheet Harbour area are not, however, expected to change in the foreseeable future. As explained below (see section 2.7.4), subdivision activity and housing development in the area has been moderate and has largely been undertaken by local property owners building one or two units at a time. There is no reason to anticipate any marked change from this well-established pattern. Projections presented below are consequently drawn entirely from the Baragar system. 2.5.2 Halifax Regional Municipality Historical and Projected Population Historical : Historical populations by five-year age group for the Halifax Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) which includes HRM plus two small Indian Reserves within its boundaries are presented from the 2001, 2006, and 2011 Censuses in the table below. Following are the key trends apparent from the data: • The CMA is growing considerably faster than the balance of Nova Scotia. Whereas Halifax grew by a moderate 4.7 per cent between 2006 and 2011, the province as a whole grew by only 0.9 per cent over the period. Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School Page 7

Over the same period, the population from 5 to 19 years in the CMA decreased by 4.7 per cent. From 2001 to 2011, numbers from 5 to 19 fell by 7.9 per cent. Projected : In 2004, Clayton Research Associates prepared comprehensive demographic projections for HRM. The projections provided future estimates of labour force, population, and housing. In 2009, Altus Economic Consulting, which acquired Clayton in the interim, updated the projections to take account of 2006 Census data. Their revised projections were presented in the Altus report Employment, Population and Housing Projections for Halifax Regional Municipality: An Update. Projections in both cases covered Census years to 2026 and provided Baseline, Low, and High projections. Populations for 2016, 2021, and 2026 in the table following represent Altus’s Baseline estimates for the future. Key features of the projections include: • • The total population of the region will continue to rise by 3 to 5 per cent over each future fiveyear Census period. Altus projections suggest that the number of 5 to 19 years olds will decline by 4.2 per cent from 2011 to 2016 and by 5.0 per cent from 2016 to 2021; however, their projection from 2021 to 2026 shows a 3.1 per cent increase in the school aged groups.

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 8

Historical and Projected Population by Age Group, HRM, 2001-2026 Age 2001 2006 2011 2016 0-4 19,935 18,210 19,970 20,750 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ TOTAL % change *22,370 *23,695 *22,910 26,565 26,445 27,600 32,860 31,650 28,070 25,530 18,345 13,680 11,845 9,715 8,060 5,535 4,385 359,195 *19,655 *22,345 *24,360 28,130 26,020 25,850 27,410 32,760 31,575 28,240 25,085 18,255 13,225 11,025 8,565 6,475 5,675 372,860 3.8% *19,160 *20,495 *23,890 31,245 28,410 25,930 26,505 27,830 33,115 31,565 27,195 23,925 16,815 11,860 9,140 6,630 6,655 390,335 4.7% *19,870 *18,870 *21,620 30,260 32,225 30,365 26,800 26,960 27,860 32,165 30,545 26,440 22,500 15,415 10,000 7,125 6,535 406,305 4.1%

2021 21,425 *21,250 *20,355 *20,605 28,135 32,610 32,940 31,020 27,775 26,960 27,665 31,655 29,340 24,990 20,295 13,090 7,790 7,165 425,065 4.6%

2026 21,035 *21,700 *21,510 *21,760 26,520 29,985 32,895 33,235 31,665 27,625 26,665 27,200 30,395 27,755 22,610 17,310 10,225 8,025 438,115 3.1%

** Note: Student aged cohorts are marked with an asterisk ** Note: Child-bearing cohorts are shaded. Source: Census of Canada 2001, 2006, 2011, Altus Group Economic Consulting projections for 2016, 2021, and 2026

2.5.3 Eastern HRM Planning Area Historical and Projected Population The Musquodoboit and Sheet Harbour areas that comprise the eastern portion of HRM are demographically much more similar to the area of Nova Scotia outside of HRM than the balance of the region. Although suburban and rural areas within commuting distance of the urban centre are the fastest growing areas of the region, the more distant areas to the east have generally lost population. The Sheet Harbour area, which is the farthest from the urban centre and is the focus of this study, has in fact begun to lose population rapidly. Historically, the Census of Canada defined Musquodoboit and Sheet Harbour as Census Subdivisions F and G. While Statistics Canada did away with the Census Subdivisions (CSDs) on amalgamation of the region in 1996, their boundaries have continued to be recognized as Census Tracts 153 and 154 and Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 9

facilitate evaluation of long-term change in the area. Over recent Censuses, as other areas of HRM have steadily gained population, the Musquodoboit area has largely stagnated while the Sheet Harbour areas has consistently lost population. In the most recent Census period from 2006 to 2011, both areas lost significant numbers, particularly Sheet Harbour, which lost over 10 per cent of its residents. The population of both areas is older. The median age in Musquodoboit is 48.7, while the median in Sheet Harbour is 51.4 years. The percentage of the population aged 5 to 19 is just 15.3 per cent according to the 2011 Census, down from 16.3 per cent in 2006. The median age for HRM as a whole is only 39.9 years. The percentage of the 2011 Census population in HRM from 5 to 19 years of age was 16.4 per cent.
Historical Population Trends, CSDs 153 and 154, and the Remainder of HRM, 1986-2011 CSD F/CT 153 CSD G/CT 154 (Musquodoboit) (Sheet Harbour) Remainder of HRM Census Population Change Population Change Population Change 1986 6,101 4,376 296,896 1991 6,130 0.5% 4,160 -4.9% 320,463 7.9% 1996 6,255 2.0% 4,125 -0.8% 332,466 3.7% 2001 6,268 0.2% 3,905 -5.3% 348,923 4.9% 2006 6,493 3.6% 3,936 0.8% 362,429 3.9% 2011 6,129 -5.6% 3,479 -11.6% 380,222 4.9%

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 10

2.6 Enrolment
Enrolment projections are based upon the Cohort-Survival Method, which uses historical grade by grade enrolment to estimate a grade by grade projection for each program offered at a school. This method uses trends to identify the progression of students from one grade to the next higher grade. Other data sources, including historical migration rates (+ -) of the catchment area, analysis of out- of- area students, feeder school analysis, and a yearly analysis of the Universal Child Benefit Tax record and Canada Child Benefit Tax records are used to supplement the Cohort-Survival Method projections. 2.6.1 Historical and Projected Enrolment for HRSB 1998/1999 to 2017/2018 Since 2004, student enrolment in the Halifax Regional School Board has declined significantly. The 2011 school year saw 4,045 fewer students in the system than in 2004 which is a decline of 7.4 per cent despite reasonably strong in migration to HRM and overall population growth. Baragar projections from 2012 on suggest that this decline will begin to moderate. They anticipate enrolment decline will bottom out at 48,418 or 2.4 per cent less students than enrolled for 2011. After 2016, Baragar anticipates that enrolment will grow with increases expected in every future year from 2017 through 2026 except 2021. By 2026, Baragar predicts an enrolment of 51,675 students, an increase of 6.7 per cent from 2016 that would bring total enrolment up to the same approximate level as 2006. Historical and Projected Enrolments, HRSB, 2004-2026
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 PR to 6 27,495 26,468 25,678 25,537 25,839 25,767 25,490 25,124 25,113 25,359 25,642 25,353 25,436 25,817 26,215 26,519 26,677 26,920 27,130 27,313 27,481 27,628 27,762 7 to 9 13,595 13,349 12,788 12,518 12,232 11,833 11,529 11,267 11,122 10,862 10,577 10,929 11,126 11,181 10,749 10,661 11,002 11,244 11,405 11,429 11,556 11,671 11,621 10 to 12 12,480 12,737 12,623 14,118 13,792 13,383 13,060 13,140 12,827 12,696 12,358 12,131 11,766 11,442 11,810 12,015 12,051 11,540 11,416 11,754 12,013 12,173 12,202 PP to 12 53,664 52,673 51,235 52,348 51,948 51,063 50,169 49,619 49,152 49,007 48,667 48,503 48,418 48,530 48,864 49,285 49,820 49,794 50,041 50,586 51,140 51,562 51,675 Change -991 -1,438 1,113 -400 -885 -894 -550 -467 -145 -340 -164 -85 112 334 421 535 -26 247 545 554 422 113 % -1.8% -2.7% 2.2% -0.8% -1.7% -1.8% -1.1% -0.9% -0.3% -0.7% -0.3% -0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 0.9% 1.1% -0.1% 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.2%

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 11

60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000

PR to 6

7 to 9

10 to 12

2.6.2 Duncan MacMillan Family Historical and Projected Enrolment by Grade Like the wider HRSB system, the Duncan MacMillan family of schools has experienced declining enrolments in the recent past. The degree of decline has, however, been considerably more marked in the Duncan MacMillan catchment area consistent with the general loss of population from the area. From 2004 to 2011, Duncan MacMillan and the three elementary schools that feed it lost 105 students or 21.3 per cent of its 2004 student body. Baragar projections for schools in the family suggest less recovery in the near future than in the balance of the system. Baragar anticipates that family schools will lose 74 more students by 2016 (19.1 per cent) and will continue to lose steadily, albeit at a reduced rate thereafter. By 2026, the Baragar model predicts that this family of schools will serve only 277 students or barely half the number (56.3 per cent) that attended in 2004.

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 12

Historical and Projected Enrolments, Duncan MacMillan Family of Schools, 2004-2026
Grade 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 600 500 400 300 200 100 PR to 6 266 240 231 220 211 183 179 175 164 152 133 139 132 126 115 119 123 127 129 133 133 136 137 7 to 9 118 120 112 112 110 104 101 105 100 98 90 85 83 80 83 78 76 73 73 74 74 73 73 10 to 12 108 103 135 106 118 111 115 107 106 105 106 102 98 88 80 77 76 79 73 69 64 66 67 PP to 12 492 463 478 438 439 398 395 387 370 355 329 326 313 294 278 274 275 279 275 276 271 275 277 Change -29 15 -40 1 -41 -3 -8 -17 -15 -26 -3 -13 -19 -16 -4 1 4 -4 1 -5 4 2 % -5.9% 3.2% -8.4% 0.2% -9.3% -0.8% -2.0% -4.4% -4.1% -7.3% -0.9% -4.0% -6.1% -5.4% -1.4% 0.4% 1.5% -1.4% 0.4% -1.8% 1.5% 0.7%

PR to 6

7 to 9

10 to 12

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 13

2.6.3 Eastern Consolidated School Historical and Projected Enrolments Actual enrolments are provided through 2011 and projected enrolments are through 2016. All data is from Baragar Demographics.

Grade
Primary One Two Three Four Five Six Total

2006
10 1 4 7 8 4 N/A 34

2007
3 8 1 3 5 8 N/A 28

2008
1 1 6 2 3 4 N/A 17

2009
2 1 1 4 1 3 N/A 12

2010
2 2 2 1 4 1 N/A 12

2011
2 2 3 2 2 4 N/A 15

2012
0 1 1 2 2 1 N/A 7

2013
2 2 2 2 3 2 N/A 13

2014
3 1 2 2 2 3 N/A 13

2015
2 3 1 2 2 2 N/A 12

2016
2 2 3 1 2 2 N/A 12

2.6.4 Eastern Consolidated School In and Out of Boundary Details Students attending Eastern Consolidated Elementary School in 2011-12 11 students lived within the Eastern Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area 4 students lived in other school catchment areas (3 from Sheet Harbour Catchment Area and 1 from Joseph Giles Elementary catchment area.) • Total of 15 students attended Eastern Consolidated Elementary School for the 2011-2012 school year Students living in Eastern Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area • • 11 students from the Eastern Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area attended the school for the 2011-2012 school year. Ten students from the Eastern Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area attended other schools in English programming for the 2011-2012 school year (all 10 go to Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School and 2 of these are in Grade 6) No students from the Eastern Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area attended other schools in French Immersion programming for the 2011-2012 school year. • •

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 14

2.6.5 Eastern Consolidated School Registered Enrolments for September 2012 The following registered enrolments for September 2012 are accurate as of September 13, 2012. The actual September 30, 2012 enrolments will be available in October 2012. Grade Primary One Two Three Four Five Total Enrolment as of Sep 13, 2012 0 1 1 2 2 1

7

2.7 Capital Construction Planning
2.7.1 Halifax Regional Municipality Regional Plan Development throughout HRM is governed by the Halifax Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS), which was adopted by Regional Council in 2006. The plan is currently undergoing a five-year review required under the Municipal Government Act. The review process is called RP+5. Under the current RMPS, the coastal portion of the Sheet Harbour area is designated “Rural Resource” on the Generalized Future Land Use Map in the RMPS. Interior lands are largely designated as “Open Space and Natural Resources” (a small area in the northwest, well beyond the Duncan MacMillan catchment area is designated “Agricultural”). The RMPS contains a policy objective to distribute new housing units as follows within the region: 25 per cent in the Urban Centre (i.e., the Halifax Peninsula and Dartmouth within the Circumferential Highway) • 50 per cent in Suburban Areas (i.e., the remaining area within HRM’s water and wastewater servicing boundary) • 25 per cent in the remaining Rural Area. The goal of the policy is to intensify development in the Urban Centre so as to economize expenditure on urban infrastructure. John Heseltine, who is now employed at Stantec, is currently managing a study of the potential impacts of altering this policy to encourage a more intensive settlement pattern formulated in terms of two scenarios: Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School 1. Hypothetical Growth Scenario A – 40% urban, 40% suburban, 20% rural Page 15 •

2.

Hypothetical Growth Scenario B – 50% urban, 30% suburban, 20% rural.

HRM planners are interested in the potential savings that these scenarios may yield. While the focus in both cases is to reduce the degree of suburbanization, the scenarios do not suggest a major thrust to encourage population growth in the rural areas of HRM. The foremost concern of HRM planners is to shift population from the outer serviced areas around the urban core and from rapidly developing rural lands (i.e., unserviced lands) in areas such as Tantallon, Hammonds Plains, and Porters Lake; however, it is also apparent from its designation that there are limited expectations for growth in the far eastern portions of the region. In many respects the Musquodoboit and Sheet Harbour Areas are regarded as separate from the balance of HRM. The Municipality’s transportation model, for example, does not incorporate either area because Census data on journey to work shows minimal interaction between the eastern area and the urban centre. Comparison of other features of the area such as the profile of local industries and the occupational profile of local residents also suggests substantial differences between the easternmost area and the balance of HRM as well as significantly different economic drivers. A secondary planning strategy known as the Eastern Shore (East) Municipal Planning Strategy also covers the area. The plan was adopted by Halifax County immediately before its amalgamation into HRM in 1996. Local plans of this type, which cover all areas of HRM, provide the foundation for zoning applied through an accompanying land use bylaw as well as addressing the aspirations of the community through detailed policies. The Eastern Shore (East) MPS emphasizes the rural character of the area. It recognizes the relative stagnation of its population, which was apparent in the mid-1990s and has since deepened. The plan includes a section called “Education” that deals with schools in the area. Discussion in the Education section notes moderate declines in enrolments at some local schools at the time that have since become much more pronounced. Policies commit Council to consult with the Province concerning new and/or expanded schools emphasizing the siting of schools. Policy ED-5 also emphasizes the need for community access to school buildings and grounds: It shall be the intention of Council to encourage the Halifax County-Bedford District School Board to support the continued use of school facilities as community schools in order to provide for a range of individual educational needs and to help foster community social and cultural development. Although both the municipal entity and the school board referenced in the policy have been supplanted since its adoption, this and other policies in the Eastern Shore (East) MPS continue to apply and commitments such as the above continue to guide HRM’s Regional Council. In a brief discussion with the HRM Planner responsible for the area, Marcus Garnet, Mr. Garnet re-emphasized the desirability of community access and expressed support for a facility located in Sheet Harbour where he felt it would be more accessible to residents and would allow students better access to commercial and public facilities. He also noted that if more students would be bussed to a centralized location, the transportation provider might wish to consider also carrying local residents along with students; a practice that he said has been established for some time in rural Quebec. Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School Page 16

2.7.2 HRM Facility Master Plan The Community Facility Master Plan (CFMP) was approved in principle by Regional Council in 2008. The document specifies the general locations of proposed facilities and proposed improvements to existing facilities. Citing principles established in the Imagine Our Schools report to “enhance opportunities for community-centered schools with a commitment to exploring partnerships and joint-use agreements and [to address] the realities of declining enrolment and aging facilities”, its Recommendation 17 urges: That HRM and HRSB develop a model for shared use at each of the Board’s high schools and up to two other schools within each family of schools. HRSB is forecasting upgrades to music rooms and arts spaces within a series of schools. Music and arts spaces represent two additional areas for shared use. Wherever feasible, HRM and HRSB should add community access elements to schools. Later Recommendation 24, however, states: That currently forecasted HRB elementary and junior high schools slated for closure not be added to HRM community centre inventory, unless the schools are within areas deemed high need and where they are superior to current municipal infrastructure (evaluation completed using Facility Condition Index). The CFMP proposes no specific projects for the Sheet Harbour area. While it is strongly supportive of the joint use of schools, it is cautious about recycling surplus school buildings as sites for community facilities. Nevertheless, Recommendation 42 concerning Rural Community Centres acknowledges that schools are candidates for incorporation of community facilities: That HRM recognize the unique requirements for providing recreation facilities and services in rural areas. Locate small but effective spaces for community centres service provision in the communities. Facilities may be shared with other parties such as church groups, schools, the local fire hall or new construction. 2.7.3 Community Visioning A 2008 HRM Staff Report summarized plans for Community Visioning in HRM at that time. The report indicated that visioning would be undertaken in the Sheet Harbour area in 2009. Consultation with Marcus Garnet, who was a co-author of the 2008 report, confirmed that the process has not yet been commenced. He indicated that visioning processes are currently on hold as HRM focuses on the RP+5 process (see section 2.7.1). A new schedule for local visioning processes is likely to follow the completed plan review. 2.7.4 Proposed Development The area around Sheet Harbour has seen minimal development activity. HRM Planner, Cathy Spencer, stated that occasional one and two-lot subdivisions are approved in the area. The largest she could recall was in Tangier and she suggested it might have had five lots. Over the past five years she speculated that perhaps 50 lots have been approved in the area and that no more than 50 per cent were built on. Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 17

While HRM staff could not provide any information on the number of dwelling unit completions in the area, 2006 Census data for Census Tract 154 of which the Duncan MacMillan catchment area constitutes the southern half indicates that their number has been modest and falling over the long-term. In the 2001 to 2006 period only 40 units were added in CT 154 comprising just 2.3 per cent of all occupied dwelling units in the area. The proportion, furthermore, is a substantial decline from the shares from previous five year periods back to 1981, all of which are represented by at least 5 per cent of occupied units. Occupied Private Dwelling Units by Period of Construction, Census Tract 154 Total occupied private dwelling units 1,735 Period of Construction Units % of Total Before 1946 460 26.5% 1946 to 1960 230 13.3% 1961 to 1970 185 10.7% 1971 to 1980 350 20.2% 1981 to 1985 120 6.9% 1986 to 1990 155 8.9% 1991 to 1995 85 4.9% 1996 to 2000 105 6.1% 2001 to 2006 40 2.3%

2.8 Physical Condition of the Building
2.8.1 Condition of Building Envelope, Interior and Systems A complete Building Audit and Expenditure Plan (Facility Evaluation Report) has been completed for Eastern Consolidated School and will be provided to the School Review Committee. The intent of the document is to provide a review of the existing buildings and to provide a capital building estimate that would be required for the continued operation of the schools. The report concludes that an investment in capital of approximately $1,105,800 is required to complete both short and long term projects to ensure the future use of Eastern Consolidated School. 2.8.2 Indoor Air Quality and Environmental Issues An inspection of the files concerning air quality and environmental issues for Eastern Consolidated School revealed no current issues.

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 18

2.8.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance, Repair and Operation Building Eastern Consolidated Elementary FY Utility Type FY10/11 Electric Fuel Oil FY11/12 Electric Fuel Oil Consumption 22120 kwh 19657.2 litres 25580 kwh 19810.3 litres Cost $3,259.58 $15,848.99 $3,988.17 $19,478.30

** Note: Fiscal Year is from April 1st to March 31st **

2.8.4 Barrier Free Accessibility to Building and Grounds Please refer to the Facility Evaluation Report provided by Fowler Bauld & Mitchell Ltd.

2.9 Building Use

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 19

2.9.1 Floor Plan

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 20

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 21

2.9.2 Building Details Building square footage: 11,750 square feet No. of storeys: 2 Building Age: 1956 and 1959 (addition added) Accessibility: No Elevator: No (Source: Facility Evaluation Report, July 2012 - Prepared by Fowler, Bauld, Mitchell Ltd.) 2.9.3 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage
Room Ground Floor Classroom 101 Classroom 103 Classroom 105 Classroom 110 Second Floor Classroom 201 Classroom 202 Classroom 203 Classroom 204 Classroom 206 Intended Use Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom 2 Classrooms (less dividing wall) Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Current Use Classroom Extra Classroom/Work space Classroom Breakfast Program/Lunch Room Physical Education Library/Computer Lab Parks & Recreation Music French

2.9.4 Excess Teaching Spaces Eastern Consolidated School has 10 classroom spaces (2 of which are used for classrooms, 1 for an extra classroom/workspace, 1 for Music, 1 for French, 1 for Library/Computer Lab, 2 for Physical Education, 1 for Parks and Recreation and 1 for a Breakfast Program/Lunch Room). Under the attached classroom configuration, Eastern Consolidated School requires 2 of the 10 available classroom spaces. The remaining classrooms are used for specialists, library/computer lab and one outside community group.

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 22

2.9.5 Eastern Consolidated School Boundary

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 23

3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
3.1 Capability to Deliver Public School Program
3.1.1 Facility Program Delivery Review Facility Program Delivery Review is a term used to define how well an educational facility serves the academic program being offered. It does not refer to the quality of the school’s academic programs or the success of its students. A Facility Program Delivery Review does not reflect the state of the physical plant of the building for architectural, structural, mechanical or electrical conditions.

Eastern Consolidated
Site Condition Educational Areas Classrooms Other Instructional Areas Library Gymnasium Support Areas Administration/Student Services Poor Fair Average

Above Average

Excellent

3.1.2 Public School Programing The following are details regarding Eastern Consolidated’s ability to deliver the public school program based on data from June 30th, 2012. It is noted that Eastern Consolidated is currently delivering the public school program as mandated by the Province. • Pupil-Teacher Ratio = 6.5:1 (enrolment divided by classroom teachers only) • Pupil-Staff Ratio = 5.2:1 (enrolment divided by all NSTU staff assigned to the school which includes Principal, Vice Principal, Circuit Teachers, Student Services Staff, ELT etc.) • Enrolment: 13 • Total Classes: 2 • Number of Combined Classes: 2 • Class sizes: (see chart) Grade Primary/One/Two 2/2/2 Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School Grade Three/Four/Five 3/2/2 Page 24

Program General Classroom Program Physical Education

Program Delivery Comments Program is being delivered. Program is being delivered in a space that was originally intended as 2 classrooms, low ceilings with a small wooden stage at the front of the room. Teacher is in a circuit with two other schools (Sheet Harbour Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated). Program is being delivered by the classroom teachers. Program is being delivered. Teacher is in a circuit with two other schools (Sheet Harbour Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated). Program is being delivered. Teacher is in a circuit with two other schools (Sheet Harbour Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated). Computer Lab in library space N/A N/A Available (i.e. Core French, Music) Library in a converted classroom. N/A N/A N/A Intramurals, Floor Hockey, Healthy Active Living, Multi-sport, Bluenose Run Club, Curling, Bowling The playground consists of 2 structures: swings, slide Small raised field behind school Breakfast program run by volunteers, hot lunch 2x/month

Art Music French Core Computer Lab Learning Centre Resource Room Specialty Space Library Science Lab Family Studies Technology Education Extra-Curricular Playground Field Food services

3.2 Educational Benefits
Eastern Consolidated School manages very well delivering the Public School Program given the building restrictions with which they are confronted. However, should Lakefront Consolidated, Sheet Harbour Consolidated and Eastern Consolidated unite with Duncan MacMillan High School to form a Grade Primary to Grade 12 School in a new building; the educational benefits would be vast. • • • • • • In general, the ability for a school to staff for specialty programs and extra-curricular activities is enhanced with larger student and staff populations A modern facility would provide up-to-date labs, resources, playground, sports field and technological opportunities to enhance programming Prospects of more effective Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) may be enhanced as more than one teacher per grade level would be likely Space may provide opportunities for collaborative partnerships with community agencies/supports Peer supports/positive role models ranging from students in grade Primary through twelve could be capitalized on Families would have one school to support (e.g. enhanced volunteer supports)

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 25

Possible Outcome: Eastern Consolidated Elementary remains open: Eastern Consolidated Elementary is currently delivering the required educational support services and public school program with limited space available for physical education. Possible Outcome: Eastern Consolidated Elementary closes and students are moved to a new Primary to Grade 12 School: In the event that Eastern Consolidated Elementary is closed, the students could continue to be supported effectively at a new Grade Primary to Grade 12 School with respect to the public school program and benefit greatly from a gymnasium with increased activity as well as the benefits listed previously.

3.3 Transportation
Possible Outcome: Eastern Consolidated Elementary remains open: All students within the boundary of Eastern Consolidated Elementary are transported to school by school bus. Possible Outcome: Eastern Consolidated Elementary is closed and students are moved to a new Primary to Grade 12 School: Bussing to the new school would be based on the location of the new school. All students meeting the criteria for bussing will be transported by school bus. The current policy is that bussing is provided for students in grades primary to six who live at least 2.4 km. from the school. The criteria for students in grades 7-12 is 3.6 km. from the school. **The Halifax Regional School Board has been working with Stock Transportation around strategies that will allow for efficient transportation to effectively shorten travel time for some of the students. However, depending on the location of the new school, these routes will be reassessed and may or may not shorten travel times for all students.

3.4 Extra-Curricular Activities
It should be noted that the delivery of extra-curricular activities at any school is dependent on the staff at the school in any given year. The special interests and skills of the teaching staff along with their availability to provide extra-curricular activities generally define what is offered. Extra-curricular activities are often offered over lunch periods or after school. Possible Outcome: Eastern Consolidated Elementary closes and the students are moved to a new Grade Primary to Grade 12 School. Students will be able to access the extra-curricular activities offered at the new school. The extracurricular activities currently in place at Eastern Consolidated Elementary may be enhanced due to the increase in number of staff at a new school and the possibility of less staff on circuit.

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 26

3.5 Operational and Capital Requirements
3.5.1 Completed Capital Projects at Eastern Consolidated School

Building

2005/06 Project Cost

2007/08
Project Cost

2009/10 Project Roof Sections A,B,E-1,E-2 7615Sq/Ft Cost

Eastern Consolidated School

Paint exterior

$7,200.00

$25,000.00

3.5.2 Immediate Operating Needs (5 years) If Eastern Consolidated School were to stay open, the following maintenance and capital upgrades will need to occur over the next five years: • • • Exterior Wall Panels Replacement Roof Replacement Exterior Painting

Please refer to the Facility Evaluation Report prepared by Fowler Bauld and Mitchell Architecture for more details. 3.5.3 Capital Investments on Current Building A Building Audit and Expenditure Plan has been completed for Eastern Consolidated School and this will be provided to the School Review Committee. The intent of the document is to provide a review of the existing buildings and to provide a capital building estimate that would be required for the continued operation of the schools. The report concludes that an investment in capital of approximately $1,105,800 is required to complete both short and long term projects to ensure the future use of Eastern Consolidated School.

3.6 Property Service Efficiencies
Immediate Capital Costs $334,100.00 Long term Capital Costs (20 Yr.) $771,700.00 Capital Costs to Upgrade to New Construction Standards Not available Annual Operating Costs (Approximately $5.50/sq. ft.) $65,945.00 Students Annual Operating Costs per student $5,072.69

13

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 27

3.7 Impact on the Community
If Eastern Consolidated School were to close, the impact on the community surrounding the school would largely be related to the new school’s proximity and convenience to families that reside in the area. As mentioned below (section 3.9), there is a strong case for building the new school as a wraparound facility which would be of great benefit to the community.

3.8 Community Use of the School
The source of this information is the HRSB/HRM Facility Booking database. Due to the limited time of custodial hours (custodian leaves at 4 pm Monday to Friday), there are no after-hours community groups at Eastern Consolidated School. Eastern Consolidated School does have HRSB curriculum nights, parent-teacher interviews, etc. as required by the HRSB.

3.9 Impact of Potential Consolidation (if applicable)
If Eastern Consolidated School were to move to a New Primary to Grade 12 School, the new school will have the benefits of a larger population. In general, the ability for a school to staff for specialty programs and extra-curricular activities is enhanced with larger student populations. This can occur because more teaching staff can be allocated to the school in either full time positions or itinerant teachers will be in the school for longer periods. While each individual student’s exposure to certain subjects is defined by the curriculum offered and is consistent throughout the board, the fact that art, music, gym, and French teachers are able to spend more time at a school with larger pupil numbers allows for the teachers to become more familiar with their students, enhances the ability for extracurricular offerings and enhances the ability for students with special interests in those subjects to be exposed to the subject(s) in more depth. Joining the school populations will also allow for increased opportunities for the development of social skills as students deal with more members of their peer group each day. Being in the larger school with older students also allows for more role models and older siblings can be more available to their younger brothers and sisters throughout the day. The opportunity to build a wraparound facility for the community is a consideration which would have a positive impact on the area. These schools are developed through partnership agreements, are usually open every day of the week and typically offer assistance with child rearing, employment, and housing to families in the community while providing other services on site such as medical, mental health and dental care. The idea is to divide up the responsibility between the school and agencies, with one set of services devoted to helping children learn and another devoted to helping children and families gain access to the support they need.

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 28

4.0 PROPOSED RECEIVING SCHOOL INFORMATION
4.1. School Name
A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built and named.

4.2 School Location
A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be erected on a location to be determined at a later date.

4.3 Administration
The school administration team has not yet been assigned for the New P-12 School.

4.4 Enrolment
4.4.1 Proposed Receiving School Historical and Projected Enrolments As outlined in section 2.6.1, HRSB enrolments are expected to recover moderately in 2017. As noted in section 2.6.2, however, the Duncan MacMillan Family of Schools will continue to experience enrolment decreases. Baragar anticipates that this family of schools will lose 74 more students by 2016 (19.1 per cent) and will continue to lose steadily, albeit at a reduced rate thereafter. By 2026, the Baragar model predicts that this family of schools will serve only 277 students or barely half the number (56.3 per cent) that attended in 2004. (See section 2.6.3) 4.4.2 Proposed Receiving School In and Out of Boundary Details N/A 4.4.3 Registered Enrolment for Proposed Receiving School N/A 4.4.4 Impact of the Review Outcome on Proposed Receiving School N/A

4.5 School Configuration
This school will be a Primary to grade 12 School with the following configuration:

4.6 Physical Condition of the Building
4.6.1 Facility Utilization A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built based on the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. 4.6.2 Condition of Building Structure and Systems A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built. 4.6.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance and Operations N/A Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School Page 29

4.6.4 Operation and Availability of Accessibility Ramps, Elevators, Accessible Playgrounds A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be fully accessible.

4.7 Building Use
4.7.1 Excess Space A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built to meet the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. 4.7.2 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built to meet the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. 4.7.3 Impact of Increased Number of Students on Building Usage A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built to meet the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area.

4.8 Transportation
Bussing to the new school would be based on the location of the new school. All students meeting the criteria for bussing will be transported by school bus. The current policy is that bussing is provided for students in grades primary to six who live at least 2.4 km from the school. The criteria for students in grades 7-12 is 3.6 km from the school. The Halifax Regional School Board is working with Stock Transportation to decide on a transportation schedule and system that will allow efficient delivery of students to the New Primary to Grade 12 School. However, depending on the location of the new school, these routes will be reassessed and may or may not shorten travel times for all students.

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 30

4.9 Proposed Attendance Boundary

Impact Assessment Report – Eastern Consolidated School

Page 31

SCHOOL REVIEW PROCESS
Impact Assessment Report Lakefront Consolidated Elementary

For more information, please contact Ron Heiman, 464-2000 ext. 2144

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 SCHOOL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 School Location ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 School Configuration.................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 School Name .................................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.4 Administration ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 2.5 Population Patterns.................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.5.1 Projection Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6 2.5.2 Halifax Regional Municipality Historical and Projected Population ............................................ 7 2.5.3 Eastern HRM Planning Area Historical and Projected Population ............................................... 9 2.6.1 Historical and Projected Enrolment for HRSB 1998/1999 to 2017/2018 .................................. 10 2.6.2 Duncan MacMillan Family Historical and Projected Enrolment by Grade................................. 12 2.6.3 Lakefront Consolidated School Historical and Projected Enrolments ....................................... 14 2.6.4 Lakefront Consolidated School In and Out of Boundary Details................................................ 14

2.6 Enrolment..................................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.7 Capital Construction Planning ............................................................................................................................. 15

2.6.5 Lakefront Consolidated School Registered Enrolment for September 2012 ............................. 15 2.7.1 Halifax Regional Municipality Regional Plan .............................................................................. 15 2.7.2 HRM Facility Master Plan ........................................................................................................... 17 2.7.3 Community Visioning ................................................................................................................. 17

2.8 Physical Condition of the Building ..................................................................................................................... 18

2.7.4 Proposed Development ............................................................................................................. 18

2.8.1 Condition of Building Envelope, Interior and Systems .............................................................. 18 2.8.2 Indoor Air Quality and Environmental Issues ............................................................................ 18 2.8.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance, Repair and Operation ..................................................... 19

2.9 Building Use ................................................................................................................................................................. 20

2.8.4 Barrier Free Accessibility to Building and Grounds.................................................................... 19 2.9.1 Floor Plan ................................................................................................................................... 20 2.9.2 Building Details .......................................................................................................................... 22 2.9.3 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage .......................................................................................... 22 2.9.4 Excess Teaching Spaces .............................................................................................................. 22

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 2

2.9.5 Lakefront Consolidated School Boundary .................................................................................. 23 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 24 3.1.1 Facility Program Delivery Review............................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Public School Programing .......................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Capability to Deliver Public School Program ................................................................................................. 24

3.2 Educational Benefits ................................................................................................................................................ 25

3.3 Transportation ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.5 Operational and Capital Requirements ................................................................................................ 27 3.5.1 Completed Capital Projects at Lakefront Consolidated School ................................................. 27 3.5.2 Immediate Operating Needs (5 years) ....................................................................................... 27 3.6 Property Service Efficiencies ................................................................................................................................ 27 3.7 Impact on the Community ..................................................................................................................................... 28 3.5.3 Capital Investments on Current Building ................................................................................... 27 3.4 Extra-Curricular Activities..................................................................................................................................... 26

3.8 Community Use of the School............................................................................................................................... 28 3.9 Impact of Potential Consolidation (if applicable) ........................................................................................ 28

4.0 Proposed Receiving School Information ............................................................................................... 29 4.2 School Location .......................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.3 Administration ........................................................................................................................................................... 29

4.1. School Name ............................................................................................................................................................... 29

4.4 Enrolment..................................................................................................................................................................... 30

4.4.1 Projected and Historical Enrolments for the Proposed Receiving School ................................. 30 4.4.2 In and Out of Boundary Details for Proposed Receiving School ................................................ 30 4.4.3 Registered Enrolment for Proposed Receiving School .............................................................. 31

4.5 School Configuration................................................................................................................................................ 31 4.6 Physical Condition of the Building ..................................................................................................................... 31

4.4.4 Impact of the Review Outcome on Proposed Receiving School ................................................ 31

4.6.1 Facility Utilization ....................................................................................................................... 31 4.6.2 Condition of Building Structure and Systems ............................................................................ 32 4.6.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance and Operations............................................................. 32

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

4.7 Building Use ................................................................................................................................................................. 32

4.6.4 Operation and Availability of Accessibility Ramps, Elevators, Accessible Playgrounds ............. 32 Page 3

4.7.1 Excess Space............................................................................................................................... 32 4.7.2 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage .......................................................................................... 32 4.8 Transportation ........................................................................................................................................................... 33 4.9 Proposed Attendance Boundary ......................................................................................................................... 33 4.7.3 Impact of Increased Number of Students on Building Usage .................................................... 32

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The information in this report has been compiled in accordance with Provincial School Review Regulations as dictated by the Nova Scotia Department of Education. It outlines information for the School Review Committee to consider regarding possible impacts of the Lakefront Consolidated Elementary School Review. Lakefront Consolidated Elementary has been identified for possible closure and consolidation. The school will then become part of a replacement New Primary to Grade 12 School scheduled for the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. However, there is the possibility of a new boundary which will send some students to the new replacement school and others to Oyster Pond Academy. In recent years, the Halifax Regional School Board has undertaken a 10 year facility master planning process which resulted in a staff report and recommendations which were presented to the elected Board in February 2010(http://www.hrsb.ns.ca/files/Downloads/pdf/reports/2009-2010/February/1001-1236.pdf). The elected Board requested the facility master plan be prepared and presented in smaller components. It was moved and seconded (Conrod/Finlayson) that the board request staff to develop an approach or process that would divide the capital construction master plan into more manageable components --- for example, area by area or family by family, and that the staff review this approach or process, including a timeline, with the Board before it begins. (CARRIED) During the 2010-2011 school year, staff prepared a facility master plan that is divided by family of schools. The plan outlines historical information, demographics, feeder system – existing and proposed, and the requested capital project for each area. The staff report on the proposed 10 Year Facilities Master Plan was tabled at the Board meeting of March 30th, 2011. The Capital Plan has identified a number of schools that should be considered for review as part of the ongoing planning process. Catchment areas that are experiencing enrolment decline provide opportunities to consolidate populations into existing infrastructure, renovated or replacement schools. The Department of Education then recently requested that the Board revise their capital projects and present a new priority list of capital projects. This list was prepared by staff and presented to the elected Board in February 2012. It was moved and seconded (Yee/Poole) that the Board approve the staff recommended prioritized School Capital Projects as listed below, and direct staff to prepare the required documentation for the April 20, 2012, submission to the Minister of Education. 1. New South Dartmouth Elementary School 2. Bicentennial School Addition and Alteration 3. New North Central Peninsula Elementary School 4. Energy Savings Project 5. New Eastern District P-12 School (Sheet Harbour) 6. New South Peninsula Elementary School

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 5

7. New Ravines High School 8. Cole Harbour District High School Addition and Alterations 9. Eastern Shore District High School Addition and Alterations 10. J. L. Ilsley High School Addition and Alterations (Carried) It was moved and seconded (Brine/Poole) that the Sheet Harbor Consolidated, Eastern Consolidated and Lake Front Elementary schools be put up for potential review at our next board meeting in March so that the new P to 12 school for the Sheet Harbour area can be moved up higher on the priority list. These schools would only potentially close when the new P to 12 school is completed. (CARRIED) At a special meeting of the elected Board in April 2012: It was moved and seconded (Brine/Blumenthal-Harrison) that the Board re-prioritize the School Capital Projects priority list by moving number five New Eastern District P-12 School to the number one priority with every other project moving down in descending order. (CARRIED)

2.0 SCHOOL INFORMATION
2.1 School Name
Lakefront Consolidated Elementary

2.2 School Configuration
Primary to Grade 6 Regular Program

2.3 School Location
17286 Highway #7 Tangier, NS B0J 3H0

2.4 Administration
Principal: Carole DesBarres

2.5 Population Patterns
2.5.1 Projection Methodology The Master Plan for HRSB facilities, Imagine Our Schools, was prepared in 2009 by CS&P Architects with demographic support provided by Paradigm Shift of Toronto and local consultants EDM - Environmental Management and Design. The current consultant, John Heseltine, was employed with EDM at the time and prepared the background population projections on which Paradigm Shift based future enrolment projections. The demographic work for Imagine our Schools was primarily based on data from the 2006 Census, which has recently been supplanted by the 2011 Census. Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 6

Since the completion of Imagine Our Schools, HRSB has acquired Baragar Demographics software, which provides detailed projections for all schools under the jurisdiction of the Board. The Barager software relies on a similar cohort-survival based methodology as was used for Imagine Our Schools to project population, however, it employs more sophisticated approaches to estimating local births and determining the residential location of children. Key features of the Baragar projection methodology include: • Analysis of annual birth records • Determination of the number of children residing within specific boundaries by accessing the Universal Child Care Benefit Tax Records and Canada Child Care Benefits records annually • Application of Census of Canada information such as women of child-bearing age in the local population (i.e., cohorts from 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and so on through to 40 to 44 years) • Application of historical net migration rates within specific boundaries Baragar projections are also updated annually and are now, therefore, considerably more current than the Imagine Our Schools projections. Baragar projections are entirely based on historical trends. The predictions generated by the Barager software should be more closely scrutinized in areas where there is reason to believe that the established trend in land development and population change is likely to be altered. The Sheet Harbour district is one such area. The software allows the Board to enter anticipated housing developments within a school catchment area and calculate the school age population that they can be expected to generate. This is done based on the types of dwelling units to be constructed and the expected timing of their construction. Accurate estimation of future population change using this methodology can be very difficult given the need to thoroughly identify potential housing projects, accurately profile them in terms of the number and types of dwelling units to be constructed, and the ultimate uncertainty that developers will follow through on proposals in the context of a fluid and normally competitive housing market. Development trends in the Sheet Harbour area are not, however, expected to change in the foreseeable future. As explained below (see section 2.7.4), subdivision activity and housing development in the area has been moderate and has largely been undertaken by local property owners building one or two units at a time. There is no reason to anticipate any marked change from this well-established pattern. Projections presented below are consequently drawn entirely from the Baragar system. 2.5.2 Halifax Regional Municipality Historical and Projected Population Historical Historical populations by five-year age group for the Halifax Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) which includes HRM plus two small Indian Reserves within its boundaries are presented from the 2001, 2006, and 2011 Censuses in the table below. Following are the key trends apparent from the data: • The CMA is growing considerably faster than the balance of Nova Scotia. Whereas Halifax grew by a moderate 4.7 per cent between 2006 and 2011, the province as a whole grew by only 0.9 per cent over the period. Page 7

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Over the same period, the population from 5 to 19 years in the CMA decreased by 4.7 per cent. From 2001 to 2011, numbers from 5 to 19 fell by 7.9 per cent. Projected In 2004, Clayton Research Associates prepared comprehensive demographic projections for HRM. The projections provided future estimates of labour force, population, and housing. In 2009, Altus Economic Consulting, which acquired Clayton in the interim, updated the projections to take account of 2006 Census data. Their revised projections were presented in the Altus report Employment, Population and Housing Projections for Halifax Regional Municipality: An Update. Projections in both cases covered Census years to 2026 and provided Baseline, Low, and High projections. Populations for 2016, 2021, and 2026 in the table following represent Altus’s Baseline estimates for the future. Key features of the projections include: • The total population of the region will continue to rise by 3 to 5 per cent over each future fiveyear Census period. • Altus projections suggest that the number of 5 to 19 years olds will decline by 4.2 per cent from 2011 to 2016 and by 5.0 per cent from 2016 to 2021; however, their projection from 2021 to 2026 shows a 3.1 per cent increase in the school aged groups. Historical and Projected Population by Age Group, HRM, 2001-2026 Age 2001 2006 2011 2016 0-4 19,935 18,210 19,970 20,750 5-9 *22,370 *19,655 *19,160 *19,870 10-14 *23,695 *22,345 *20,495 *18,870 15-19 *22,910 *24,360 *23,890 *21,620 20-24 26,565 28,130 31,245 30,260 25-29 26,445 26,020 28,410 32,225 30-34 27,600 25,850 25,930 30,365 35-39 32,860 27,410 26,505 26,800 40-44 31,650 32,760 27,830 26,960 45-49 28,070 31,575 33,115 27,860 50-54 25,530 28,240 31,565 32,165 55-59 18,345 25,085 27,195 30,545 60-64 13,680 18,255 23,925 26,440 65-69 11,845 13,225 16,815 22,500 70-74 9,715 11,025 11,860 15,415 75-79 8,060 8,565 9,140 10,000 80-84 5,535 6,475 6,630 7,125 85+ 4,385 5,675 6,655 6,535 TOTAL 359,195 372,860 390,335 406,305 % change 3.8% 4.7% 4.1% 2021 21,425 *21,250 *20,355 *20,605 28,135 32,610 32,940 31,020 27,775 26,960 27,665 31,655 29,340 24,990 20,295 13,090 7,790 7,165 425,065 4.6% 2026 21,035 *21,700 *21,510 *21,760 26,520 29,985 32,895 33,235 31,665 27,625 26,665 27,200 30,395 27,755 22,610 17,310 10,225 8,025 438,115 3.1%

**Note: Student aged cohorts are marked with an asterisk **Note: Child-bearing cohorts are shaded Source: Census of Canada 2001, 2006, 2011, Altus Group Economic Consulting projections for 2016, 2021,and 2026

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 8

2.5.3 Eastern HRM Planning Area Historical and Projected Population The Musquodoboit and Sheet Harbour areas that comprise the eastern portion of HRM are demographically much more similar to the area of Nova Scotia outside of HRM than the balance of the region. Although suburban and rural areas within commuting distance of the urban centre are the fastest growing areas of the region, the more distant areas to the east have generally lost population. The Sheet Harbour area, which is the farthest from the urban centre and is the focus of this study, has in fact begun to lose population rapidly. Historically, the Census of Canada defined Musquodoboit and Sheet Harbour as Census Subdivisions F and G. While Statistics Canada did away with the Census Subdivisions (CSDs) on amalgamation of the region in 1996, their boundaries have continued to be recognized as Census Tracts 153 and 154 and facilitate evaluation of long-term change in the area. Over recent Censuses, as other areas of HRM have steadily gained population, the Musquodoboit area has largely stagnated while the Sheet Harbour areas has consistently lost population. In the most recent Census period from 2006 to 2011, both areas lost significant numbers, particularly Sheet Harbour, which lost over 10 per cent of its residents. The population of both areas is older. The median age in Musquodoboit is 48.7, while the median in Sheet Harbour is 51.4 years. The percentage of the population aged 5 to 19 is just 15.3 per cent according to the 2011 Census, down from 16.3 per cent in 2006.The median age for HRM as a whole is only 39.9 years. The percentage of the 2011 Census population in HRM from 5 to 19 years of age was 16.4 per cent.

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 9

Historical Population Trends, CSDs 153 and 154, and the Remainder of HRM, 1986-2011 CSD F/CT 153 CSD G/CT 154 (Musquodoboit) (Sheet Harbour) Remainder of HRM Census Population Change Population Change Population Change 1986 6,101 4,376 296,896 1991 6,130 0.5% 4,160 -4.9% 320,463 7.9% 1996 6,255 2.0% 4,125 -0.8% 332,466 3.7% 2001 6,268 0.2% 3,905 -5.3% 348,923 4.9% 2006 6,493 3.6% 3,936 0.8% 362,429 3.9% 2011 6,129 -5.6% 3,479 -11.6% 380,222 4.9%

2.6 Enrolment
Enrolment projections are based upon the Cohort-Survival Method, which uses historical grade by grade enrolment to estimate a grade by grade projection for each program offered at a school. This method uses trends to identify the progression of students from one grade to the next higher grade. Other data sources, including historical migration rates (+ -) of the catchment area, analysis of out- of- area students, feeder school analysis, and a yearly analysis of the Universal Child Benefit Tax record and Canada Child Benefit Tax records are used to supplement the Cohort-Survival Method projections. 2.6.1 Historical and Projected Enrolment for HRSB 1998/1999 to 2017/2018 Since 2004, student enrolment in the Halifax Regional School Board has declined significantly. The 2011 school year saw 4,045 fewer students in the system than in 2004 a decline of 7.4 per cent despite reasonably strong in migration to HRM and overall population growth. Baragar projections from 2012 on suggest that this decline will begin to moderate. They anticipate enrolment decline will bottom out at 48,418 or 2.4 per cent less students than enrolled for 2011. After 2016, Baragar anticipates that enrolment will grow with increases expected in every future year from 2017 through 2026 except 2021. By 2026, Baragar predicts an enrolment of 51,675 students, an increase of 6.7 per cent from 2016 that would bring total enrolment up to the same approximate level as 2006. Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 10

Historical and Projected Enrolments, HRSB, 2004-2026 Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 PR to 6 27,495 26,468 25,678 25,537 25,839 25,767 25,490 25,124 25,113 25,359 25,642 25,353 25,436 25,817 26,215 26,519 26,677 26,920 27,130 27,313 27,481 27,628 27,762 7 to 9 13,595 13,349 12,788 12,518 12,232 11,833 11,529 11,267 11,122 10,862 10,577 10,929 11,126 11,181 10,749 10,661 11,002 11,244 11,405 11,429 11,556 11,671 11,621 10 to 12 12,480 12,737 12,623 14,118 13,792 13,383 13,060 13,140 12,827 12,696 12,358 12,131 11,766 11,442 11,810 12,015 12,051 11,540 11,416 11,754 12,013 12,173 12,202 PP to 12 53,664 52,673 51,235 52,348 51,948 51,063 50,169 49,619 49,152 49,007 48,667 48,503 48,418 48,530 48,864 49,285 49,820 49,794 50,041 50,586 51,140 51,562 51,675 Change -991 -1,438 1,113 -400 -885 -894 -550 -467 -145 -340 -164 -85 112 334 421 535 -26 247 545 554 422 113 % -1.8% -2.7% 2.2% -0.8% -1.7% -1.8% -1.1% -0.9% -0.3% -0.7% -0.3% -0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 0.9% 1.1% -0.1% 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.2%

PR to 6

7 to 9

10 to 12

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 11

2.6.2 Duncan MacMillan Family Historical and Projected Enrolment by Grade Like the wider HRSB system, the Duncan MacMillan family of schools has experienced declining enrolments in the recent past. The degree of decline has however been considerably more marked in the Duncan MacMillan catchment area consistent with the general loss of population from the area. From 2004 to 2011 Duncan MacMillan and the three elementary schools that feed it lost 105 students or 21.3 per cent of its 2004 student body. Baragar projections for schools in the family suggest less recovery in the near future than in the balance of the system. Baragar anticipates that family schools will lose 74 more students by 2016 (19.1 per cent) and will continue to lose steadily, albeit at a reduced rate thereafter. By 2026, the Baragar model predicts that this family of schools will serve only 277 students or barely half the number (56.3 per cent) that attended in 2004.

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 12

Historical and Projected Enrolments, Duncan MacMillan Family of Schools, 2004-2026 Grade PR to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 PP to 12 Change 2004 266 118 108 492 2005 240 120 103 463 -29 2006 231 112 135 478 15 2007 220 112 106 438 -40 2008 211 110 118 439 1 2009 183 104 111 398 -41 2010 179 101 115 395 -3 2011 175 105 107 387 -8 2012 164 100 106 370 -17 2013 152 98 105 355 -15 2014 133 90 106 329 -26 2015 139 85 102 326 -3 2016 132 83 98 313 -13 2017 126 80 88 294 -19 2018 115 83 80 278 -16 2019 119 78 77 274 -4 2020 123 76 76 275 1 2021 127 73 79 279 4 2022 129 73 73 275 -4 2023 133 74 69 276 1 2024 133 74 64 271 -5 2025 136 73 66 275 4 2026 137 73 67 277 2 600 500 400 300 200 100

% -5.9% 3.2% -8.4% 0.2% -9.3% -0.8% -2.0% -4.4% -4.1% -7.3% -0.9% -4.0% -6.1% -5.4% -1.4% 0.4% 1.5% -1.4% 0.4% -1.8% 1.5% 0.7%

PR to 6

7 to 9

10 to 12

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 13

2.6.3 Lakefront Consolidated School Historical and Projected Enrolments Actual enrolments are provided through 2011 and projected enrolments are through 2017. All data is from Baragar Demographics.

Grade Primary One Two Three Four Five Six Total

2006 3 5 6 8 7 7 7 43

2007 4 4 5 7 8 7 6 41

2008 2 4 3 5 6 11 8 39

2009 2 2 5 3 5 6 9 32

2010 4 2 1 4 3 5 6 25

2011 10 3 2 3 5 4 5 31

2012 2 11 3 3 2 5 5 31

2013 5 2 10 3 2 2 5 29

2014 2 4 2 10 3 2 2 25

2015 3 2 4 2 10 3 2 26

2016 3 3 2 4 2 10 3 27

2017 3 3 3 2 4 2 10 27

2.6.4 Lakefront Consolidated School In and Out of Boundary Details Students attending Lakefront Consolidated Elementary School • In 2011-12, all of the 31 students who attended Lakefront came from the Lakefront catchment area. They had no Out of Area Students.

Students living in Lakefront Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area • Two students from the Lakefront Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area attended other schools in English programming for the 2011-2012 school year (both go to Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School) • No students from the Lakefront Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area attended other schools in French Immersion programming for the 2011-2012 school year.

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 14

2.6.5 Lakefront Consolidated School Registered Enrolment for September 2012 The following registered enrolments for September 2012 are accurate as of Sept. 13th, 2012. The actual September 30, 2012 enrolments will be available in October 2012. Grade Enrolment as of Sept 13, 2012

Primary One Two Three Four Five Six Total

2 11 3 3 2 5 5 31

2.7 Capital Construction Planning
2.7.1 Halifax Regional Municipality Regional Plan Development throughout HRM is governed by the Halifax Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS), which was adopted by Regional Council in 2006. The plan is currently undergoing a five-year review required under the Municipal Government Act. The review process is called RP+5. Under the current RMPS, the coastal portion of the Sheet Harbour area is designated “Rural Resource” on the Generalized Future Land Use Map in the RMPS. Interior lands are largely designated as “Open Space and Natural Resources” (a small area in the northwest, well beyond the Duncan MacMillan catchment area is designated “Agricultural”). The RMPS contains a policy objective to distribute new housing units as follows within the region: • • • 25 per cent in the Urban Centre (i.e., the Halifax Peninsula and Dartmouth within the Circumferential Highway) 50 per cent in Suburban Areas (i.e., the remaining area within HRM’s water and wastewater servicing boundary) 25 per cent in the remaining Rural Area. Page 15

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

The goal of the policy is to intensify development in the Urban Centre so as to economize expenditure on urban infrastructure. John Heseltine who is now employed with Stantec, is currently studying the potential impacts of altering this policy to encourage a more intensive settlement pattern formulated in terms of two scenarios: 1. 2. Hypothetical Growth Scenario A – 40% urban, 40% suburban, 20% rural Hypothetical Growth Scenario B – 50% urban, 30% suburban, 20% rural.

HRM planners are interested in the potential savings that these scenarios may yield. While the focus in both cases is to reduce the degree of suburbanization, the scenarios do not suggest a major thrust to encourage population growth in the rural areas of HRM. The foremost concern of HRM planners is to shift population from the outer serviced areas around the urban core and from rapidly developing rural lands (i.e., unserviced lands) in areas such as Tantallon, Hammonds Plains, and Porters Lake; however, it is also apparent from its designation that there are limited expectations for growth in the far eastern portions of the region. In many respects the Musquodoboit and Sheet Harbour Areas are regarded as separate from the balance of HRM. The Municipality’s transportation model, for example, does not incorporate either area because Census data on journey to work shows minimal interaction between the eastern area and the urban centre. Comparison of other features of the area such as the profile of local industries and the occupational profile of local residents also suggests substantial differences between the easternmost area and the balance of HRM as well as significantly different economic drivers. A secondary planning strategy known as the Eastern Shore (East) Municipal Planning Strategy also covers the area. The plan was adopted by Halifax County immediately before its amalgamation into HRM in 1996. Local plans of this type, which cover all areas of HRM, provide the foundation for zoning applied through an accompanying land use bylaw as well as addressing the aspirations of the community through detailed policies. The Eastern Shore (East) MPS emphasizes the rural character of the area and recognizes the relative stagnation of its population, which was apparent in the mid-1990s and has since deepened. The plan includes a section called “Education” that deals with schools in the area. Discussion in the Education section notes moderate declines in enrolments at some local schools at the time that have since become much more pronounced. Policies commit Council to consult with the Province concerning new and/or expanded schools emphasizing the siting of schools. Policy ED-5 also emphasizes the need for community access to school buildings and grounds: It shall be the intention of Council to encourage the Halifax County-Bedford District School Board to support the continued use of school facilities as community schools in order to provide for a range of individual educational needs and to help foster community social and cultural development. Although both the municipal entity and the school board referenced in the policy have been supplanted since its adoption, this and other policies in the Eastern Shore (East) MPS continue to apply and commitments such as the above continue to guide HRM’s Regional Council. In a brief discussion with the HRM Planner responsible for the area, Marcus Garnet, Mr. Garnet re-emphasized the desirability of Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 16

community access and expressed support for a facility located in Sheet Harbour where he felt it would be more accessible to residents and would allow students better access to commercial and public facilities. He also noted that if more students would be bussed to a centralized location, the transportation provider might wish to consider also carrying local residents along with students; a practice that he said has been established for some time in rural Quebec. 2.7.2 HRM Facility Master Plan The Community Facility Master Plan (CFMP) was approved in principle by Regional Council in 2008. The document specifies the general locations of proposed facilities and proposed improvements to existing facilities. Citing principles established in the Imagine Our Schools report to “enhance opportunities for community-centred schools with a commitment to exploring partnerships and joint-use agreements and [to address] the realities of declining enrolment and aging facilities”, its Recommendation 17 urges: That HRM and HRSB develop a model for shared use at each of the board󲐀s high schools and up to two other schools within each family of schools. HRSB is forecasting upgrades to music rooms and arts spaces within a series of schools. Music and arts spaces represent two additional areas for shared use. Wherever feasible HRM and HRSB should add community access elements to schools. Later Recommendation 24, however, states: That currently forecasted HRB elementary and junior high schools slated for closure not be added to HRM community centre inventory, unless the schools are within areas deemed high need and where they are superior to current municipal infrastructure (evaluation completed using Facility Condition Index). The CFMP proposes no specific projects for the Sheet Harbour area. While it is strongly supportive of the joint use of schools, it is cautious about recycling surplus school buildings as sites for community facilities. Nevertheless, Recommendation 42 concerning Rural Community Centres acknowledges that schools are candidates for incorporation of community facilities: That HRM recognize the unique requirements for providing recreation facilities and services in rural areas. Locate small but effective spaces for community centres service provision in the communities. Facilities may be shared with other parties such as church groups, schools, the local fire hall or new construction. 2.7.3 Community Visioning A 2008 HRM Staff Report summarized plans for Community Visioning in HRM at that time. The report indicated that visioning would be undertaken in Sheet Harbour in 2009. Consultation with Marcus Garnet, who was a co-author of the 2008 report, confirmed that the process has not yet been commenced. He indicated that visioning processes are currently on hold as HRM focuses on the RP+5 process. (see section 2.7.1)A new schedule for local visioning processes is likely to follow the completed plan review. Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School Page 17

2.7.4 Proposed Development The area around Sheet Harbour has seen minimal development activity. HRM Planner, Cathy Spencer, stated that occasional one and two-lot subdivision are approved in the area. The largest she could recall was in Tangier and she suggested it might have had five lots. Over the past five years she speculated that perhaps 50 lots have been approved in the area and that no more than 50 per cent were built on. While HRM staff could not provide any information on the number of dwelling unit completions in the area, 2006 Census data for Census Tract 154 of which the Duncan MacMillan catchment area constitutes the southern half indicates that their number has been modest and falling over the long-term. In the 2001 to 2006 period only 40 units were added in CT 154 comprising just 2.3 per cent of all occupied dwelling units in the area. The proportion, furthermore, is a substantial decline from the shares from previous five year periods back to 1981, all of which are represented by at least 5 per cent of occupied units. Occupied Private Dwelling Units by Period of Construction, Census Tract 154 Total occupied private dwelling units 1,735 Period of Construction Units % of Total Before 1946 460 26.5% 1946 to 1960 230 13.3% 1961 to 1970 185 10.7% 1971 to 1980 350 20.2% 1981 to 1985 120 6.9% 1986 to 1990 155 8.9% 1991 to 1995 85 4.9% 1996 to 2000 105 6.1% 2001 to 2006 40 2.3%

2.8 Physical Condition of the Building
2.8.1 Condition of Building Envelope, Interior and Systems A Building Audit and Expenditure Plan (Facility Evaluation Reports) has been completed for Lakefront Consolidated School and will be provided to the School Review Committee. The intent of the document is to provide a review of the existing buildings and to provide a capital building estimate that would be required for the continued operation of the schools. The report concludes that an investment in capital of approximately $726,050 is required to ensure the future use of Lakefront Consolidated School. This amount would provide for both short and long term projects. 2.8.2 Indoor Air Quality and Environmental Issues An inspection of the files concerning air quality and environmental issues revealed no current issues.

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 18

2.8.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance, Repair and Operation

Building Lakefront Consolidated Elementary

FY Utility Type FY10/11 Electric Fuel Oil FY11/12 Electric Fuel Oil ** Note: Fiscal year is from April 1st to March 31st

Consumption 27920 kwh 16494.6 litres 26480 kwh 14705.2 litres

Cost $ 4,055.01 $13,600.66 $4,118.78 $14,566.87

2.8.4 Barrier Free Accessibility to Building and Grounds Please refer to the Facility Evaluation Report provided by Fowler Bauld & Mitchell Ltd.

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 19

2.9 Building Use
2.9.1 Floor Plan

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 20

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 21

2.9.2 Building Details Building square footage is approximately 8245 square feet. Number of storeys: 2 Building age: 1957 Accessibility: No Elevator: No (Source: Facility Evaluation Report, July 2012 - Prepared by Fowler, Bauld, Mitchell Ltd.) 2.9.3 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage
Room Ground Floor Classroom 1 Classroom 2 Second Floor Classroom 3 Classroom 4 Classroom 5 Intended Use Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Current Use Classroom Grade P/1 Music/Lunch/French Classroom Grade 3/4/5 Classroom Grade 5/6 Library

2.9.4 Excess Teaching Spaces Lakefront Consolidated has 5 classroom spaces (3 of which are used for classrooms, 1 for Library and 1 for Music/French/Lunch Room). Under the attached classroom configuration, Lakefront Consolidated requires 3 of the 5 available classroom spaces. The remaining classrooms are used for specialists and library/computer lab.

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 22

2.9.5 Lakefront Consolidated School Boundary

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 23

3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
3.1 Capability to Deliver Public School Program
3.1.1 Facility Program Delivery Review Facility Program Delivery Review is a term used to define how well an educational facility serves the academic program being offered. It does not refer to the quality of the school’s academic programs or the success of its students. A Facility Program Delivery Review does not reflect the state of the physical plant of the building for architectural, structural, mechanical or electrical conditions.

Lakefront Consolidated
Poor Site Condition Educational Areas Classrooms Other Instructional Areas Library Gymnasium Support Areas Administration/Student Services Cafeteria/Food Services (none) Fair Above Average Average Excellent

3.1.2 Public School Programing The following are details regarding Lakefront Consolidated’s ability to deliver the public school program based on data from June 30th, 2012. It is noted that Lakefront Consolidated is currently delivering the public school program as mandated by the Province. • • • • • • Pupil-Teacher Ratio = 9:1 (enrolment divided by classroom teachers only) Pupil-Staff Ratio = 5.4:1 (enrolment divided by all NSTU staff assigned to the school which includes Principal, Circuit Teachers, Student Services Staff, ELT etc.) Enrolment: 27 Total Classes: 3 Number of Combined Classes: 3 Class sizes: Grade Primary/One 2/10 Grade Two/Three/Four 3/2/1 Grade Five/Six 5/4 Page 24

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Program General Classroom Program Physical Education

Program Delivery Comments Program is being delivered. Program is being delivered in a space that is approximately the size of two classrooms, low ceilings with a small wooden stage at the front of the room. Teacher is in a circuit with two other schools (Sheet Harbour Consolidated, Eastern Consolidated). Program is being delivered by the classroom teachers. Program is being delivered. Teacher is in a circuit with two other schools (Sheet Harbour Consolidated, Eastern Consolidated). Program is being delivered. Teacher is in a circuit with two other schools (Sheet Harbour Consolidated, Eastern Consolidated). Computer Lab in library space N/A Small space beside staff room Available (i.e. Core French, Music) Library in a converted classroom. N/A N/A N/A Intramurals, Grade 3-6 Afterschool Activity Program The playground consists of a Play-pad with Basketball nets, Four Square, Hopscotch, Tetherball, Triple Hoop, Slide, Small Climbing Structure, Ga Ga Pit, Gazebo/Outdoor Classroom and a small hut

Art Music French Core Computer Lab Learning Centre Resource Room Specialty Space Library Science Lab Family Studies Technology Education Extra-Curricular Playground Field Food services

Play space behind school

Breakfast program run by volunteers, hot lunch 1x/month

3.2 Educational Benefits
Lakefront Consolidated manages very well delivering the Public School Program given the building restrictions they are confronted with, however, should Lakefront Consolidated, Sheet Harbour Consolidated and Eastern Consolidated unite with Duncan MacMillan High School to form a Grade Primary to Grade 12 School in a new building the educational benefits would be vast – • • • • • • In general, the ability for a school to staff for specialty programs and extra-curricular activities is enhanced with larger student and staff populations A modern facility would provide up to date labs, resources, playground, sports field and technological opportunities to enhance programming Prospects of more effective Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) may be enhanced as more than one teacher per grade level would be likely Space may provide opportunities for collaborative partnerships with community agencies/supports Peer supports/positive role models ranging from students in grade Primary through twelve could be capitalized on Families would have one school to support (e.g. enhanced volunteer supports) Page 25

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Possible Outcome: Lakefront Consolidated remains open: Lakefront Consolidated is currently delivering the required educational support services and public school program with limited space available for physical education. Possible Outcome: Lakefront Consolidated closes and students are moved to a new Primary to Grade 12 School: In the event that Lakefront Consolidated is closed, the students could continue to be supported effectively at a new Grade Primary to Grade 12 School with respect to the public school program and benefit greatly from a gymnasium with increased activity and the other benefits as outlined above. Possible Outcome: Lakefront Consolidated closes and some of the students attend Oyster Pond Academy: In the event that Lakefront Consolidated School is closed, some students could continue to be supported effectively at Oyster Pond Academy with respect to the public school program and benefit greatly from a gymnasium with increased activity and other benefits as outlined above.

3.3 Transportation
Possible Outcome: Lakefront Consolidated Elementary remains open: All students within the boundary of Lakefront Consolidated are transported to school by school bus. Possible Outcome: Lakefront Consolidated Elementary closes and students are moved to a new Primary to grade 12 school: Bussing to the new school would be based on the location of the new school. All students meeting the criteria for bussing will be transported by school bus. The current policy is that bussing is provided for students in grades primary to six who live at least 2.4 km. from the school. The criteria for students in grades 7-12 is 3.6 km. from the school. Possible Outcome: Lakefront Consolidated School closes and some students are moved to Oyster Pond Academy: All students meeting the criteria for bussing will be transported by school bus. The current policy is that bussing is provided for students in grades primary to six who live at least 2.4 km. from the school. The criteria for students in grades 7-12 is 3.6 km. from the school. **The Halifax Regional School Board has been working with Stock Transportation around strategies that will allow for efficient transportation to effectively shorten travel time for some of the students. However, depending on the location of the new school, these routes will be reassessed and may or may not shorten travel times for all students.

3.4 Extra-Curricular Activities
It should be noted that the delivery of extra-curricular activities at any school is dependent on the staff at the school in any given year. The special interests and skills of the teaching staff along with their availability to provide extra-curricular activities generally define what is offered. Extra-curricular activities are often offered over lunch periods or after school. Possible Outcome: Lakefront Consolidated School closes and the students are moved to a new Grade Primary to Grade 12 School. Students will be able to access the extra-curricular activities offered at the new school. The extracurricular activities currently in place at Lakefront Consolidated School may be enhanced due to the increase in number of staff at a new school and the possibility of less staff on circuit. Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 26

Possible Outcome: Lakefront Consolidated is closed and some students are moved to Oyster Pond Academy. Students will be able to access the extra-curricular activities offered at Oyster Pond Academy. The extracurricular activities currently in place at Lakefront Consolidated School may be enhanced owing to the increase in number of staff at a new school and the possibility of less staff on circuit. Due to the school’s location, it might even prove more convenient for parents who work in the urban and suburban areas of HRM to provide transportation for these activities.

3.5 Operational and Capital Requirements
3.5.1 Completed Capital Projects at Lakefront Consolidated School
• • • • • Painted the exterior in 2009/10 Gym and Boys washroom new VCT 2009/10 Repaired crack in exterior foundation wall 2009/10 Retro-Fit gym and washroom lights 2009 Painted interior throughout 2010

3.5.2 Immediate Operating Needs (5 years) Please refer to the Facility Evaluation report prepared in July 2012 by Fowler, Bauld and Mitchell Ltd. For a detailed description of items of immediate concern and items which warrant attention. The report concludes that the cost of items needing immediate attention would total $334,100. 3.5.3 Capital Investments on Current Building Complete Building Audit and Expenditure Plans (Facility Evaluation Reports) have been completed for Lakefront Consolidated School and will be provided to the School Review Committee. The intent of the document is to provide a review of the existing buildings and to provide a capital building estimate that would be required for the continued operation of the schools. The report concludes that an investment in capital of approximately $726,050 is required to ensure the future use of Lakefront Consolidated School. This amount would provide for both short and long term projects.

3.6 Property Service Efficiencies
Lakefront Consolidated School Immediate Capital Costs $284,650.00 Long term Capital Costs (20 Yr.) $441,400.00 Capital Costs to Upgrade to New Construction Standards Not available Annual Operating Costs (approximately $5.50/sq. ft.) $45,408.00 Students Annual Operating Costs per student $1,681.77

27

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 27

3.7 Impact on the Community
If Lakefront Consolidated School were to close, the impact on the community surrounding the school would largely be related to the new school’s proximity and convenience to families that reside in the area.

3.8 Community Use of the School
From September 2011-June 2012, the following activities occurred at Lakefront Consolidated School. The source of this information is the HRSB/HRM Facility Booking database. Rooms: Entire school Booked by: Principal, Carole DesBarres Dates and times: Sat. Oct. 1st – 9:00am- 11:00am Thur. Oct. 27th – 6:30pm-8:30pm Wed. Feb. 29th – 4:30pm- 6:30pm Fri. March 9th – 6:30pm- 8:00pm Sat. March 10th – 6:30pm- 8:00pm Due to the limited time of custodial hours (custodian leaves at 4 pm Monday to Friday) there are no after-hours community groups.

3.9 Impact of Potential Consolidation (if applicable)
Possible Outcome: Lakefront Consolidated School closes and students move to a new Primary to Grade 12 School. If Lakefront Consolidated School were to close and move to a New Primary to Grade 12 School, the new school will have the benefits of a larger population. In general, the ability for a school to staff for specialty programs and extra-curricular activities is enhanced with larger student populations. This can occur because more teaching staff can be allocated to the school in either full time positions or itinerant teachers will be in the school for longer periods. While each individual student’s exposure to certain subjects is defined by the curriculum offered and is consistent throughout the board, the fact that art, music, gym, and French teachers are able to spend more time at a school with larger pupil numbers allows for the teachers to become more familiar with their students, enhances the ability for extracurricular offerings and enhances the ability for students with special interests in those subjects to be exposed to the subject(s) in more depth. Joining the school populations will also allow for increased opportunities for the development of social skills as students deal with more members of their peer group each day. Being in the larger school with older students also allows for more role models and older siblings can be more available to their younger brothers and sisters throughout the day. The opportunity to build a wraparound facility for the community is a consideration which would have a positive impact on the area. These schools are developed through partnership agreements, are usually open every day of the week and typically offer assistance with child rearing, employment, and housing

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 28

to families in the community while providing other services on site such as medical, mental health and dental care. The idea is to divide up the responsibility between the school and agencies, with one set of services devoted to helping children learn and another devoted to helping children and families gain access to the support they need. Possible Outcome: Lakefront School closes. There is a change in boundary set at the Tangier River. Some students will go to Oyster Pond Academy. Those students attending Oyster Pond Academy will experience the same benefits of a larger population. In general, the ability for a school to staff for specialty programs and extra-curricular activities is enhanced with larger student populations. This can occur because more teaching staff can be allocated to the school in either full time positions or itinerant teachers will be in the school for longer periods. While each individual student’s exposure to certain subjects is defined by the curriculum offered and is consistent throughout the board, the fact that art, music, gym, and French teachers are able to spend more time at a school with larger pupil numbers allows for the teachers to become more familiar with their students, enhances the ability for extra-curricular offerings and enhances the ability for students with special interests in those subjects to be exposed to the subject(s) in more depth. Relocating students to Oyster Pond academy will also allow for increased opportunities for the development of social skills as students deal with more members of their peer group each day. Being in the larger school with older students also allows for more role models and older siblings can be more available to their younger brothers and sisters throughout the day.

4.0 PROPOSED RECEIVING SCHOOL INFORMATION
4.1. School Name
Possible Outcome#1: Lakefront closes and students move to a new Primary to grade 12 school which will be built and named in the near future. Possible Outcome#2: Lakefront closes, a new boundary is set at the Tangier River and some students will attend Oyster Pond Academy.

4.2 School Location
Possible Outcome #1: A new school will be built at a location to be decided at a later date. Possible Outcome #2: 10583 Highway #7 Oyster Pond B0J 1W0

4.3 Administration
Possible Outcome #1: The school administration team has not been assigned for the new P-12 school. Possible Outcome#2: Principal: Karen Webber; Vice Principal: Marie Brine Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School Page 29

4.4 Enrolment
4.4.1 Projected and Historical Enrolments for the Proposed Receiving School Possible Outcome #1: New Primary to Grade 12 School Historical and Projected Enrolments Baragar projections for schools in the Duncan MacMillan family suggest less recovery in the near future than in the balance of the HRSB system. Baragar anticipates that this family of schools will lose 74 more students by 2016 (19.1 per cent) and will continue to lose steadily, albeit at a reduced rate thereafter. By 2026, the Baragar model predicts that this family of schools will serve only 277 students or barely half the number (56.3 per cent) that attended in 2004. (See section 2.6.3) Possible Outcome #2: Oyster Pond Historical and Projected Enrolments Actual enrolments are provided through 2011 and projected enrolments are through 2016. All data is from Baragar Demographics. Oyster Pond was opened in 2007.
Grade Primary One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Total 2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2007 42 48 42 50 66 42 62 54 56 63 525 2008 48 41 52 45 51 64 42 64 53 60 520 2009 50 51 42 50 46 53 63 42 63 52 512 2010 29 47 48 44 46 48 51 64 44 64 485 2011 30 27 46 44 45 45 48 53 66 39 443 2012 27 25 25 46 45 45 41 48 50 63 415 2013 36 30 28 24 43 43 46 49 52 54 405 2014 44 35 29 27 24 43 44 49 49 53 397 2015 39 43 34 28 26 24 43 46 50 51 384 2016 40 37 42 32 27 26 24 46 47 52 373

4.4.2 In and Out of Boundary Details for Proposed Receiving School Possible Outcome #1: N/A Possible Outcome #2: Students attending Oyster Pond Academy • • 431 students living within the Oyster Pond Academy Catchment Area 12 students living in other school catchment areas; 6 are from Porters Lake catchment; 3 from Atlantic View Elementary catchment area; 1 from South Woodside Elementary catchment area; 1 from St Catherine’s Elementary catchment area and 1 from Sunnyside Elementary catchment area. Total of 443 students attended Oyster Pond Academy for the 2011-2012 school year Page 30

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Students living in Oyster Pond Academy Catchment Area • 431 students from the Oyster Pond Academy Catchment Area attended the school for the 20112012 school year Eleven students from the Oyster Pond Academy Area attended other schools in English programming for the 2011-2012 school year (1 goes to Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School) 1 student from the Oyster Pond Academy Catchment Area goes to Seaside Elementary for Early French Immersion and 1 student attends Eastern Passage Education Centre for Junior High French Immersion.

4.4.3 Registered Enrolment for Proposed Receiving School Possible Outcome#1: As the receiving school has not been built, this information is not available. Possible Outcome#2: Oyster Pond Academy will not be receiving students until a new replacement school has been built for the Duncan MacMillan Family of Schools and therefore, this information is not available. 4.4.4 Impact of the Review Outcome on Proposed Receiving School Possible Outcome#1: N/A Possible Outcome #2: Oyster Pond Academy has been built to hold a capacity of 688 students and therefore, the school is capable of handling any additional students from Lakefront School.

4.5 School Configuration
Possible Outcome#1: This school will be a Primary to grade 12 School. Possible Outcome #2: Primary to Grade 9 English Program French Immersion: Grades 7-9 No Early Learning Opportunity

4.6 Physical Condition of the Building
4.6.1 Facility Utilization Possible Outcome#1: A new P-12 school will be built based on the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. Possible Outcome#2: Oyster Pond is not currently filled to capacity and the number of new students who would attend from Lakefront should not cause an appreciable change in the utilization of the building. Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 31

4.6.2 Condition of Building Structure and Systems Possible Outcome#1: A new P-12 building will be built. Possible Outcome#2: Oyster Pond Academy is a relatively new school and its condition is very good. 4.6.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance and Operations Possible Outcome #1: N/A Possible Outcome #2: School Power 2010/11 Amount 2011/12 Amount $101,036.74 $103,740.16 Oyster Pond Fuel $52,997.72 $57,532.18 Water $0.00 $0.00

4.6.4 Operation and Availability of Accessibility Ramps, Elevators, Accessible Playgrounds Possible Outcome #1: A new P-12 school will be fully accessible. Possible Outcome#2: Oyster Pond Academy is fully accessible.

4.7 Building Use
4.7.1 Excess Space Possible Outcome #1: A new P-12 school will be built to meet the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. Possible Outcome#2: Oyster Pond has a capacity of 688 students and can accommodate the new students. 4.7.2 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage Possible Outcome #1: A new P-12 school will be built to meet the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. Possible Outcome#2: Oyster Pond can accommodate the new students. 4.7.3 Impact of Increased Number of Students on Building Usage Possible Outcome #1: A new P-12 school will be built to meet the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. Possible Outcome#2: The small number of students from Lakefront Consolidated School who would eventually go to Oyster Pond would not impact the school in any appreciable way with regards to the building usage. Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School Page 32

4.8 Transportation
Possible Outcome #1: Bussing to the new school would be based on the location of the new school. All students meeting the criteria for bussing will be transported by school bus. The current policy is that bussing is provided for students in grades primary to six who live at least 2.4 km. from the school. The criteria for students in grades 7-12 is 3.6 km. from the school. The Halifax Regional School Board is working with Stock Transportation to decide on a transportation schedule and system that will allow efficient delivery of students to the New Primary to Grade 12 School. However, depending on the location of the new school, these routes will be reassessed and may or may not shorten travel times for all students. Possible Outcome #2: All students meeting the criteria for bussing will be transported by school bus. The current policy is that bussing is provided for students in grades primary to six who live at least 2.4 km. from the school. The criteria for students in grades 7-12 is 3.6 km. from the school. The Halifax Regional School Board will work with Stock Transportation to decide on a schedule which will allow efficient delivery of students to Oyster Pond Academy.

4.9 Proposed Attendance Boundary See maps.

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 33

Possible Outcome #1:

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 34

Possible Outcome #2:

Impact Assessment Report – Lakefront Consolidated School

Page 35

SCHOOL REVIEW PROCESS
Impact Assessment Report Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

For more information, please contact Ron Heiman, 464-2000 ext. 2144

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 SCHOOL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 School Name ....................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 School Configuration........................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 School Location ................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Administration .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Population Patterns ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.5.1 Projection Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6 2.5.2 Halifax Regional Municipality Historical and Projected Population ............................................ 7 2.5.3 Eastern HRM Planning Area Historical and Projected Population ............................................... 9 2.6 Enrolment ......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.6.1 Historical and Projected Enrolment for HRSB 1998/1999 to 2017/2018 .................................. 11 2.6.2 Duncan MacMillan Family Historical and Projected Enrolment by Grade................................. 12 2.6.3 Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary Historical and Projected Enrolments ....................... 14 2.6.4 Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary In and Out of Boundary Details................................ 14 2.6.5 Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary Registered Enrolments for September 2012 ........... 15 2.7 Capital Construction Planning ........................................................................................................... 15 2.7.1 Halifax Regional Municipality Regional Plan .............................................................................. 15 2.7.2 HRM Facility Master Plan ........................................................................................................... 17 2.7.3 Community Visioning ................................................................................................................. 17 2.7.4 Proposed Development ............................................................................................................. 18 2.8 Physical Condition of the Building .................................................................................................... 18 2.8.1 Condition of Building Envelope, Interior and Systems .............................................................. 18 2.8.2 Indoor Air Quality and Environmental Issues ............................................................................ 18 2.8.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance, Repair and Operation ..................................................... 19 2.8.4 Barrier Free Accessibility to Building and Grounds.................................................................... 19 2.9 Building Use ...................................................................................................................................... 19 2.9.1 Floor Plan ................................................................................................................................... 20 Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary 2.9.2 Building Details .......................................................................................................................... 22 Page 2

2.9.3 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage .......................................................................................... 22 2.9.4 Excess Teaching Spaces .............................................................................................................. 22 2.9.5 Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School Boundary ...................................................... 23 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 24 3.1 Capability to Deliver Public School Program ..................................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Facility Program Delivery Review............................................................................................... 24 3.1.2 Public School Programing .......................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Educational Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 26 3.3 Transportation .................................................................................................................................. 26 3.4 Extra-Curricular Activities ................................................................................................................. 27 3.5 Operational and Capital Requirements ............................................................................................ 27 3.5.1 Completed Capital Projects at Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary ................................. 27 3.5.2 Immediate Operating Needs (5 years) ....................................................................................... 27 3.5.3 Capital Investments on Current Building ................................................................................... 28 3.6 Property Service Efficiencies ............................................................................................................. 28 3.7 Impact on the Community ................................................................................................................ 28 3.8 Community Use of the School .......................................................................................................... 28 3.9 Impact of Potential Consolidation (if applicable).............................................................................. 29 4.0 PROPOSED RECEIVING SCHOOL INFORMATION ................................................................................... 29 4.1. School Name .................................................................................................................................... 29 4.2 School Location ................................................................................................................................. 29 4.3 Administration .................................................................................................................................. 29 4.4 Enrolment ......................................................................................................................................... 29 4.4.1 Proposed Receiving School Historical and Projected Enrolments ............................................. 29 4.4.2 Proposed Receiving School In and Out of Boundary Details ..................................................... 30 4.4.3 Registered Enrolment for Proposed Receiving School .............................................................. 30 4.4.4 Impact of the Review Outcome on Proposed Receiving School ................................................ 30 4.5 School Configuration......................................................................................................................... 30 4.6 Physical Condition of the Building .................................................................................................... 30 4.6.1 Facility Utilization ....................................................................................................................... 30 4.6.2 Condition of Building Structure and Systems ............................................................................ 30 Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary 4.6.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance and Operations ................................................................ 30 Page 3

4.6.4 Operation and Availability of Accessibility Ramps, Elevators, Accessible Playgrounds ............. 30 4.7 Building Use ...................................................................................................................................... 30 4.7.1 Excess Space............................................................................................................................... 30 4.7.2 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage .......................................................................................... 30 4.7.3 Impact of Increased Number of Students on Building Usage .................................................... 30 4.8 Transportation .................................................................................................................................. 30 4.9 Proposed Attendance Boundary ....................................................................................................... 32

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 4

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The information in this report has been compiled in accordance with Provincial School Review Regulations as dictated by the Nova Scotia Department of Education. It outlines information for the School Review Committee to consider regarding possible impacts of the Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary review. Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary has been identified for possible closure and consolidation. The school will then become part of a replacement New Primary to Grade 12 School scheduled for the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. In recent years, the Halifax Regional School Board has undertaken a 10 year facility master planning process which resulted in a staff report and recommendations which were presented to the elected Board in February 2010(http://www.hrsb.ns.ca/files/Downloads/pdf/reports/2009-2010/February/1001-1236.pdf). The elected Board requested the facility master plan be prepared and presented in smaller components. It was moved and seconded (Conrod/Finlayson) that the board request staff to develop an approach or process that would divide the capital construction master plan into more manageable components --- for example, area by area or family by family, and that the staff review this approach or process, including a timeline, with the Board before it begins. (CARRIED) During the 2010-2011 school year, staff prepared a facility master plan that is divided by family of schools. The plan outlines historical information, demographics, feeder system – existing and proposed, and the requested capital project for each area. The staff report on the proposed 10 Year Facilities Master Plan was tabled at the Board meeting of March 30th, 2011. The Capital Plan has identified a number of schools that should be considered for review as part of the ongoing planning process. Catchment areas that are experiencing enrolment decline provide opportunities to consolidate populations into existing infrastructure, renovated or replacement schools. The Department of Education then recently requested that the Board revise their capital projects and present a new priority list of capital projects. This list was prepared by staff and presented to the elected Board in February 2012. It was moved and seconded (Yee/Poole) that the Board approve the staff recommended prioritized School Capital Projects as listed below, and direct staff to prepare the required documentation for the April 20, 2012, submission to the Minister of Education. 1. New South Dartmouth Elementary School 2. Bicentennial School Addition and Alteration 3. New North Central Peninsula Elementary School 4. Energy Savings Project 5. New Eastern District P-12 School (Sheet Harbour) 6. New South Peninsula Elementary School 7. New Ravines High School

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 5

8. Cole Harbour District High School Addition and Alterations 9. Eastern Shore District High School Addition and Alterations 10. J. L. Ilsley High School Addition and Alterations It was moved and seconded (Brine/Poole) that the Sheet Harbor Consolidated, Eastern Consolidated and Lakefront Elementary schools be put up for potential review at our next board meeting in March so that the new P to 12 school for the Sheet Harbour area can be moved up higher on the priority list. These schools would only potentially close when the new P to 12 school is completed. (CARRIED) At a special meeting of the elected Board in April 2012:

It was moved and seconded (Brine/Blumenthal-Harrison) that the Board re-prioritize the School Capital Projects priority list by moving number five New Eastern District P-12 School to the number one priority with every other project moving down in descending order. (CARRIED)

2.0 SCHOOL INFORMATION
2.1 School Name
Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

2.2 School Configuration
Primary to Grade 6 Intensive French – grade 6

2.3 School Location
479 Church Point Road Sheet Harbour, NS B0J 3B0

2.4 Administration
Principal: Wanda Scott Vice Principal: Chris Boutilier

2.5 Population Patterns
2.5.1 Projection Methodology The Master Plan for HRSB facilities, Imagine Our Schools, was prepared in 2009 by CS&P Architects with demographic support provided by Paradigm Shift of Toronto and local consultants EDM - Environmental Management and Design. The current consultant, John Heseltine, was employed with EDM at the time and prepared the background population projections on which Paradigm Shift based future enrolment projections. The demographic work for Imagine our Schools was primarily based on data from the 2006 Census, which has recently been supplanted by the 2011 Census. Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary Page 6

Since the completion of Imagine Our Schools, HRSB has acquired Baragar Demographics software, which provides detailed projections for all schools under the jurisdiction of the Board. The Barager software relies on a similar cohort-survival based methodology as was used for Imagine Our Schools to project population, however, it employs more sophisticated approaches to estimating local births and determining the residential location of children. Key features of the Baragar projection methodology include: • Analysis of annual birth records • Determination of the number of children residing within specific boundaries by accessing the Universal Child Care Benefit Tax Records and Canada Child Care Benefits records annually • Application of Census of Canada information such as women of child-bearing age in the local population (i.e., cohorts from 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and so on through to 40 to 44 years) • Application of historical net migration rates within specific boundaries Baragar projections are also updated annually and are now, therefore, considerably more current than the Imagine Our Schools projections. Baragar projections are entirely based on historical trends. The predictions generated by the Barager software should be more closely scrutinized in areas where there is reason to believe that the established trend in land development and population change is likely to be altered. The Sheet Harbour district is one such area. The software allows the Board to enter anticipated housing developments within a school catchment area and calculate the school age population that they can be expected to generate. This is done based on the types of dwelling units to be constructed and the expected timing of their construction. Accurate estimation of future population change using this methodology can be very difficult given the need to thoroughly identify potential housing projects; accurately profile them in terms of the number and types of dwelling units to be constructed; and the ultimate uncertainty that developers will follow through on proposals in the context of a fluid and normally competitive housing market. Development trends in the Sheet Harbour area are not, however, expected to change in the foreseeable future. As explained below (see section 2.7.4), subdivision activity and housing development in the area has been moderate and has largely been undertaken by local property owners building one or two units at a time. There is no reason to anticipate any marked change from this well-established pattern. Projections presented below are consequently drawn entirely from the Baragar system. 2.5.2 Halifax Regional Municipality Historical and Projected Population Historical Historical populations by five-year age group for the Halifax Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) which includes HRM plus two small Indian Reserves within its boundaries are presented from the 2001, 2006, and 2011 Censuses in the table below. Following are the key trends apparent from the data: • The CMA is growing considerably faster than the balance of Nova Scotia. Whereas Halifax grew by a moderate 4.7 per cent between 2006 and 2011, the province as a whole grew by only 0.9 per cent over the period. Page 7

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Over the same period, the population from 5 to 19 years in the CMA decreased by 4.7 per cent. From 2001 to 2011, numbers from 5 to 19 fell by 7.9 per cent. Projected In 2004, Clayton Research Associates prepared comprehensive demographic projections for HRM. The projections provided future estimates of labour force, population, and housing. In 2009, Altus Economic Consulting, which acquired Clayton in the interim, updated the projections to take account of 2006 Census data. Their revised projections were presented in the Altus report Employment, Population and Housing Projections for Halifax Regional Municipality: An Update. Projections in both cases covered Census years to 2026 and provided Baseline, Low, and High projections. Populations for 2016, 2021, and 2026 in the table following represent Altus’s Baseline estimates for the future. Key features of the projections include: • • The total population of the region will continue to rise by 3 to 5 per cent over each future fiveyear Census period. Altus projections suggest that the number of 5 to 19 years olds will decline by 4.2 per cent from 2011 to 2016 and by 5.0 per cent from 2016 to 2021; however, their projection from 2021 to 2026 shows a 3.1 per cent increase in the school aged groups.

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 8

Historical and Projected Population by Age Group, HRM, 2001-2026 Age 2001 2006 2011 2016 0-4 19,935 18,210 19,970 20,750 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ TOTAL % change *22,370 *23,695 *22,910 26,565 26,445 27,600 32,860 31,650 28,070 25,530 18,345 13,680 11,845 9,715 8,060 5,535 4,385 359,195 *19,655 *22,345 *24,360 28,130 26,020 25,850 27,410 32,760 31,575 28,240 25,085 18,255 13,225 11,025 8,565 6,475 5,675 372,860 3.8% *19,160 *20,495 *23,890 31,245 28,410 25,930 26,505 27,830 33,115 31,565 27,195 23,925 16,815 11,860 9,140 6,630 6,655 390,335 4.7% *19,870 *18,870 *21,620 30,260 32,225 30,365 26,800 26,960 27,860 32,165 30,545 26,440 22,500 15,415 10,000 7,125 6,535 406,305 4.1%

2021 21,425 *21,250 *20,355 *20,605 28,135 32,610 32,940 31,020 27,775 26,960 27,665 31,655 29,340 24,990 20,295 13,090 7,790 7,165 425,065 4.6%

2026 21,035 *21,700 *21,510 *21,760 26,520 29,985 32,895 33,235 31,665 27,625 26,665 27,200 30,395 27,755 22,610 17,310 10,225 8,025 438,115 3.1%

** Note: Student aged cohorts are marked with an asterisk ** Note: Child-bearing cohorts are shaded. Source: Census of Canada 2001, 2006, 2011, Altus Group Economic Consulting projections for 2016, 2021, and 2026

2.5.3 Eastern HRM Planning Area Historical and Projected Population The Musquodoboit and Sheet Harbour areas that comprise the eastern portion of HRM are demographically much more similar to the area of Nova Scotia outside of HRM than the balance of the region. Although suburban and rural areas within commuting distance of the urban centre are the fastest growing areas of the region, the more distant areas to the east have generally lost population. The Sheet Harbour area, which is the farthest from the urban centre and is the focus of this study, has in fact begun to lose population rapidly. Historically, the Census of Canada defined Musquodoboit and Sheet Harbour as Census Subdivisions F and G. While Statistics Canada did away with the Census Subdivisions (CSDs) on amalgamation of the region in 1996, their boundaries have continued to be recognized as Census Tracts 153 and 154 and Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 9

facilitate evaluation of long-term change in the area. Over recent Censuses, as other areas of HRM have steadily gained population, the Musquodoboit area has largely stagnated while the Sheet Harbour areas has consistently lost population. In the most recent Census period from 2006 to 2011, both areas lost significant numbers, particularly Sheet Harbour, which lost over 10 per cent of its residents. The population of both areas is older. The median age in Musquodoboit is 48.7, while the median in Sheet Harbour is 51.4 years. The percentage of the population aged 5 to 19 is just 15.3 per cent according to the 2011 Census, down from 16.3 per cent in 2006. The median age for HRM as a whole is only 39.9 years. The percentage of the 2011 Census population in HRM from 5 to 19 years of age, by contrast, was 16.4 per cent.
Historical Population Trends, CSDs 153 and 154, and the Remainder of HRM, 1986-2011 CSD F/CT 153 CSD G/CT 154 (Musquodoboit) (Sheet Harbour) Remainder of HRM Census Population Change Population Change Population Change 1986 6,101 4,376 296,896 1991 6,130 0.5% 4,160 -4.9% 320,463 7.9% 1996 6,255 2.0% 4,125 -0.8% 332,466 3.7% 2001 6,268 0.2% 3,905 -5.3% 348,923 4.9% 2006 6,493 3.6% 3,936 0.8% 362,429 3.9% 2011 6,129 -5.6% 3,479 -11.6% 380,222 4.9%

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 10

2.6 Enrolment
Enrolment projections are based upon the Cohort-Survival Method, which uses historical grade by grade enrolment to estimate a grade by grade projection for each program offered at a school. This method uses trends to identify the progression of students from one grade to the next higher grade. Other data sources, including historical migration rates (+ -) of the catchment area, analysis of out- of- area students, feeder school analysis, and a yearly analysis of the Universal Child Benefit Tax record and Canada Child Benefit Tax records are used to supplement the Cohort-Survival Method projections. 2.6.1 Historical and Projected Enrolment for HRSB 1998/1999 to 2017/2018 Since 2004, student enrolment in the Halifax Regional School Board has declined significantly. The 2011 school year saw 4,045 fewer students in the system than in 2004 which is a decline of 7.4 per cent despite reasonably strong in migration to HRM and overall population growth. Baragar projections from 2012 on suggest that this decline will begin to moderate. They anticipate enrolment decline will bottom out at 48,418 or 2.4 per cent less students than enrolled for 2011. After 2016, Baragar anticipates that enrolment will grow with increases expected in every future year from 2017 through 2026 except 2021. By 2026, Baragar predicts an enrolment of 51,675 students, an increase of 6.7 per cent from 2016 that would bring total enrolment up to the same approximate level as 2006. Historical and Projected Enrolments, HRSB, 2004-2026
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 PR to 6 27,495 26,468 25,678 25,537 25,839 25,767 25,490 25,124 25,113 25,359 25,642 25,353 25,436 25,817 26,215 26,519 26,677 26,920 27,130 27,313 27,481 27,628 27,762 7 to 9 13,595 13,349 12,788 12,518 12,232 11,833 11,529 11,267 11,122 10,862 10,577 10,929 11,126 11,181 10,749 10,661 11,002 11,244 11,405 11,429 11,556 11,671 11,621 10 to 12 12,480 12,737 12,623 14,118 13,792 13,383 13,060 13,140 12,827 12,696 12,358 12,131 11,766 11,442 11,810 12,015 12,051 11,540 11,416 11,754 12,013 12,173 12,202 PP to 12 53,664 52,673 51,235 52,348 51,948 51,063 50,169 49,619 49,152 49,007 48,667 48,503 48,418 48,530 48,864 49,285 49,820 49,794 50,041 50,586 51,140 51,562 51,675 Change -991 -1,438 1,113 -400 -885 -894 -550 -467 -145 -340 -164 -85 112 334 421 535 -26 247 545 554 422 113 % -1.8% -2.7% 2.2% -0.8% -1.7% -1.8% -1.1% -0.9% -0.3% -0.7% -0.3% -0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 0.9% 1.1% -0.1% 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.2%

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 11

60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000

PR to 6

7 to 9

10 to 12

2.6.2 Duncan MacMillan Family Historical and Projected Enrolment by Grade Like the wider HRSB system, the Duncan MacMillan family of schools has experienced declining enrolments in the recent past. The degree of decline has, however, been considerably more marked in the Duncan MacMillan catchment area consistent with the general loss of population from the area. From 2004 to 2011, Duncan MacMillan and the three elementary schools that feed it lost 105 students or 21.3 per cent of its 2004 student body. Baragar projections for schools in the family suggest less recovery in the near future than in the balance of the system. Baragar anticipates that family schools will lose 74 more students by 2016 (19.1 per cent) and will continue to lose steadily, albeit at a reduced rate thereafter. By 2026, the Baragar model predicts that this family of schools will serve only 277 students or barely half the number (56.3 per cent) that attended in 2004.

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 12

Historical and Projected Enrolments, Duncan MacMillan Family of Schools, 2004-2026
Grade 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 600 500 400 300 200 100 PR to 6 266 240 231 220 211 183 179 175 164 152 133 139 132 126 115 119 123 127 129 133 133 136 137 7 to 9 118 120 112 112 110 104 101 105 100 98 90 85 83 80 83 78 76 73 73 74 74 73 73 10 to 12 108 103 135 106 118 111 115 107 106 105 106 102 98 88 80 77 76 79 73 69 64 66 67 PP to 12 492 463 478 438 439 398 395 387 370 355 329 326 313 294 278 274 275 279 275 276 271 275 277 Change -29 15 -40 1 -41 -3 -8 -17 -15 -26 -3 -13 -19 -16 -4 1 4 -4 1 -5 4 2 % -5.9% 3.2% -8.4% 0.2% -9.3% -0.8% -2.0% -4.4% -4.1% -7.3% -0.9% -4.0% -6.1% -5.4% -1.4% 0.4% 1.5% -1.4% 0.4% -1.8% 1.5% 0.7%

PR to 6

7 to 9

10 to 12

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 13

2.6.3 Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary Historical and Projected Enrolments Actual enrolments are provided through 2011 and projected enrolments are through 2016. All data is from Baragar Demographics.
Grade Primary One Two Three Four Five Six Total 2006 19 15 26 18 22 25 29 154 2007 17 22 17 26 18 22 29 151 2008 20 19 19 17 29 23 28 155 2009 11 22 18 19 17 28 24 139 2010 19 12 20 20 20 20 31 142 2011 16 19 10 21 20 22 21 129 2012 11 15 18 10 21 21 27 123 2013 11 9 13 18 20 11 13 95 2014 11 12 9 14 18 20 17 101 2015 12 12 12 10 14 18 15 93 2016 17 22 17 26 18 22 29 151

2.6.4 Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary In and Out of Boundary Details Students attending Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School in 2011-12 • 116 students were living within the Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area. 13 students were living in other school catchment areas (10 from Eastern Catchment Area of which two are in Grade 6, and 2 from Lakefront Catchment Area and 1 from Oyster Pond catchment area) Total of 123 students attended Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School for the 20112012 school year

Students living in Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area in 2011-12 • 129 students from the Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area attended the school for the 2011-2012 school year Six students from the Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area attended other schools in English programming for the 2011-2012 school year (3 go to Eastern Consolidated Elementary School; 2 go to Musquodoboit Valley and 1 goes to William King Elementary) Page 14

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

No students from the Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School Catchment Area attended other schools in French Immersion programming for the 2011-2012 school year.

2.6.5 Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary Registered Enrolments for September 2012 The following registered enrolments for September 2012 are accurate as of September 13th, 2012. The actual September 30, 2012 enrolments will be available in October 2012. Grade Primary One Two Three Four Five Six Total Enrolment as of Sep 13,2012 11 15 18 10 21 21 27 123

2.7 Capital Construction Planning
2.7.1 Halifax Regional Municipality Regional Plan Development throughout HRM is governed by the Halifax Regional Municipal Planning Strategy (RMPS), which was adopted by Regional Council in 2006. The plan is currently undergoing a five-year review required under the Municipal Government Act. The review process is called RP+5. Under the current RMPS, the coastal portion of the Sheet Harbour area is designated “Rural Resource” on the Generalized Future Land Use Map in the RMPS. Interior lands are largely designated as “Open Space and Natural Resources” (a small area in the northwest, well beyond the Duncan MacMillan catchment area is designated “Agricultural”). The RMPS contains a policy objective to distribute new housing units as follows within the region: • • • 25 per cent in the Urban Centre (i.e., the Halifax Peninsula and Dartmouth within the Circumferential Highway) 50 per cent in Suburban Areas (i.e., the remaining area within HRM’s water and wastewater servicing boundary) 25 per cent in the remaining Rural Area.

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 15

The goal of the policy is to intensify development in the Urban Centre so as to economize expenditure on urban infrastructure. John Heseltine, who is now employed at Stantec, is currently managing a study of the potential impacts of altering this policy to encourage a more intensive settlement pattern formulated in terms of two scenarios: 1. 2. Hypothetical Growth Scenario A – 40% urban, 40% suburban, 20% rural Hypothetical Growth Scenario B – 50% urban, 30% suburban, 20% rural.

HRM planners are interested in the potential savings that these scenarios may yield. While the focus in both cases is to reduce the degree of suburbanization, the scenarios do not suggest a major thrust to encourage population growth in the rural areas of HRM. The foremost concern of HRM planners is to shift population from the outer serviced areas around the urban core and from rapidly developing rural lands (i.e., unserviced lands) in areas such as Tantallon, Hammonds Plains, and Porters Lake; however, it is also apparent from its designation that there are limited expectations for growth in the far eastern portions of the region. In many respects the Musquodoboit and Sheet Harbour Areas are regarded as separate from the balance of HRM. The Municipality’s transportation model, for example, does not incorporate either area because Census data on journey to work shows minimal interaction between the eastern area and the urban centre. Comparison of other features of the area such as the profile of local industries and the occupational profile of local residents also suggests substantial differences between the easternmost area and the balance of HRM as well as significantly different economic drivers. A secondary planning strategy known as the Eastern Shore (East) Municipal Planning Strategy also covers the area. The plan was adopted by Halifax County immediately before its amalgamation into HRM in 1996. Local plans of this type, which cover all areas of HRM, provide the foundation for zoning applied through an accompanying land use bylaw as well as addressing the aspirations of the community through detailed policies. The Eastern Shore (East) MPS emphasizes the rural character of the area. It recognizes the relative stagnation of its population, which was apparent in the mid-1990s and has since deepened. The plan includes a section called “Education” that deals with schools in the area. Discussion in the Education section notes moderate declines in enrolments at some local schools at the time that have since become much more pronounced. Policies commit Council to consult with the Province concerning new and/or expanded schools emphasizing the siting of schools. Policy ED-5 also emphasizes the need for community access to school buildings and grounds: It shall be the intention of Council to encourage the Halifax County-Bedford District School Board to support the continued use of school facilities as community schools in order to provide for a range of individual educational needs and to help foster community social and cultural development. Although both the municipal entity and the school board referenced in the policy have been supplanted since its adoption, this and other policies in the Eastern Shore (East) MPS continue to apply and commitments such as the above continue to guide HRM’s Regional Council. In a brief discussion with the Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 16

HRM Planner responsible for the area, Marcus Garnet, Mr. Garnet re-emphasized the desirability of community access and expressed support for a facility located in Sheet Harbour where he felt it would be more accessible to residents and would allow students better access to commercial and public facilities. He also noted that if more students would be bussed to a centralized location, the transportation provider might wish to consider also carrying local residents along with students; a practice that he said has been established for some time in rural Quebec. 2.7.2 HRM Facility Master Plan The Community Facility Master Plan (CFMP) was approved in principle by Regional Council in 2008. The document specifies the general locations of proposed facilities and proposed improvements to existing facilities. Citing principles established in the Imagine Our Schools report to “enhance opportunities for community-centered schools with a commitment to exploring partnerships and joint-use agreements and [to address] the realities of declining enrolment and aging facilities”, its Recommendation 17 urges: That HRM and HRSB develop a model for shared use at each of the Board’s high schools and up to two other schools within each family of schools. HRSB is forecasting upgrades to music rooms and arts spaces within a series of schools. Music and arts spaces represent two additional areas for shared use. Wherever feasible, HRM and HRSB should add community access elements to schools. Later Recommendation 24, however, states: That currently forecasted HRB elementary and junior high schools slated for closure not be added to HRM community centre inventory, unless the schools are within areas deemed high need and where they are superior to current municipal infrastructure (evaluation completed using Facility Condition Index). The CFMP proposes no specific projects for the Sheet Harbour area. While it is strongly supportive of the joint use of schools, it is cautious about recycling surplus school buildings as sites for community facilities. Nevertheless, Recommendation 42 concerning Rural Community Centres acknowledges that schools are candidates for incorporation of community facilities: That HRM recognize the unique requirements for providing recreation facilities and services in rural areas. Locate small but effective spaces for community centres service provision in the communities. Facilities may be shared with other parties such as church groups, schools, the local fire hall or new construction. 2.7.3 Community Visioning A 2008 HRM Staff Report summarized plans for Community Visioning in HRM at that time. The report indicated that visioning would be undertaken in Sheet Harbour in 2009. Consultation with Marcus Garnet, who was a co-author of the 2008 report, confirmed that the process has not yet been commenced. He indicated that visioning processes are currently on hold as HRM focuses on the RP+5 process (see section 2.7.1). A new schedule for local visioning processes is likely to follow the completed plan review. Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 17

2.7.4 Proposed Development The area around Sheet Harbour has seen minimal development activity. HRM Planner, Cathy Spencer, stated that occasional one and two-lot subdivisions are approved in the area. The largest she could recall was in Tangier and she suggested it might have had five lots. Over the past five years she speculated that perhaps 50 lots have been approved in the area and that no more than 50 per cent were built on. While HRM staff could not provide any information on the number of dwelling unit completions in the area, 2006 Census data for Census Tract 154 of which the Duncan MacMillan catchment area constitutes the southern half indicates that their number has been modest and falling over the long-term. In the 2001 to 2006 period only 40 units were added in CT 154 comprising just 2.3 per cent of all occupied dwelling units in the area. The proportion, furthermore, is a substantial decline from the shares from previous five year periods back to 1981, all of which are represented by at least 5 per cent of occupied units. Occupied Private Dwelling Units by Period of Construction, Census Tract 154 Total occupied private dwelling units 1,735 Period of Construction Units % of Total Before 1946 460 26.5% 1946 to 1960 230 13.3% 1961 to 1970 185 10.7% 1971 to 1980 350 20.2% 1981 to 1985 120 6.9% 1986 to 1990 155 8.9% 1991 to 1995 85 4.9% 1996 to 2000 105 6.1% 2001 to 2006 40 2.3%

2.8 Physical Condition of the Building
2.8.1 Condition of Building Envelope, Interior and Systems A complete Building Audit and Expenditure Plan (Facility Evaluation Report) have been completed for Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary and will be provided to the School Review Committee. The intent of the document is to provide a review of the existing building and to provide a capital building estimate that would be required for the continued operation of the school. The report concludes that an investment in capital of approximately $1,207,100 is required to ensure the future use of Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary. This amount would provide for both short and long term projects. 2.8.2 Indoor Air Quality and Environmental Issues An inspection of the files concerning air quality and environmental issues for Sheet harbour Consolidated Elementary revealed no current issues.

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 18

2.8.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance, Repair and Operation

Building Sheet Harbour Consolidated

FY Utility Type FY10/11 Electric Fuel Oil FY11/12 Electric Fuel Oil

Consumption 77160 kwh 33510.9 litres 91680 kwh 36658.7 litres

Cost $11,393.47 $26,999.12 $13,866.27 $35,878.02

** Note: Fiscal Year is from April 1st to March 31st **

School year 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012

Cost of transporting water to the site $9,707.70 $8,783.26 $12,699.67

2.8.4 Barrier Free Accessibility to Building and Grounds Please refer to the Facility Evaluation Report provided by Fowler Bauld & Mitchell Ltd.

2.9 Building Use

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 19

2.9.1 Floor Plan

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 20

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 21

2.9.2 Building Details Building square footage: 20,225 square feet No. of storeys: 2 Building Age: 1956 and 1985 (gymnasium addition) Accessibility: Yes Elevator: yes (Source: Facility Evaluation Report, July 2012 - Prepared by Fowler, Bauld, Mitchell Ltd.) 2.9.3 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage
Room Ground Floor Classroom 101 Classroom 102 Classroom 103 Classroom 104 Classroom 105 Classroom 106 Classroom 108 Second Floor Gymnasium 201 Classroom 202 Classroom 203 Classroom 204 Classroom 205 Classroom 207 Intended Use Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Physical Education Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Current Use Classroom Computer Lab Classroom Resource/Storage Classroom Learning Centre Music Room Physical Education Library Classroom French Classroom Classroom

2.9.4 Excess Teaching Spaces Sheet Harbour Consolidated has 12 classroom spaces (6 of which are used for classrooms, 1 for music, 1 for French and 1 for Library and 3 specialty spaces 1 for Learning Centre, 1 for Resource, and 1 for Computer Lab). Under the attached classroom configuration, Sheet Harbour Consolidated requires 6 of the 12 available classroom spaces, leaving six classroom spaces available for Music, French and Library, Learning Centre, Resource and Computer Lab.

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 22

2.9.5 Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary School Boundary

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 23

3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
3.1 Capability to Deliver Public School Program
3.1.1 Facility Program Delivery Review Facility Program Delivery Review is a term used to define how well an educational facility serves the academic program being offered. It does not refer to the quality of the school’s academic programs or the success of its students. A Facility Program Delivery Review does not reflect the state of the physical plant of the building for architectural, structural, mechanical or electrical conditions.

Sheet Harbour Consolidated
Poor Site Condition Educational Areas Classrooms Other Instructional Areas Library Gymnasium Support Areas Administration/Student Services Cafeteria/Food Services Fair Average

Above Average

Excellent

3.1.2 Public School Programing The following are details regarding Sheet Harbour Consolidated’s ability to deliver the public school program based on data from June 30th, 2012. It is noted that Sheet Harbour Consolidated is currently delivering the public school program as mandated by the Province. • Pupil-Teacher Ratio = 21.5:1 (enrolment divided by classroom teachers only) • Pupil-Staff Ratio = 12.06:1 (enrolment divided by all NSTU staff assigned to the school which includes Principal, Vice Principal, Circuit Teachers, Student Services Staff, ELT etc.) • Enrolment: 128 • Total Classes: 6 • Number of Combined Classes: 2 • Class sizes: (see chart) Primary 12 Grade 1/2 15/8 Grade 2/3 14/9 Grade 4 22 Grade 5 21 Grade 6 28

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 24

Program
General Classroom Program Physical Education

Program Delivery Comments
Program is being delivered.

Program is being delivered. Teacher is in a circuit with two other schools (Eastern Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated). Program is being delivered by the classroom teachers. Program is being delivered. Teacher is in a circuit with two other schools (Eastern Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated). Program is being delivered. Teacher is in a circuit with two other schools (Eastern Consolidated, Lakefront Consolidated). Computer Lab. Provided in a modified classroom Provided in a modified classroom Some available (i.e. Core French, Music) Library in a converted classroom. N/A N/A N/A Floor Hockey, Musical, Intramurals, Healthy Living, Multi-sports, Bluenose Run Club, Curling, Bowling, Book Club The playground consists of 4 structures including 2 slides, 2 swing sets, Dinosaur, Car and monkey bars/platform N/A Breakfast program run by volunteers, students can order hot lunch from Duncan MacMillan High School daily

Art Music

French Core

Computer Lab Learning Centre Resource Room Specialty Space Library Science Lab Family Studies Technology Education Extra-Curricular Playground Field Food services

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 25

3.2 Educational Benefits
Although the building presents some restrictions, Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary manages very well delivering the Public School Program. However, should Lakefront Consolidated, Sheet Harbour Consolidated and Eastern Consolidated unite with Duncan MacMillan High School to form a Grade Primary to Grade 12 School in a new building; the educational benefits would be vast. • • • • • • In general, the ability for a school to staff for specialty programs and extra-curricular activities is enhanced with larger student and staff populations A modern facility would provide up-to-date labs, resources, playground, sports field and technological opportunities to enhance programming Prospects of more effective Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) may be enhanced as more than one teacher per grade level would be likely Space may provide opportunities for collaborative partnerships with community agencies/supports Peer supports/positive role models ranging from students in grade Primary through twelve could be capitalized on Families would have one school to support (e.g. enhanced volunteer supports)

Possible Outcome: Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary remains open: Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary is currently delivering the required educational support services and public school program. The school has room to effectively provide appropriate spaces for a library, computer lab, physical education and specialty areas such as French, Music, Learning Centre and Resource. Possible Outcome: Sheet Harbour Consolidated closes and students are moved to a new Primary to Grade 12 School: In the event that Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary is closed, the students could continue to be supported effectively at a new Grade Primary to Grade 12 School with respect to the public school program and benefit greatly as outlined above.

3.3 Transportation
Possible Outcome: Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary remains open: All students but 4 within the boundary of Sheet Harbour Consolidated are transported to school by school bus. Possible Outcome: Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary closes and students are moved to a new Primary to Grade 12 School: Bussing to the new school would be based on the location of the new school. All students meeting the criteria for bussing will be transported by school bus. The current policy is that bussing is provided for students in grades primary to six who live at least 2.4 km. from the school. The criteria for students in grades 7-12 is 3.6 km. from the school. **The Halifax Regional School Board has been working with Stock Transportation around strategies that will allow for efficient transportation to effectively shorten travel time for some of the students. However, depending on the location of the new school, these routes will be reassessed and may or may not shorten travel times for all students.

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 26

3.4 Extra-Curricular Activities
It should be noted that the delivery of extra-curricular activities at any school is dependent on the staff at the school in any given year. The special interests and skills of the teaching staff along with their availability to provide extra-curricular activities generally define what is offered. Extra-curricular activities are often offered over lunch periods or after school. Possible Outcome: Sheet Harbour Consolidated closes and the students are moved to a new Grade Primary to Grade 12 School. Students will be able to access the extra-curricular activities offered at the new school. The extracurricular activities currently in place at Sheet Harbour Consolidated may be enhanced due to the increase in number of staff at a new school and the possibility of less staff on circuit.

3.5 Operational and Capital Requirements
3.5.1 Completed Capital Projects at Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary
• • New windows in principal’s hall facing Duncan MacMillan Gym floor has been repaired several times due to leaks

Building

2005/06 Project Cost

2007/08 Project
Refinish parquet gym floor Paint interior

2009/10 Cost Project Cost

Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Window Upgrade

$25,200.00

$18,961.62

Clean and Balance Ventilation System Paint the exterior Relight 3 rooms

$6,600.00

$15,000.00

$5,900.00 $3,000.00

3.5.2 Immediate Operating Needs (5 years)
If Sheet Harbour Consolidated were to stay open, the following maintenance and capital upgrades will need to occur over the next five years: • • • • • Gym roof needs replacement Caulking of exterior window Boilers in need of replacement Grounds drainage upgrades required Current well does not support the domestic requirements

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 27

3.5.3 Capital Investments on Current Building A Building Audit and Expenditure Plan has been completed for Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary and this will be provided to the School Review Committee. The intent of the document is to provide a review of the existing buildings and to provide a capital building estimate that would be required for the continued operation of the schools. The report concludes that an investment in capital of approximately $1,207,100 is required to ensure the future use of Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary. This amount would provide for both short and long term projects. .

3.6 Property Service Efficiencies
Immediate Capital Costs Long term Capital Costs (20 Yr.) Capital Costs to Upgrade to New Construction Standards Not available Annual Operating Costs (Approximately $5.50/sq. ft.) $116,325.00 129 Students Annual Operating Costs per student $901.74

$136,900.00

$1,070,200.00

3.7 Impact on the Community
If Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary were to close, the impact on the community surrounding the school would largely be related to the new school’s proximity and convenience to families that reside in the area. As mentioned below (section 3.9), there is a strong case for building the new school as a wraparound facility which would be of great benefit to the community.

3.8 Community Use of the School
The source of this information is the HRSB/HRM Facility Booking database. From September 2011 to June 2012, the following activities occurred at Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary. Rooms: Gymnasium Booked by: Jody Taker – Dates, times and activities: Thur. Jan. 19th – 3:15pm- 4:00pm – Zumbatonic Thur. Jan. 26th – 6:00pm- 8:00pm - Activity Night and Youth Floor Hockey Thur. Feb. 2nd – 6:00pm – 8:00pm - Activity Night and Youth Floor Hockey Thur. Feb. 9th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm - Activity Night and Youth Floor Hockey Thur. Feb. 23rd – 6:00pm- 10:00pm - Activity Night and Youth Floor Hockey Thur. March 1st - 8:00pm – 10:00pm – Floor Hockey Thur. March 8th – 6:00pm- 10:00pm - Activity Night and Youth Floor Hockey Sheet harbour Consolidated Elementary does have HRSB curriculum nights, parent-teacher interviews, etc. as required by the HRSB. Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 28

3.9 Impact of Potential Consolidation (if applicable)
If Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary were to move to a New Primary to Grade 12 School, the new school will have the benefits of a larger population. In general, the ability for a school to staff for specialty programs and extra-curricular activities is enhanced with larger student populations. This can occur because more teaching staff can be allocated to the school in either full time positions or itinerant teachers will be in the school for longer periods. While each individual student’s exposure to certain subjects is defined by the curriculum offered and is consistent throughout the board, the fact that art, music, gym, and French teachers are able to spend more time at a school with larger pupil numbers allows for the teachers to become more familiar with their students, enhances the ability for extracurricular offerings and enhances the ability for students with special interests in those subjects to be exposed to the subject(s) in more depth. Joining the school populations of Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary, Eastern Consolidated School and Lakefront Consolidated School will also allow for increased opportunities for the development of social skills as students deal with more members of their peer group each day. Being in the larger school with older students also allows for more role models and older siblings can be more available to their younger brothers and sisters throughout the day. The opportunity to build a wraparound facility for the community is a consideration which would have a positive impact on the area. These schools are developed through partnership agreements, are usually open every day of the week and typically offer assistance with child rearing, employment, and housing to families in the community while providing other services on site such as medical, mental health and dental care. The idea is to divide up the responsibility between the school and agencies, with one set of services devoted to helping children learn and another devoted to helping children and families gain access to the support they need.

4.0 PROPOSED RECEIVING SCHOOL INFORMATION
4.1. School Name
A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built and named.

4.2 School Location
A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be erected on a location to be determined at a later date.

4.3 Administration
The school administration team has not yet been assigned for the New P-12 School.

4.4 Enrolment
4.4.1 Proposed Receiving School Historical and Projected Enrolments As outlined in section 2.6.1, HRSB enrolments are expected to recover moderately in 2017. As noted in section 2.6.2, however, the Duncan MacMillan Family of Schools will continue to experience enrolment decreases. Baragar anticipates that this family of schools will lose 74 more students by 2016 (19.1 per cent) and will continue to lose steadily, albeit at a reduced rate thereafter. By 2026, the Baragar model Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 29

predicts that this family of schools will serve only 277 students or barely half the number (56.3 per cent) that attended in 2004. (See section 2.6.3) 4.4.2 Proposed Receiving School In and Out of Boundary Details N/A 4.4.3 Registered Enrolment for Proposed Receiving School N/A 4.4.4 Impact of the Review Outcome on Proposed Receiving School N/A

4.5 School Configuration
This school will be a Primary to Grade 12 School.

4.6 Physical Condition of the Building
4.6.1 Facility Utilization A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built based on the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. 4.6.2 Condition of Building Structure and Systems A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built. 4.6.3 Costs Associated with Maintenance and Operations N/A 4.6.4 Operation and Availability of Accessibility Ramps, Elevators, Accessible Playgrounds A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be fully accessible.

4.7 Building Use
4.7.1 Excess Space A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built to meet the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. 4.7.2 Teaching Spaces and Current Usage A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built to meet the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area. 4.7.3 Impact of Increased Number of Students on Building Usage A new Primary to Grade 12 School will be built to meet the current needs of the Duncan MacMillan catchment area.

4.8 Transportation
Bussing to the new school would be based on the location of the new school. All students meeting the criteria for bussing will be transported by school bus. The current policy is that bussing is provided for Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary Page 30

students in grades primary to six who live at least 2.4 km from the school. The criteria for students in grades 7-12 is 3.6 km from the school. The Halifax Regional School Board is working with Stock Transportation to decide on a transportation schedule and system that will allow efficient delivery of students to the New Primary to Grade 12 School. However, depending on the location of the new school, these routes will be reassessed and may or may not shorten travel times for all students.

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 31

4.9 Proposed Attendance Boundary

Impact Assessment Report – Sheet Harbour Consolidated Elementary

Page 32

Public Private

X

Report No. 12-09-1371 Date: September 26, 2012

HALIFAX REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD C.007 ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION, AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING POLICY
PURPOSE: To provide the Board with the revised C.007 Assessment, Evaluation, and Communication of Student Learning Policy Procedures. To continue to improve student achievement and learning for all students. The Assessment, Evaluation, and Communication of Student Learning Policy and Procedures was revised and approved by the Board in September 2008. Since this date the Policy has not changed. However, the Procedures have been updated to reflect current research and effective practice in relation to assessment, evaluation and communication of student learning. Consultations with administrators, teachers, department heads, coaches and board staff provided input for the revisions to the Procedures. This Policy has received provincial recognition from other school boards and has also been referenced by lead researchers in this field, such as Ken O’Connor.

BUSINESS PLAN GOAL:

BACKGROUND:

CONTENT:

The Halifax Regional School Board currently has a comprehensive assessment and evaluation policy and related procedures. The majority of the content of the original procedures are incorporated in this revised version. The key changes made throughout the document are: 1) Repositioned procedures section to emphasize the importance of Classroom Assessment, Classroom Assignments and Grading and Reporting; 2) Removed procedures (such as students entering Primary from private school and High School Exemptions); 3) Updated terminology changes (such as ESL, English as a Second Language to EAL, English as an Additional Language) 4) Added procedures to expand on the importance of student involved classroom assessment; 5) Added procedures regarding year end assessments in grade nine; 6) Incorporated the use of PowerTeacher Gradebook into the responsibilities for administrators and teachers.

COST: FUNDING:

n/a n/a

TIMELINE: APPENDICES:

Upon Board approval. Assessment, Evaluation, and Communication of Student Learning and Procedures. It is recommended that the Board accept the revised C.007 Assessment, Evaluation, and Communication of Student Learning Policy Procedures for information.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

COMMUNICATIONS: AUDIENCE HRSB community RESPONSIBLE TIMELINE Selena Henderson, Upon Board Corporate Secretary approval

From:

For further information, please contact Selena Henderson at shenderson@hrsb.ns.ca or 464-2000; ext. 2324. Senior Staff – September 2012 Governing Board- September 26, 2012

To:

Filename: where the document is stored Date last revised: the last date the document was updated

CODE: C.007 Program

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING

PROCEDURES
CONTENTS 1.0 CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT 2.0 CLASSROOM ASSIGNMENTS 3.0 GRADING AND REPORT CARDS 4.0 EXTERNAL LARGE-SCALE ASSESSMENTS 5.0 COMMUNICATON OF STUDENT LEARNING 6.0 ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES 6.1 Students with Special Needs 6.2 English as Additional Language Students APPENDIX A. Definitions

1.0

CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT 1.1 School Administrators are responsible for: 1.1.1 Ensuring that appropriate classroom assessment and evaluation practices are being utilized by the teachers in their school; Ensuring that teachers in grades 7-12 appropriately use PowerTeacherGradebook to track student achievement and set up gradebook categories based on curriculum content (i.e., modules, units, strands, etc.); Establishing school-wide early intervention systems for students requiring additional time and support.

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.2

Teachers are responsible for: 1.2.1 Ensuring the assessment, evaluation, and communication of student learning is aligned with the Department of Education’s programs and learning outcomes; Designing assessment tools and strategies to ensure that all students are given equitable opportunities to demonstrate their achievement of the

1.2.2

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 1 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program learning outcomes as per the Race Relations, Cross Cultural Understanding and Human Rights in Learning Policy C.010; 1.2.2.1 When designing assessment tools and strategies teachers will consider students’ personal and social context (e.g., age, ability, gender, language, opportunity to learn, self-esteem, socioeconomic background, special interests, special needs, “testtaking” skills), to ensure fair and equitable assessment practices for all students. 1.2.3 Using PowerTeacherGradebook, in grades 7-12, to track student achievement; 1.2.3.1 Ensuring that gradebook categories are based on curriculum content (e.g., modules, units, strands). 1.2.4 Interpreting assessment results with a student’s personal and social circumstances in mind (e.g., illness, family situation/emergency); 1.2.4.1 If a student performs poorly on an assessment, teachers will consider the possibility that circumstantial factors may have interfered with this performance. If appropriate, the student will be given other opportunities to learn the skills or information involved and to demonstrate this learning. 1.2.5 Providing students and parents/guardians with a written outline of learning outcomes, assessment and evaluation strategies and grading criteria early in the school year or in the first week of a course. This will be communicated in language that is easily understood by parents/guardians and students and will indicate how summative assessment will be used to determine course grades. The teacher will inform students if he/she changes the plan; Collaborating with colleagues responsible for the same grade or course within a school to establish common expectations for student achievement of learning outcomes. Student learning will be evaluated based on these common expectations for achievement of the learning outcomes; Employing early intervention for students requiring additional time and support; Assessing and evaluating student learning by: 1.2.8.1 Developing clear criteria and expectations for achievement of the learning outcomes. The criteria and expectations can be teachergenerated, student-generated, or developed collaboratively and,
ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

1.2.6

1.2.7

1.2.8

Page 2 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program where possible, will be accompanied by exemplars for each level of proficiency; 1.2.8.2 Communicating criteria for assessment and evaluation of the learning outcomes with students before the process of learning, assessing, evaluating and reporting occurs; Providing students with a variety of opportunities and ways to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and attitudes pertaining to the learning outcomes by using multiple assessment types and tools; 1.2.8.3.1 Using multiple assessment types and tools which include, but are not limited to: presentations, portfolios, work samples, models, oral and/or written reports, journals, logs, performances, graphic/visual representations, experiments, concept maps, quizzes, tests, debates, projects, checklists, anecdotal records, conferences, surveys, or observations.

1.2.8.3

1.2.8.4

Analyzing evidence of learning from multiple sources/types (e.g., conversations, observations and products), and a variety of assessment tools (e.g., presentations, labs, debates, test/quizzes); Focusing on students’ growth and achievements in relation to the learning outcomes, rather than on students’ characteristics and/or non-academic achievement. For example, behavior, class participation, and meeting deadlines are not curriculum outcomes and will not impact the evaluation of student achievement; Using professional judgment to consider learning trends over time and more recent work when making evaluations of student learning.

1.2.8.5

1.2.8.6

1.2.9

Involving students in the assessment and evaluation process by: 1.2.9.1 Discussing learning goals and classroom assessment practices with students, in an age appropriate manner, at the beginning of instruction and continuing this conversation throughout the learning process; Articulating expectations to students before the learning or before any form of assessment or evaluation, except when using diagnostic assessments prior to instruction to determine what students already know and what they need to know to achieve the learning outcomes;

1.2.9.2

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 3 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 1.2.9.3 Helping students understand and communicate the learning outcomes for which they are responsible, as well as the criteria that will be used to assess and evaluate their work. Whenever possible students should be involved in creating the criteria; Giving students a variety of exemplars (samples of student work) to help them understand what quality means (e.g., looks like, sounds like, feels like) and what is required to achieve the learning outcomes; Providing timely, descriptive feedback of what each student knows and is able to do in relation to the learning outcomes, and how the student can improve in relation to those learning outcomes; Providing opportunities for students to give descriptive feedback to each other;

1.2.9.4

1.2.9.5

1.2.9.6

1.2.9.7 Providing opportunities for students to reflect and self-assess their progress toward achievement of the learning outcomes. 1.3 Board staff is responsible for: 1.3.1 Providing teachers with professional development in effective classroom assessment and evaluation practices.

1.4

Students are responsible for: 1.4.1 Accepting responsibility and ownership for their own learning through active involvement in the assessment and evaluation process in order to discover how they learn best, to understand exactly where they are, and to respond to feedback about how they can improve in relation to the learning outcomes.

2.0

CLASSROOM ASSIGNMENTS 2.1 School Administrators are responsible for: 2.1.1 Ensuring that information regarding procedures for completion of late or missed assignments are communicated to students and parents/guardians early in the school year; Consulting with teachers when necessary to determine a final deadline for late or missed assignments.

2.1.2

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 4 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 2.2 Teachers are responsible for: 2.2.1 Communicating the purpose(s) of the assignment and the criteria for evaluating the work to the students when it is assigned; Providing many opportunities for timely, descriptive feedback throughout the learning process; Ensuring that the feedback students receive is a pure reflection of the student’s achievement of the learning outcomes; Ensuring that assignments have clearly stated due dates that are communicated to students and parents/guardians where appropriate; Setting due dates for assignments which: 2.2.5.1 2.2.5.2 2.2.5.3 2.2.5.4 Are reasonable and involve students where appropriate; Allow for support and checkpoints; Encourage self-monitoring and the seeking of assistance; Involve consultation with other teachers within the school to avoid overlap;

2.2.2

2.2.3

2.2.4

2.2.5

2.2.5.5 Can be extended at their discretion; 2.2.6 Determining an extended deadline and plan for successful completion of incomplete assignments with the student, as well as the principal. When deciding how much extra time to provide before the extended deadline, teachers will consider: 2.2.6.1 The nature of the assignment and the amount of time needed for completion; The time needed for additional instruction; The need to return assignments to students for meaningful and timely feedback; The need to maintain the logical progression of the course as prescribed by the Nova Scotia Department of Education;

2.2.6.2 2.2.6.3

2.2.6.4

2.2.7

Ensuring that the evaluation is not impacted when extended deadlines are provided (i.e. penalty for late assignments);

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 5 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 2.2.8 Providing students with multiple opportunities to demonstrate their progress toward achievement of the learning outcomes. If extended deadlines are missed for assignments, and the teacher does not have sufficient evidence of student achievement of the learning outcomes, the student’s evaluation may be affected.

2.3

Students are responsible for: 2.3.1 2.3.2 Seeking assistance with assignments when required; Requesting an extension for assignments in a timely manner when required; Completing assignments by specified due dates so that teachers can provide timely feedback; Responding to feedback provided during the learning process.

2.3.3

2.3.4

3.0

GRADING AND REPORT CARDS 3.1 School Administrators are responsible for: 3.1.1 3.1.2 Ensuring use of provincially-authorized report cards; Ensuring distribution of report cards by predetermined deadlines as directed by the Halifax Regional School Board: 3.1.2.1 Three times per school year for elementary and junior high schools; Two times over the duration of the semester for senior high schools.

3.1.2.2

3.1.3 3.1.4

Establishing school-based deadlines for submission of report cards; Providing direction and feedback to individual teachers on report cards as required; Facilitating discussions between teachers, parents/guardians and/or students on report cards when concerns arise that cannot be resolved at the classroom level; Reviewing recommendations and supporting documentation regarding the grade-level placements of students for the following school year. The best interest of the student will guide this decision. In all cases, careful

3.1.5

3.1.6

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 6 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program consideration will be given to possible disadvantages of placement and additional support required by the student; 3.1.6.1 In cases when the grade-level placement for the following year is in question, the principal will make the final decision after consultation with others, including teacher(s), parents/guardians, School Planning Team, and the student when appropriate; If the student is transitioning from one school to another, the principal at the originating school will make the decision regarding grade placement.

3.1.6.2

3.1.7

Ensuring that no written examinations are given at the junior high level, except for those falling under the provisions of Procedure 3.3; School administrators may alter the junior high school schedule to accommodate the year end grade 9 cumulative assessment opportunities, as described by the school in its School Plan for Communicating Student Learning.

3.1.8

3.2

Teachers are responsible for: 3.2.1 Explaining to students and parents/guardians how report card grades will be determined for the course(s) they teach; Using methods other than report cards to regularly inform students and parents/guardians about student progress toward the learning outcomes. Examples of these methods include electronic gradebook, notes, phone calls, meetings, web pages, newsletters, assessments, curriculum nights, student-led conferences, and parent-teacher interviews; Providing clear and well-supported feedback about student progress toward, and achievement of, the learning outcomes; Using language that is based on learning outcomes and is easily understood by parents/guardians; Identifying the student’s strengths, areas needing improvement, and what the individual student, parents/guardians and teacher can do to support learning in relation to the learning outcomes; Developing accurate report cards by: 3.2.6.1 Always relating grading and reporting to the learning outcomes;

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

3.2.6

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 7 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 3.2.6.2 Excluding characteristics that are not linked to learning outcomes (such as effort, behavior and attendance); Ensuring that the grade each student receives is a fair reflection of what he/she knows and can do, emphasizing the most recent summative assessment information. This information will be documented in a way that ensures its accuracy over time.

3.2.6.3

3.2.7

Basing report card grades and comments upon evidence gathered through classroom assessments; 3.2.7.1 Results from large-scale external assessments will not be used for report card grades; Notwithstanding the above, at the senior high level results from Nova Scotia Examinations will form a component of report card grades as specified by the Department of Education.

3.2.7.2

3.2.8

Using an appropriate variety of assessment types and tools to assess and evaluate student learning. Assessments must reflect the multiple ways in which students learn and demonstrate their understanding.

3.3

Teachers of grade 9 students are responsible for: 3.3.1 Assessing student learning in part by having students participate in a year end cumulative assessment opportunity (i.e. presentation, portfolio, project, examination) in all Public School Program core subjects, during their final term in Grade 9; 3.3.1.1 Providing students a cumulative assessment opportunity in the form of a written examination for Language Arts and Mathematics during their final term in Grade 9; When cumulative assessment opportunities take the form of a written examination (i.e., Language Arts and Mathematics), they must take place during the same timeframe as senior high school examinations. Any exceptions to this must have prior approval from the Director of Program.

3.3.1.2

3.3.2

Ensuring cumulative assessment opportunities allow students to demonstrate an appropriate range of the learning outcomes and process skills involved in the course(s) of study and, as such, form an integral component of the teacher’s assessment and evaluation plan;

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 8 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 3.3.3 Ensuring no student will be exempt from the year end cumulative assessment opportunities except for exceptional circumstances or as determined by an Individual Program Plan; Ensuring the year end cumulative assessment will determine no more than 10% of the students’ year end final course grade.

3.3.4

3.4

Teachers of grades 10-12 are responsible for determining a student’s final grade by: 3.4.1 Ensuring no single assessment tool (i.e. presentations, labs, demonstrations, portfolios, debates, written tests/quizzes) can account for more than half of the value of each gradebook category; Considering learning trends over time, more recent student work and using professional judgment; Having students participate in a final cumulative assessment opportunity that allows them to demonstrate an appropriate range of the learning outcomes and process skills involved in the course. This final assessment, whether a written examination or an alternative assessment opportunity, will be worth no more than 30%.

3.4.2

3.4.3

3.5

Board staff is responsible for: 3.5.1 Providing teachers with professional development on fair and equitable outcomes-based grading practices.

4.0

EXTERNAL LARGE-SCALE ASSESSMENTS 4.1 School Administrators are responsible for: 4.1.1 Working with the school assessment coordinator and teachers to oversee the administration of all external large-scale assessments; Developing, in conjunction with program staff, a communication plan to report assessment results to parents/guardians and the broader school community; Communicating assessment results to the school community in a timely manner; Using external large-scale assessment data, along with other relevant data (e.g., classroom assessment information, school surveys, etc.), to plan for improvement. For example, the data may help in:

4.1.2

4.1.3

4.1.4

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 9 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 4.1.4.1 4.1.4.2 Identifying strengths and areas of concern; Identifying what additional information is needed and how to collect the information; Determining next steps for improving student achievement; Setting school and classroom targets; Aligning resources with identified needs.

4.1.4.3 4.1.4.4 4.1.4.5 4.2

Teachers are responsible for: 4.2.1 Participating in developing, training for, administering, scoring and communicating the results of external large-scale assessments, as required by the Department of Education and the Halifax Regional School Board.

4.3

Students are responsible for: 4.3.1 Participating in external large-scale assessments as required by the Department of Education and the Halifax Regional School Board

4.4

Board staff is responsible for: 4.4.1 Using external large-scale assessment information to analyze system-wide, as well as school and classroom-based strengths and areas of need in order to determine where additional resources are required; Developing a report to the Board in order to communicate assessment results to parents/guardians and the broader school community in a timely manner. The plan will include, but not be limited to: 4.4.2.1 4.4.2.2 4.4.2.3 4.4.2.4 4.4.2.5 4.4.2.6 A general statement to put the data in context; An explanation of the purpose of the assessments; A summary of results; A summary of strengths; Areas of concern revealed by the data; Next steps for improvement.

4.4.2

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 10 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 4.4.3 Facilitating discussions on how to respond to areas requiring improvement; Designing and delivering professional development that addresses identified needs; Assisting schools in analyzing and using external large-scale assessment data, along with other relevant data (e.g., classroom assessment information, school surveys, etc.), to inform their plan for improvement.

4.4.4

4.4.5

5.0

COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING 5.1 Administrators are responsible for: 5.1.1 Involving parents/guardians in developing and implementing procedures that promote effective communication between the home and school; Using a variety of methods to communicate student achievement throughout the school year including, but not limited to: 5.1.2.1 Scheduling at least two curriculum-related events each year to inform the school community about curriculum outcomes and assessment and evaluation practices and procedures; Scheduling at least two interviews each year for parents/ guardians to meet with teachers in order to review the progress and achievement of their children, as defined by the Halifax Regional School Board calendar. Invitations will be extended to all parents/guardians. These meetings may take the form of parent-teacher conferences, parent-student-teacher conferences, or student-led conferences.

5.1.2

5.1.2.2

5.1.3

Developing a school plan for communicating student learning each year. This plan must be in a language that the school community can understand and will include the following components: 5.1.3.1 Definitions (e.g., formative assessment, summative assessment, external large-scale assessments); A clear statement about the alignment between assessment and evaluation of student learning and provincial curriculum outcomes; A general description of the strategies and tools used to assess student achievement, highlighting the importance of using

5.1.3.2

5.1.3.3

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 11 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program multiple assessment and evaluation strategies to meet the learning styles of all students; 5.1.3.4 Expectations for informing parents/guardians about a student’s progress and achievement, including when concerns may arise; Provisions to help parents/guardians when concerns arise, making reference to the Parent Concern Protocol; A school year calendar that includes dates for curriculum nights, parent-teacher interviews, release of report cards, as well as when external large-scale assessments will take place; A brief, clear user’s guide to the school report card; A brief, clear communication guide outlining effective use of the PowerSchool Parent Portal; A statement outlining provisions for students who miss deadlines for classroom assignments, indicating that students will be provided with multiple opportunities to demonstrate their learning;

5.1.3.5

5.1.3.6

5.1.3.7 5.1.3.8

5.1.3.9

5.1.3.10 Information about identification, assessment, referral and program planning for students with special needs; 5.1.4.11 Clear guidelines to inform and support the purpose, the role and the value of homework in student learning. This will also include school supports offered and recommended time allotments for homework at each grade. 5.2 Teachers are responsible for: 5.2.1 Adhering to the School Plan for Communicating Student Learning, recognizing the instrumental role they play in ensuring the successful implementation of the Plan; Developing a communication plan that is aligned with the School Plan for Communicating Student Learning. This plan will contain: 5.2.2.1 An overview of the program/course assessment and evaluation strategies, practices and procedures; An explanation of the purpose of assessment and evaluation;

5.2.2

5.2.2.2

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 12 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 5.2.2.3 Multiple assessment and evaluation strategies that meet the learning styles of students and are aligned with the written learning outcomes; A range of formal and informal communication methods used by the teacher; Ways in which parents/guardians can initiate communication with the teacher.

5.2.2.4

5.2.2.5

5.3

Board staff is responsible for: 5.3.1 Supporting schools in communicating with their communities about the learning outcomes and students’ progress toward these learning outcomes.

6.0

ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES 6.1 Students with Special Needs 6.1.1 School Administrators are responsible for: 6.1.1.1 Ensuring that parents/guardians are aware of the board’s policies and procedures for identification, referral and assessment of students with special needs at the time of registration or early in the school year; Ensuring that informed written consent is obtained from parents/guardians, using the Consent for Service Form, before any formal individual assessment and/or consultation is carried out by school board personnel; Ensuring that the results of formal individual assessments are clearly communicated to parents/guardians in a timely manner; Ensuring that parents/guardians are provided with a copy of the written results of the formal individual assessments when the school receives them; Receiving, disseminating, documenting and storing reports based on formal individual assessments from school board personnel and/or outside agencies. Formal individual assessment reports must be: 6.1.1.5.1 Made known to members of the student’s program planning team;

6.1.1.2

6.1.1.3

6.1.1.4

6.1.1.5

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 13 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 6.1.1.5.2 Documented and stored in the student’s Cumulative Record or, in the case of confidential records, in the Special Documents Envelope located in the Cumulative Record.

6.1.1.6

Ensuring a standard board-authorized Individual Program Plan Report is used for students following Individual Program Plans. These reports will be distributed at the same time as regular program report cards.

6.1.2

Program Planning Teams are responsible for: 6.1.2.1 Considering a wide range of assessment and evaluation information when developing, reviewing and revising Individual Program Plan outcomes, methods, materials and strategies. When appropriate, students will be involved in this process; Considering a wide range of assessment and evaluation information when developing, reviewing and revising adaptations. When appropriate, students will be involved in this process.

6.1.2.2

6.1.3

Teachers are responsible for: 6.1.3.1 Determining appropriate adaptations for students with moderate needs and making them available to students as part of any assessment and evaluation process; Engaging parents/guardians and, if appropriate, the student, in development of programming adaptations recommended to assess and evaluate the students’ progress toward the curriculum outcomes; Ensuring assessment and evaluation adaptations are not recorded on the student’s report card (adaptations to instructional or assessment/evaluation strategies are designed to enable students to meet grade-level Public School Program curriculum outcomes); Recording adaptations on the Programming Adaptations Form; Providing a copy of the Programming Adaptations Form to parents/guardians;

6.1.3.2

6.1.3.3

6.1.3.4 6.1.3.5

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 14 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 6.1.3.6 Storing a copy of the Programming Adaptations Form in the student’s Cumulative Record Folder;

6.1.3.7 Aligning assessment and evaluation with learning outcomes identified on the student’s Individual Program Plan, and focusing primarily on the student’s progress toward those learning outcomes; 6.1.3.8 Reviewing results from individual formal assessments and using this information, along with classroom assessments, to inform program planning for the student.

6.1.4

Professional support staff is responsible for: 6.1.4.1 Collaborating with classroom teachers in the writing of report cards for students when appropriate.

6.1.5

Speech Language Pathologists, School Psychologists, and Severe Learning Disabilities Teachers are responsible for: 6.1.5.1 Submitting written reports on students with identified special needs for whom they have provided sustained support services.

6.1.6

Resource Teachers are responsible for: 6.1.6.1 Submitting written reports on students for whom they have provided sustained support services. This report will include frequency/duration of support, a description of remediation, compensation and learning strategies used, and student progress.

6.1.7

Board staff is responsible for: 6.1.7.1 Ensuring that qualified professionals conduct formal individual assessments (e.g., psycho-educational assessments, KeyMath, Woodcock Reading Mastery), interpret the results, and provide recommendations to parents/guardians, teachers and others involved with the student’s program; Ensuring that informed written consent is obtained from parents/guardians before any formal individual assessments are initiated.

6.1.7.2

6.2

English as an Additional Language (EAL) Students 6.2.1 School Administrators are responsible for:

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 15 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 6.2.1.1 Ensuring that individual students who require EAL programming services are provided with the appropriate assessment and evaluation methods and strategies to support their needs.

6.2.2

English as an Additional Language teachers are responsible for: 6.2.2.1 Collaborating with program staff, classroom, resource and learning centre teachers to assist EAL students in achieving the curriculum outcomes; Assessing and evaluating students using the following process: 6.2.2.2.1 Assessments for the purpose of qualification for EAL placement; Formative assessments to guide teaching and learning;

6.2.2.2

6.2.2.2.2

6.2.2.3

Assessments for the purpose of discontinuing direct EAL programming and services; Ensuring that annual assessments of English proficiency are conducted; Ensuring that linguistic and cultural diversity is factored into the interpretation of assessment results; Providing individual written reports on the progress of each student for whom they have provided direct support services; including information regarding the student’s English proficiency; Making appropriate adaptations available to EAL students as part of any assessment and evaluation process. EAL teachers will collaborate with classroom teachers to help provide appropriate adaptations.

6.2.2.4

6.2.2.5

6.2.2.6

6.2.2.7

6.2.3

Classroom teachers are responsible for: 6.2.3.1 Collaborating with program staff, EAL, resource and learning centre teachers to assist English language learners in achieving the curriculum outcomes; Using effective assessment and evaluation strategies to assist EAL students achieving curriculum outcomes;

6.2.3.2

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 16 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program 6.2.3.3 Requesting additional support as required when EAL students are unable to meet the language-dependent outcomes specific to various subject areas.

6.2.4

Board staff is responsible for: 6.2.4.1 Providing teachers with professional development in the area of assessment and evaluation of EAL students; Establishing appropriate assessment and evaluation supports for EAL students including, but not limited to, allocation of personnel, time and materials; Collaborating with EAL, classroom, resource and learning centre teachers to develop effective assessment and evaluation methods and strategies for EAL students; Ensuring that qualified school board personnel (e.g., EAL teacher or someone with equivalent training) will conduct initial formal individualized assessment; Ensuring that written informed consent is obtained from parents/guardians before any formal individual assessments are initiated; Ensuring that individual assessments of academic achievement are used only as initial assessments to identify what the student has already learned academically, to target the best point in the curriculum to begin instruction, and to assist in the selection of instructional materials; Ensuring that tests of cognitive ability written in English are not used with students from non-English speaking backgrounds until they have had time to develop capacity within the English language and a broader understanding of the local culture.

6.2.4.2

6.2.4.3

6.2.4.4

6.2.4.5

6.2.4.6

6.2.4.7

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 17 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program APPENDIX A Definitions Assessment is the process of gathering, from a variety of sources, information that accurately reflects how well a student is achieving the learning outcomes in a subject or course. The action that is taken in response to an assessment determines its formative or summative nature. • Assessment for Learning/Formative Assessment involves the ongoing process of gathering and interpreting evidence about student learning for the purpose of determining where students are in their learning, where they need to go, and how best to get there. The information gathered is used by teachers to provide descriptive feedback and adjust instruction and by students to focus their learning. Assessment for learning is a high impact instructional strategy that takes place while the student is still learning and serves to promote learning. • Assessment of Learning/Summative Assessment is the process of collecting and interpreting evidence for the purpose of summarizing learning at a given point in time, to make judgments about the quality of student learning on the basis of established criteria, and to assign a value to represent that quality. The information gathered may be used to communicate the student’s achievement to parents/guardians, other teachers, students themselves, and others. It occurs at or near the end of a cycle of learning. Assessment Types are the ways in which information about student achievement is collected. Assessment information may be gathered in three ways: through observations of student performance, conversations had with students, and products that students create. Assessment Tools are the instruments that teachers use to gather information about student achievement. Examples of assessment tools include but are not limited to work samples, presentations, tests/quizzes, debates, portfolios, labs, demonstrations, and anecdotal notes. Descriptive Feedback is specific information (e.g., oral, written, exemplars, rubrics) that helps students understand what they are doing well, understand what they need to do next in order to improve, and to think and talk about their own learning (metacognition). Learning Outcomes are the outcome statements prescribed by the Department of Education, or a student’s Individual Program Plan, that indicate what teachers are required to teach and students are expected to know, be able to do, and value for each grade level, course and/or program. These outcome statements are the general and specific outcomes that make up the written curriculum and reflect the “big ideas” and process skills in each subject area or individualized plan. Curriculum Alignment is aligning the written learning outcomes with all instructional and assessment practices. Gradebook Category refers to the organization of assessments within PowerTeacher Gradebook. Teachers organize gradebook categories by curriculum content (e.g., modules, strands, units) rather than assessment tools/type (e.g., test/quizzes, projects).
ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 18 of 19

CODE: C.007 Program Process Skills are the habits of mind/attitudes that define a subject area or discipline (e.g., thinking like a mathematician, an author, a scientist). Cumulative Assessment is an assessment designed to assess students’ understanding and ability to make connections among the “big ideas”, concepts and procedures learned to date. Evaluation is the process of analyzing, reflecting upon, and summarizing assessment information and making judgments and/or decisions based upon the information gathered (e.g. to determine student achievement of the learning outcomes for the purposes of grading and reporting). Professional Judgment is judgment that is informed by professional knowledge of learning outcomes, context, evidence of learning, methods of instruction and assessment, and the criteria and standards that indicate success in student learning. In professional practice, judgment involves a purposeful and systematic thinking process that evolves in terms of accuracy and insight with ongoing reflection, collegial collaboration and practice. When teachers gather information in various contexts from all three assessment types (conversations, observations and products), it is referred to as triangulated data. When evaluation is based on triangulated data, teacher professional judgment is more reliable. Grading is the process of using summative assessment evidence of student achievement of the learning outcomes to determine the report card grade. Reporting is the process of communicating student progress and/or achievement of the learning outcomes. External Large-Scale Assessments are summative assessments designed by a group outside the school in order to provide data for use at the national, provincial, regional, school and classroom levels. School Community consists of students, parents/guardians, teaching and non–teaching staff serving the school, school advisory councils, school groups, community members, partners, board members, board staff, and others with a connection to the school. Formal Individual Assessments are assessments, such as standardized tests, intended to produce diagnostic information about the student’s ability or achievement. Formal assessment instruments have standardized procedures for administration, scoring and interpretation. Promotion indicates that the student has satisfied the program requirements and met the curriculum outcomes for that grade or course. The student will advance to the next higher grade or course. Placement indicates that the student has not satisfied the program requirements or met the curriculum outcomes required for that grade or course, but has been placed into the next grade/course based on the decision made by the school in the best interest of the student.
ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF STUDENT LEARNING PROCEDURES Revised: June 2012

Page 19 of 19