Save Cedar Schools Coalition www.savecedarschools.org November 19, 2013 Honorable Minister Peter Fassbender Educ.minister@gov.bc.

ca
PO BOX 9045 STN PROV GOVT VICTORIA, BC V8W 9E2

Dear Minister Fassbender: I am writing you on behalf of the community of Cedar. I know that you are familiar with the Save Cedar Schools Coalition as we have received much correspondence from you in response to our request to have you send a special advisor to our school district to replace our board of education. In July you told us to go back to our district and continue to work to engage our trustees to resolve this conflict that this community feels with the school district and board of education. It is now 4 months later and this community and this coalition have done everything in our power to engage the board of education in representing our community and they have continued to close ranks on our community and more importantly our students which is resulting in diminished educational choices for our students. I will provide you with a brief timeline or our attempts to engage our board of education in meaningful engagement with regards to the decisions that are being made regarding our childrens education. July 22: Save Cedar Schools sends a letter to the trustees with 9 specific questions regarding the Enhanced Facilities for Learning Plan as well as a request to meet face to face o No response to this letter from the trustees. o A response from the Superintendent was received on August 27th, answering the questions from an operational stand point and refusing a meeting. September 6: we invited the trustees to a moderated discussion panel held in Cedar and hosted by our local MLS Doug Routley. o No response from 8 of the 9 trustees. One trustee chose to respond with a resounding no. When we pushed for more information in regards to his response we received the attached addendum item A. This item was posted on a

trustees personal but public blog. And then removed within 24 hours of its posting September 25th: Save Cedar Schools makes a presentation to the trustees at the regular board meeting outlining considerable problems with the plan that were overlooked due to the rush to approve the plan. Trustees did not review or act on the professional book of information provided. Instead they directed district staff to respond. September 26th-October 5th requests sent by various members of the Save Cedar Schools Coalition to have one on one meetings with the trustees. No response from the trustees except for one trustee. This trustee agrees to meet individually with two members of the coalition but does not want to discuss the Enhanced Facilities for Learning Plan during these meetings. October 1st: Save Cedar Schools sends an email requesting a copy of the response prepared by the district to the Save Cedar Schools Coalition presentation on September 25th. o There is no response from the trustees o The district says no, we have to wait until the following board meeting (October 23) when the board can decide if it wants to make the report public October 5th: Save Cedar Schools sends an email to Chairperson Brennan requesting a face to face meeting in order to work to resolve the conflict that is occurring between the community and the board of education. o Chairperson Brennan responds on Nov. 12 saying he see no reason to meet face to face. October 20th: An email from area trustee Nancy Curley states that she will try to get answers to as yet unanswered questions from the community in regards to the Enhanced Facilities for Learning Plan. o No response yet. October 23rd: The district provides a response to the Save Cedar Schools Coalition presentation made on September 25. There are significant gaps in this response. The trustees do not ask any questions in regards to this response. October 23rd: An email is sent to trustee TerryLynn Saunders requesting a meeting to learn more about committees and duties of each committee. o No response October 29th: John Barsby Secondary (soon to be catchment school for Cedar area) comes to Cedar Secondary in order to present educational choices to parents and students for 2014-15 school year. It becomes apparent to community that John Barsby serves a different student population and does not offer the same comprehensive academic courses available at Cedar Secondary. Parents are told it will take 2-3 years to bring the course offering up to the same calibre as are currently offered at Cedar Secondary and that we all just need to hang in there and see how it goes. NOT ONE TRUSTEE IS PRESENT AT THIS PRESENTATION to answer questions. November 14th: An email to Area trustee Nancy Curley requesting information and an offer to compromise regarding the school choice issue the community is facing. The compromise even involved the community footing some of the extra cost for the compromise. o November 15th email from Trustee Curley refusing the compromise.

o Save Cedar Schools responds to this email saying that if she refuses to champion us on the issue we will work to find the compromise directly with the district staff. On Nov. 18 a conversation with a district staff member indicates that there is room for a compromise on busing but the trustees need to direct the staff to present the compromise. Minister, this is just a brief outline of the efforts we have made to try to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue with the trustees in regards to the Enhanced Facilities for Learning Plan. We have various other examples of our attempts to reach out and solve this problem in a constructive manner. Time and time again the trustees of SD68 have closed ranks against this community and failed to fulfill their elected duty. This failure is going to have a direct impact on the academic achievement levels of the students in this community. Minister Fassbender, this board of education is no longer fulfilling its elected duties. This community has been failed by the representatives that are elected in order to ensure that the communitys values are reflected in the daily operation of the school district. Finally, it has become apparent that with its declining enrolment, this district is over represented by trustees. Therefore we would like to meet with you to discuss the following items: 1. Under Section 172 (1) of the School Act you have the ability to request the legislature appoint an official trustee if, among other reasons, (d) there is substantial nonperformance of the duties of the board and (e) there is a risk to student achievement in the district and it is in the public interest to do so. 2. Under Section 30 (3)(a) the Minister has the ability to decide on the number of trustees for a school district. SD68 currently has approximately 13 000 students and 9 trustees. In comparison, SD39 has approximately 54 000 students and 9 trustees, SD23 has approximately 22 000 students and 7 trustees, SD57 has approximately 14 000 students and 7 trustees, SD 44 has approximately 17 000 students and 7 trustees. The list goes on and on in regards to school districts who have more students and fewer trustees. During a time a great financial austerity we believe the Minister should consider lowering the number of trustees in SD68 to 7. 3. Under Section 30 (3)(b) the Minister has the ability to decide whether trustees are to be elected from the school district at large or from a number of electoral areas that are in total the entire school district. The population density of this school district has consistently resulted in our trustees habitually coming from the north end of the district. This has resulted in an over representation of enrichment programs in north end schools, while the cost per student in the south end continues to drop. Furthermore, of the 9 schools proposed for closure under this plan, 8 are in the south end, however many north end schools have the same if not lower capacity utilization numbers as the south end schools being proposed for closure. Therefore, we feel that a ward style electoral system will alleviate this long brewing problem. Minister, one could argue quite efficiently that the plight of this community is a direct result of the failure in education funding in British Columbia. There is a general story to be told here of school closures and the impact on a small community. This small, rural community will be decimated by this decision and this decision can be directly linked to current funding models and

standards used by your government. There is a specific aspect to this issue that you need to start addressing. That is the complete and utter failure of our elected officials to do the job that they are elected to do. We can and will be glad to use our community to be the face of this larger issue to gather more support for our cause, while at the same time pointing out how the failure of educational funding in British Columbia is directly responsible for our plight. We will also gladly point out the lack of engagement by yourself, despite months of pleading by Save Cedar Schools and other members of the district, to stand up for a community that is being so detrimentally impacted by the current funding formula. We have over 4700 signatures on our petition and it is time that your office started taking this community and this cause seriously. Time is running out for the students of this community, I expect to hear from your office in the next 14 days or we will be forced to start making public how your office has also failed this community. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Stephanie Higginson Save Cedar Schools www.savecedarschools.org

Addendum Item A:

Cedar Schools
Posted: September 11, 2013 | Author: bardisle2011 | Filed under: Uncategorized |Leave a comment

It would seem some people just cannot listen to reason. Because some people do not like facts I present, they will often call me a liar and accuse us of speaking untruths. Even when documentation is there to back up what I have said. To complain about not being supplied with information that is either unavailable or has already been presented, and then play a childs game of tit for tat by saying the person, or group, has their own facts, figures and documentation based on their own interests without taking the entire population into account, is hypocritical and shows a person/group that is blinded by their own anger. I am not a liar. You may not like or appreciate the truth, but if you ask me a question, you are going to get it. Suck it up children. You have been heard, informed and treated respectfully by me, and have responded with hostility and disrespect. I hope sound minds within the community will prevail, but I am losing that hope fast. I offer a sample of what is already publicly available: william yoachim @wyoachim 31 Aug @SaveCedarSchool @FredrikoQuanzo @Bill_Bard @sd68bc so we were invited to participate @Snuneymuxw ok you can keep on believing that lol An invitation to the SFN was ignored. Period! http://www.nanaimobulletin.com/opinion/221553251.html Also, an email from the executive group that does not identify the people in it. Cowardly! My responses here are in bold and (brackets). Tuesday, September 10, 2013 1:27 PM Dear Trustee Bard: Thanks for your prompt reply. We are disappointed that you have chosen not to attend (I stated I was unable to go, not that I chose not to.) our town hall meeting. Please rest assured that Save Cedar Schools would like to work with you (and the rest of the board) to come up with the best plan possible for all of the school aged children within SD68. (as a single member of the Board, I reviewed ALL the information sent to me directly and via the District, The Board has, as a single unit, decided this IS the best option available for ALL the children in the District, no NEW information has been offered, even when claiming to have it!)Unfortunately, responses (or a lack of responses) we have received from Board of Education members have often been dismissive. As

a community, we feel we have been backed into a corner and are now forced to fight to be heard. Save Cedar Schools, the Board of Education, the Snuneymuxw and the RDN all want the same thing-to promote and sustain the best educational future for our children. With the current plan, many believe the children of Cedar have been lost in the shuffle and made to accept the brunt of the negative implications of this plan. From the start (April 11, when Dr. Player presented his plan) we have wanted to learn the details of the current Enhanced Facilities for Learning Plan. Before we were The Save Cedar Schools Coalition, we were parents who asked both Trustees and senior district staff for concrete financial and educational reasons why this plan was the best way forward. ( All of which was presented at several public consultation forums open to anyone!) During the time allotted for official consultation not one member of the Save Cedar Schools organizing committee (who were not a committee then and actually many of us had never met at this point in time) heard anything in response to their many many many requests for information. (An estimated cost of renovations were not available at the time. They were made available when the District had them. Busing costs are impossible to estimate until the District knows who needs busing, and to which school.) As a result, the Save Cedar Schools Coalition was formed and now we are still asking for concrete financial and educational reasons why this plan-and not any of the other possible options- is the best way forward. We have heard you state that this is the best decision for all. We dont necessarily disagree with this statement, but we do know that it is a big decision that greatly affects our community and warrants a closer examination. It is clear that you wish to engage with us on some level and sympathize with our situation. We are hoping that you can demonstrate this engagement in a manner deserving of the nearly 1,000 students you represent and make decisions for in our rural communities. ( I represent over 13,000 students people, NOT just ONE community, but the needs of all communities within this District. Also, I am but ONE vote.) We are hoping that you reconsider your decision and can attend on September 23. We can assure you that you will be greeted warmly by the Coalition and your attendance would be greatly appreciated by our community. Because the parents and community of Cedar feels we have not been heard, electing not to attend will only serve to lend credence to this notion and exacerbate those feelings. ( regardless of any prior commitments and/or responsibilities???Another presumption that I am able to be there at all!) We have put a lot of time and effort into our presentation, which we hope will show that by working together, we can improve on the work already done. The financial analysis will be made available on the evening of the meeting. When parents requested a financial analysis of not only the operational savings, but also the operational costs of this plan, none were provided. (in spite of this being untrue {see above} I have asked for their report to be forwarded to me asap. THIS is just childish! It smacks of we didnt get what we wanted from you so you cant have what you have asked for ) And in fact, we were told by two trustees at the June 12 meeting in Cedar that the trustees had not seen such plans nor did they think the senior district staff had undertaken such an analysis. Upon approval of the plan, parents once again requested this information. Once again, none were provided. This is why we had to resort to asking a certified financial professional from the Cedar community to volunteer their time to look into the actual operational savings that will be

met by this plan. We have uncovered a lot of information, both educational and economic, that we believe will be of interest and help. It is unclear that these data were known or considered during the Board of Educations decision making process so we are eager to share these data and make certain that the current plan is indeed the best one. We have been told that this decision is final, that the bell has rung and the consultation is now closed. This is simply not true. As Trustees you have the right to pass a new by law to delay the closure of Cedar Community Secondary School and its conversion into a repurposed elementary school while a more thorough investigation is done of the implications of new facts and numbers not available at the time of the consultation and the overall implications on student achievement for the students of this district. Consultation was extended for Davis Road, North Oyster and Woodlands. Why not Cedar? This community is the one that has the most to lose by this plan. Again, all we are asking for is a meaningful dialogue about the concerns we have and an explanation about why this is best for all. Thank you for your time and consideration. We appreciate that the Board of Trustees are maintaining an open mind on these important changes and willing to accept input from the constituents you were elected to represent. Save Cedar Schools While I have tried my very best to be available to everyone, I continue to meet with resistance, disrespect and slander. It is unlikely I can alter previous commitments for their meeting. I have told everyone, I am willing to sit down one-on-one with anyone to discuss respectfully, any issue with regards to Public Education. The bottom line is that previous boards did not have the balls to take measures to ensure the well being of a strong and improving education for our children. THIS Board will clean up the mess and put us back on the road to adding programs and staff rather than cutting them year, after year, after year. Thats how I see it.

http://bardisle2011.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/399/