SASKATOON PUBLIC SCHOOL DIVISION

Document Sample
SASKATOON PUBLIC SCHOOL DIVISION Powered By Docstoc
					SASKATOON PUBLIC SCHOOL DIVISION




      FACILITIES
     MASTER PLAN
         2003




            May 13, 2003
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS


I.     INTRODUCTION

       Background
       Purpose Of The Master Plan Process
       Recent Plans, Studies, And Consultations
       Process For Developing The Facilities Master Plan

                                   THE FACTORS


II.    SASKATOON’S PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

       The Next Five Years
       Growing To 270,000
       Growing To 400,000
       Redeveloping Existing Neighbourhoods
       Policy And Planning Considerations

III.   CURRENT STATE OF THE DIVISION’S FACILITIES

       Number Of Facilities
       Value Of Facilities
       Age Of Facilities
       Recent Capital Plans
       Reports On The State Of Facilities
       RECAPP Software
       Policy And Planning Considerations

IV.    ENROLMENT

       Ten-Year Enrolment Projection
       Impact Of Facilities On Enrolment
              Case #1       Eastside Elementary Schools West Of Preston Avenue
              Case #2       The North Neighbourhoods
              Case #3       The Northeast Neighbourhoods Since The Opening Of
                            St. Joseph High School
              Case #4       High Schools
              Case Studies Conclusions
       Policy and Planning Considerations

V.     SPACE UTILIZATION
       Calculating Space Utilization
       Collegiates
       Elementary School Space Utilization
       Factors Influencing Space Utilization
       Policy And Planning Considerations

VI.    MANDATE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS

       Public / Catholic Mandates
       Broadening Mandate
       SchoolPLUS Mandate
       Policy And Planning Considerations

VII.   IMPACT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN ON OUR FACILITIES

       Core Curriculum Strategy
       Special Education Strategy
       Early Learning Strategy
       Alternative Delivery / Centres Of Innovation / Choice Strategy
       SchoolPLUS Strategy
       Enrolment Growth / Maintenance Strategy
       Revenue Growth Strategy
       Partnership Strategy
       Recruitment And Hiring Strategy
       Policy And Planning Considerations

VIII. SCHOOL SIZE CONSIDERATIONS

       The Research
       Parents, Teachers, And Students’ Opinions
       Size Of Our Collegiates
       Size Of Our Elementary Schools
       Policy And Planning Considerations
       References
IX.    FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS

       Total Expenditures
       Plant Operations And Maintenance
       Debt Charges
       Reserves
       Contribution To Capital
       Provincial Role In Financing Facilities
       The Facilities, Enrolment, Revenue Connection
       Policy And Planning Considerations

X.     INTEGRATED COMMUNITY CENTRES

       Concept Of Integrated Community Centres
       Principles For Integrated Community Centres
       University Heights Multi-District Park
       West Collegiate Integrated Planning
       Applications To Existing Neighbourhoods
       Policy And Planning Considerations

XI.    OTHER FACTORS


                ADVICE FROM OUR PUBLIC AND EMPLOYEES


XII.   PREVIOUS CONSULTATIONS

       Collegiate Review
       Role Of the Schools
       Structuring The Dream
       Strengthening Our Learning Community: Strategic Direction 2002-2007
       Other Consultations

XIII. OUR STAKEHOLDERS

       Participants
       The Process
       Input And Advice
       Options
       Advice
XIV. CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL

      Participants
      The Process
      Input Regarding Discussion Questions
      Options
      Advice

XV.   FACILITY INDUSTRY

      Participants
      The Process
      Input And Advice
      Options
      Advice

XVI. CUPE 34 EXECUTIVE

      Participants
      The Process
      Input And Advice

XVII. PRINCIPALS

      Participants
      The Process
      Input And Advice
      Options
      Advice

XVIII. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS


XIX. MAJOR THEMES FROM THE CONSULTATIONS

      Mandate
      Integrated/Shared Facilities
      School Size
      New Schools
      Middle Schools
      Difference Of Opinion
      General Approach To Facilities Planning: Preferred Option

         FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE DIVISION’S FACILITIES
XX.   KEY DIRECTIONS FOR FACILITIES POLICY AND PLANNING

      Mandate And Purpose Of Public Education
      New And Old Schools
      Features Of Schools
      Alternative Structures
      Collegiates
      School Size
      Community And Schools
      Early Learning
      Fiscal Considerations
      General Approach To Planning

XXI. NEXT STEPS

      Read And Dialogue
      Level One Decisions
            Options
            Criteria
            Applying Criteria To The Options
      Level Two Decisions
            Criteria
            Information
      Planning For New Opportunities And Changing Trends
I.    INTRODUCTION

     Background

     In the fall of 2002, the Board’s Facilities Committee considered the need for long-
     range planning for the Division’s facilities. The Board, at its meeting of September
     24, 2002, directed the Facilities Committee to develop the terms of reference for the
     development of a Facilities Master Plan. The terms of reference are appended to
     this section of the binder.

     Purpose Of The Facilities Master Plan

     Based upon the Board’s discussion, the terms of reference, and the sequence of
     planning, four clear purposes were identified for the Master Planning Process.
     These purposes are:

     1.   To consider the implications of significant factors on the future direction and
          policy regarding the Division’s facilities.
     2.   To seek advice from members of the public regarding key facilities questions
          and options for the future.
     3.   To establish policy and planning directions for the Division’s facilities.
     4.   To create a plan for the maintenance, renovation, restoration, construction, and
          consolidation of the Division’s facilities from 2003 – 2012.

     Recent Plans, Studies, And Consultations

     It is important to note that the Facilities Section and other agencies have developed
     plans that consider the long-range future of the Division’s facilities. Every year, for
     example, the Facilities Section has developed a five-year capital plan for the
     Board’s approval. This plan indicates the Division’s major capital priorities to
     Saskatchewan Learning. An annual emergency block plan is also developed to
     address smaller capital projects such as the major repair of roofs. In 2000, a draft
     ten-year capital plan was developed to provide a longer view of the Division’s
     facilities. It is notable that the Board has recently established a new Strategic
     Direction. This Direction and the developing Strategic Plan will have major
     implications for the planning of the Division’s facilities.

     In recent years, some significant studies have been undertaken which will inform the
     Master Plan. The Role of the School study and the government’s response must be
     accounted for in any planning process. The Collegiate Review (2000) considered
     the Division’s present and future services to its high school-aged young people. A
     facilities study of our collegiates was a major component of the Collegiate Review.
     The Collegiate Review also included a major consultation with students, parents and
teachers on a wide range of questions, including a number that will inform a
Facilities Master Plan.

It is important to note that other agencies have consulted with the public regarding
matters closely connected to our Division’s facilities. The City of Saskatoon, for
example, held a one-day conference in April 2002, regarding the plans for the
University Heights Multi-District Park. A wide range of citizens and interest groups
participated. A key theme from the participant group was the proposal to develop
an integrated facility, including a public high school, in the park.

The Board has also heard very directly from citizens’ groups representing a variety
of city neighborhoods. City Park residents conducted a neighborhood study and
proposed that a small primary public school be opened in their neighborhood. The
Board has also received a petition on February 9, 1999 from 11,554 citizens who
wanted the Board to build a new collegiate west of Circle Drive. A committee for a
west of Circle Drive High School has recently addressed the Board regarding the
need for a new collegiate west of Circle Drive. The Citizens for a Northeast
Collegiate have developed an active advocacy role for a new collegiate in the
northeast section of the city. Most recently, citizens from North Park Wilson and
Buena Vista Schools have expressed their viewpoints to the Board regarding the
school facilities in their neighborhoods. These points of view must be carefully
considered within the mix of feedback and advice received during the consultation
process for the Master Plan.

Process For Developing The Facilities Master Plan

Figure I: 1 represents the process undertaken to develop the Division’s Facilities
Master Plan. The first major portion of this process is the consideration and analysis
of significant factors on the future direction and policy regarding the Division’s
facilities. These factors include Saskatoon’s projected growth and development, a
long-range enrolment projection, the current state of the Division’s facilities, the
current space utilization of the Division’s schools, the mandate of the Division
(including SchoolPLUS), the Division’s fiscal situation, the research on school size,
and the Board’s Strategic Direction and Plan. The policy and planning implications
of each factor will be presented within this section. Understanding each of these
factors is very important if the Division’s facilities are to serve the community
appropriately in the future.

A second part of this process was to seek the advice of stakeholders regarding the
Division’s facilities in the future. Important input from other processes must be
recaptured and is still of great value. New input was received through a
                               FIGURE I: 1 FACILITIES MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT

Analysis of Factors Related to Future Facilities                                  Public Input re: Future Facilities
   Factors
    1.    Saskatoon’s Future Growth
                                                                                      Existing Input
    2.    Current State of Facilities                                                 • Collegiate Review Surveys & Focus Groups
    3.    Space Utilization                                                           • Role of the School
    4.    Enrolment Projection                                                        • Citizens’ Groups
    5.    Enrolment and Facilities                                                    • Structuring the Dream
    6.    School Size                                                                 • Facilities Rental Policy Input
    7.    Strategic Plan Implementation
    8.    SchoolPLUS Implementation                                                   New Input
    9.    Integrated Community Centres                                                • CAC
    10.   Fiscal Considerations                                                       • Stakeholders Focus Group
    11.   Transportation/School Closure Option
                                                                                      • Facilities Industry
    12.   SPSD & Saskatchewan Learning Facilities Policy
    13.   Other Factors                                                               • Principals
                                                                                      • CUPE 34
Description of Factor                                                                 • Written Submissions



Analysis of Factor


  Policy and Planning
    Considerations
       re: Factor                                          Administrative Report
                                                           Including Synthesis of Key Directions for the Future
                                                           of the Division’s Facilities


                                                     Policy and Planning Directions (Board deliberations)



                        Application of Policy and Planning Directions to Indepth Evaluation of Facilities and Needs



                                                            MASTER PLAN
stakeholders focus group, a facilities industry focus group, meetings with the
Citizens’ Advisory Council, the principals, and the C.U.P.E. Local 34 Executive, as
well as a wide invitation to the general community for written submissions. The
input, past and present, will be reviewed in the second major section of this report.

The synthesis of the input from the consultation process and the analysis of
significant factors are presented later in this report. This synthesis presents a
number of recommended key policy and planning directions for the Board’s
consideration.

The Board must then set the general policy and planning direction for the future.
This general direction can be applied to an evaluation of our facilities and our future
facility needs. This evaluation will include:

•    Facility Audits
•    RECAPP analysis of all facilities.
•    School enrolment projections using Baragar software and trends from our
     Student Information System.
•    Accurate space utilization calculations.
•    Principals’ evaluations of how well their school facilities meet 21st century
     educational needs.

The application of carefully considered policy and planning directions to the
thorough evaluation of our facilities and future needs will result in a Facilities
Master Plan. It is important to note that although this plan is intended to look well
into the future, it must be revised regularly. The Master Plan must also be built with
a significant degree of flexibility so that the Division can react to and take
advantage of changing trends and new opportunities.
                                         Appendix I: 1

                      SUGGESTED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A
                            FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The development of a Facilities Master Plan for the Board is intended:

1.   to present and analyze significant information about the future development of the City of
     Saskatoon that is pertinent to the facilities of the Saskatoon Public School Division.

2.   to present enrolment history and projections and to analyze this information in relation to
     the facilities needs of the Saskatoon Public School Division.

3.   to present an analysis of the space utilization of our current facilities using Saskatchewan
     Learning’s software where possible. Such an analysis will consider the requirements of the
     implementation of SchoolPLUS.

4.   to present a description of the current state of our facilities using the analysis generated by
     the RECAP software program.

5.   to present the significant features of the impact of school facilities on students’ learning
     (e.g. school size research).

6.   to consider any pertinent information regarding principles or standards for school facilities
     from school facility organizations (e.g. CEFPI).

7.   to analyze the fiscal needs for facility maintenance, restoration, and construction over the
     next 10 years and to determine the Board’s ability to resource this activity. Information
     regarding average debt load of Saskatchewan school divisions, new sources of revenue, and
     alternate approaches to financing capital projects will be considered.

8.   to consider recent developments such as Integrated Community Centres and joint work
     with partners on future school projects. Such a consideration will include the study of
     potential savings and/or enhancements as well as the impact on current policy.

9.   to consider recent documents pertinent to the facilities of the Saskatoon Public School
     Division including:

     a)    Collegiate Review Facilities Report
     b)    Collegiate Review Demographic Study
     c)    Facilities – A Foundation for the Future (see the Facilities Manual)
     d)    Structuring the Dream
     e)    Saskatchewan Learning Facilities Guidelines
     f)    KDL: specifications for new elementary schools
     g)    Facility audits (W.P. Bate, NCI, Buena Vista)
     h)    KDL: specifications for new collegiates (in development)
     i)    Educational specifications for new collegiates (in development)
     j)    Feasibility study of middle schools (in development)
     k)    Collegiate Review: Collegiates of the 21st Century
     l)    City Park Elementary School Feasibility Study
     m)    other?

10. to consider alternate school organizational structures including:

     a)    K-12
     b)    Middle Schools
     c)    K-2
     d)    small, less institutional high schools (e.g. Royal West)
     e)    schools of choice
     f)    schools within schools
     g)    other?

11. to analyze the strategic plan to ensure alignment of facilities planning with the purpose,
    vision, goals, objectives, outcomes, and strategies in the plan.

12. to consider the impact on school facilities of new directions in education including:

     a)    SchoolPLUS
     b)    technology for learning
     c)    new learning strategies
     d)    importance of Early Learning
     e)    other?

13. to consider strategic facilities interventions that will have a positive impact on the ability of
    the School Division to meet its mandate.

14. to consult with key stakeholders regarding emerging themes and potential future directions
    resulting from this study.

15. to synthesize the above information and analysis in order to set out a clear direction for the
    renovation, restoration, and construction of school facilities in the next 10 years. This
    direction may include guiding principles as well as actual plans.

16. other?

17. other?

                                        THE FACTORS
This major section considers a number of significant factors that should have a significant
impact on facility policy and planning.

They include:

     •    Saskatoon’s Projected Growth and Development
     •    The Current State of the Division’s Facilities
     •    Enrolment
          -    Projection
          -    Impact of Facilities on Enrolment
     •    Space Utilization
     •    Mandate of Public Schools
     •    Impact of Strategic Plan on Our Facilities
     •    School Size Considerations
     •    Fiscal Considerations
     •    Integrated Community Centres
     •    Other Factors

Each factor will be described and discussed. The policy and planning implications of
each factor will also be explored.

The figure on the next page illustrates the impact of many of these significant factors
upon the Division’s future facilities.
                   Factors Impacting On Public School Facilities


The Facility -                                                           Class Size
Enrolment –               Declining
  Revenue                                                                 Research
 Connection                 K-12                         SchoolPLUS



                         Enrolments
                                           Mandate                         Early
      Fiscal                                  of
                                            Public                       Learning
  Considerations                           Schools
                                                                         Strategy




       Current
                                                                          Facilities
        State                          PUBLIC
         Of
        Our                            SCHOOL                              Policy
      Facilities                      FACILITIES


                                                                      Saskatoon’s
      Strategic                                                         Growth
                                                                         And
        Plan                                                          Development



                              Integrated
                                                     Current Space
      School                  Community                                 Transportation
       Size                                           Utilization      /School Closure
   Considerations               Centres                                    Option
II.   SASKATOON’S PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

      Where and how Saskatoon will grow in future years is a key factor in long-range
      facilities planning. The following information is based upon recent documents
      including:

      •    Future Growth of Saskatoon, A Tradition of Planning: Final Report and
           Recommendations (Community Services Department, City Planning Branch,
           June 2002);
      •    Five-Year Land Development Program 2003-2007 (City of Saskatoon,
           September 2002);
      •    Future Growth Study, 1999: Final Report and Technical Appendix (City of
           Saskatoon, June 2000).

      Administration also met with Mr. Lorne Sully, the Manager of City Planning, to
      explore the next steps in Saskatoon’s development.

      The Next Five Years
      Table II: 1 captures information in the City’s Five-Year Land Development Program
      2003-2007 which indicates that the greatest growth in the City’s immediate future
      will be in the northeast area. Of the 2375 new lots that are estimated to be absorbed
      over the next five years, 1047 will be in the northeast (University Heights), 565 in
      the southeast (Lakewood), 513 in the west (Confederation Park), and 250 in the
      south (Stonebridge).

                                     Table II: 1
                   Five-Year Land Development Program 2003-2007:
                            Estimated Absorption Of Lots
                                         2002   2003   2004   2005    2006   2007   2002-
                                                                                    2007
                                                                                    Total
       Nutana (Stonebridge)               0      0     25      60     80      85     250
       University Heights (Sutherland,   330    205    173     131    108     100   1047
       Silverspring, Arbor Creek,
       Willowgrove)
       Lakewood (Briarwood, Rosewood)    100     85    75      75     110     120    565
       Confederation Park (Parkridge,     20     85    102     109    102     95     513
       Dundonald, Confederation Park,
       Hampton Village)
       Totals                            450    375    375     375    400     400    2375
More detailed information about the schedule of development for each of these
sectors is available in the City’s Five-Year Land Development Program 2003 –
2007 (City of Saskatoon, 2002).

Growing To 270,000

According to the City Planning Department’s estimate, Saskatoon currently has a
population of over 212,000. The City has developed a plan that will allow the city
to grow to a population of 270,000 over the next 20 - 25 years. Expansion to
270,000 will mean the development of a number of new neighbourhoods including
two south of Circle Drive (Southridge West and Southridge East), two east of
Lakeridge (Rosewood and Brookside), one north of Dundonald and Westview
(Hampton Village), and four in the northeast sector (Willowgrove, Greenwood,
Springfield, and Sunnyridge). The next two new neighbourhoods to be developed
will be Hampton Village in the northwest and Willowgrove in the northeast. These
two neighbourhoods will begin development in 2003. Both are expected to be more
densely populated neighbourhoods with high school-aged populations. Rosewood,
east of Lakeridge, and Stonebridge, south of the Circle Drive will likely be
underway within a few years. Figure II: 1, a map from the City of Saskatoon,
illustrates the planned new neighbourhoods.

The development of these nine new neighborhoods over the next 20 - 25 years will
distribute the City’s population and our school population differently than is the
case today.

Growing To 400,000

When the City reaches a population of 270,000 people in the next 20 - 25 years, the
nine neighborhoods described above will likely have been developed. The City has
also prepared a plan for Saskatoon to develop to a population of 400,000. The
recommended development to 400,000 will feature three new suburban
development areas (SDA) of 1,600 hectares (4,000 acres), each “… containing all
facilities and amenities to support up to 50,000 people...” Each of these three
suburban development areas is a unit of 8 to 10 neighbourhoods containing up to
50,000 people. Table II: 2, from the Future Growth of Saskatoon, A Tradition of
Planning (2002), outlines the expected demographic components of a new suburban
development area.
           CITY        MAP




                  OF




 NEXT        DEVELOPMENTS

(contact Traci Toth for copy – 683-8210)
                            Table II: 2
    Expected Demographic And Development Components Of An SDA

                Demographic Data                              Proposed SDA
 Total Population                                                              50,000
 Number of Neighbourhoods                                                          10
 Total School Enrolments (6-18 yr. olds)                                       10,528
 Public School Enrolment                                                        6,281
 Separate School Enrolment                                                      4,236
 Special Education Enrolment                                                       12
 Total Occupation                                                              26,143

It is important to note that each SDA is projected to have a total school enrolment of
over 10,000 children and youth. This number seems high given the recent decline in
the city’s birth rate. The SDA, given it is made up of up to ten neighborhoods,
seems like a natural unit for a collegiate and a group of elementary and perhaps
middle schools.

Figure II: 2 is an illustration of the three recommended SDA’s or recommended
growth sectors for Saskatoon’s growth to a population of about 400,000.

Redeveloping Existing Neighborhoods

A significant part of the City’s development is the renewal of its existing
neighborhoods. School facilities planning must be flexible enough to react to
opportunities to renew or rebuild school facilities in neighborhoods undergoing
concerted renewal efforts. In the next five years, for example, the City of Saskatoon
will invest in the redevelopment of the Pleasant Hill neighborhood. Saskatchewan
Learning is also interested in a SchoolPLUS pilot in this neighborhood. This will
present an opportunity for the Division to also renew its facilities in a manner
consistent with SchoolPLUS and the concept of Integrated Community Centres.

The Division must also be alert to school facility needs as the demographics of
neighborhoods change. Over the last decade, for example, the school-aged
population of schools such as W.P. Bate and Buena Vista have surged and then
slowly declined. City Park residents have presented a case for a new school in a
neighborhood where the Division has already closed a school.
               F I G U R E II: 2

RECOMMENDED           GROWTH          SECTORS

 –SASKATOON          FUTURE         GROWTH


    (contact Traci Toth for copy – 683-8210)
Policy And Planning Considerations

Nine new neighborhoods over the next 20-25 years will create the need for new
elementary schools in some or all of these new neighbourhoods. Some recent new
neighbourhoods, Briarwood and Arbor Creek, do not yet have elementary schools.

1.   Should the Division build a new elementary school in every new
     neighborhood? or

     Should the Division in collaboration with City Planning and the respective
     developer determine the potential for a sustainable elementary school
     enrolment and then decide whether to set aside a site based upon this
     determination?   Current policy demands a school site in each new
     neighborhood. or

     Should the Division not build schools in any new neighborhoods and instead
     bus students to existing schools where there is space?

2.   The Board along with St. Paul’s Roman Catholic Separate School Division, the
     City of Saskatoon, and the Health District has agreed to the concept and
     principles for integrated community centers (to be considered in greater depth
     later in this report). The City is likely to ensure that every new neighbourhood
     will have a facility to serve as its community center. This integrated
     community center may or may not include a public elementary school.

3.   Should a public elementary school be a part of an integrated community center
     in a new neighbourhood, the potential exists for some shared facilities with
     other partners thus reducing the capital costs to the Division.

4.   The concept of integrated community centers is also intended to be applied to
     the redevelopment of facilities owned by the Division or its partners, within the
     City’s existing neighbourhoods.

     The Division will need to ensure that its facilities planning processes include
     the flexibility to work in collaboration with other partners. This would be
     similar to the Division’s collaborative approach with the City in the
     redevelopment of school and neighbourhood parks.

5.   Should the Division consider alternative grade structures in future
     developments?

     •    In the development of an SDA (Suburban Development Area) of 50,000
          people in 8-10 neighbourhoods, perhaps smaller K-5 elementary schools
          for most neighbourhoods, two 6-8 (or 9) middle schools, and one high
          school is another model to consider.

     •    In potentially less populous new neighbourhoods, the Division might
          consider smaller K-5 schools. Students in 6-8 might be concentrated in
          larger elementary school facilities in adjacent neighbourhoods.

6.   In planning for the next decade the Board will need to consider the following
     projects related to Saskatoon’s growth:

     •    New schools for the Hampton Village and Willowgrove neighbourhoods.
          These neighbourhoods will begin development in 2003. The likely
          construction of integrated community centers, of which public schools
          might be a part, would be in about 2010.

     •    Two new collegiates, one for the northeast neighbourhoods and one for
          the neighbourhoods west of Circle Drive.

     •    The last stages of Arbor Creek have included affordable housing that has
          significantly increased the school-age population. This may present an
          opportunity for a smaller K – 5 school.
III. CURRENT STATE OF THE DIVISION’S FACILITIES

   Number Of Facilities

   The Saskatoon Public School Division operates a wide range of facilities in order to
   achieve its purpose, the learning of our community’s children and youth. These
   facilities include:

   •    43 elementary schools
   •    8 collegiates
   •    1 campus building for a collegiate (Royal West)
   •    113 relocatable classrooms
   •    1 education centre
   •    1 maintenance facility (Avenue G)
   •    1 storage facility (Richardson Building)
   •    3 off campus sites that are rented (Bridges, Main Street, Omega)

   The Division’s only associate school, the Saskatoon Christian School, is responsible
   for the operation of its own school facility.

   Value Of Facilities

   For the purpose of replacement, the Division’s insurance lists the value of our
   buildings at $390,140,086, with their contents at $79,662,193 for a total of
   $469,802,279. A copy of the insured value of each of our facilities is appended to
   this section of the binder. The very significant replacement value of just under $.5
   billion indicates that the community has a very substantial investment in the
   Division’s facilities.

   Age Of Facilities

   The Division’s facilities range in age from Nutana Collegiate and Victoria School
   which opened in 1910 to Silverspring School which opened in 2001. It is worth
   noting that since the beginnings of public education in Saskatoon with the opening
   of the Stone School in 1888, 69 public schools have opened and 18 have closed.
   Some schools, such as Sutherland School, have had the entire structure replaced
   since its opening. A listing of the public schools opened and closed in Saskatoon
   since 1888 (prepared to keep track of significant anniversaries) is appended to this
   section.

   Many of the Division’s oldest structures are significant landmarks in their
   communities. None of the Division’s buildings have been designated as heritage
structures, however, a number of buildings are of significant historical interest and
sentimental value to many members of the community.

Many of the Division’s relocatable classrooms have served for a long time. These
classrooms provide flexibility as school enrolments grow and decline. Some of
these relocatables should be retired in the coming years, while others will need to be
upgraded.

The age of our current facilities is very significant as the Division develops a Master
Plan for its facilities. Table III: 1 presents a list of our schools by construction date.
The dates of major renovations are also included. Figure III: 1 presents a graph of
the number of schools constructed by decade. It is interesting to note that ten
buildings predate 1930 and that 23 more were built during the 1950’s and 1960’s.
These older structures present significant challenges in their long-term viability.

                                                 Figure III: 1

                    Schools By Decade Constructed

      12

      10

       8

       6

       4

       2

       0
                    1910's




                                                                 1960's




                                                                                            1990's
                             1920's

                                      1930's

                                               1940's

                                                        1950's
           1900's




                                                                                   1980's
                                                                          1970's




                                                                                                     2000's




            1. If fully renovated, most recent data is used.
            2. Estey School is included.
                                Table III: 1
                       Schools By Construction Date
      School           Construction Date        School         Construction Date
 Nutana                1909, 1910, 1952,   Brevoort Park          1963, 1966
                        1959, 1964, 1965
 Victoria              1909, 1910, 1929,   Evan Hardy          1964, 1967, 1971,
                           1965, 1980                                1979
 Caswell               1910, 1930, 1962,   Vincent Massey      1965, 1967, 1972
                              1983
 King George               1912, 1962      Alvin Buckwold      1966, 1967, 1973
 Westmount                 1912, 1976      Caroline Robins     1966, 1968, 1971
 Buena Vista               1913, 1962      College Park        1966, 1972, 1975
 Mayfair                1919, 1950, 1958   River Heights          1970, 1976
 Bedford Road           1922, 1923, 1961   Confederation          1973, 1975
                           1974, 1993      Park
 Pleasant Hill             1928, 1968      Roland Michener        1975, 1979
 City Park             1929, 1957, 1974,   John Dolan               1976
                              1987
 Brunskill                1951, 2000       Lester B. Pearson      1976, 1978
 North Park Wilson      1953, 1958, 1963   Fairhaven                1978
 Queen Elizabeth           1953, 1961      Wildwood                  1978
 Holliston             1956, 1958, 1962,   Lawson Heights           1980
                              1974
 Montgomery            1956, 1959, 1960,   Lakeview                  1981
                              2003
 Aden Bowman           1957, 1959, 1966,   Silverwood                1981
                              1973         Heights
 Howard Coad            1958, 1959, 1966   Forest Grove              1982
 John Lake             1958, 1959, 1963,   James L.               1983, 1989
                              1965         Alexander
 Henry Kelsey          1959, 1961, 1962,   Marion Graham             1984
                              1967
 Hugh Cairns               1959, 1975      Brownell                  1985
 Mount Royal           1959, 1966, 1967,   Dundonald              1987, 1997
                              1978
 Prince Philip          1959, 1960, 1972   Dr. John G.               1988
                                           Egnatoff
 Sutherland            1959, 1964, 1969    Lakeridge              1989, 2002
 Estey                    1960, 1965       Silverspring             2001
 Greystone Heights     1960, 1962, 1966
 Walter Murray         1960, 1964, 1967
 Princess Alexandra          1961
 W.P. Bate               1961, 1966

Recent Capital Plans
Recent capital plans are a source of information regarding the state of our school
facilities. The most recent Five-Year Plan was approved by the Board in December
2001. This plan placed new construction in the first and fifth years of priority. The
middle three years are all significant renovation projects to existing schools. This
group of schools includes all of the school facilities built before 1953 with the
          exceptions of Victoria (1909) and Queen Elizabeth (1953). This list of
needed projects also includes a renovation and addition to W.P. Bate (1961) and
renovations to Mount Royal Collegiate (1959, 1966). A copy of the most recent
Five-Year Capital Plan is appended. Saskatchewan Learning’s priority (June 2002)
placed upon each of the projects submitted is outlined below.

Priority 1B Requests: Health, Fire, Structural Safety projects which require further
negotiation or investigation to produce a viable solution (4 in 1B and 5 in 1A list)
     1. Buena Vista School

Priority 2 Requests: Critical Space Shortages (18 total projects)
     2. Nutana Collegiate
     8. W.P. Bate School
     17. New Northeast Public Collegiate

Priority 3 Requests: Structural Repair/Systems/Building Restoration (45 total)
     6. King George School
     7. Caswell School
     18. City Park Collegiate
     21. North Park Wilson School
     32. Mount Royal Collegiate
     34. Mayfair School
     36. Pleasant Hill School
     38. Westmount School

Priority 4 Requests: Non-critical Space Shortages. (No priority assigned within this
category: 18 total projects)
           Hampton Village
           Willowgrove
           North West Collegiate
           Briarwood/Arbor Creek
The Saskatoon Public School Division accounts for 16 of the 90 renovation and new
construction projects that appear on the provincial priority lists.

In 2000, the Facilities Section also developed a longer look at facility needs. A 10-
year Capital Plan was drafted for planning purposes. While new construction was
included, the majority of major projects listed were renovation projects. The total
value of this work (from 2001 to 2010) was listed at $99,956,000 with the Board’s
share being $59,550,000. Since this planning exercise, several projects have been
initiated and in most cases completed. These include: a new Silverspring School,
an addition and renovation of Lakeridge School, Phase One of a new Montgomery
School, and the Education Centre.

Reports On The State Of Facilities

An excellent source of information about the state of our facilities is a November
1999 report, “Facilities – A Foundation for the Future”, written by then
Superintendent of Facilities, Mr. Nelson Wagner. This report attempted to capture
the status of the Division’s facilities and the Facilities Section.

The Collegiate Review (2000) included a significant study of our eight collegiate
facilities. The authors’ recommendations are summarized below.

1.   Collegiate facilities have not been upgraded for many years. The authors
     believe that “A Plan for Renewal” is required.

2.   The authors suggest that upgrading the eight collegiates would cost over 29
     million dollars.

3.   The authors recommend that priority should be given to upgrading Nutana and
     City Park Collegiates.

4.   A study of the air quality of all of the collegiates should be undertaken.

5.   Each collegiate should be allocated a minimum of $250,000 to upgrade its
     equipment, and mobile labs for technical programs should be considered.

6.   The authors recommended the construction of a new collegiate in the northeast
     area and monitoring of the northwest for another potential collegiate. New
     collegiates should be built for the 21st century and should be different from our
     present collegiates.

RECAPP Software
At the writing of this report, the Facilities Section is installing RECAPP software
intended to assist the Division in establishing its priorities for facility restoration and
renovation.     This planning tool will be usable in the spring of 2003.

Policy And Planning Considerations

1.   The Division has 10 school facilities built before 1930. Only Bedford Road
     among these 10 has been fully restored. These structures must be restored
     sometime in the next decade if they are to continue to be used as schools. The
     cost of a full renovation of one of these schools is very similar to the cost of a
     new school. The Division must decide if it will restore these older school
     facilities, build new ones, or close these schools in an effort to consolidate in
     times of declining enrolment.

2.   The Division should have its older structures audited in order to determine:

     •     the long-term viability of each structure;
     •     the cost of restoring each structure versus the cost of building new;
     •     the heritage value of each structure;
     •     the impact of closure.

3.   The Division should consider retiring some of its older relocatable classrooms
     in light of declining enrolments.

4.   The Division has 12 structures built during the 1950’s and 11 built during the
     1960’s. Some of these structures will require significant renovation work over
     the next decade if they are to continue being used as schools.
        A P P E N D I X III: 1



          INSURANCE




        REPLACEMENT




              VALUE




(contact Traci Toth for copy – 683-8210)
      APPENDIX III: 2




          FIVE – YEAR




       CAPITAL          PLAN




(contact Traci Toth for copy – 683-8210)
IV.   ENROLMENT

      Enrolment is one of the most significant factors in facilities planning. This section
      will include a ten-year enrolment projection for the Division developed by Mr.
      John Arthur as well as a discussion of the impact of facilities on enrolment.
                      Saskatoon Public School Division
                 Ten Year Enrolment Projection - 2003 to 2012

As part of the school division’s planning process it is important to establish both short
and long term enrolment projections to help guide various decisions related to facilities,
budget and staffing. The two main factors affecting our enrolments are the number of
school aged young people in Saskatoon and the percentage of these young people that
attend our schools.

Enrolment projections must either assume current patterns and trends will continue or
specifically account for factors, which are likely to change. A change in current trends
could significantly affect our enrolment. For example, Saskatoon’s population is
projected to continue to increase during the period of the projection. If this does not
take place then the decline in enrolments will be greater. Over the past few years the
birth rate in Saskatoon has steadily declined. (See column 4 of the table on page 3.) If
instead of continually declining, the birth rate increases, we can expect a slower decline
in enrolment.

It is important to realize that the accuracy of this enrolment projection also depends on
factors that may in part be within the control of the school division. In the period since
1990, our school division’s market share has dropped from 62.82% to 58.75% as
compared to the Catholic school division. If we had been able to retain our 1990
market share, our current enrolments would be more than 1,500 higher. We can’t
change the past, but if action were taken which gradually returned our capture rates to
the 1990 level, then our enrolment in 2012 would be roughly 10% higher than the
projections. Some factors that could affect the percentage of Saskatoon young people
attending our schools are:
• the number and location of our schools
• the reputation of our school division, schools and staff
• the quality of our school facilities and technology resources
• inclusion of associate schools
• magnet schools
• increased opportunities for young adult learners
• expansion of our mandate to include pre-school aged children

Selecting a Projection Formula
Almost all projection methods are based, at least in part, on cohort retention factors
(CRF). The cohort retention factor is the ratio of students at a particular grade level that
have historically moved up to the next grade level. For example, if there are 1000 grade
8 students in the school division one year and the next year there are 1100 grade 9
students then the CRF = 1100/1000 = 1.1. If the same CRF has been maintained for a
number of years, then we can predict that if we have 1500 grade 8’s one year then we
should expect to have 1500 x 1.1 = 1650 grade 9 students the next year.

For the most part, the variation in enrolment projection formulas is related either to the
number of years of historical data used to determine the average cohort retention
factors or the weighting placed on the cohort retention factors from the immediately
                                                                                  2


preceding year.     In order to determine the accuracy of various projection formulas a
total of 80 different single year and ten-year enrolment projections were completed
using historic data to project more recent historic data. This investigation showed that,
for the period from 1990 to 2002, a 10 year projection method where the first year is
projected using a three year average CRF and the remaining 9 years are projected
using a 5 year average CRF is the most accurate.

Accuracy
In addition to determining which projection formula is the most accurate, it is important
to determine the potential accuracy of the selected method. For the period from 1990 to
2002, this method projected single year enrolments with an average error of 0.79% and
a maximum error of 2.32%. (It came as no surprise that the maximum error occurred
when projecting the September 2000 enrolment.) It was more difficult to determine the
accuracy of this method for 10 year projections as data was only available to make four
10 year projections using each formula, and there was insufficient data to fully test 10
year projections of kindergarten enrolment.       Excluding the kindergarten enrolment
projection, the method was found to have an average accuracy of 5.03% with a
maximum error of 6.63% (projecting the years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002).

It may be best to think of these results as usually accurate within 10%. It is also
important to realize that there are likely to be some anomalies along the way. The
graph below, provided by the City of Saskatoon Planning Department, illustrates that
our city does not experience steady growth. Note the loss of population in 2000.


                                                                   Growth by Type
                                                                    (1971-2001)


                               8000

                               6000
         Number of Residents




                               4000                                                                                  Net Migration
                               2000                                                                                  Natural Increase

                                  0

                               -2000

                               -4000
                               -6000

                               -8000
                                       1971

                                              1974

                                                     1977

                                                            1980

                                                                   1983

                                                                           1986

                                                                                  1989

                                                                                         1992

                                                                                                1995

                                                                                                       1998

                                                                                                              2001




                                                                          Year
                                                          3


Projecting Kindergarten Enrolment
It is not possible to use the normal CRF approach when projecting kindergarten
enrolment, as they have no prior grade. However, it is possible to use the number of
live births in Saskatoon five years earlier to determine a factor. Fortunately the City of
Saskatoon Planning Department was able to supply historic data for the number of live
births to Saskatoon mothers, along with population data for Saskatoon. This permitted
kindergarten enrolments to be projected as shown below.
           SPSD Kindergarten Enrolment Projections - 3 Year Average
                   Saskatoon        Saskatoon        Saskatoon          September 30 SPSD              SPSD
                                1                2                3                            4
       Year       Live Births       Population       Birth Rate       Kindergarten Enrolment       Capture Rate 5
       1990          3,341           190,108            17.57                  1,820                  55.32%
       1991          3,194           187,569            17.03                  1,755                  52.62%
       1992          3,145           191,737            16.40                  1,821                  55.18%
       1993          2,958           194,800            15.18                  1,778                  52.95%
       1994          3,073           193,836            15.85                  1,729                  52.86%
       1995          2,836           198,987            14.25                  1,825                  54.62%
       1996          2,775           203,938            13.61                  1,686                  52.79%
       1997          2,618           202,214            12.95                  1,705                  54.21%
       1998          2,586           205,992            12.55                  1,586                  53.62%
       1999          2,602           211,921            12.28                  1,631                  53.08%
       2000          2,490           206,627            12.05                  1,420                  50.07%
       2001          2,529           209,264            12.09                  1,453                  52.36%
       2002          2,529           211,888            11.93                  1,380                  52.71%
       2003          2,528           214,545            11.78                  1,337                  51.71%
       2004          2,528           217,236            11.64                  1,346                  51.71%
       2005          2,527           219,960            11.49                  1,288                  51.71%
       2006          2,527           222,717            11.35                  1,308                  51.71%
       2007          2,526           225,473            11.20                  1,308                  51.71%
       2008                                                                    1,307                  51.71%
       2009                                                                    1,307                  51.71%
       2010                                                                    1,307                  51.71%
       2011                                                                    1,307                  51.71%
       2012                                                                    1,306                  51.71%

1
    Actual Saskatoon live birth data was provided to the City of Saskatoon Planning Department by Sask Health
    Projected Saskatoon Live Births = Projected Saskatoon Population x Projected Birth Rate/1000.

2
    Actual Saskatoon population data was provided by the City of Saskatoon Planning Department.
    Projected Saskatoon Population is based on data provided by the City of Saskatoon Planning Department.
3
    Actual Saskatoon Birth Rate = (Saskatoon Live Births/Saskatoon Population) x 1000
    Projected Birth Rate is based on a 3 year average trend.

4
    September 30 SPSD kindergarten enrolment has been collected from monthly enrolment reports.
    Projected September 30 Kindergarten Enrolment = Live Births (5 years earlier) x SPSD Capture Rate

5
    SPSD Capture Rate = (Sep 30 SPSD Kindergarten Enrolment /Live Births (5 years earlier)) x 100%
    Projected SPSD Capture Rate is a 3 year average of previous SPSD capture rates.
                                                                                                                                        4


 Grade 1 to 12 Projections
 The second column of the table on the previous page shows that the number of children
born in Saskatoon has been steadily decreasing resulting in fewer kindergarten students.
This in turn has lead to decreasing enrolments in our primary grades, as shown by the
graph below. Each year, as our students move up to the next grade there will be fewer
students moving up behind them to take their place.

                                                                                        S P S D G r a d e K to 3 E n r o lm e n t
                                                                                                    1995 - 2002
                                                                          8000
                                                                                            6954 6798 6856
                                                                          7000                             6638 6526
                                                                                                                                                                   6151 5922
                                               September 30th Enrolment




                                                                          6000                                                                                               5668

                                                                          5000

                                                                          4000

                                                                          3000

                                                                          2000

                                                                          1000

                                                                                 0
                                                                                             1995



                                                                                                           1996



                                                                                                                         1997



                                                                                                                                        1998



                                                                                                                                                         1999



                                                                                                                                                                          2000



                                                                                                                                                                                           2001



                                                                                                                                                                                                          2002
                                                                                                                                               Ye a r



The graph below and the table on the next page show the results of applying the
selected projection formula to our current enrolment data.



                                                                                               S P S D E n r o lm e n t 1 9 9 0 - 2 0 1 2
                                25000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Hom e B ase d
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 S econda ry
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 E le m entary
                                20000
     September 30th Enrolment




                                15000




                                10000




                                 5000




                                    0
                                        1990

                                                     1991

                                                                          1992

                                                                                     1993

                                                                                            1994

                                                                                                    1995

                                                                                                           1996

                                                                                                                  1997

                                                                                                                          1998

                                                                                                                                 1999

                                                                                                                                          2000

                                                                                                                                                  2001

                                                                                                                                                            2002

                                                                                                                                                                   2003

                                                                                                                                                                                 2004

                                                                                                                                                                                        2005

                                                                                                                                                                                                  2006

                                                                                                                                                                                                         2007

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 2008

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        2009

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               2010

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      2011

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             2012




                                                                                                                                                 Y e ar
                                 Ten Year SPSD Enrolment Projection - November 2002
                                                                                                        Elem   Sec     K-8     9-12    Home    Grand
               6                                                                                             7     7
    Year   K       1      2      3      4      5      6      7      8      9      10     11     12     Sp Ed Sp Ed     Total   Total   Based   Total
    1990   1820    1756   1589   1582   1540   1425   1457   1443   1396   1706   1738   1716   2187     303     82 14311       7429           21740
    1991   1755    1822   1577   1532   1539   1459   1407   1431   1440   1611   1777   1745   2242     300     94 14262       7469           21731
    1992   1821    1792   1713   1524   1540   1506   1463   1408   1431   1650   1726   1817   2417     223    100 14421       7710           22131
    1993   1778    1844   1649   1656   1539   1526   1505   1501   1397   1652   1754   1719   2494     215     94 14610       7713           22323
    1994   1729    1817   1703   1621   1619   1504   1501   1489   1471   1693   1785   1714   2407     228     88 14682       7687           22369
    1995   1825    1814   1646   1669   1642   1615   1501   1500   1508   1642   1823   1748   2339     220    118 14940       7670           22610
    1996   1686    1822   1672   1618   1632   1624   1630   1504   1519   1669   1777   1733   2344     219    131    14926    7654     146   22726
    1997   1705    1765   1761   1625   1600   1653   1587   1622   1534   1672   1796   1710   2307     231    138    15083    7623     130   22836
    1998   1586    1747   1603   1702   1605   1590   1617   1547   1630   1700   1796   1730   2352     219    141    14846    7719     170   22735
    1999   1631    1705   1620   1570   1703   1628   1615   1650   1595   1785   1783   1740   2420     222    137    14939    7865     145   22949
    2000   1420    1626   1560   1545   1528   1658   1574   1579   1627   1699   1832   1718   2411     225    140    14342    7800     182   22324
    2001   1453    1452   1509   1508   1514   1511   1628   1584   1573   1789   1813   1785   2407     256    151    13988    7945     210   22143
    2002   1380    1504   1344   1440   1525   1512   1505   1658   1583   1693   1847   1721   2518     262    149    13713    7928     204   21845
    2003   1337    1405   1388   1288   1423   1505   1484   1506   1648   1710   1764   1778   2408     262    149    13247    7809     204   21259
    2004   1346    1379   1294   1338   1276   1414   1487   1483   1512   1794   1795   1700   2478     262    149    12790    7917     204   20911
    2005   1288    1387   1269   1247   1326   1268   1397   1486   1489   1646   1884   1730   2371     262    149    12419    7780     204   20402
    2006   1308    1327   1277   1224   1236   1317   1252   1396   1491   1621   1728   1815   2413     262    149    12091    7726     204   20021
    2007   1308    1348   1222   1231   1212   1228   1301   1252   1401   1624   1702   1665   2531     262    149    11766    7671     204   19641
    2008   1307    1348   1241   1178   1220   1205   1213   1301   1256   1526   1705   1640   2322     262    149    11532    7341     204   19077
    2009   1307    1348   1241   1197   1167   1212   1190   1212   1305   1368   1602   1643   2287     262    149    11442    7048     204   18695
    2010   1307    1348   1241   1197   1186   1160   1197   1190   1217   1421   1436   1544   2291     262    149    11304    6841     204   18348
    2011   1307    1347   1241   1197   1185   1178   1146   1197   1194   1325   1492   1384   2152     262    149    11254    6502     204   17960
    2012   1306    1347   1241   1196   1185   1178   1164   1145   1201   1300   1391   1438   1930     262    149    11226    6207     204   17637
Notes:
- Grade 1 to 12 projections are based on the historic cohort retention factor (CRF) for that grade level. A 3 year average CRF is used
  for the 1st year and a 5 year average CRF is used for the remaining 9 years.
- Special Ed & Home Based enrolments are assumed to remain constant during the term of the projections, as when these
  enrolments change there will likely be a corresponding change in enrolments at other grades.
- The diagonal shading beginning with the kindergarten class of 2000 is used to show the affect a lower enrolment in kindergarten
  has as the students progress through the grade levels.
6
  Kindergarten projections are the product of the number of live births 5 years earlier and the historic SPSD kindergarten capture rate.

7
    Students in self-contained Special Ed classrooms. (Pre-school enrolments are included in the "Elem Sp Ed" totals.)
Supporting Evidence for this Projection:
It may be hard to believe a projection that enrolments in Saskatoon Public Schools
could decline by 19.3% over a ten-year period. The following evidence provides
support for this possibility.
• An enrolment projection prepared by SaskEd in 2001 predicts that enrolments in
    Saskatchewan’s urban school divisions will decline by 20.3% between the 2000-01
    school year and the 2010-11 school year.
• Data provided by the City of Saskatoon Planning Department shows that the number
    of live births in Saskatoon has declined by 20.8% in the period between 1991 and
    2001.
• Our kindergarten to grade 3 enrolment has declined by 18.5% over the last seven
    years.
• While the data vary slightly, the enrolment trends identified by Baragar
    Demographics closely match the trends identified through internal SIS data.
    Baragar identifies a downward trend based on declining birth rates and out-migration
    from Saskatoon and the province.
• These trends have been discussed with Dr. Rosemary Venne, B.A., M.A., M.I.R.,
    Ph.D. Associate Professor, College of Commerce at the University of
    Saskatchewan. Dr. Venne studies national and provincial demographic trends and
    sees no factors that will mitigate the drop in enrolment in schools in Saskatchewan
    in the next few years.

Room for a Little Optimism
When Dr. Nazeem Muhajarine, Associate Professor, Department of Community Health
and Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan reviewed these enrolment
projections, he recommended that a second more optimistic scenario also be
considered. He suggested that the following factors could lead to an increase in the
birth rate and the number of children in Saskatoon.
• The percentage of our population that is aboriginal is likely to continue to grow. (The
    aboriginal population is generally younger and has a higher birth rate than the
    general population.)
• There may be a significant number of immigrants that move to Saskatoon. (In
    general, immigrants are relatively younger and are at the family-formation stage in
    their lives.)
• The Synchrotron Project, the biggest project of its kind in Canada, may draw a
    significant number of younger families to Saskatoon in the next 5 to 15 years.

In order to account for these potential factors, beginning in 2003 the table used to
project the number of kindergarten students has been adjusted to reflect a higher birth
rate. Beginning in 2004 a higher kindergarten capture rate has been assumed to
reflect a decline or reversal in the net loss of young Saskatoon families. (See page 7.)
      SPSD Kindergarten Enrolment Projections - Increasing Birth & Capture Rates
                   Saskatoon        Saskatoon        Saskatoon          September 30 SPSD              SPSD
                                1                2                3                            4
       Year       Live Births       Population       Birth Rate       Kindergarten Enrolment       Capture Rate 5
       1990          3,341           190,108            17.57                  1,820                  55.32%
       1991          3,194           187,569            17.03                  1,755                  52.62%
       1992          3,145           191,737            16.40                  1,821                  55.18%
       1993          2,958           194,800            15.18                  1,778                  52.95%
       1994          3,073           193,836            15.85                  1,729                  52.86%
       1995          2,836           198,987            14.25                  1,825                  54.62%
       1996          2,775           203,938            13.61                  1,686                  52.79%
       1997          2,618           202,214            12.95                  1,705                  54.21%
       1998          2,586           205,992            12.55                  1,586                  53.62%
       1999          2,602           211,921            12.28                  1,631                  53.08%
       2000          2,490           206,627            12.05                  1,420                  50.07%
       2001          2,529           209,264            12.09                  1,453                  52.36%
       2002          2,529           211,888            11.93                  1,380                  52.71%
       2003          2,585           214,545            12.05                  1,337                  51.71%
       2004          2,668           217,236            12.28                  1,379                  53.00%
       2005          2,760           219,960            12.55                  1,320                  53.00%
       2006          2,795           222,717            12.55                  1,340                  53.00%
       2007          2,830           225,473            12.55                  1,340                  53.00%
       2008                                                                    1,370                  53.00%
       2009                                                                    1,414                  53.00%
       2010                                                                    1,463                  53.00%
       2011                                                                    1,481                  53.00%
       2012                                                                    1,500                  53.00%

1
    Actual Saskatoon live birth data was provided to the City of Saskatoon Planning Department by Sask Health
    Projected Saskatoon Live Births = Projected Saskatoon Population x Projected Birth Rate/1000.

2
    Actual Saskatoon population data was provided by the City of Saskatoon Planning Department.
    Projected Saskatoon Population is based on data provided by the City of Saskatoon Planning Department.
3
    Actual Saskatoon Birth Rate = (Saskatoon Live Births/Saskatoon Population) x 1000
    Projected Birth Rate is based on assumption that birthrates will again increase.

4
    September 30 SPSD kindergarten enrolment has been collected from monthly enrolment reports.
    Projected September 30 Kindergarten Enrolment = Live Births (5 years earlier) x SPSD Capture Rate

5
    SPSD Capture Rate = (Sep 30 SPSD Kindergarten Enrolment /Live Births (5 years earlier)) x 100%
    Projected SPSD Capture Rate is increased to account for an increase in young families moving to Saskatoo
    and the possible announcement of a public collegiate in the North East.


    The projected increase in birth rate beginning in 2003 leads to a corresponding increase
    in kindergarten enrolment beginning in 2008. (See the bottom portion of column 5.)
    This increase in kindergarten enrolment slows the decline in our total enrolment as shown
    in the table on the next page.
                   Ten Year SPSD Enrolment Projection - November 2002 - with improved growth
                                                                                                          Elem Sec    K-8      9-12    Home Grand
               6                                                                                              7     7
    Year   K         1      2      3      4      5      6      7      8      9      10     11     12     Sp Ed Sp Ed Total     Total   Based   Total
    1990   1820      1756   1589   1582   1540   1425   1457   1443   1396   1706   1738   1716   2187     303    82 14311     7429            21740
    1991   1755      1822   1577   1532   1539   1459   1407   1431   1440   1611   1777   1745   2242     300    94 14262     7469            21731
    1992   1821      1792   1713   1524   1540   1506   1463   1408   1431   1650   1726   1817   2417     223   100 14421     7710            22131
    1993   1778      1844   1649   1656   1539   1526   1505   1501   1397   1652   1754   1719   2494     215    94 14610     7713            22323
    1994   1729      1817   1703   1621   1619   1504   1501   1489   1471   1693   1785   1714   2407     228    88 14682     7687            22369
    1995   1825      1814   1646   1669   1642   1615   1501   1500   1508   1642   1823   1748   2339     220   118 14940     7670            22610
    1996   1686      1822   1672   1618   1632   1624   1630   1504   1519   1669   1777   1733   2344     219   131   14926   7654      146   22726
    1997   1705      1765   1761   1625   1600   1653   1587   1622   1534   1672   1796   1710   2307     231   138   15083   7623      130   22836
    1998   1586      1747   1603   1702   1605   1590   1617   1547   1630   1700   1796   1730   2352     219   141   14846   7719      170   22735
    1999   1631      1705   1620   1570   1703   1628   1615   1650   1595   1785   1783   1740   2420     222   137   14939   7865      145   22949
    2000   1420      1626   1560   1545   1528   1658   1574   1579   1627   1699   1832   1718   2411     225   140   14342   7800      182   22324
    2001   1453      1452   1509   1508   1514   1511   1628   1584   1573   1789   1813   1785   2407     256   151   13988   7945      210   22143
    2002   1380      1504   1344   1440   1525   1512   1505   1658   1583   1693   1847   1721   2518     262   149   13713   7928      204   21845
    2003   1337      1405   1388   1288   1423   1505   1484   1506   1648   1710   1764   1778   2408     262   149   13247   7809      204   21259
    2004   1379      1383   1298   1342   1279   1418   1491   1488   1516   1800   1801   1705   2486     262   149   12856   7940      204   21000
    2005   1320      1426   1277   1255   1333   1275   1405   1495   1497   1655   1895   1740   2384     262   149   12544   7824      204   20572
    2006   1340      1364   1317   1235   1246   1329   1263   1408   1504   1635   1743   1831   2434     262   149   12269   7792      204   20265
    2007   1340      1386   1260   1273   1226   1242   1316   1266   1417   1643   1721   1685   2561     262   149   11990   7759      204   19953
    2008   1370      1386   1280   1218   1265   1222   1231   1320   1274   1548   1730   1664   2356     262   149   11827   7446      204   19478
    2009   1414      1417   1280   1237   1210   1261   1211   1234   1328   1392   1630   1672   2327     262   149   11853   7169      204   19226
    2010   1463      1462   1308   1237   1229   1206   1249   1214   1242   1450   1465   1575   2338     262   149   11872   6978      204   19053
    2011   1481      1513   1350   1265   1229   1225   1195   1252   1222   1356   1527   1416   2203     262   149   11993   6651      204   18848
    2012   1500      1532   1397   1305   1257   1225   1214   1198   1260   1334   1427   1476   1981     262   149   12148   6367      204   18719
Notes:
- Grade 1 to 12 projections are based on the historic cohort retention factor (CRF) for that grade level. A 3 year average CRF is used
  for the 1st year and a 5 year average CRF is used for the remaining 9 years. Beginning in 2004 the CRF's have
  been increased by the following factor to account for an increase in the rate of population growth in Saskatoon.             1.003
- Special Ed & Home Based enrolments are assumed to remain constant during the term of the projections, as when these
  enrolments change there will likely be a corresponding change in enrolments at other grades.
- The diagonal shading beginning with the kindergarten class of 2000 is used to show the affect a lower enrolment in kindergarten
  has as the students progress through the grade levels.
6
  Kindergarten projections are the product of the number of live births 5 years earlier and the historic SPSD kindergarten capture rate.
7
    Students in self-contained Special Ed classrooms. (Pre-school enrolments are included in the "Elem Sp Ed" totals.)
Conclusion
The two different projection scenarios highlight the significance of the number of
kindergarten students that we enrol each year. The first scenario, in which a continued
decline in birth rate is assumed, predicts a loss of enrolment of 19.3% over the next ten
years. The second more optimistic scenario assumes a small increase in the birth rate
and the number of young families in Saskatoon and thus predicts a loss of only 14.3%
over the next ten years. In reality it is not possible to accurately predict our enrolment
ten years from now, as many of these students have yet to be born. However, based
on the two enrolment projections it seems clear that unless there is a very significant
change in current trends our total enrolment ten years from now will be significantly
lower than it is now.


Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people who contributed to this report:

Dr. Nazeem Muhajarine, National Health Research Scholar - Saskatchewan
Population Health and Evaluation Research Unit (SPHERU) and Associate Professor,
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan
for reviewing the enrolment projections and supporting research. Dr. Muhajarine
contributed important suggestions and recommendations.

Grant Dougall, Project Leader: Research and Technology, who supplied projection
data from the Baragar Demographics and discussed the findings of the enrolment
projection with Dr. Venne.

Rick Johnson, of Sask Learning, who contributed advice and shared Sask Learning
enrolment techniques and results.

Jon Markus, of the City of Saskatoon Planning Department, who supplied data related
to Saskatoon’s past and projected population along with the annual number of “live
births” to Saskatoon mothers.

Dr. Rosemary Venne, Associate Professor in the College of Commerce at the
University of Saskatchewan for reviewing the general findings of the enrolment
projection.
The Impact of Facilities on Enrolment

The enrolment of the Division peaked at just under 23,000 students in September
1999. In the fall of 2000, we experienced a dramatic and unexpected decrease of
over 600 students. Over the last two years, we have experienced less dramatic
losses that have seen our enrolment drop below 22,000 students in September 2002.

It is apparent from Mr. Arthur’s projection that we will experience a long period of
decline in the coming decade due mainly to low birthrates. This decline will be
experienced by both publicly funded school divisions in the city. An especially
worrisome trend has been the large number of non-Catholic young people who now
attend Catholic schools. The Director of the Catholic Division has reported that
33.5% of the students in Catholic schools have declared that they are not Catholic.
Table IV: 1 presents a comparison of the capture rate of the two divisions over the
last five years. The overall capture rate for the Division has diminished from
60.42% in 1998 to 58.75% in 2002.

The number, location, and condition of our school facilities is one significant factor
in understanding the changing capture rates of the two publicly-funded school
divisions in Saskatoon. Four cases will be discussed.

The first case is the eastside neighbourhoods west of Preston Avenue where the
public division has 8 elementary schools and the Catholic division has 4 elementary
schools. In this area, the public division has two high schools while the Catholic
division has none. The second case is the City’s north neighbourhoods where the
two divisions have exactly the same number of elementary schools and each has one
high school. The third is the northeast where the two divisions have an equal
number of elementary schools and the Catholic Division has a high school whereas
the Public Division does not. The fourth case considers the relationship between the
number of high schools in given areas of the city and the ratio of capture rates for
the two school divisions.

Case #1: Eastside Elementary Schools West of Preston Avenue

The eastside neighbourhoods west of Preston Avenue represent some of the City’s
oldest neighbourhoods. They represent a time when in planning schools, the public
division sought to meet the needs of all young people and the Catholic division
sought to meet the needs of the children of the minority faith that it represented.
One Catholic school was not required in every neighbourhood.                 As a
                                                                Table IV: 1
                                                        Comparison of Capture Rates
               Sep-98                       Sep-99                      Sep-00                      Sep-01                      Sep-02
                 %                 Total    %                  Total    %                  Total    %                  Total    %                  Total
               Capture                    Capture                     Capture                     Capture                     Capture
   Grade        SPSD     Cath     Student SPSD       Cath     Student SPSD       Cath     Student SPSD       Cath     Student SPSD       Cath     Student
      K        58.22%    41.78%      2724   58.82%   41.18%      2773   56.10%   43.90%      2531   56.82%   43.18%      2557   57.50%   42.50%      2400
      1        58.08%    41.92%      3008   58.94%   41.06%      2893   57.95%   42.05%      2806   55.78%   44.22%      2603   56.18%   43.82%      2677
      2        56.72%    43.28%      2826   57.22%   42.78%      2831   57.29%   42.71%      2723   56.81%   43.19%      2656   54.48%   45.52%      2467
      3        57.15%    42.85%      2978   56.52%   43.48%      2778   55.98%   44.02%      2760   56.78%   43.22%      2656   56.34%   43.66%      2556
      4        58.32%    41.68%      2752   57.65%   42.35%      2954   55.83%   44.17%      2737   55.87%   44.13%      2710   57.37%   42.63%      2658
      5        55.65%    44.35%      2857   58.88%   41.12%      2765   57.23%   42.77%      2897   55.92%   44.08%      2702   55.55%   44.45%      2722
      6        58.29%    41.71%      2774   56.19%   43.81%      2874   57.66%   42.34%      2730   57.00%   43.00%      2856   55.89%   44.11%      2693
      7        57.13%    42.87%      2708   59.25%   40.75%      2785   55.52%   44.48%      2844   57.96%   42.04%      2733   57.15%   42.85%      2901
      8        56.56%    42.34%      2827   57.00%   41.83%      2742   57.92%   41.14%      2764   54.95%   44.55%      2837   57.13%   42.25%      2741
   9SCS                                                                                              0.00%
    Sped       77.39%    22.61%       283   78.72%   21.28%       282   77.85%   22.15%       289   80.50%   19.50%       318   70.62%   29.38%       371
    Elem       57.63%    42.37%    25706    58.13%   41.87%    25645    57.14%   42.86%    25055    56.77%   43.23%    24614    56.67%   43.33%    24169
   8CPCI        1.10%                        1.17%                       0.94%                       0.49%                       0.62%
           9   61.80%    38.20%      2751   60.69%   39.31%      2941   60.25%   39.75%      2820   61.27%   38.73%      2920   56.58%   43.42%      2992
          10   62.62%    37.38%      2868   62.15%   37.85%      2869   59.93%   40.07%      3057   59.74%   40.26%      3035   60.44%   39.56%      3056
          11   66.54%    33.46%      2600   64.06%   35.94%      2716   64.44%   35.56%      2666   61.87%   38.13%      2885   61.95%   38.05%      2778
          12   70.95%    29.05%      3315   71.98%   28.02%      3362   69.68%   30.32%      3460   69.49%   30.51%      3464   68.33%   31.67%      3685
        Sped   100.00%   0.00%        141 100.00%    0.00%        137 100.00%    0.00%        140 100.00%    0.00%        151   66.52%   33.48%       224
Sec            66.21%    33.79%    11706    65.50%   34.50%    12057    64.31%   35.69%    12169    63.83%   36.17%    12469    62.30%   37.70%    12752
Home           77.63%    22.37%       219   73.23%   26.77%       198   78.79%   21.21%       231   78.95%   21.05%       266   78.46%   21.54%       260
Total          60.42%    39.58%    37631    60.55%   39.45%    37900    59.60%   40.40%    37455    59.29%   40.71%    37349    58.75%   41.25%    37181
result, a much larger number of public schools were built and are currently open in
relation to the Catholic schools.

Currently, eight elementary public schools and four Catholic elementary schools
serve this area of the city. Over time, six public elementary schools (Haultain,
Churchill, Albert, Grosvenor Park, Thornton, Lorne Haselton) have opened and
been closed while 3 Catholic elementary schools (St. Joseph, Bishop Murray,
St. Charles School) have been opened then closed or reused in another educational
capacity. Two public collegiates, Nutana and Aden Bowman, are located in this
area and another, Walter Murray sits on the boundary. The closest regular Catholic
high school is Holy Cross. Bishop Murray and Joe Duquette High Schools, special
Catholic high schools, are located in this area.

The enrolment of public elementary schools is significantly larger than the Catholic
elementary schools. Table IV: 2 outlines the enrolment of the two divisions’
schools in this area of the city. It is interesting to note that the public division holds
the advantage with a 2:1 ratio in the number of schools and an advantage of 72.5%
to 27.5% in the ratio of enrolment.

                                Table IV: 2
                        September 2002 Enrolment of
            Eastside Elementary Schools West of Preston Avenue

      Public Schools            Enrolment         Catholic Schools         Enrolment
 Buena Vista                       318         St. Frances                    158
 Victoria                          355         Georges Vanier                 247
 Queen Elizabeth                   171         St. James                      222
 John Lake                         281         St. Philip                     300
 Hugh Cairns V.C.                  361
 Holliston                         296
 Prince Philip                     249
 Brunskill                         424
 TOTAL                            2,455        TOTAL                           927
                                 (72.5%)                                     (27.5%)

The large advantage in number of schools and in capture rate suggest a relationship
that must be explored further.
Case #2: The North Neighbourhoods

The City’s north neighbourhoods provide a clear illustration of the impact of the
development in recent decades of the practice of building both a public and Catholic
school in each new neighbourhood. In each neighbourhood, about 50% of the
residents are closer to a Catholic school than a public school and vice-versa.
Because the Catholic Division has developed a very invitational interpretation of its
mandate and because proximity seems to play such a large role in families’ school
choice decisions (especially when 5 year olds start school), the capture rate for each
division in such neighbourhoods moves toward 50%. The five public elementary
schools in the north neighbourhoods have an enrolment of 1547 or a 52.7% capture
rate. Table IV: 3 outlines the enrolment of north elementary schools of both
divisions.

                               Table IV: 3
                        September 2002 Enrolment
              of Elementary Schools in North Neighbourhoods

      Public Schools         Enrolment          Catholic Schools         Enrolment
 Brownell                        370        St. Angela                      364
 Silverwood Heights              289        Sister O’Brien (F & E)          311
 Lawson Heights                  294        St. George                      214
 River Heights (F & E)           419        St. Anne                        365
 North Park Wilson               175        St. Paul (F)                    132
 TOTAL                         1,547        TOTAL                         1,386
                              (52.7%)                                     (47.3%)

The north communities are served by one public collegiate and one Catholic high
school. Marion M. Graham Collegiate had a September 2002 enrolment of 938
(51%) compared to Bishop James Mahoney High School’s enrolment of 900 (49%).

This case suggests a strong relationship between the number and location of schools
relative to the Catholic division’s schools, and the division’s enrolment share.
Case #3:    The Northeast Neighbourhood Since the Opening of St. Joseph
            High School
The area of the City that has experienced the public-Catholic shift to the greatest
degree is the northeast. Table IV: 4 outlines public and Catholic northeast
elementary enrolments from 1994 to 2002. This chart shows strong growth in the
total number of elementary students in the northeast, but a rapidly diminishing
capture rate (62.2% to 50.5%) for the Public schools since the opening of St. Joseph
High School. If the 1994 capture rate of 62.2% had been maintained, northeast
public schools would have an additional 352 students. If the 1997 capture rate of
57% had been maintained, public schools in the northeast would have 195 more
students in 2002.

                              Table IV: 4
   Public and Catholic Northeast Elementary Enrolments 1994 to 2002

     Year                    Public                   Catholic            Total
     1994                  1369       (62.2%)       832 (37.8%)            2201
    1995*                  1420       (59.4%)       970 (40.6%)            2390
     1996                  1402       (57.4%)       1041 (42.6%)           2443
     1997                  1485       (57%)         1122 (43%)             2607
     1998                  1529       (56%)         1196 (44%)             2725
     1999                  1568       (55.7%)       1245 (44.3%)           2813
     2000                  1536       (53.3%)       1346 (46.7%)           2882
     2001                  1549       (52.1%)       1423 (47.9%)           2972
    2002**                 1526       (50.5%)       1493**(49.5%)          3019

 * St. Joseph High School Opened.
 ** Does not include Ukrainian Immersion students moved to Holy Family School.

Figure IV: 1, Trends in Northeast Elementary School Enrolments, illustrates the
information from the previous table in graphic form. It is important to note that the
trend of a diminishing capture rate for northeast elementary public schools is likely
to continue given that the current Kindergarten capture rate is only 46.7% for the
public schools.
                               FIGURE IV: 1

TRENDS IN NORTHEAST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLMENTS


  1600
  1400
  1200
  1000
   800                                                                 Public
   600                                                                 Catholic

   400
   200
      0
          1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Since the opening of St. Joseph High School in 1995, the total change in elementary
enrolment in the City has been a loss of 1042 students in the public schools and a
loss of 53 in the Catholic elementary schools. A proportionate loss of a total of
1095 fewer elementary students in the two divisions would reflect the recent
average elementary capture rates of 57% (Public) and 43% (Catholic). This
proportionate share should have been a loss of 624 students from the Public
Division and 471 lost from the Catholic Division. This means that from 1995 to
2002, the Public Division lost 418 (1042-624) more elementary students than the
average capture rate would dictate.

When the analysis of this same period of time is focussed on the northeast
elementary schools, the total number of northeast elementary students in both
divisions grew by 629 students. The public schools gained 106 students and the
Catholic schools added 523 students. Once again, if the recent average capture rate
is applied, the public schools should have gained 359 students while the Catholic
schools should have added 270 students. This means that from 1995 to 2002, public
northeast elementary schools gained 253 (359-106) fewer students than the recent
average capture rate would suggest.

This failure of the northeast public elementary schools to gain 253 students accounts
for 61% (253 ÷ 418) of the 418 students lost city-wide beyond the average capture
rate. Currently the four northeast elementary schools comprise 11% of our current
elementary enrolment. Of the 418 students lost city-wide beyond the average
capture rate, the northeast share, if proportionate, should have been 46 students, not
253. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to attribute the loss of over 200 (253-46)
northeast elementary students to a factor specific to the northeast neighbourhoods,
in this case, most likely the absence of a public collegiate in the northeast sector.
The disproportionate loss of 61% of the entire city-wide loss beyond the average
capture rate in a group of neighbourhoods constituting only 11% of the system’s
elementary enrolment cannot be an accident.

Over the same time period, from 1995 to 2002, an analysis of collegiate enrolments
reveals that public collegiates experienced an overall growth of 248 students, while
Catholic high schools grew by 1,109 students. The enrolment growth of the large
eastside Catholic high schools has been dramatic with St. Joseph and Holy Cross
growing by a combined 789 students. This significant enrolment growth is much
greater than that of the three large public eastside collegiates which grew by only
136 students over the same time-span. Table IV: 5, High School Area Enrolments
and Capture Rates 1995 and 2002, shows that the most significant growth in the two
divisions’ total high school enrolment is on the east side. It also shows an
increasing Catholic capture rate across the city that is small in the west, more
modest in the north, and dramatic in the east. Once again, such a disproportionate
shift cannot be an accident. The absence of a northeast collegiate may well account
for the loss of hundreds of high school students from the Public to Catholic
Divisions.

Although there are many factors in the overall public to Catholic enrolment shift,
the opening of St. Joseph High School without a public collegiate in the near
vicinity has emerged as one of the most significant factors. When asked in the
Collegiate Review survey about the reasons for their selection of a collegiate,
students indicated siblings or friends attending, school reputation, and quality
programs as most significant while parents indicated that “the closest school was the
most important reason…” (p.23-24). The distances to be travelled from the
northernmost parts of the northeast neighbourhoods to Evan Hardy exceed the
distances travelled to our collegiates from any other neighbourhoods. The
development of new neighbourhoods even further north and east will place young
people well beyond the distance that we would ask students in any other part of the
city to travel to one of our collegiates. A reasonable conclusion is that the opening
of St. Joseph High School has had a dramatic negative impact on public elementary
and collegiate enrolments.
                            Table IV: 5
     High School Area Enrolments and Capture Rates 1995 and 2002

 West
                                           1995                       2002
  BRCI & MRCI                           2455(69.9%)                  2603(67%)
  E.D. Feehan                           1059(30.1%)                  1280(33%)
  West Total                            3514                         3883

 North
                                           1995                       2002
 MMGCI                                  1085(56.7%)                  938(51%)
 Bishop James Mahoney                   827(43.3%)                   900(49%)
 North Total                            1912                         1838

 East
                                           1995                       2002
 WMCI, ABCI, EHCI                       3315(70.9%)                  3451(61.6%)
 Holy Cross, St. Joseph                 1359(29.1%)                  2148(38.4%)
 East Total                             4674                         5599

*This analysis does not include the specialized schools of either Division (Nutana,
City Park, Joe Duquette, Bishop Murray).

If the opening of St. Joseph High School has had such a negative impact on public
elementary and high school enrolments, what would be the impact of opening a new
public collegiate in the northeast sector? The opening of a new public collegiate in
the northeast sector of the City would have a significant positive impact on our
enrolments. Administration’s initial, very conservative analysis indicates a positive
shift of at least 550 students (elementary and collegiate) from Catholic to public
schools within four years of the opening of a new northeast collegiate. In this same
time period, the difference between holding the current capture rate and the likely
capture rate if no collegiate were built (as established by extrapolating current
trends) would be an additional 707 students beyond Mr. Arthur’s projection. Even a
slight move toward the restoration of former capture rates would increase
enrolments by about 1000 students.

Analysis of the enrolment development of Winston Knoll Collegiate in Regina
Public in relation to the earlier established Riffel High School (Catholic) is
instructive (see Table IV: 6). Although this would not represent a growth of our
enrolment in a time of overall enrolment decline, it would improve the division’s
capture rate, ensure that non-Catholic students had a public education option within
reasonable vicinity, and would slow our projected enrolment decline. Because
almost half of the city’s growth over the next 20-25 years will be in new northeast
neighbourhoods, the impact of a new northeast collegiate would allow the public
division to ensure a reasonable capture rate in these new neighbourhoods. The
positive impact on enrolments will not simply be a matter of regaining losses in
current northeast neighbourhoods, it will position the public division to have a
reasonable market share in the four new neighbourhoods in the northeast sector that
will be established over the next 20-25 years.

                            Table IV: 6
        Enrolment Comparisons in the Winston Knoll / Riffel Case
                                        Riffel                  Winston Knoll
                                      (Catholic)                  (Public)
            2001                          761                        1104
            2000                          755                        1135
            1999                          678                        1191
            1998                          653                        1024
            1997                          697                         889
            1996                          744                         673
            1995                          882
            1994                          936
            1993                          974
            1992                          940
            1991                          950
            1990                          917
            1989                          845
            1988                          804

Recent enrolment trends illustrate significant growth in the high school populations
of both Catholic and public schools in the northeast sector. St. Joseph opened with
259 students in 1995 and has grown to 987 students in 2002. Evan Hardy’s
population has also grown in recent years from 902 in 1995 to 1241 in 2002, an
average increase of almost 50 students per year. Both schools do not exclusively
serve northeast communities, but the greatest portion of their increase has been due
to the growing number of northeast students.             With four new northeast
neighbourhoods to be developed in the next 20 years, the total number of northeast
students in high school will continue to increase.

Case 4: High Schools

In the case of high schools, the number of schools in an area of the city is directly
related to the capture rates of the two division’s schools.            In the east
neighbourhoods, the public division has 3 collegiates to the Catholic division’s two
high schools. The 3:2 ratio of schools roughly matches the capture rates of 61.6%:
38.4%. The same is true in the west where the 2 public collegiates and the one
Catholic high school result in a 2:1 ratio of schools and a 67%: 33% in capture rate.
As already stated, the 1:1 ratio of high schools in the north section of the city
matches closely the 51%: 49% ration of market share. Historically, the number of
collegiates and the capture rate in the east was significantly higher before 1995
when larger public collegiates outnumbered Catholic high schools 3:1. In 1994, one
year before St. Joseph High School opened, the Public Division enjoyed a 72.5% to
27.5% capture rate advantage, a ratio fairly close to the 3:1 advantage in number of
schools.

Case Studies Conclusions

Mr. Arthur writes in his report presenting the ten-year enrolment projection that “It
is important to realize that the accuracy of this enrolment projection also depends on
factors that may in part be within the control of the School Division” (page 1). He
goes on to note some of the factors that could affect the Division’s capture rate and
thus its enrolment. The number and location of our schools is one such factor.

From the four cases presented above, it is very clear that the location and number of
schools is clearly related to the Division’s capture rate. Mr. Arthur’s assertion that
the number and location of schools have an impact on enrolment is definitely true.
It is also important to remember that this is one of several factors that have a
significant impact on enrolment over which the Board does have some control.

Policy and Planning Considerations

It is clear that the number and location of school facilities is strongly connected to
the share of student enrolment of the two publicly-funded divisions. The Board must
consider this relationship if it is to maintain and increase its capture rates and grant
revenue and thus better meet its mandate to educate the City’s children and youth.

1.    The Division must plan for a future with many fewer K-12 students. This will
      lead to either smaller schools or fewer schools as less space will be required for
      the purpose of K-12 education.

2.    The Division must decide upon the importance of enrolment maintenance.
      Facility planning must consider the Board’s stance on this question. A more
      aggressive approach to enrolment growth and maintenance will lead to
      different facility decisions than a more passive approach to enrolment.

3.    The Division must ensure that the current situation in northeast Saskatoon,
      where the Catholic Division has a high school and the Public Division does
      not, never happens again. If the Catholic Division decides to build west of
      Circle Drive, the Public Division must do the same.
4.   The Division must correct the current situation in the northeast by building a
     new collegiate. Failure to build a new collegiate will result in a further loss of
     enrolment share and revenue especially as new communities expand further to
     the northeast and thus further from Evan Hardy. Building a new northeast
     collegiate presents the Board with the opportunity to improve its enrolment and
     revenue, as well as to ensure that the Public Division can address its mandate
     in the northeast sector of the city.

5.   The Division must work with Saskatchewan Learning to develop a policy that
     the first school in any new neighbourhood must be a public school.
V.   SPACE UTILIZATION

     The efficient use of the Division’s facilities is often measured by using the concept
     of space utilization. This concept has very specific meaning when applied to
     Saskatchewan’s schools.

     Calculating Space Utilization

     Saskatchewan Learning’s calculation of space utilization provides a comparison of
     the space available in an existing school facility to the space that would be provided
     in the school facility guidelines for the construction of a new school of that school’s
     current enrolment. The calculation of space utilization provides three key utilization
     numbers.

     •    The general instructional utilization basically represents the number of
          classrooms in relation to the number of students enrolled.

     •    The core utilization represents all instructional areas in the school facility
          including gymnasia, arts education, and practical and applied arts laboratories,
          as well as administrative areas, in relation to the school’s enrolment.

     •    The weighted utilization is a factor that expresses the utilization of all program
          space as if this space was general classroom area. A sample SA’1 for Nutana
          is appended to this section. It illustrates the categorization of spaces and the
          comparison of existing space to new construction standards.

     Saskatchewan Learning provides official space utilization calculations that are used
     to determine the priority of school construction and renovation projects. In the last
     months, Saskatchewan Learning has also made available to the Division a spread
     sheet which will provide an unofficial space utilization calculation that is roughly
     based on the official version. Seven collegiates have official Saskatchewan
     Learning calculations. All other space utilization calculations in this report are
     based on use of the unofficial spreadsheet.

     Collegiates

     Over the last year, administration has worked with Saskatchewan Learning to
     determine accurate space utilization calculations for the Division’s collegiates.
     Saskatchewan Learning has decided to use a combined space utilization calculation
     of the three larger east collegiates in determining the need for a northeast collegiate.
     Saskatchewan Learning’s evaluation of space requirements on the west side will be
a combined calculation of Mount Royal, Bedford Road, and Marion M. Graham
Collegiates.

Table V: 1 outlines the space utilization calculations for all of the collegiates except
City Park, based upon the September 2002 enrolments.

                                 Table V: 1
     Space Utilization of the Collegiates (September 2002 Enrolments)

        Collegiate                General                  Core            Weighted
                                Instructional
 Aden Bowman                       137.5%                   96%             114.9%
 Bedford Road                      132.5%                  108%             128.0%
 Evan Hardy                        116.7%                   84%             100.5%
 Marion M. Graham                  105.2%                   87%              96.2%
 Mount Royal                       124.7%                   57%             102.6%
 Nutana                            197.8%                  135%             175.4%
 Walter Murray                     104.6%                   49%              80.5%

Overall, our collegiates are very heavily utilized. This is especially true in the
general instructional areas of our collegiates. Decisions made in the 1950’s, 1960’s,
and 1970’s to build large gymnasia (often two) and large technology laboratories in
the two comprehensive collegiates have resulted in low core and weighted
utilizations as current space is compared to new construction guidelines. These
program areas are well utilized and it is not reasonable to modify these spaces to
general instructional purposes. This leaves the Division with very heavily utilized
general instructional areas but with core and weighted utilizations that do not
accurately reflect the space needs of our collegiates. Over the last year,
administration challenged Saskatchewan Learning to evaluate Walter Murray
Collegiate more accurately as the large spaces built into a comprehensive collegiate
for the technical laboratories skewed and underestimated the true utilization of the
facility. A similar review of Mount Royal’s larger technology areas has also been
requested.
Elementary School Space Utilization

The calculation of current space utilization in a representative group of our
elementary schools has been accomplished by inputting current enrolments and
actual building dimensions into the unofficial space utilization spread sheet
provided by Saskatchewan Learning. These calculations are outlined in Table V: 2.
The remainder of these calculations will be completed in the coming weeks. These
calculations are intended to provide a rough guide to space utilization. They require
further analysis and discussion with Saskatchewan Learning. They should not be
used to guide decisions regarding any one particular project. Several comments
need to qualify these figures:

•    The general instructional, core, and weighted utilization columns reflect the
     school as it is including portable classrooms. The column “weighted without
     portables” indicates what the weighted utilization would be given the current
     enrolment but not portable classrooms.

•    Of the 26 elementary schools listed in this table, three exceed 100% weighted
     utilization, four have weighted utilization between 90 and 99.9%, nine have
     weighted utilizations between 80 and 89.9%, four are between 70 and 79.9%,
     four are between 60 and 69.9%, while only two fall between 50 and 59.9%.

•    Twelve of the 26 schools have relocatable classrooms. If these were removed,
     nine schools would have weighted utilizations in excess of 100% including
     two, Dr. John G. Egnatoff and Lakeridge, which would soar to over 200%.
     The use of relocatable classrooms allows the Division to manage the
     significant growth periods in a neighbourhood’s life.

•    The core utilization of our elementary schools seems especially high. This
     reflects heavy use of relocatables in some schools, the lack of practical and
     applied arts spaces in many, and small gymnasia in three schools (John Lake,
     Howard Coad, North Park Wilson).

•    These utilization rates do not include the use of space for half time programs
     including ESL, Structured Success, and Learning Disabilities. John Lake
     School, for example, devotes three classrooms to half-time ESL and Learning
     Disabilities programs. The students in these programs do not count in John
     Lake’s enrolment. If the use of this space were included the actual utilization
     would be considerably higher.


                                  Table V: 2
                       Space Utilization in Representative Elementary Schools

 Elementary School           General             Core          Weighted         Weighted Without
                           Instructional                                           Portables
Brownell                       95.4%             131%            96.3%              115.2%
Caroline Robins               59.8%              125%           63.3%                  --
Caswell                        84.6%             168%           95.0%                  --
College Park                  71.4%              116%           73.6%                  --
Dr. John G. Egnatoff          100.1%             186%           105.6%              218.2%
Dundonald                      91.4%             149%            95.4%              146.8%
Howard Coad                    77.5%             164%           85.1%                  --
Hugh Cairns V.C.              101.2%             152%           104.8%              111.0%
John Lake                      79.2%             133%           86.0%                  --
King George                    68.6%             120%            74.3%                 --
Lakeridge                      94.0%             170%            98.3%              203.9%
Lakeview                      106.8%             164%           111.6%              154.8%
Lester B. Pearson              90.8%             110%           87.9%                  --
Mayfair                        57.3%             100%           61.4%                  --
North Park Wilson             69.9%              133%           80.6%                96.1%
Pleasant Hill                 86.9%               90%            83.6%               89.5%
Prince Philip                 70.9%              109%           71.1%                  --
Princess Alexandra             76.4%             118%            80.6%              100.5%
Queen Elizabeth                65.2%              89%            67.9%                 --
River Heights                  81.1%             117%            79.0%              102.0%
Roland Michener                52.8%              74%           51.5%                  --
Silverwood Heights             85.5%             124%            87.7%              122.5%
Sutherland                    88.7%               97%           82.6%                  --
Victoria                       86.2%              92%            86.2%               95.5%
Wildwood                      71.6%               87%           68.9%                  --
Westmount                     56.2%               56%           53.3%                  --
•    Congregated system programs in special education usually have small
     enrolments of about 12 students per class. Space utilization calculations would
     make these spaces seem underutilized. This is especially true in a school like
     Queen Elizabeth which hosts two full-time structured success programs.

•    These utilization rates take into account some of the space used (9 classrooms)
     for community school pre-Kindergarten classes but do not include the use of
     space by 26 preschool programs in our elementary schools and 2 in our
     collegiates.

•    These calculations do not include space used by before and after care programs
     in 25 schools, daycare in 9 schools, special programs such as the Space Club at
     Alvin Buckwold School, and some rented spaces.

•    These calculations recognize about two classroom spaces per school for
     community school programs (nutrition room, pre-Kindergarten, coordinator
     office, addiction services, re-entry, social services, day care for the children of
     students, health, police liaison offices, etc.) This recognition is appreciated
     but does not fully capture all of the space requirements for a community
     school. The number of community schools and the increased use of space for
     these purposes is likely to grow in upcoming years.

Space is available in some of our elementary schools. In considering the potential
use of this space, trustees may consider the use of such space for schools of choice,
smaller K-3 class size, alternate delivery structures (e.g. middle schools), and for
SchoolPLUS implementation (variety of community services). The Board may also
want to consider closing some schools and retiring old relocatable classrooms in an
effort to make more efficient use of the Division’s facilities. Decisions regarding
these potential uses will have an impact on facility planning directions.

Factors Influencing Space Utilization

In other portions of this report, factors are introduced which will influence the space
utilization of our schools. They include:

•    Declining enrolments will lower space utilization.

•    Implementing the Division’s strategic plan will raise space utilization,
     especially if a concerted Early Learning Strategy is implemented.

•    SchoolPLUS implementation will raise space utilization. As schools become
     centres for the delivery of community services to children and their families,
     existing instructional space will be converted to other functions.
•    Integrated community centres will raise space utilization. Building shared
     spaces will reduce the space dedicated wholly to education.

•    Building new schools will lower overall space utilization.

•    Closing schools with low enrolments will raise space utilization.

Figure V: 1 attempts to quantify some of these factors in graphic form. This graph
illustrates that much of the space made available by enrolment decline can be
balanced by emerging needs including K-3 class size reductions and SchoolPLUS
implementation. This graph does not use space utilization as measured by
Saskatchewan Learning, but rather a rough measure of 25 students per classroom
that comes closest to the general instructional utilization portion of the
Saskatchewan Learning calculation.
                                                           Figure V: 1
                                         Factors Influencing Space Utilization 2003 – 2012


           Reduced Space Utilization by Classrooms               Factors            Increased Space Utilization Measured by Additional
         (25 students to 1 classroom) No longer needed                                Classrooms (25 students to 1 classroom) Needed


   150                 100                 50            0                      0               50                  100               150
                                                               Enrolment
pessimistic   optimistic                                          Decline
                                                               Current Use                   (not counted in current space
                                                                 for Half-                         utilization calculations)
                                                              Time Programs
                                                             Current Preschl.                         (not counted in current space
                                                             Before & After                              utilization calculations)
                                                             Care & Daycare
                                                                SchoolPLUS                  (some recognized in current space
                                                                  Current                        utilization calculations)
                                                                SchoolPLUS                    
                                                                  Future                  minimum      maximum
                                                              K-3 Class Size                          (50 classrooms)
                                                                Reduction
                                                                  2 New
                      (50 classrooms)
                                                                Collegiates
                                                               1 Collegiate                 (25 classrooms)
                                                                  Closure
                                                               1 Elementary
                                                              School Closure
                                                                 Retire 25
                                                               Relocatables
Policy and Planning Considerations

1.   Heavy space utilization of current collegiate facilities must be addressed.
     Although enrolment decline will eventually solve this concern in some schools,
     it will remain an issue for many collegiates through this decade.

2.   Elementary school space utilization is mixed. Based on a sampling of just over
     half of the schools, the vast majority of schools have a weighted utilization
     over 80%. When space utilization calculations are complete for all schools, a
     more in-depth analysis is warranted.

3.   Various factors will increase and decrease space utilization in our schools. The
     space demands of the implementation of SchoolPLUS and the strategic direction
     may offset the space made available by declining enrolments.

4.   Lower space utilization in some of the elementary schools can be considered
     an asset with the coming increase of services offered to youth and the
     community at the school as SchoolPLUS is more fully implemented.

5.   The Board must consider how other agencies will be charged for the use of
     school space. Precious educational dollars needed for teachers and learning
     resources must not be diverted to supplying facilities (utilities, caretaking,
     maintenance, etc.) to other agencies.

6.   The Board may wish to work with the community regarding the productive use
     of school space for other services.

7.   Introduction of integrated community centers will result in less space totally
     dedicated to the school’s purpose and thus higher space utilization.

8.   The Board should ensure that educational space used for its programs, but
     currently not included by Saskatchewan Learning in its evaluation of space, is
     considered in evaluating overall space utilization.

9.   The Division must ensure that Saskatchewan Learning’s calculation of space
     utilization fairly reflects available space in schools. The large practical and
     applied arts laboratories in the comprehensive collegiates, the double gymnasia
     built in four of our collegiates, and the large hallways built into our castle
     schools must be carefully and fairly considered so as not to skew the picture
     presented by the space utilization calculation.
       APPENDIX           V: 1




NUTANA         COLLEGIATE’S




              SA–1’S




(contact Traci Toth for copy – 683-8210)
VI. MANDATE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS

   The mandate of the School Division has changed significantly over time in response
   to societal and community changes. The Division’s mandate is directly related to its
   facility needs. This section will discuss mandate considerations under three
   headings: Public/Catholic Mandates, SchoolPLUS Mandate, and broadening
   mandate.

   Public/Catholic Mandates

   Decades ago, the mandate of public and Catholic separate schools were more clearly
   defined. For the most part, students who attended Catholic separate schools were a
   member of that minority faith. Over the last decades, the enrolment in Saskatoon
   Catholic Schools has grown significantly compared to the enrolment in Public
   Schools. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this momentum toward Catholic
   Schools is the increasing number of non-Catholic children and youth who attend
   Catholic Schools. Despite administration’s request, the Catholic administration has
   not provided these percentages for individual Catholic elementary schools. The
   Director of Education for St. Paul’s Roman Catholic Separate School Division that
   33.48% (34.11% of elementary, 32.47% of high school) of their student body have
   declare to be non-Catholic.

   The Division, the Board and our public will need to decide if this swing in
   enrolment is in the best interests of the community and of the School Division. The
   first principle of Catholic education expressed in the Catholic Education Plan 2002-
   2003, is that “Catholic schools participate in the evangelizing mission of the
   Catholic Church” (p.2). Should the Catholic School Division, whose purpose is
   clearly to spread the Catholic faith, be responsible for educating our community’s
   children, Catholic and non-Catholic?

   It is important to remember the fiscal consequences for the Public Division of
   continued enrolment loss to the Catholic Division. Each non-Catholic student who
   enrolls in Catholic schools costs the Division over $5,100 in provincial grants. With
   the physical and human infrastructure already in place, the costs of educating
   students on the margins is far less than the grant received. This phenomenon,
   beyond the opportunity to proselytize, is likely one reason why the Catholic
   Division has decided upon an invitational mandate.

   Although a wide variety of current and historical reasons exist for the enrolment
   slide to Catholic schools, one factor is clearly the number and location of school
   facilities. In the new neighbourhoods of the last 30 years, a Catholic school and a
   public school have been built in every neighbourhood.             In these newer
   neighbourhoods, the proximity to Catholic schools has resulted in a much higher
   portion of the student population attending Catholic schools than in older
neighbourhoods where public schools are more numerous than Catholic schools.
Another clear example of the impact of facility location is the dramatic shift of
enrolment to Catholic schools in the northeast communities since the opening of St.
Joseph High School in 1995. This phenomenon is clearly described in the
enrolment portion of this paper.

It is vital to the interests of the community and the Division to have non-Catholic
young people attend public schools. These interests include democratic diversity,
community development, and the fiscal health of the Division. Public schools stand
as a strong community institution that is completely accepting of all children and
youth. Public schools do not place priority on any one belief system, but rather
teach a strong set of values achieved through a consensus of the community’s
citizens and faith groups.

The absence of a public high school in the northeast makes it very difficult for the
Division to meet its mandate in those neighbourhoods. If the Catholic Division
were to proceed to build a high school west of Circle Drive and the Public Division
did not, an enrolment shift of at least the magnitude of that in the northeast would
certainly happen. The results of such a shift would be a dramatic loss of provincial
grants to the Division and a decreasing ability for the public division to meet its
mandate.

Both the Facilities Master Plan and the Enrolment Growth Strategy in the Division’s
Strategic Plan must include the strategic location of schools if enrolment is to be
maintained and if the Division is to be able to meet its mandate.

Broadening Mandate

Although public schools in Saskatchewan face declining enrolments, a new set of
needs are arising in our community that will place demands on our school facilities.

It is only a generation ago that Kindergarten was added to our school program. In
more recent years, the mandate of public schools has extended to include children as
young as three years old who have been medically diagnosed with a designated
disability. An important program in our nine elementary community schools is the
pre-Kindergarten program funded by Saskatchewan Learning. Our school’s
facilities are also used by community-based preschools across the city.

At the older end of our traditional mandate (age 22), the number of Grade 12
students has swelled in recent years. Many more young people understand the need
for having Grade 12 standing in order to obtain employment or obtain a place in a
post-secondary program.       The Collegiate Review pointed out the growing
phenomenon of many of our high school students needing more than the four
traditional years to complete Grade 12. Nutana Collegiate and the newly-opened
Royal West Program are designed to serve this group of young people.

In recent years, the Division has effectively broadened its mandate through its
associate school agreement with the Saskatoon Christian School, its agreement with
the Whitecap First Nation, and its provision of resources to home-based educators.

The Collegiate Review (2000) suggested that the Division should consider its
mandate to include associate schools, agreements with First Nations, and service to
students who live within the Saskatoon region. With rapidly dwindling enrolments
in rural schools, young people from outside of Saskatoon may seek their education
in our Division’s schools through either daily participation, on-line services, or
some combination of these delivery approaches.

The umbrella of public education has widened considerably in recent years. Due to
societal changes and demands, the Division must be prepared for a further
broadening of its mandate. One aspect of this preparation is the provision of
facilities to meet these future and often undefined needs.

SchoolPLUS Considerations

The implementation of SchoolPLUS will have a significant impact on the facilities of
the Division in the future. The provincial government’s official response to The
Role of The School Report indicated that Saskatchewan’s publicly funded schools
have two important functions:

•    “to educate children and youth – developing the whole child, intellectually,
     socially, emotionally and physically, and

•    to support service delivery – schools serve as centres at the community level
     for the delivery of appropriate social, health, recreation, culture, justice, and
     other services for children and their families.” (Securing Saskatchewan’s
     Future, p.1)

We are aware of the facility implication of the first function, however, we are just
beginning to understand what the second function will mean for our school
facilities.

In imagining an elementary SchoolPLUS, we might start with the services offered at
some of our current elementary community schools. These include nutrition, a
community coordinator, teacher associates, outreach worker, pre-Kindergarten
program, elders, adult education, cultural centre, CAP sites, and others.
In considering a collegiate SchoolPLUS, we can look to the services offered at our
community high schools. These include daycare for students’ children, social
services, health, police liaison services, addiction services, justice, adult education,
re-entry room, extension programs, community coordinator, teacher associates,
outreach worker, CAP sites, and others.

As SchoolPLUS is further implemented, the potential for additional services for our
youth and community being located in our schools will grow. As the importance of
early learning is more fully understood, the school is the natural location for parent
centres, early literacy centres, and additional pre-kindergarten and pre-school
programs. In many communities, the need for quality childcare may also be best
met in a school facility. In many of our schools, before and after care programs
already exist and several schools rent available space to childcare organizations.

The official government position initiating SchoolPLUS as the model of the future
was signed by six cabinet ministers representing eight government ministries.
Although the work of more fully integrating various government services for youth
and communities at school sites is slow in developing, we can expect that services
for children, youth, and communities will come to reside in school facilities over the
next decade. It will be very important that the location of these services in schools
are fully considered in government calculations of space utilization and in the
provincial government contribution to the construction, renovation, and
maintenance of school facilities.

Another important facet of SchoolPLUS is the concept of a community school. A
community school recognizes that student success in learning is vitally connected to
a strong community. This concept also recognizes that the development of a
community is often integrally connected to the neighbourhood’s school. In
elementary schools, this means a close connection to the geographically defined
community or neighbourhood. In most Saskatoon neighbourhoods, the school
serves as the main community centre. In neighbourhoods where a school has been
closed or where there has never been a school, it is difficult to establish an
affiliation or an identity with the neighbourhood community. A clear example is the
recent attempt by City Park residents to re-establish a school to serve not only their
children’s educational needs but to also serve as a centre for their community. New
neighbourhoods such as Briarwood and Arbor Creek do not have schools and their
residents do not, therefore, have a place to interact and develop a community.

As enrolments decline due to low birth rates, the Saskatoon Public School Division
has an opportunity to advance the implementation of SchoolPLUS in its schools.
Space once available for instruction can be readily adapted to space that is used for a
wide variety of services needed and valued in our City’s neighbourhoods. It will be
important to ensure, however, that funding to support service delivery other than
education, be provided from other government departments and community sources.

Policy and Planning Considerations

Mandate considerations are very important in the development a long-range
facilities plan.

1.   The Board must decide if it is in the best interests of the community and in the
     best interests of the Division to have a growing percentage of non-Catholic
     children and youth attend Catholic schools. If it does not matter which
     division’s schools our community’s children and youth attend, then a very
     different approach to planning facilities is required from one which seeks to
     protect and enhance the Division’s mandate.

     In the writer’s opinion, the mandate of the Saskatoon Public School Division
     must be protected from the inclusionary interpretation of the Catholic mandate
     currently employed by St. Paul’s Roman Catholic Separate School Division.
     Facilities planning must include provision for the Division to meet its mandate
     throughout the City of Saskatoon. The public to Catholic shift which has
     become so destructive to the public division in recent years can and must be
     reversed. It is not a matter of being against Catholicism, but rather a matter of
     protecting the values of public education and ensuring the long-term health of
     public education in Saskatoon.

2.   The Division must ensure that the City’s young people have access to public
     education. First of all, this means that a high quality education must be
     available in all of our schools. Secondly, it means that schools must be built in
     reasonable proximity to where students live. Thirdly, it means that Catholic
     schools cannot stand alone in areas that are distant to the closest public school.

3.   The Division must impress upon Saskatchewan Learning that the first school in
     any area of the City must be a public school.

4.   The unused space in our elementary schools should be made available for
     various services to children, youth, and families as outlined in SchoolPLUS.
     Such services will contribute to a healthy community that will in turn further
     benefit our students.

5.   The costs of maintaining, cleaning, heating and electrifying spaces in schools
     used for the delivery of services outside of the K-12 educational mandate must
     be paid for by those agencies. Precious K-12 resources must not be expended
     on supporting these services.
6.   The concept of the community school, a key facet of SchoolPLUS, means a close
     connection between a school and its geographic community. The school acts
     as the community centre, the place where a community gathers. This means
     that consideration for the community’s health must be made should a school
     closure for enrolment or poor facility condition be contemplated.
VII. IMPACT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN ON OUR FACILITIES

In order to achieve the Division’s purpose, vision, and the four broad goals set out
within the Board’s strategic direction, a number of core strategies are being
developed and implemented. A number of these strategies have implications for and
an impact upon the long-range plan for our Division’s facilities. These strategies
with the associated goal include:

•    Core Curriculum Strategy (Our Students’ Learning)
•    Special Education Strategy (Our Students’ Learning)
•    Early Learning Strategy (Our Students’ Learning)
•    Alternative Delivery/Centres of Innovation/Choice Strategy (Our Students’
     Learning)
•    SchoolPLUS Strategy (Our Community)
•    Enrolment Growth/Maintenance Strategy (Our Organization)
•    Revenue Growth Strategy (Our Organization)
•    Partnership Strategy (Our Community)
•    Recruitment and Hiring Strategy (Our People)

Core Curriculum Strategy

The primary goal in our Division’s strategic direction is our students’ learning. The
Core Curriculum strategy is the most important vehicle in the achievement of this
goal and of our purpose. The implementation of the Core Curriculum strategy has
significant implications for the Division’s facilities.

The intentions of the Core Curriculum can only be fully achieved with the use of a
wide variety of active learning strategies. The second objective under the student
learning goal is that “we use a variety of active and research-proven learning
strategies.” These more active learning strategies will require students to move
more often than was the case when more traditional strategies had students work
almost exclusively at their desks. Five broad instructional strategies that have been
recommended by Saskatchewan Learning to achieve the curricular goals include
interactive instruction (e.g. cooperative learning), experiential learning (e.g. out-of-
school education, simulations), independent learning (e.g. learning centres), as well
as indirect and direct instruction. The need for greater activity will mean that larger
classrooms or smaller class sizes are necessary. In our newest school, Silverspring
School, the Division made larger classrooms a priority and sacrificed some program
spaces in order to achieve the larger classrooms. This has turned out to be very
successful. Whenever the Division has an opportunity to build or renovate schools,
enlarging classrooms is a priority.
To accomplish the outcomes intended by the Core Curriculum, attention must also
be paid to the facilities implications of resource-based learning and the practical and
applied arts. These aspects of the curriculum require large, specialized spaces.

The use of information technology is significant within the five broad strategies
mentioned earlier. Research on the use of technology in learning has shown
impressive results. Whether it is the search for relevant information for student
projects on the Internet, the communication of ideas with students in other
communities or nations, the use of new interactive learning resources online, or the
use of learning programs for the mastery of skills or the development of concepts, it
is clear that information technology will have an increasingly important place in our
classrooms. The use of this technology requires careful consideration in the
renovation or construction of school facilities. This technology requires appropriate
space and infrastructure. Decisions regarding the level of implementation of
technology will have implications for the design of classrooms.

Currently Saskatoon Public Schools have the highest pupil-teacher ratio of any of
the public or Catholic urban school divisions. Only three divisions, including two
comprehensive high school divisions and a division of 50 students, have higher
pupil-teacher ratios. This means that our classes are very large. In order to
accomplish some of the strategies in the Strategic Plan, the Division will need to
decrease its pupil-teacher ratio and in some cases, reduce class size. Reducing class
size has the impact of requiring more classrooms.

Another objective under the student learning goal is the creation of “… a caring
climate and a safe environment that facilitates learning.” A related outcome is that
“we have clean, healthy, safe, and attractive learning environments.” Safety must
be a design principle. This means that supervision considerations such as the school
layout, the location of the office, and the use of security cameras must be taken into
account. In planning the renovation or construction of learning environments, the
Division must remember that the environment is intended to facilitate learning. A
significant design principle must be that the space must be planned for its intended
purpose, the learning of our young people.

Special Education Strategy

The number of students who have special needs has increased dramatically in recent
years, especially in the early grades. Figure VII: 1 illustrates the growth in the
number of designated disabled students and TA II’s in recent years. While some of
these students are served well in congregated classes, most are now served in the
regular classrooms. Many of these students have additional space requirements that
have an impact on the available space in our classrooms. As of January 6, 2003, 220
teacher associate II’s work with 780 designated disabled students in our schools.
 Many of these students require special equipment for their learning and for their
 health including lifts and specialized “bathrooming” spaces. Many others are in
 wheelchairs. The additional teacher associates, the specialized equipment, and
 wheelchairs all require more space than our classrooms were designed to provide.

                                   Figure VII: 1

Comparison of Numbers of Designated Disabled Pupils and Teacher
                        Associate II’s


900
800
700
600
500                                                           # of DDP students
400                                                           # of TA II's
300
200
100
  0
   95

   96

   97

   98

   99

   00

   01

   02
 19

 19

 19

 19

 19

 20

 20

 20




 The number of students who have challenges in their mobility also raises the issue
 of making our schools accessible to children, youth, and members of the community
 who cannot climb stairs. Many of our schools are not accessible to these children.
 As facilities are renovated or constructed, the Division must ensure that more of our
 schools are accessible to those with physical challenges. This is more than a human
 rights issue; it is a matter of ensuring that children are able to learn within their own
 community with their siblings and friends.

 Students who have hearing impairments significantly benefit from the use of sound-
 field systems. The research is also clear that most other children, especially in the
 primary years, benefit from the sound amplification and quality that comes from the
 use of sound-field systems. When schools are being renovated or constructed, it will
 be important to consider the installation of this promising technology.

 Early Learning Strategy
It has become increasing clear from recent research that very young children have a
tremendous predisposition for learning. Early childhood presents our society and
our community with an incredible opportunity to give our children a strong start in
their lives and in their learning. The Early Learning Strategy is in development and
will initially focus upon young children who are already a part of our mandate. This
includes kindergarten and primary aged children as well as pre-kindergarten
children 3 and older who have medically diagnosed disabilities. Although our
Division has not yet accepted administrative responsibility for community school
pre-kindergartens, these programs are housed in our schools and administered by a
board made up largely of volunteer members of our staff.

In the coming years, it will be educationally responsible for the Division to do all
that it can to ensure the early nurture and growth of our community’s children. In
some cases, the Division will be able to act directly within its mandate and take
actions such as the significant reduction of class size for the primary grades and the
initiation of a pyramid of interventions designed to ensure that no child is left
behind in his/her learning. In other situations, the Division can work with
community partners to provide new initiatives that will ensure that children arrive at
our schools ready and able to learn. In yet other ways, the Division may be in a
position to advocate for young children when provincial and federal policies are
being developed.

The recently released report, Understanding the Early Years, clearly signals the need
for significant action in Saskatoon. Our community’s five-year-olds were
significantly below the national norms for cognitive and linguistic development, and
were reported to experience very high levels of behavioral difficulty. This report
also indicated that the incidence of single-parent families in Saskatoon is almost
double the national average. Added to the finding of the Role of the School study,
which found that the incidence of child poverty in Saskatoon is the highest in
Canada, this community must consider some significant interventions on behalf of
its youngest citizens.

One of the most important potential actions is within the Division’s mandate.
Strengthening our learning program in K-3 is essential given the findings of the
Understanding the Early Years report and the recent research presented to our
principals by Dr. McNamara from the University of Saskatchewan. Dr. McNamara
indicated that the potential for successful remediation of literacy skills after age 9 is
very low and that schools must focus on early intervention. Other notable
researchers including Fraser Mustard and John Abbott have delivered similar
messages regarding the importance of early learning to Division staff in recent
years.
The Division must be prepared to take advantage of younger children’s incredible
predisposition to learning. Over the next year, Administration will develop an Early
Learning Strategy. One key intervention being researched is small K-3 class size.
Recently reported longitudinal research has been able to consider the long-range
impact of small classes in Kindergarten and the primary grades. The findings as
reported by Achilles, Finn & Pate-Bain (2002) include:

•    By grade 8, students who had been in small classes for K-3 were nearly one
     year ahead of their peers who were in larger classes.

•    Additional benefits to being in small classes were evident for minority and
     low-income students.

•    Small classes reduced retention in grade and referrals for discipline.

•    Higher graduation rates and lower drop-out rates were experienced by youth
     who had been in small classes for K-3.

•    To have substantial, long-term effects, small classes must be started at
     Kindergarten or earlier, and students must experience small classes for at least
     three or four years.

Biddle and Berliner (2002), in their synthesis of small class research, echo the above
findings regarding the positive impact on students’ learning of small class sizes in
the early years of school. They conclude their article by writing:

     If we are to judge by available evidence, no other educational reform has yet
     been studied that would provide such striking benefits. Debates about reducing
     class sizes, then, are disputes about values. If citizens are truly committed to
     providing a quality public education and a level playing field for all students
     regardless of background, they will find the funds needed to reduce class size
     (Biddle & Berliner, 2002, p.22)

The implications of small K-3 classes for our facilities planning is very clear. To
provide small enough classes to achieve the impressive gains in learning outlined in
the research, the Division will need to open an additional 50 classrooms. This is
enough space to accommodate almost 1250 students when traditional class sizes are
used. With the projected enrolment decline, space will be available for such a
significant initiative. The possibility of dramatic progress toward achieving our
purpose and our primary goal through the reduction of K-3 class size must be
carefully considered. The impact on the Division’s facilities must also be
thoughtfully evaluated.
The clear implication for the Division’s facilities is that many services for young
children and their families will need to be developed in the coming years and that
these services very logically belong in our schools. We have seen the beginning of
this development with the location of preschools in our schools, the location of
provincially-funded pre-kindergartens in our community schools, the initiation of
day cares for the children of our collegiate students who are parents, and the
organization of before and after day care programs in many of our elementary
schools. In our community schools, we have seen the initiation of programs
designed to improve parenting skills such as the FAST (Families and Schools
Together) program at Pleasant Hill and W. P. Bate Schools.

The future will likely bring many more such programs to our schools as our
community and our governments begin to fully realize the incredible significance of
early childhood programs to the health of our community, province and nation. At
this point, federal and provincial initiatives are just developing. Saskatchewan
approved an early childhood development (ECD) strategy in June 2000. In
September 2000, the nation’s First Ministers agreed on a joint ECD framework and
to action in four key areas:

     •    Promote healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy
     •    Improve parenting and family supports
     •    Strengthen early childhood development, learning and care
     •    Strengthen community supports

The Kids First Project and Success by Six are provincial and local initiatives that
will have an impact on our schools.

Although the leadership and service within some of these key areas of action will
come from health and other agencies, the potential for the involvement and
leadership of education is clear, especially regarding the latter three key areas of
action. In the recent annual report of provincial ECD activity, the cover letter was
signed by the ministers of learning, health, and social services. The provincial
department of learning now deals with learning throughout all of life’s stages
including early childhood. The space that will be made available due to declining
enrolments will be an asset to the community as it requires additional space for
many early childhood initiatives. Once again, it will be important for the other
agencies that share responsibilities for children to bring their fiscal resources to the
support of facilities used for purposes beyond the traditional mandate of schools.

Alternative Delivery/Centres of Innovation/Choice Strategy

One of the key lessons learned through the Collegiate Review was that the Division
would better serve some of its students with delivery options that were less
institutional and more community-oriented than our traditional schools. Storefront
settings such as the Bridges, Main Street and Omega programs, and more mature,
more college-like settings such as the Royal West campus of Mount Royal
Collegiate have been very successful for many of our young people. Re-entry and
extensions programs have been implemented in several of our collegiates with great
success.

Options for different organizational structures beyond the traditional K-8 and 9-12
structures may lead to the development of some middle schools and perhaps some
small primary grade schools. A Middle School Feasibility study has recently been
completed by our Division’s Middle Years Committee and includes the actions
required to initiate a middle school(s) in this Division. The Division may also want
to build on the successful transition of the Saskatoon Christian School to a K-12
school and consider small K-12 settings for some of our students.

Parents and young people clearly want some choice in schools and in programs. The
development of additional choices by the Division and the creation of processes that
will facilitate parent-initiated program choices will make demands on our school
facilities. It may be possible, for example, for a small school of choice to exist as a
school within one of our existing schools that has the required space.

SchoolPLUS Strategy

This strategy has been more thoroughly explored within the mandate discussion. It
is important to note, however, that SchoolPLUS has been closely linked to our
strategic plan within the community goal.

There are two key components to the SchoolPLUS concept. First, each school is a
community school. This concept recognizes that students’ learning and a healthy
community go together, that each is dependent to a large extent upon the
achievement of the other. The implication is that each community needs to have a
school in order to be healthy. This will require the Board to reconsider its policy on
school closure, and perhaps to consider a small schools policy that will offer
different staffing configurations and locked off space as a way to reduce
expenditures. If enrolments drop so low that this is not possible, then measures will
need to be taken to ensure that the community still has a meeting place as discussed
in the background paper on Integrated Community Centres.

The second key component of SchoolPLUS is that the school is the point from which
key services are delivered to children and youth and to the community. This means
that a large number of services will require space within the school. Services such
as pre-kindergartens, day-care, parent centers, leisure services, adult education,
nutrition, health, social services, police service, community coordination, CAP sites
and many others may be located in the school. The implication is that these
additional services will require space in our school buildings. It also means that
current instructional space will be needed for these services. In this regard, the
newly available space from the projected enrolment decline will provide the
Division and the community with a tremendous asset. Educational dollars,
however, cannot fund the space for these services. It is important that the fiscal
responsibility for the renovation, maintenance, and care of these spaces lies with the
agencies that will be providing these services.

Enrolment Growth/Maintenance Strategy

The enrolment growth/maintenance strategy will focus upon ensuring that the
Division meets its purpose of being … “open to all children and youth … .” The
mandate of public schools cannot be met if large numbers of non-Catholic children
and youth attend Catholic schools. The Division must therefore consider a strategy
that will ensure that public schools are a desirable option for the families of our
City. One feature of such a strategy is the condition, number, and location of our
school facilities. The construction, renovation, and closing of schools must be
strategic in the sense that the impact of any such action must be weighed in terms of
its impact on the Division’s enrolment. The impact of not having a school in a
strategic location can be devastating to enrolments as has been the case with the
absence of a northeast collegiate. It is worth noting that the number of schools
relative to the Catholic division is fairly predictive of enrolment. Where the public
division has more schools than the Catholic division, as is the case inside Circle
Drive, then the market share favors the public schools. Where there are an equal
number of schools, as in the new neighbourhoods of the last thirty years, then the
market share, although still favoring public schools, is much closer to 50-50. In
places where the Catholic division has a school and the public division does not, as
is the case of high school in the northeast, then the market share will certainly favor
the Catholic division. A more detailed analysis of this relationship
between the number/location of schools and the division’s market share is presented
in the enrolment portion of this report.

Revenue Growth Strategy

The connection between the Division’s enrolment and its revenue is very clear. The
addition, loss, or maintenance of every student means over $5,000 to the Division’s
revenue through provincial grants. Therefore, to maintain revenue, the Division
must be committed to maintaining its enrolment. The implications of this strategy
are similar to those of the enrolment growth/maintenance strategy because they are
so closely linked. Thus the number and location of schools must be carefully and
strategically considered in terms of the impact upon the Division’s revenue.
Partnership Strategy

The partnership strategy is designed to help the Division achieve its community goal
“… to build with our community shared ownership and responsibility for the well-
being and education of our children and youth.” This strategy is related to the
SchoolPLUS strategy as it is intended to bring the family, the community and the
school closer together for the benefit of children, youth, and the community. The
emerging partnerships with human service agencies in the city are discussed under
the SchoolPLUS strategy.

Recent partnerships have expanded the umbrella of public education in Saskatoon.
The associate school policy has led to the Saskatoon Christian School becoming the
Division’s first associate school. The potential exists for additional associate
schools in the future. The Division’s agreement with the Whitecap Dakota First
Nation may be the first of others that will bring additional First Nations’ children
and youth to the Division’s schools.

With declining enrolments having a significant impact on rural divisions around
Saskatoon, the Division may need to adopt a more regional mandate. Innovations
such as online learning and approaches to distance learning with more human
interaction will provide opportunities for the Division to partner with rural divisions.

In June 2001, the Board in concert with City Council, St. Paul’s Roman Catholic
Separate School Division, and the Saskatoon Regional Health District approved the
concept and underlying principles for Integrated Community Centres. This new
partnership will provide opportunities for the community’s governing bodies to
work more closely together to ensure neighbourhood services and facilities for
existing and new neighbourhoods. This development will be more fully explored in
a separate section of this report.

The further development and implementation of all of the partnerships discussed
above will have an impact on our school facilities. New associate schools may want
to locate within our current facilities. Emerging partnerships with our First Nations
may have facilities requirements as will potential regional requirements. Our school
facilities are a significant community resource that will facilitate partnership
development.

Recruitment and Hiring Strategy

The goal regarding our people is elaborated through four objectives. Three speak to
the quality of the physical environment in which our people work. The first is that
“we attract, employ, and retain the best people.” The National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities (Washington D.C.) and the Center for School Change
(University of Minnesota) recently published Smaller, Safer, Saner, and Successful
Schools. In its provision of the evidence and rationale for smaller schools, the
authors suggest that smaller schools are important in school jurisdictions’ efforts to
attract and retain teachers. “A number of studies concluded that teachers in small
schools are much more satisfied than are teachers in large schools” (p.13). A study
by Hare is cited regarding this phenomenon. “In fact, urban, rural, and suburban
superintendents whose districts have restructured schools to make them smaller
rated this action the single most effective way to retain teachers” (p.13).

The second objective of the people goal is that “our staff actively pursue life-long
learning related to their professional responsibilities.” Recent research on
professional learning affirms that the most significant learning takes place at the
work place using experiential learning models rooted in day-to-day work.
Opportunities to work collegially and to participate in action research projects with
other staff members make a difference in the quality of staff performance. The
recent pilot of individual growth plans in many of our schools and the success of
McDowell Foundation action research projects by our teachers confirms this
experiential, context-rich learning. The physical environment can assist teachers and
other staff in their learning. Proper meeting spaces facilitate this work-related
learning. Simple innovations such as having adjoining classrooms with a common
doorway and tutorial room, as was initiated at Silverspring School, are significant in
the promotion of collegial work.

Safe, healthy work environments are crucial to employee wellness and morale.
Recently, the number of issues related to occupational health and safety has required
the reassignment of staff and resources to investigate and remedy situations where
student and staff health is an issue.

Policy and Planning Considerations

The Division’s Strategic Direction and Plan must be carefully considered in the
development of the division’s facility plans.

1.   The Division’s purpose, the learning of all of our young people, must remain
     central to facilities planning.

2.   The construction and renovation of the Division’s facilities must reflect the use
     of more active learning strategies and the use of technology in learning. Larger
     classrooms facilitate these innovations.

3.   The Division must consider the employment of additional teachers to achieve
     some of its key strategies and thus to eventually decrease its pupil-teacher
     ratio. This will require additional classroom spaces.
4.   Students with mobility challenges will require the Division to provide more
     facilities that are accessible to these young people. New or renovated schools
     must be made accessible.

5.   The Division must employ technology that is proven to enhance learning.
     Sound field systems are one such technology that is proven to assist all
     students, not just those with hearing impairments.

6.   The Division should plan significant interventions to improve the learning
     opportunities for its youngest students. The research-proven intervention of
     small class sizes in the primary (K-3) grades would require the use of an
     additional 50 classrooms across the Division.

7.   The Division should prepare for the significant growth of early learning
     programs and family support programs that are currently beyond the Division’s
     mandate. To properly address the needs of our community’s small children,
     additional child-care and pre-school programs will need to be initiated. Parent
     and family support centres may also be initiated in conjunction with child-care
     and pre-school programs. These programs would fit very nicely into the space
     available in our schools, however, other agencies must pay for their share of
     facility expenses. These programs exemplify the concept of SchoolPLUS in
     action.

8.   The Division should initiate alternative programs in schools where space is
     available. Middle schools, programs of choice (e.g. Ecoquest), and parent-
     initiated programs could exist as schools within schools.

9.   Facility plans need to be a part of a more comprehensive plan to increase or
     maintain the Division’s enrolment.

10. Facility plans need to be part of a more comprehensive plan to increase the
    Division’s revenues. The connection between facilities, enrolment, and grant
    revenue is very clear.

11. The Division should view available space as an asset in the strategy to develop
    partners. The cost of using this space must be fully placed upon these partners
    through rental or lease arrangements.

12. The development and maintenance of safe, healthy, and smaller learning
    environments must be considered in the Division’s plan to recruit and maintain
    the best people on its staff.
VIII. SCHOOL SIZE CONSIDERATIONS

   In planning for its facilities of the future, the Division must take into account the
   significant research connecting the size of schools to students’ learning.

   The Research

   In recent years, the impact of school size on student learning has received the
   attention of researchers. The clarity of the conclusions from this research makes it
   very valuable to school divisions. Raywid (1999) writes that the advantage of small
   schools in improving achievement, drop-out rates, graduation rates, satisfaction, and
   behavior has “been confirmed with a clarity and at a level of confidence rare in the
   annals of education research”(p.1). She also writes in an earlier article (Raywid,
   1997) that

        it cannot be said that we lack sufficient reliable evidence of the positive effects
        of small school size on student success to act upon it. In fact, there is enough
        evidence now on such positive effects – and of the devastating effects of large
        size on substantial numbers of youngsters – that it seems morally questionable
        not to act on it (p.2).

   Some compelling findings of this research are outlined below.

   •    Students, no matter which grade level, learn more in small schools than large
        schools (Raywid, 1997). Lee and Smith’s (1996) research on high schools
        concluded that the ideal high school should be between 600 and 900 students
        as students in smaller schools learned less and those in much larger schools
        learned considerably less.

   •    At-risk students are much more likely to be successful in small schools than
        large schools (Raywid, 1997). Lee and Smith (1996) report the greater
        negative impact of larger schools on students of lower socio-economic status.
        Howley, Strange and Bickel (2000) observe that “typically, poverty exerts a
        strong negative influence on achievement. In schools with fewer than 301
        students, they found that influence was sharply reduced” (p.3).

   •    Students in small schools are much less likely to experience violence than
        students in large schools (Raywid, 1997). Klonsky (2002) writes that “the
        anonymity that often characterizes large schools is the enemy of safety and
        security” (p.66). He then concludes:

             Simply stated, small schools obliterate anonymity – the handmaiden of
             many forms of youth violence – and create an environment where
         students are visible to those charged with their education and many
         aspects of their social and cultural development – their teachers (p.69).

•   Small schools do not necessarily cost more. Nathan (2002) admits that per
    pupil expenditures are somewhat lower in larger schools but points out that
    small schools are more efficient in terms of per graduate expenditure. Bryk
    (1994) writes of the "diseconomy of scale” of large schools when the positive
    impact of small schools is considered. Vander Ark (2002) refers to the cost-
    effectiveness of small schools when the savings in needed remediation
    associated with larger schools is considered.

•   Students in small schools are much more likely to participate in extra-
    curricular activities and hold leadership positions in school groups (Vander
    Ark, 2002).

•   Optimal high school size recommendations vary somewhat. Lee and Smith’s
    (1997) research suggests a range from 600-900. Vander Ark (2002)
    recommends no more than 100 students at any one grade level. Klonsky writes
    of schools of 400 students. The National Association of Secondary School
    principals recommends a limit of 600 students (Raywid, 1999). Howley,
    Strange, and Bickel (2000) tie socio-economic status to their recommended
    school size. “A wide consensus seems to have emerged that schools larger
    than 1000 are unwise choices for any community. The consensus clearly
    suggests that schools in impoverished communities should be much, much
    smaller” (p.3-4).

•   School size seems to matter more as students get older (Raywid, 1997). This
    may be so because students typically spend more time with one teacher in
    lower grades. Nonetheless, elementary school sizes should also not get too
    large. Actual recommendations of elementary school size are less frequent.
    Schneider (2002) cites Cotton’s (1996) work which refers to a consensus that
    the positive small-school benefits can be achieved in elementary schools in the
    300-400 range. Klonsky (2002) recommends school enrolment of no larger
    than 400 students. Raywid (1999) indicates that the question of “How big is
    small?” (p.1) is still being debated. Howley, Strange, and Bickel (2000) refer
    to a upper limit for elementary schools of 350. They also point to research that
    strongly suggests children who live in poverty should be in schools with
    enrolments fewer than 301 and forward the basic principle “that the poorer the
    community, the smaller the schools should be” (p.2).

•   The lack of definitive school size targets reflects upon the values of the
    researchers as well as the evidence. Howley, Strange, and Bickel (2000)
    explain.
          Researchers and policy analysts who are most concerned with
          “community” (Sergiovanni, 1994) will tend to recommend the smallest
          schools for nearly everyone; those concerned with outcomes will advise
          small schools but only for a portion of the population; and those most
          concerned with inputs will recommend schools that are larger than those
          recommended by other researchers (p.1-2).

The clarity and weight of this body of research has clear policy and planning
implications for the Division.

Parents, Teachers, and Students’ Opinions

Stakeholders in education, including parents, teachers, and students have expressed
their opinions about school size. During the consultations of the Collegiate Review
(2000), teachers, parents, and students saw schools with over 1,000 students as too
large. Johnson (2002) indicates from an American survey that most parents and
teachers see other issues such as class size and discipline as more important than
school size. She reported, however, that “…not only do parents and teachers
associate positive traits with smaller schools,…they also associate some problems
with larger schools” (p.42) including students with more discipline problems and
students who are more likely to be isolated.

These statements of opinion ring true. In recent years, it has been more difficult to
market the Division’s largest high schools while enrolment pressure on mid-sized
collegiates in the range of 1000 students has been significant. Three years ago, the
Division instituted a random selection process to limit the enrolment of grade nine
students at Bedford Road Collegiate.

Size of our Collegiates

The school division’s collegiates are very large when the research on school size
and size comparisons to other Saskatchewan school divisions are made. Table VIII:
1 outlines the comparison in the size of high schools in the four large urban
divisions in Regina and Saskatoon.
                                 Table VIII: 1

          High School Size Comparisons in Saskatoon and Regina
                      (September 2002 Enrolments)

   Division      Number of Total High          Range of       Average       Larger
                   High     School              School         Size        than 1000
                  Schools  Enrolment             Size
 Regina              4       3258              790-835           814            0
 Catholic
 Regina               10           7820        247-1460          782            3
 Public
 Saskatoon            6            4768        185-1280          794            2
 Catholic
 Saskatoon            8            7992        287-1599          999            4
 Public

It is interesting to note that the average school size of Saskatoon Public’s collegiates
exceeds the average of the other three large urban divisions by about 200 students.
Regina Public has a slightly smaller secondary enrolment yet operates two more
high schools than our Division.

If large school size does not appeal to our students and parents, then this may be a
factor in the enrolment shift from public to Catholic schools. Catholic high schools
in Saskatoon have been smaller and are still on average over 200 students smaller
than public collegiates.

All six of our Division’s regular collegiates exceed the maximum size of the optimal
high school range identified in the Lee and Smith study reported earlier. Three of
our collegiates are well in excess of the stated school size preference of our parents,
students, and teachers as identified in the Collegiate Review. The size of our
collegiates is an issue. The Division’s strategic direction identifies the clear purpose
of the Division as the learning of our community’s young people. Smaller school
size has been identified in research as contributing to students’ learning. This must
be considered in the deliberations regarding new collegiates in both the northeast
and west of Circle Drive.
Size of our Elementary Schools

In September 2002, the Division operated 44 elementary schools including John
Dolan School (which features a special education program for 46 students) and an
associate school with 135 elementary students in its K-12 population of 162.
Current elementary school size ranged from 171 students at Queen Elizabeth School
to 600 students at Dr. John G. Egnatoff School. Table VIII: 2 compares the
elementary school sizes of schools from the four large Regina and Saskatoon school
divisions. Saskatoon Public Schools are just slightly larger on average than Catholic
elementary schools in both Regina and Saskatoon but significantly larger than
Regina Public which has a slightly lower total elementary enrolment yet operates six
more elementary schools than does Saskatoon Public.

                                Table VIII: 2

      Elementary School Size Comparisons in Saskatoon and Regina
                    (September 2002 Enrolments)

  Division     Number of          Total         Average Size     Larger than 500
               Elementary      Elementary
                 Schools       Enrolment
 Regina            50             13704              275                 1
 Public
 Regina             24             7201              300                 0
 Catholic
 Saskatoon          35             10512             300                 2
 Catholic
 Saskatoon          44             13853             315                 3
 Public

The average size of Saskatoon Public’s elementary schools is comfortably within
the optimal school size range identified in the research. The largest elementary
schools including Dr. John G. Egnatoff (600), Lakeridge (584), Dundonald (558),
Lakeview (499), and Confederation Park Schools (489) are significantly larger than
the usual limit for achieving the positive effects of small schools identified in the
research.

Compared to other Saskatchewan schools, Saskatoon Public schools are large. Of
the province’s 789 schools in the fall of 1999 (based upon information in the
Saskatchewan Education Indicators Report), over half (399) had enrolments of
fewer than 200 students. Of the 50 Saskatoon Public schools in the fall of 1999,
only one had an enrolment lower than 200. Almost one in 3 (225 of 789) provincial
     schools had enrolments lower than 150 and were smaller than any of the Saskatoon
     Public School Division’s schools with the exception of John Dolan.

     Policy and Planning Considerations

     Because of its impact on our students’ learning, the size of our schools must be
     carefully considered as we set facilities policy and planning directions for the future.

     1.   Our collegiates are too large for optimal student learning and for the
          development of caring environments that ensure no student is anonymous. The
          Division should construct two new collegiates of moderate size (600-900) to
          alleviate the enrolment pressures on our current collegiates. Two new
          collegiates, combined with the projected enrolment decline, would allow our
          current comprehensive collegiates to fall below 1000 students, with our four
          current and two new mid-sized collegiates moving to the 700-800 enrolment
          range, Nutana dropping to a more comfortable 400 students, and City Park
          staying at its current level just below 300 students.

     2.   The Division should consider a policy determining the upper limits of school
          enrolments. Such numbers must be established with enough flexibility to
          account for the growth and decline of school enrolments over the life of a
          neighbourhood. For the purpose of discussion, an upper limit of 1000 (with a
          target range of 600-900) for a collegiate and of 500 (with a target range of 100-
          400) for an elementary school is proposed.

     3.  The research identifies the value of small schools and especially of very small
         schools for children who live in lower socioeconomic neighbourhoods. The
         Division should reconsider the enrolment number of 115 students for the
         initiation of school consolidation procedures. The success of the Saskatoon
         Christian School speaks to the value of very small schools. The fact that
         neighbourhoods do rejuvenate speaks to a very cautious approach to school
         closure given the clearly established value of very small schools. The Board
         might consider a small school policy where a school that declines below a
         reasonable enrolment is staffed more economically. Does a school smaller
         than 150 students require a full-time principal, a .5 teacher librarian, and a .5
         resource teacher? The careful placement of congregated programs may help to
         reduce the inefficiency of small schools. A school closure scenario will be
         discussed later, however, given the educational value of small schools, the
         Division must be cautious about school closures.
References

Bryk, A.S. (1994, Fall). More good news that school organization matters. Issues in
    Restructuring Schools, 7, 6-8.
Howley, C., Strange, M., & Bickel, R. (2000). Research about School Size and School
   Performance in Impoverished Communities. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
   Education and Small Schools, Charleston WV.

Johnson, J. (2002). Do communities want smaller schools? Educational Leadership,
    59(5), 55-59.

Klonsky, M. (2002). How smaller schools prevent school violence.        Educational
    Leadership, 59(5), 65-69.

Lee, V. & Smith J. (1996). High school size: What works best and for whom?
     Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205-27.

Nathan, J. (2002). Small schools: The benefits of sharing. Educational Leadership,
    59(5), 71-75.

Nathan, J. & Febey, K. (2001). Smaller, Safer, Saner, Successful Schools. National
    Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC. and Centre for School
    Change, Humphrey Institute of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
    Minnesota.

Raywid, M. (1999). Current Literature on Small Schools. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
    Education and Small Schools, Charleston WV.

Raywid, M. (1997). Synthesis of research/small schools:      A reform that works.
    Educational Leadership, 55(4).

Schneider, M. (2002). Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?       National
    Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington D.C.

Sergiovanni, T. (1994). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes
     the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214-26.

Wasley, P. (2002). Small classes; small schools:    The time is now.    Educational
    Leadership, 59(5), 6-10.
IX. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS

   The Division’s fiscal condition must be carefully considered as long-range plans are
   being made for its facilities. This section will provide a description and some
   relevant comparisons regarding the Division’s total expenditures, its expenditures
   on plant operations and maintenance, its debt charges, its reserves, and its
   contribution to capital. The last portions of this section will outline the provincial
   role in financing facilities and the vital connection between facilities, enrolment, and
   revenue.

   Total Expenditures

   Because capital expenditures fluctuate so dramatically from year to year, total
   annual expenditures will be considered without the contribution to capital. Based on
   audited statements from the 2001 Saskatchewan School Divisions Statistical
   Information Report (the last year for which comparisons with other divisions are
   available) and prorated enrolments (60% of fall 2000 enrolment plus 40% of fall
   2001 enrolment), Saskatoon Public expended $116,950,912 or $5,485.35 per
   student. This is considerably less per student than both Saskatoon Catholic at
   $5,692.74 and Regina Public at $5,847.64. If Saskatoon Public were to have
   expended similar amounts per student to Saskatoon Catholic and Regina Public, it
   would have yielded an additional $4,421,679.20 and $7,724,240.17 respectively.
   The human and learning resources that could be purchased for these amounts is
   considerable.

   Plant Operations and Maintenance

   Using the audited statements for 2001 referred to above, Saskatoon Public expended
   $15,346,605 or $719.80 per student on plant operations and maintenance. This is
   less than Saskatoon Catholic’s $743.45 per student and considerably less than
   Regina Public’s $835.14 per student expenditure on plant operations and
   maintenance. This comparison likely reflects the efficiency of Saskatoon Public’s
   slightly higher average enrolment in its elementary schools and the significantly
   higher average high school enrolment in its high schools.

   Debt Charges

   At December 31, 2002, the Division’s debt totaled $5,282,762. The Division’s cost
   in 2003 of servicing this debt will be $849,836 or .69 of 1% of the Division’s 2002
   operating expenditures.

   The audited statements for 2001 provide some relevant comparisons. During the
   2001 year, Saskatoon Public spent $478,549 or $22.45 per student on debt charges.
Saskatoon Catholic spent $1,670,052 or $115.12 per student while Regina Public
spent $1,221,742 or $56.29 per student on debt charges.

Saskatoon Public currently devotes very little of its annual expenditures to debt
charges. The Saskatchewan Education Statistical Report 2001 (this report includes
contributions to capital) shows that Saskatoon Public expended 0.37% of its annual
2001 expenditures on debt charges compared to the provincial school division
average of 1.45%. These low numbers reflect the lack of capital activity across the
province in recent years. The Saskatchewan Indicators Report (2000) shows that in
times of greater capital activity, the average school division in the province
expended a considerably larger portion of its annual expenditures on debt charges:
7.4% in 1988, 6.2% in 1993 and 3.4% in 1998.

As the Board contemplates some school construction and major renovation projects,
it must consider the new debt charges that will be added to current debt charges. A
large elementary school (Silverspring) resulted in the Division borrowing
$3,866,000 at an annual cost of principal and interest repayment of $532,506. A
new collegiate would likely require a 10 year loan (at 6.5%) that would require
annual principal and interest payments of about $1.1M. More recently the loan for
the Montgomery School project was negotiated at 5.84%. For every $1 million
borrowed for upcoming capital projects, the Division will need to spend about
$130,000 to $140,000 in debt charges per year for 10 years.

Reserves

As reported in the 2002 audited statement, the Division has reserves totalling
$11.1M. Of this total, $3.1M are restricted to capital projects. These capital
reserves are not large, but will enable the Division to increase its capital spending
without excessively raising its contribution to capital over the next two years.

Contribution to Capital

The Division’s contribution to capital has varied dramatically over the last 10 years.
In 1994, the Division contributed $1M or $46.59 per student. In 1996, the
contribution to capital was $692,000 or $31.87 per pupil. In 2000, with the
Brunskill and Silverspring Schools in development, the contribution to capital
reached $3,797,568 or $174.47 per student. In 2001, projects at Silverspring School
and the Education Centre drove the contribution to capital to $4,408,000 or $206.75
per student. Capital activity diminished drastically in 2002 with a contribution to
capital of $1.6M or $75.81 per student.

Provincial Role in Financing Facilities
In considering the funding of our Division’s facilities, it is important to note that
Saskatchewan Learning must approve each major capital project and that, in most
cases, it provides about 55% of the project’s funding. This provincial funding
applies to major capital projects and emergency bloc projects (to a varying
percentage, depending upon the type of project). It is hoped that a much needed and
anticipated restoration fund will soon be established that will help divisions address
the revitalization of their older structures. The Division will rely heavily upon the
province for a large portion of the financing of the school facilities.

The Facilities, Enrolment, Revenue Connection

Earlier, the strong relationship between the number and location of schools and
enrolment was described. It is also important to connect revenue to facilities and
enrolment. When a student is added to or subtracted from the Division’s enrolment,
the impact is a difference of about plus or minus $5,300 to the Division’s revenue.
In the binder, A Public Collegiate in the Northeast Sector: Information for the
Board’s Deliberations, the change to the Division’s foundational operating grant is
calculated to reflect the positive change in capture rate that would result from a new
northeast collegiate. In this example, an additional 550 students (beyond current
projections) resulting from a new northeast collegiate would bring additional grant
money of $2,919,607 to the Division. Maintaining or increasing enrolment also has
the effect of increasing the provincial contribution to the Division. In this example,
the provincial share of the Division’s total revenue increases from 33.3% to 34.9%.
Page 41 from the northeast study is appended to this section of the report.

It is important to note that additional enrolment brings increased expenditures along
with increased revenues. In the case from the northeast collegiate binder, it is clear,
however, that the additional expenditures for principal and interest on a new
collegiate, for additional staff, and for needed supplies and resources would
basically match the additional grant revenues. Over time, the improving capture
rate and the eventual completion of debt payments would make the revenue vs.
expenditure picture much more positive. Pages 42 and 43 from the northeast binder
are appended to this section.
Policy and Planning Considerations

Based upon the above analysis, the Board should consider the following regarding
the funding of its facilities.

1.   The Division’s expenditures per student are significantly lower than other
     divisions and its cost per student for plant operations and maintenance is also
     relatively low. With low levels of existing debt and a very small percentage
     (less than 1%) of annual operating expenditures devoted to debt charges, the
     Division is well positioned for significant additional expenditures on its
     facilities.

2.   In the case of a new northeast collegiate, the additional revenue from improved
     capture rates in both elementary schools and collegiates will match the
     additional expenditures required for debt charges, the operation of a new
     school, and the larger enrolment. After the new collegiate has been open for
     four years, the additional revenue will exceed the additional expenditures.
     After 10 years, the debt will be paid and the additional capture rate will have a
     very significant positive impact on the Division’s revenue. When considering
     the Division’s future revenue, a new northeast collegiate is an extremely wise
     investment.

3.   The Division is unlikely to require elementary schools in new neighbourhoods
     until the turn of the decade. This will allow the Division’s resources to be
     focussed upon renovation projects and new collegiates through the decade.

4.   The significant fluctuations in contribution to capital over recent years should
     be changed to reflect a sustainable, predictable and more substantial approach
     to facilities funding. This would greatly assist with facilities planning over
     time.

5.   Capital reserves are low, but so is the Division’s debt load. The use of debt to
     finance major facilities projects is a useful tool available to the Board.

6.   In its deliberations, it is vital for the Board to be reminded of the powerful
     connection between the number and location of schools, the Division’s
     enrolment, and the Division’s grant revenues.

7.   In its facility deliberations, the Board should seek to maximize the provincial
     government’s contribution to any given project. In some cases, however, such
     as the Montgomery School project, the Board will need to ensure the best long-
term decision, even if this means the Board’s share of the project is larger than
usual.
                                    Appendix IX: 1

                       Foundational Operating Grant 2002-03




      A      (Recognized Expenditures)                        117,587,728
      -B     (Recognized Operating Revenues)                   78,484,029

      C      (Foundation Operating Grant)                       39,103,699



Each additional student enrolled increases the Division’s recognized expenditures by
about $5,300. This includes recognized expenditures for basic program, SchoolPLUS
implementation, technology, transportation, and a proportion of special education.

If an additional 550 students were enrolled in 2002-2003, then A (total recognized
expenditures) would increase by $2,919,607 as would C (the total grant).




                    New Calculation with 550 Additional Students


      A             $120,507,335
      -B             $78,484,029

      C             $42,023,306


This increase in the grant will increase the provincial contribution to our total revenue
from 33.3% to 34.9%
                                         Appendix IX: 2

                 Estimated Financial Implications of a Northeast Collegiate
                              after Four Years of Operation
                                 (Based on 2002 Figures)

Expenditures

This capital project would be funded through a loan.
The expected annual cost of interest (at 6.5%) and principal
over a 10 year period is approximately $1,126,107                             $1,126,107

Because the announcement and construction of a new
collegiate would result in a positive effect on our K-12
enrolment of about 550 students after four years of operation,
additional teachers and support staff would be required.
550 additional students would require an additional 25 teachers
(including resource teacher, guidance counsellor, teacher librarian),
5.5 teacher associates, 1 school administrator, 4 secretaries,
4 caretakers, and some supplies. Annual Cost estimates are:

       25 teachers x 56,000                   =           1,400,000
       5.5 teacher associates x 22,000        =             121,000
       1.0 school admin. x 70,000             =              70,000
       secretaries                            =             116,000
       caretakers                             =             167,300
       caretaking supplies                    =              10,000
       supplies 181/student x 550             =             99, 550
                                                          1,983,850            1,983,850

Total Annual Additional Expenditures                                          $3,109,957
Revenues

Positive Difference in Provincial Grants due to enrolment increase (using 2002 rates).

Basic Program
       125 Elementary x 4,026                =             503,250
       125 Middle Years x 4,260              =             532,500
       300 Secondary x 4,791                 =           1,437,300
       SchoolPLUS Implementation
        550 x 33                             =              18,150
       Technology Factor
        550 x 45                             =              24,750
       Urban Transportation
        550 x 80                             =              44,000
       Special Education
        (.025 x 14,386,291)                  =             359,657
Total Annual Additional Revenues                                                     $2,919,607

Cost Reductions

       Elimination of most
       Transportation Subsides in northeast $70,000
       Other?

Total Annual Cost Reductions                                                             $70,000


Summary

       Total Annual Additional Revenues                                              $2,919,607
       Total Annual Additional Expenditures                                          -3,109,957
       Total Annual Cost Reductions                                                     +70,000
                                                                                      -$120,350

      •       A slightly lower interest rate or a slightly higher enrolment gain (24 students)
would mean that the additional revenue and reduced transportation expenditures generated by a
new northeast collegiate would cover the cost of financing the debt and the additional
expenditures generated by opening a new collegiate and by maintaining enrolments.

       •      Beyond four years of operation, the fiscal benefits will increase as enrolment is
maintained and enhanced.

        •      After the 10 years of debt servicing is completed, the fiscal benefits are much
greater.
X.   INTEGRATED COMMUNITY CENTRES
Within the last year, various governing bodies in Saskatoon have explored new
ways to work together that will have a significant impact on the Division’s facilities
of the future. In the spring of 2002, the Saskatoon Public Board of Education, City
Council, the Board for St. Paul’s Roman Catholic Separate School Division, and the
Saskatoon Health District Board approved the concept of integrated community
centres as well as the core principles that would guide the development of such
centres.

Concept Of Integrated Community Centres

An integrated community centre is intended to serve as the centre or meeting place
of a neighbourhood community. Wherever possible, an integrated community
centre will house education, civic, health, and other services that will enhance the
community. Although the four original partner organizations may form the
foundation of the services offered in an integrated community centres, a wide
number of other partners who offer services at the neighbourhood level might also
fit very well into this framework. Integrated community centres offer a powerful
implementation strategy for SchoolPLUS in Saskatoon’s neighbourhoods.

The concept of integrated community centres expresses the desire of the four
governing organizations to work in partnership in the planning and development of
strong communities that meet the needs of Saskatoon’s citizens. Each organization
understands that its work is best achieved within a vibrant, healthy community.
Integrated community centres have the potential to offer enhanced services, yet
ensure that public funds are invested very wisely.

The idea of schools sharing space under a roof with other agencies and services has
been implemented in many places. Nathan and Febey (2001) provide a large
number of diverse examples of schools sharing space with other organizations.
They identify clear benefits for this practice including expanded learning
opportunities for students, expanded services for students and their families, and the
provision of programs, facilities, and services to the community that might not
otherwise be affordable.

Principles For Integrated Community Centres

Table X: 1 outlines the eight principles for the development of integrated
community centres. It is important to note here that this concept is intended to
apply to both new and existing neighbourhoods (principle #8) and that partners will
remain fiscally responsible for their respective roles (principle #6).

                                  Table X: 1
         Principles for Designing Integrated Community Centres

Core Development Principles:

1.   The local geographic unit of community, the neighbhourhood / community,
     should be a basic building block of our city.

2.   Each community is believed to be best served by having a community centre,
     consisting of facilities that provide key services and a place for the citizens of
     the neighbourhood to interact.

3.   Community facilities must be designed so that each participating organization
     can meet its own unique mandate, reflect its core objectives and maintain its
     own identity.

4.   Integrated community centres, to be of maximum benefit, must be designed:

     • For use by the vast majority of the people in the neighbourhood,
     • To be used the vast majority of the time,
     • To create the maximum degree of interaction by members of the
       community,
     • To ensure space is accessible to all groups in the community,
     • With sufficient flexibility to change over time, ensuring long-term,
       sustainable future use.

5.   The design of a community centre is contingent on an ongoing evaluation of
     the demographic, social and economic needs of the community, a process in
     which community participation is imperative.

6.   The partners remain fiscally responsible for their respective roles.

7.   The adoption of a design for one neighbourhood community should not
     necessarily set a precedent for future community centre design.

8.   The integrated approach is intended to apply to both new and existing
     neighbourhoods.
University Heights Multi-District Park

The Division has participated in the City-lead development of plans for the multi-
district park in University Heights. This park is adjacent to the site for a public
collegiate and thus offers potential for the integration of services and structures that
will exist in the park. This joint work involving the City, the Library Board, the
Public School Division, the Catholic School Division, and the Health District is an
initial example of the process of developing an integrated community centre at a
multi-neighbourhood level.

This process to date has included a significant consultation with community
members through a one-day workshop, consultation with a wide variety of groups
interested in offering services in this park area, and the development of two
conceptual plans, one featuring a campus model and the other an integrated facility
model.     This process has also involved obtaining information from other
communities who have developed shared facilities. A highlight was a study trip to
Tisdale by members of many Saskatoon community organizations.               These
representatives toured the Tisdale Rec. Plex and had an opportunity to speak with
many community members about the Rec. Plex and how it was developed.

Friggstad Downing Henry Architects were commissioned by the City and its partner
 organizations to develop a concept plan for an integrated facility or facilities for the
 multi-district park. The resulting report defined the functional plans proposed by
 various organizations for a facility in this park. It also outlined some cost estimates
 including cost savings, both capital and operating, that would be made possible by
 the shared use of some facilities. Functions such as a fitness centre, a food service
 area, meeting rooms, classrooms, computer rooms, a library, administrative areas,
 and parking areas were identified by more than one partner thus indicating the
 potential for shared use. The public high school was identified for every potential
 shared space, thus indicating the potential not only for enhanced services and
 facilities, but for significant cost savings.

The Friggstad report also presented two concept plans, one for a campus model and
the other for an integrated facility. The two plans illustrated the potential for an
integrated facility on this site.

The Friggstad study has been discussed by the partner organizations who at this time
are at different stages regarding the potential follow-up. Our Board has approved a
motion directing administration to participate in the next stage of planning, to
initiate a land exchange for the collegiate site that is necessitated by the plans, and
to indicate the Board’s preference for an integrated rather than campus model.

West Collegiate Integrated Planning
At a recent meeting, the Board approved a motion directing administration to initiate
discussions with partner organizations regarding a multi-use facility west of Circle
Drive that would include a public collegiate. It is anticipated that a process similar
to the one undertaken on the University Heights Multi-District Park will be
employed to determine functions, partners, and a concept plan.

Applications To Existing Neighbourhoods

It is clearly the intent of the partners who agreed upon integrated community centres
that this concept be applied to the revitalization of existing neighbourhoods in this
city. The Division must work closely with the City and other partners in identifying
such projects. The Division’s capital plans will need to be flexible enough to take
advantage of the initiatives of other organizations in Saskatoon.

Policy And Planning Considerations

Integrated Community Centres at the neighbourhood and multi-neighbourhood level
offer the Saskatoon community the potential for enhanced services, a more vibrant
community, and for the wise investment of precious public funds. This concept
must be carefully considered in determining policy and planning directions for the
future.

1.   The Division must adopt the policy and/or practice of considering each major
     renovation or construction project for its potential as an integrated project.

2.   In working with partners, the Division must be vigilant in ensuring that other
     organizations who participate in an integrated community centre remain
     fiscally responsible for their respective roles.

3.   The Division must work with its partners to establish processes and agreements
     to facilitate the work toward integrated community centres. While important
     work has begun in this regard, there is much to be accomplished.

4.   The Board will need to reconsider its policy regarding school sites in light of
     the developing consensus for integrated facilities. Policy 6020.12 vii demands
     that collegiate sites shall be “separated from other institutions and commercial
     development by at least 500 metres.”
XI. OTHER FACTORS

   A number of other factors will require further study over the course of developing a
   Facilities Master Plan.

   •    Legal Considerations: As plans are developed, it is important to remember
        that some direction regarding school facilities is derived from law. The
        Education Act and Regulations, as well as legislation concerning Occupational
        Health and Safety must be carefully considered.

   •    Policy: The Division’s facilities policies may require significant revision as a
        result of the Board’s deliberations on the Facilities Master Plan.

   •    School Closure/Transportation Options: A more thorough analysis of
        scenarios in which schools close and students are transported is required.
        Administration recently developed a scenario and analysis of one school
        closure. It is apparent that various scenarios will have significantly different
        outcomes.

   •    Unknown Factors: As plans develop, factors not foreseen at this time may
        arise and require further study.
             ADVICE FROM OUR PUBLIC AND OUR EMPLOYEES

An important part of the Facilities Master Planning Process was to seek the advice of our
citizens, stakeholders and employees. This section of the report will present the input and
advice that has been received through various meetings and focus groups. This material
is organized and under the following headings:

     •    Previous Consultations and Representations
     •    Input and Advice from the Stakeholder’s Focus Group
     •    Input and Advice from the Citizens’ Advisory Committee
     •    Input and Advice from the Facilities Industry Focus Group
     •    Input and Advice from the CUPE 34 Executive
     •    Input and Advice from the Principals
     •    Written Submissions
     •    Major Themes
XII. PREVIOUS CONSULTATIONS

   One of the important purposes of the Facilities Master Planning process is to seek
   the advice of our stakeholders, citizens, and staff regarding our facilities. While a
   new dialogue is vital, it is important to remember that significant consultations in
   the recent past have addressed facilities issues and that these reports still have much
   to offer as we plan our facilities. The Collegiate Review (2000), the final report of
   the Task Force and Public Dialogue on the Role of the School, Structuring the
   Dream, Strengthening Our Learning Community: Strategic Directions 2002-2007,
   and our recent facility rentals policy changes were all based upon consultations with
   education stakeholders.

   Collegiate Review

   The Collegiate Review (2000) undertook “to examine the current state of
   educational service to the collegiate students of the Division and to explore future
   directions in its service to students”. One major part of this review was a focus on
   the Division’s collegiate facilities. A significant consultation with stakeholders was
   achieved through surveys, focus groups, and interviews.

   This review resulted in six facilities – related recommendations that are outlined
   below:

   1.   Collegiate facilities have not been upgraded for many years. The authors
        believe that “A Plan for Renewal” is required.

   2.   The authors suggest that upgrading the eight collegiates would cost over 29
        million dollars.

   3.   The authors recommend that priority should be given to upgrading Nutana and
        City Park Collegiates.

   4.   A study of the air quality of all of the collegiates should be undertaken.

   5.   Each collegiate should be allocated a minimum of $250,000 to upgrade its
        equipment, and mobile labs for technical programs should be considered.

   6.   The authors recommended the construction of a new collegiate in the northeast
        area and monitoring of the northwest for another potential collegiate. New
        collegiates should be built for the 21st century and should be different from our
        present collegiates.
Beyond the facility recommendations, it is important to note that other observations
and recommendations have significant facility implications. Such examples include
the observations, conclusions, and recommendations regarding mandate, and school
configuration and specialization.

Role of the School

In SchoolPLUS: A Vision for Children and Youth (2001), the task force on the role of
the school recommended a direction for Saskatchewan schools that has significant
facilities implications. The creation of SchoolPLUS resulted from a province-wide
consultation with students, teachers, parents, and community members. Some of the
recommendations from this report that have facilities implications include:

•    That a community school philosophy be adopted for all public schools in the
     province (1.1). This recommendation intends to bind schools much closer to
     their geographic communities.

•    Many agencies will offer services based in the school to youth, families, and the
     community (3.1). These services will require significant spaces in our schools.

Structuring the Dream

A focus group including students, staff, and a wide variety of stakeholders generated
discussion and ideas that were reported in Structuring the Dream. This report
outlined 10 key themes that must be considered in planning future school facilities.

1.   Curriculum and Instruction

2.   Healthy Environment/Aesthetics

3.   Space and Flexibility

4.   Safety

5.   Accessibility

6.   Technology

7.   Specialized Function Areas

8.   Natural Landscaping

9.   Automobile Parking
10. Integrated Facilities

These themes have served as a helpful framework for facility planning. They form
the framework for the recently completed Educational Specifications for Future
Collegiates and Collegiate Renovations (2003).

Strengthening Our Learning Community: Strategic Direction 2002-2007

The recent effort to create a strategic direction and plan for the Division relied
heavily upon the ideas expressed in a number of focus group sessions. The resulting
statements of purpose, vision, goals, and principles and beliefs reflect the values and
interests of the community which makes up the Saskatoon Public School Division.
An in-depth review of the impact of the strategic direction and plan appears earlier
in this report. It is important to remember that this vital work is rooted in a dialogue
with our citizens and stakeholders.

Other Consultations

The Division has sought the views of its staff and stakeholders on many occasions.
Recently, input was sought regarding changes in facilities rental policy. On other
occasions, members of the public have initiated opportunities to be heard. Citizens
groups in the northeast and west of the city have made numerous representations to
the Board. City Park, North Park Wilson, and Buena Vista parents have very
recently expressed their views on facility issues to the Board. Their advice
combined with information from consultation opportunities within the Facilities
Master Planning process provides the Division with clear ideas and multiple points
of view on facilities issues. Our stakeholders’ and citizens’ voices will greatly assist
our planning work.
XIII. INPUT AND ADVICE FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS’ FOCUS GROUP

   Participants

   On March 12, 2003, approximately 45 people participated in a stakeholders’ focus
   group. Included in this group were students, parents, representatives of business
   groups, representatives of the STA and CUPE 1948, representatives of a variety of
   community agencies (City of Saskatoon, Library Board, Pre-School Foundation,
   etc.), and two trustees. The groups were facilitated by principals and facilities staff.

   The Process

   Participants were first introduced to the Master Plan process and significant factors
   in long-range facility planning. The set of overhead transparencies used in this
   presentation is appended (Appendix XIII: 1) to this section. Participants then
   discussed eight questions including one that asked them to consider the Division’s
   overall options in its facilities planning. Participants were also invited to offer their
   advice to the Division.

   Input and Advice

   The written reports from table groups and individuals are appended (Appendix XIII:
   2) to this section should the reader wish to see the complete data. It is not possible
   to capture the rich input in summary form, however, a number of major themes will
   be outlined below.

   •    Participants clearly indicated that it is not in the best interests of the
        community to have large numbers of non-Catholic children and youth in
        Catholic schools, however, two groups did indicate that options are good for
        families.

   •    A number of explanations were offered for the Public-Catholic shift in recent
        years. These include faith and prayer, geographic location, and lack of public
        school facilities.

   •    Some participants raised Public/Catholic funding issues including a higher mill
        rate, joint, therefore, less expensive facilities, and the suggestion that non-
        Catholics should pay a tuition to attend Catholic schools.

   •    Most participants agreed that it is important for new neighbourhoods to have
        schools. Supporting reasons included: need a centre of community, young
        children need to be close to school, and such schools help build relationships.
•   Many participants indicated their support of one joint facility in each new
    neighbourhood.

•   One group offered the idea that only new neighbourhoods that would attract
    families with school-age children should have schools.

•   Participants indicated their interest in several alternative structures including
    middle schools and elementary (K-3 or K-6) schools, integrated community
    centres, and leasing schools from the private sector.

•   SchoolPLUS and the Strategic Direction discussions did not lead to strong
    themes. The pressure on school space, the issue of other agencies paying for
    school facilities they would use, and the importance of a one-stop place for the
    community to gather were mentioned.

•   Participant groups were split on whether or not the Division should restore its
    oldest structures. Several groups spoke of the beauty and size of older schools,
    their heritage value, as well as the emotional attachment to the older structures.
    Other groups felt these schools should be demolished citing accessibility issues
    and the concern that renovation costs would be too high.

•   Alternative uses for closed schools were suggested and include community
    centres (like Albert) and adult education.

•   Most participants supported placing limits on school size citing the importance
    of a more personal educational experience and of strong interpersonal
    relationships.

•   Many participant groups suggested that leasing school space from the private
    sector is an option to consider. Others pointed out that in shared facilities,
    partners would pay a part of the facility cost.

Options

Groups were asked to determine what general approach should be taken for facility
planning in the future. Four options on a continuum were considered. Of the seven
groups who completed this task, 3 chose Option A which features a large

number of schools, some new schools, smaller school size, greater facility
expenditures, and schools more closely tied to neighbourhoods. Two groups
selected Option B which features the same number of schools, some new with some
being closed. One group selected Option C with a clear preference for smaller
schools, and another selected a midpoint between Options B and C.

Figure XIII: 1 illustrates the Options and the five continuums that helped to define
each option. The average response from the seven groups would be Option B with a
tendency toward Option A. This means that the average response favored:

•    retaining about the same number of schools as the Division currently operates;

•    building some new schools but closing some older ones;

•    smaller school size (the average response here was strongly toward Option A);

•    greater expenditures on facilities;

•    schools being closely tied to their neighbourhoods.

One group chose to present a suggestion for a community centre that features both
community agencies and business.

Advice

Readers are advised to read the wide array of verbatim comments offered by focus
group participants in the Appendix XIII: 2. Rather than reflecting a group
discussion, these comments largely came from individuals. Some themes did
emerge from this advice.

•    Many participants advised the Division to participate in integrated community
     centres or joint facilities. Some spoke to the strength and potential of
     SchoolPLUS.

•    A number of participants urged the Board to get on with building new schools.

•    Some participants urged the Division to think differently about schools; this
     includes some consideration of leasing school facilities from developers.

•    Several participants urged the Board to market the Division and to be more
     active in student recruitment.
                  FIGURE XIII: 1 OPTIONS FOR A GENERAL APPROACH TO FACILITY PLANNING
                      OPTION A            OPTION B        OPTION C        OPTION D
                      INCREASE # OF    SAME # OF SCHOOLS     KEEP CURRENT     REDUCE # OF SCHOOLS
                        SCHOOLS           BUILD NEW             SCHOOLS           CLOSE SOME
                   BUILD NEW SCHOOLS   CLOSE SOME OLDER    RENOVATE/REPLACE    RENOVATE/REPLACE
                    RENOVATE OLDER     SCHOOLS & BUS TO      OLD & BUS NEW       SOME SCHOOLS
                        SCHOOLS         NEARBY SCHOOLS      NEIGHBOURHOODS


  LARGER # OF                                                                                       FEWER SCHOOLS
   SCHOOLS




   SOME NEW                                                                                         NO NEW SCHOOLS
    SCHOOLS




SMALLER SCHOOL                                                                                      LARGER SCHOOL
     SIZE                                                                                                SIZE




    GREATER                                                                                         LOWER FACILITIES
   FACILITIES                                                                                        EXPENDITURES
 EXPENDITURES




 SCHOOLS MORE                                                                                         SCHOOLS LESS
CLOSELY TIED TO                                                                                     CLOSELY TIED TO
NEIGHBOURHOODS                                                                                      NEIGHBOURHOODS
           Appendix XIII: 1

    Overhead Transparencies


 Used in Consultation Sessions



(contact Traci Toth for copy – 683-8210)
                                   Appendix XIII: 2

              FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS FOCUS GROUP
                        Meeting held Wednesday, March 12, 2003
                                          Verbatim
1.   Is it in the best interests of this community to have large numbers of non-
     Catholic children and youth in Catholic schools?
     •    should not be
     •    not in best interest
     •    find out why
     •    perception that Catholic better
     •    not if the reason for the movement is determined by lack of facilities i.e. E.D.
          Feehan – 33% public
     •    no
          - deep philosophical question
          - why does this happen – geographic location – some Catholic schools are
              newer
          - not the best interest for public education but occurs due to proximity of the
              Catholic schools
          - buses pickup kids and take them to the Catholic schools
          - emphasis on “faith in education” as advertised by media
     •    moot point if Sask Learning will not provide funding
     •    joint facility – not money available to build two facilities
     •    what is being offered at collegiate effects choice (student) – emotional
                attachment
     •    St. Joseph – location, location, location
     •    SPSD high numbers of special needs students – cost implication (should we be
                married to mill rate of Catholic system?)
     •    to build – Catholic system pays lower % than public
     •    Policy 1030 has affected enrolment
     •    bite bullet and raise mill rate
     •    close schools, adjust mill rate, reduce number of programs offered at
                collegiates
     •    home schooling – drawing students out but come for resources
     •    taxes – illegal to direct taxes to Catholic system but it happens because of
                decisions made by SPSD (New Education Centre, unhappy with
                individual schools)
     •    danger – only poor send children to this school
     •    need greater lobbying with provincial government
     •    integrated facilities – develop partnerships Catholic system lacks interest for
                true sharing. Together but “don’t touch” – conflict
     •   E.D. Feehan 33% BRCI MRCI 22%
     •   BRCI – cap on grade 9 – chose E.D. Feehan rather than deal with size of
               MRCI
     •   result of choices made by SPSD
     •   St. Joseph 32% of population not Catholic – SPSD chose to renovate rather
               than high school in north-east
     •   options are good for families
     •   families sometimes “play off” between two systems
     •   no, it negatively impacts our school division – we lose
     •   “Christian ethics” (at Rosthern- better size) was very positive
     •   Montgomery – cost to recoup
     •   choice needed
       • no
         - must increase marketing --- to equal Catholic marketing
         - school prayer issue – rotating different prayers
       • some kind of recovery plan should be devised
         - not as important in terms of lots of money spent
         - focus at entry level – stream them into system
         - need more schools (innovative approaches i.e. Royal West)
       • no
         - we don’t need a separate system anymore – many Catholics don’t choose
             Catholic schools anymore because it is so “watered down” – non-Catholics
             who choose Catholic schools should have to pay tuition and treat it like a
             private school, meanwhile still pay public school taxes

2.   Saskatoon will grow significantly over the next 20-25 years. How important is
     it to each new neighbourhood to have its own school? Why?
     •     yes – centre of community – involved in school if close, for parents
     •     elementary students need schools
     •     high school – after growth near completion
     •     optimal to have one school in each neighbourhood – a joint Catholic/Public
           facility – a share facility
     •     what is required is a multi-purpose facility to facilitate out of school activities
     •     safety of walking through some neighbourhoods a concern
     •     not economical feasible for every neighbourhood
     •     every neighbourhood should have a school, plus
     •     lack of building affects choice – paint, new vs. old structures
     •     Calgary – new developments – told there will be no school
     •     magnet schools – higher transportation costs. Ottawa does not provide
           transportation for those who want to go somewhere other than neighbourhood
           school. (Not all can afford own transportation.)
     •   from business perspective – schools in Broadway are very NB
     •   people want children to go to school in the area
         •    NB in new areas – encourage kids to walk to school – get to know people
              in neighbourhood – builds strong relationships
     •   new neighbourhoods – shared services concept
     •   place strategically – older neighbourhoods – collaborate with other agencies
         and create a community centre
     •   elementary boundaries – people will got to close school – importance of closer
         for younger K-4
     •   Calgary – busing to redevelopment
     •   each community needs some kind of centre to be a community (school has
         been traditionally that centre)
     •   look at well-planned and conducted research and go in that direction
     •   need high schools in all regions
     •   marketing – sells ideas of better in results in smaller school
     •   share in facilities – or multi-purpose facilities in communities leads to the best
         of both worlds
     •   ideally it would be nice but is not realistic. The city needs to identify “family
         areas” of new development non-family areas. Much of the city growth will not
         be families. Schools in family areas are very important for parent involvement
         and awareness of peers and issues like drugs and bullying.

3.   Which alternate structures beyond the current K-8, 9-12 school organizational
     structures should be considered for possible implementation? What are the
     facilities’ implications of the suggested structures?
     •     leasing property
     •     costs shrinking tax base, can’t afford
     •     multi-use
     •     end-use
     •     the cost of such re-organization would probably out-weigh benefits
     •     also, any such changes would have to be everywhere, not as alternative to
           equal access
     •     haven’t heard of K-3? What are the advantages of K-3?
     •     by building a community centre facility that would include a gym, office
           spaces and meeting rooms portables could be added and taken away as needed
     •     non-Catholic parents with children in Catholic schools say two systems not
           much different – so why two?
     •     should look at K-6 and middle years schools
     •     middle school
     •     two schools in neighbourhood – put all of K-6 in one school and all 7-9 in
           another. Would require cooperation of SPSD & Catholic system
     •    middle schools should be investigated (6-9)
     •    having 3 year olds with 14-15 years is too difficult
     •    middle school might better utilize facilities
     •    need integrated structures
     •    legit to have no school as long as you indicate in planning development phase
          – agreement of 2 divisions
     •    Royal West – great
     •    maybe middle schools bused to use facility
     •    follow what literature says
     •    some concerns about the very young trekking a long distance
     •    feel 1-3 is okay to be small and close to home
     •    maybe leases – or facilities that can have multi-use
     •    No K-3 or K-5. I like the junior high system. Not sure if this is the time for
          implementation. Unless underused elementary school would be suitable for
          older kids and take pressure off of some of the collegiates.

4.   What do you think will be the impact of the implementation of the Strategic
     Direction and SchoolPLUS on our school facilities? (think 10 years ahead)
     •   class size too small
     •   SchoolPLUS puts more pressure on the space. Each additional staff facility
         reduces space available. SchoolPLUS implies an onus on the Board to level the
         field and therefore provide an opportunity for equal success.
     •   Where is the cash coming from to implement SchoolPLUS?
     •   schools are taking on more roles other than education – fears – school must do
         it all – stress on staff
     •   must bring more paying partners into the school who might pay rent for facility
         use
     •   space is at a premium in many of our schools
     •   need to think hard about how to collaborate with each other
     •   long-range planning so as to locate & deliver services – with older buildings
     •   for new areas – plan with integrated service in mind
     •   increase maintenance needed with many uses
     •   variety of ages benefits (Mount Royal –CAP) Community
     •   daycare – wonderful – wonderful for whole student body
     •   have less institutional for different uses
     •   build in a gathering plan in community school
     •   would require more space
     •   would lead to smaller school student numbers and more
     •   economic value to benefit the education system with other department dollars
         involved
     •   community benefits to one stop centers
    •    would require different concept of school from traditional
    •    The Tisdale project sounds very interesting. Good idea to combine civic
         recreation centres (skating/curling/swimming etc.) and library facilities to save
         on overhead and give more opportunities to the kids St. Anne’s makes good
         use out of Lawson Civic Centre. Not sure about having justice, public health
         etc. in the schools. Isn’t this just more duplication of services. I think a pilot
         project should be definitely planned for one of the new “family” areas that held
         a school and civic facilities are very far away.

5a) Should the Division restore its oldest school structures? We assume that the
    cost of restoring a pre-1930 structure will be similar to the cost of a new school
    structure.
    • if you can’t make as useful as a new one
    • can’t close down without a new one
    • demolition of old and building new would be more effective. Also give time to
        question need. Do we need Nutana and City Park?
    • old schools offer a type of beauty & size not allowed in new construction
    • consider the “heritage value”
    • cost to bring it up to code must be considered
    • cost an incredible amount of money to renovate – new rules & codes
    • don’t save any money by renovating
    • saved only for sentimental reasons
    • build “school” after ten years another use
    • no not renovate old castles – sell to private business or destroy
    • developers could build schools and lease to SPSD – no money up front;
        neighbourhood changes – SPSD leaves
    • under utilized, bulldoze down and sell property
    • develop civic facilities (leisure)
    • accessibility is an issue
    • have to restore – depends on the building & neighbourhood
    • depends on location of schools
    •    emotional attachment to schools in core areas
    •    if cost same keep old structures
    •    stop using band aides – historical society – or partnerships beyond school
         board, comes up with money to help okay – but health issues are the primary
         concern – don’t throw money into bottomless pits
    •    partnerships would be needed to restore these older buildings (need wheel
         chair accesses)

5b) Should the Division choose not to restore and to close some of its older schools,
    what are the potential uses of such schools by our community?
     •       meeting place
     •       community hub
     •       adult education
     •       city takeover
     •       community centres
     •       adult day care
     •       community centre (Albert Community Center, Abilities Council)
         •   adult education programs
         •   other groups seem to see a value in acquiring these old buildings
         •   community centres
         •   seniors complex
         •   Albert Community Centre, Wilson School, Haultain School – reuse facility
         •   reuse land (knockdown and reconfigure the land)
         •   maintain as school – increase community use as enrolment drops
         •   community centres
         •   sale of facility
         •   lease of facilities
         •   community centres i.e. Albert School, “other schools (secondary) i.e. Wilson
             School, Indian College), retail development. Areas might be suitable for
             refitting for condos etc.

6.   Should the Division adopt a school size policy limiting the size of its schools to a
     maximum identified by research as optimal for learning?
     •   yes, no
     •   catchment area
     •   with possibly some consideration for technical programs all other schools
         should be maximum 900
     •   problem: What happens to the relocated kids when the school they are bused to
         reaches the maximum? Are these kids bumped to another school? i.e.
         Briarwood – kids in high school choose a certain school often because of the
         program offered.
     •   small schools – very positive experience – more personal – build stronger
         relationships with teachers
     •   potential to divide families
     •   need more buildings if we limit size
     •   yes – some kids can’t function in large schools – clear yes!
     •   in theory yes, but money plays a factor in this
     •   depends on why the school enrolment is decreasing i.e. North Park Wilson
         School has the children in the area but because the school is so neglected and
         under standard, people in the area choose not to support
7a) What options to the traditional approach to planning, building, financing,
    operating and owning school facilities should be considered by the Saskatoon
    Public School Division?
    •   ask developers and business
    •   centre of excellence – lease the space
    •   school serveries in high schools should be charged for space and use – same
        for school stores
    •   rent out the gym and kitchen for weddings etc. – allow liquor license
    •   consider leasing
    •   integrated facility – funding from all areas
    •   don’t do the design/build – can build and sell to private and lease back 20 years
        (Safeway Model) Banks model – lease back – could be an approach to west
        side collegiate
    •   leasing 0% down loan – on short-term basis 1 or 2 decades. Leasing may work
        otherwise school boards should own
    •   amortize over a longer time is okay so you service the need now and that may
        draw more people

7b) What are the possibilities for the participation of the private sector in the
    planning, development, operation, and ownership of school facilities?
    •   no leases, no ppp’s
    •   if we can share with some other agencies pay rent or leases, health units
    •   leasor
    •   sponsorship of co-op program
    •   leasing space for outside agencies to use
    •   possibility
    •   how can we most efficiently use our public dollars
    •   shared facilities with Library/City/Separate System
    •   1 to 2 decades okay – straight money
    •   I think the system should look at 25 year leases with strict specifications on
        planning and standards and maintenance

8.   Please discuss the range of options outlined on the long sheet of paper.
     Consider which option the Division should adopt as it plans its future service to
     our community’s young people.
     •    Option B – build new – demolish those that are too expensive to maintain
          and/or fail the student
     •    As a group we chose Option A but I think we know it is not truly realist with
          the demographics and future trend. Personally I think Option C might be more
          realist at least for the next few years
9.   Other:

     •   carpet in schools, replace with lino - affects health – 1st priority
     •   asbestos
     •   black mold
     •   air quality
     •   all lead to sick days, extended sick leave which costs the system, therefore, do
         not renovate – rebuild to new health standards and codes
     •   expand our joint use agreements (leisure centres)
     •   involve Tribal Council – may think they need to develop own schools
     •   Catholic School Board listens to their public (we are here to serve you- tell us
         what you want/need) Public Board does not listen (treats concerns/issues as
         annoyances)
                                         Your Advice

    •   Ensure a facilities standard that provides equality of programming opportunities
        across the division. That may mean taking measures to improve facilities in ore
        areas, which do not have facilities similar or even close in standard to newer areas.
        (equity measures to create equality)
    •   Change the philosophy toward building schools – co-operation with other agencies
        (city, health authority, province) is key to building facilities that can have other
        functions when they are no longer needed as schools, or which contain other
        functions while they operate as schools.
    •   Treat facilities renovation/construction in established areas with the same
        consideration as new areas – look at the long-term settlement cycles of the area, i.e.
        areas tend to rejuvenate.
    •   I do not believe it is fair to “wait & see” or “wait it out until enrolment goes down
        again”. We need to get new schools built now (start the digging this spring). It is
        not fair that so many of Saskatoon’s children have been lost in the system because
        of current situations. So what is best and borrow the money – stop being so stingy!
    •   It’s also not fair that families have been forced into the Catholic System by the
        Public System!
    •   We need to market and recruit.
    •   Stop piddling money away by using band-aids! Get rid of the old structures that are
        not capable of servicing all the needs and issues we now have (this is not 1920 – this
        is the year 2003)
    •   1) Build new schools; 2) Renovate viable schools; 3) tear down or sell all others that
        no longer serve the purpose of education well
    •   Build new schools to get rid of most of the junky portables!
    •   Do not bus children out of their areas. It is not fair that children cannot be educated
        in their own communities!
    •   Thank you for beginning to implement the SchoolPLUS model. I think it is
        wonderful. It would strengthen our community by having one-stop centres and
        smaller student numbers.
•       Please remember all the students who don’t fit in the category of “special needs” but
        cannot handle overcrowding and large student ratios. I have a son who is ADHD
        and daughter who is ADD (they both fall into this category). Right now it seems
        they will have to suffer the consequences of being thrown into the “Lion’s Den” and
        “fall back” until they actually do need the use of the “special needs” program. My
        daughter is in grade 7 (I know her grade 9 year will be a tremendous jolt to our
        whole family – because of the overcrowding issues). The soonest she has to get a
        high school in our areas is her grade 10 year (that’s pushing it). We then could
        begin to undo the damage of grade 9! My son is in grade 4… all heck will break
        loose if we don’t have a high school for him by grade 9! He needs structure and a
        more stable atmosphere. These are both children who get 100% on exams when
    they have the right learning environment – take that away and they can’t even focus
    enough to learn the basics. These kids are extremely viable assets to our future
    community and I’d hate to see them not given the best chance possible (this is my
    biggest fear in life right now!) Who would have thought that I’d have to worry
    about this in Saskatoon – of all places!)
•   Like we teach our kids – SPSD needs to make amends to the children of this city for
    using the money that could have built them 2 new schools and spending it on a
    building for themselves.
•   I urge you, on behalf of my family, my elementary school and my community – put
    money issues aside – borrow the money and start digging now. No more decisions,
    no more sitting on the fence, we all know what needs to be done.
•   Please make a northeast collegiate your #1 Capital Program again this year and next
    year make a west collegiate your #1 project and renovations to older schools.
•   Think outside the box. Look at schools and what they have to offer and to who.
    - rentals
    - community services
    - community gathering place
    - flexibility
    - expandable
•   SchoolPLUS is a good concept.
•   Integrated Community Center designed for multipurpose activities.
•   Generate a variety of funding incomes.
    - tender out to agencies related to SchoolPLUS
    - look for grant money
    - partnerships
•   Redefine how we describe “school” community centre, library, multi-use facility,
    gym.
•   Move away from the traditional view of classrooms, office, library, hours of
    operation – 2 months closed in summer.
•   work in harmony with city “integrated community facilities”
•   Location – having a centre or focus for families in each nighbourhood is critical –
    location, location, location! How do/can we compete with a sister system that buses
    kids.
•   Continue your patient conversation discussion with Saskatoon Catholic Schools. I
    think that the hospital model in Saskatoon (with specialties) is something to look at.
•   Is it possible that private developers can build a facility and the Board staff, furnish
    and facilitate – at a cost that is reasonable.
•   Start looking at sharing our facilities with private business, that have common
    needs, clients. Such as Dentist, Doctors – Medical Centre.
•   Share with the City regarding Library, Community Centre.
•   Bring in community partners i.e. police service, counselling, etc.
•   Bring the neighbourhood community into the school. Share the computer room.
    Teaching classes within our schools to community. Share our facility with others.
•   No more than 900 students at one high school. Important to have an updated
    facility, well-influenced programs (graphic arts, phys.ed.), more community and
    parental/student involvement with each other. Renovations to older schools, more
    communication between the student body and the staff. Royal West, greatest idea of
    the School Board ever!
•   Build a new high school – 800-1000 – numbers maintain need.
•   Community Involvement. Based on need of community. Build to suit future.
    Sherwood Parks built a community centre around the area housing the recreation
    area!
•   Sharing facilities with Separate and Public gymnasium, library, play areas.
•   Sell to the international market more aggressively.
•   Engage with University of Saskatchewan for the double cohort in Ontario.
•   Sell leaseback.
•   I would like to see planning done with the community – a school would look
    “different” depending which community it is located in.
•   Develop a community centre – recreation/library etc. Then attach Catholic and
    public schools in a combined facility.
•   I think busing to under-populated area is a viable option.
•   Make the government pay more for education. There should be o debate that we
    need a high school in the west and northeast areas. We just need them period and
    have for many years.
•   Enforced catchment areas (Calgary, Winnipeg) would make school planning easier.
    Would improve sense of community in neighbourhoods. Many people don’t only
    get to choose the school system, but the actual school they send their kids to. They
    the new beautiful schools like Brunskill get enrolment pressure while other like
    North Park Wilson suffer. When families have kids in both systems are tax dollars
    actually split?
•   Catholic schools have the perception, especially by parents who grew up in more
    rural areas of the province as being better, more homework. More discipline. Not
    sure how this perception can be changed. I do not want to see elementary kids
    doing "homework” especially before grade 5/6. Discipline seems to depend on the
    principal in most schools for both systems. Public schools shouldn’t need to
    promote or for both systems. Public schools should need to promote or advertise
    themselves.

XIV. INPUT AND ADVICE FROM THE CITIZENS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL

    Participants
The Citizens’ Advisory Council (CAC) is an organization representing a wide
spectrum of community organizations and the Division’s parent councils. The
Council often serves the role of providing input on policy proposals to the Board.
About 30 members were in attendance at the February 24, 2003 meeting.

The Process

The Facilities Master Plan process and significant factors that must be considered in
long-range facility planning were presented to CAC members present. Participants
then discussed eight questions regarding facilities policy. Each group was asked to
consider four general options for our facilities development in the future. Lastly,
participants were invited to provide three significant points of advice in an open
format.

Because other agenda items ran longer than necessary, CAC members did not have
enough time to complete their input and advice at the meeting. Participants were
asked to complete their input and send it to the School Services Department. This
time challenge resulted in fewer submissions than anticipated. The quality and
quantity of input, however, was significant and ultimately very helpful.

Input Regarding Discussion Questions

The verbatim comments are appended (Appendix XIV: 1). Strong themes from the
eight discussion questions are described below:

•    Many council members expressed a strong opinion that it is not in the best
     interests of our community to have large numbers of non-Catholic children and
     youth in Catholic schools. Several questioned the need for two systems.

•    A couple of members expressed their view that the current choice is fine and
     that those who desire a Christian focus will find it in Catholic schools.

•    Several members commented on the reasons for the Public to Catholic shift
     which included religious reasons, convenience, public schools’ image problem,
     and the need for the Board to view education as an investment, not an expense.

•    The majority of responses favored new schools in new neighbourhoods, often
     citing the importance to the community. Some of those favoring new schools
     in new neighbourhoods did, however, express some reservations about cost.

•    About a third of responses did not favor new schools in new neighbourhoods
     and expressed a concern that these new schools cannot be afforded.
•   Other comments about new schools included the idea of an expanded or wider
    view of a neighbourhood.

•   Regarding alternate structures, a number of CAC members expressed an
    interest in trying middle schools.

•   An interest was expressed in integrated community centres.

•   Some CAC members saw the significance of integrated or shared facilities and
    indicated that this may offer a very good use of available space.

•   Most CAC members did not feel well-informed enough to offer a
    recommended percentage of annual expenditures to be devoted to facilities. A
    few commented that a percentage comparable to other divisions is a guide.

•   Regarding improving space utilization, a few CAC members wrote that
    available space could be used for preschools or rented out to other community
    groups.

•   Participants offered strong support for limits on school size although some
    expressed the need for flexibility as neighbourhoods grow and mature. One
    respondent worried about splitting up families if the policy is too rigid. Some
    expressed reservations or opposition to this idea due to cost concern.

•   A number of CAC members supported the restoration of our oldest schools.
    Several mentioned their historic value. Addressing accessibility is important.
    Several members suggested school by school decisions based on cost
    effectiveness.
Options

Ten members submitted their preference among the four general options to facility
planning in the future. All preferences fell into the Option A to Option B range.
Portions of a few responses (respondents broke up their response) landed on the
Option B/C boundary. Generally speaking, the CAC members prefer the option
where:

•   the Division retains at least the same number of schools,

•   some new schools will be built,

•   some older schools may be closed,

•   small school size is important,

•   facilities expenditures may be increased, and

•   schools will be closely tied to neighbourhoods.

Advice

CAC members were invited to offer three significant points of advice in an open
format. This advice should be read verbatim. The advice was diverse and few
strong themes emerged from the collected advice offered. The one very clear
theme was CAC members’ interest in integrated or joint use facilities.
                         Appendix XIV: 1
FEEDBACK FROM CITZENS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL FOCUS GROUP
              Meeting held Monday, February 24, 2003
                             Verbatim
                             Questions
                      (Think Policy Direction)

1.   Is it in the best interests of this community to have large numbers of non-
     Catholic children and youth in Catholic schools?
     •    Capital costs Transportation Costs or Where the Public system does not
          provide/have a local school – yes! Especially if the neighbourhood has a
          decreasing population of school age children. Avoid busing if at all possible.
     •    This is a question in the round “large numbers of Catholic children in non-
          Catholic schools”. It probably means no religion! The bottom line is that one
          school system would be much more economical.
     •    To me the Catholic School signifies Christian values, whether they be Catholic
          or otherwise. I think this is why many people send their children there, and I
          think it should be open to anyone who wants their children to have that.
     •    It is not the best interest of the community to have two school systems who
                received the bulb of their money from the government.
     •    No it is not… But…
          1) Why did they leave the public system?
          2) How can the public get them back?
          3) How can we battle the perception?
          4) How can we get press to support us?
          5) Are we (public system) a united front?
     •    No, there shouldn’t be two systems. However, will you ban Catholic students
          from Public schools?
     •    Should be one Public system only.
     •    From my own personal experience with acquaintances & friends, they took
          their children out of the Public school system, because they saw a lack of
          structure, discipline & consequences of actions. They feel that teacher no
          longer have the control/power they use to have. Secondly taking out the Lords
          Prayer & the traditional Christmas pageant did not bode well with these
          parents. All of them wanted religion to carry on from home, church, school.
     •    less money revenue. This decrease Public Board Revenue for facilities and
          other expenses.
     •    why not? I guess people can do as they wish.
     •    How could we change this?
     •    There should only be 1 system.
     •    We need an equivalent high school in St. Joseph area.
     •       Many decisions are made on convenience 35% of Catholic schools have non-
             Catholic children.
     •       The current funding process supports the opinion that we need to maximize the
             number of students in the Public system. However, in terms of community
             interests, we are well served by choice with respect to convenient school
             location and an option for a spiritual component to publicly funded education.
         •   Assuming the “community” is referring to the public school system, no, it is
             not in our best interest to have large numbers of non-Catholic children
             attending Catholic schools – because our enrolment would go down.
         •   Need to bring those students back. Public system faces a BIG image problem
             not just in Saskatoon, but press from other province hurts.
             Perceptions that Catholic school have:
             - more value education
             - lower class size
             - less bullying
             - more unified voice
             Feeling that special needs children are better integrated in – Public system
             needs to address these issues – Catholic schools to lure students back.
         •   No. All non-Catholics should be attending public school. In fact, I believe all
             children of all religious backgrounds should be attending public schools.
         •   No! However, there needs to be a greater commitment, by this Board of
             Education, to the needs of children. Cutting “teacher librarians” does not
             reflect well on meeting these needs. Too many of the trustees view education
             as an expense as opposed to an “investment”.

2.       Saskatoon will grow significantly over the next 20-25 years. How important
         is it to each new neighbourhood to have its own school? Why?
         • A school is a key component of a community. It is very important that a new
              community or area have at least 1 K-8 school.
         • This is a very costly approach. Looking at modular structures is more flexible
              and economical. On the other hand, healthy communities often develop
              around strong schools.
         • I think its great to have a school in each neighbourhood, but is it economically
              viable when the projected numbers for school children in Saskatoon school
              district is expected to keep dropping? I think overall numbers should reflect
              what we do.
         • This factor is not important. It is better to put the money into programs and
              teachers as opposed to building new schools.
         • Yes… but enlarge your concept of what is considered a neighbourhood area.
         • How are apart should our schools be?
   • What is the proof it will grow? Maybe inner city areas will empty- moving to
     outskirts and new areas. So will new schools be at the expense of old
     neighbourhoods?
   • I can’t see this happening.
   • This cannot be afforded (increase money to build and maintain).
   • Taxes would go higher.
   • Generally, each new neighbourhood cannot have a new school. (Have City of
     Saskatoon remove school projections from their maps.)
   • A trial Middle School (Gr. 7-9) should be considered with teachers and
     students applying to attend. The trial should not involve new buildings but
     reorganization of existing space. This will likely require busing of the older
     students.
   • We support sharing facilities with the Catholic Board, City libraries, rec.
     centres or other applicable Social Service organizations.
   • Perhaps the concept of schools with a permanent core but flexible number of
     classrooms needs to be reconsidered in case improved building methods now
     make this a viable option.
 •   I think it is very important at the elementary school level because schools build
     a sense of community. A school and the quality of the school in an area is
     important for people moving into the area.
   • Look at having schools within a particular radius as opposed to neighbourhood
     – e.g. Hugh Cairns V.C. and Prince Philip very close together – do we need 2
     schools so close together? Use to be important to have student walk home at
     lunch and after school – with 2 income families more students stay for lunch
     and use after school care – maybe distance to school not as important as it use
     to be.
   • Very important. Children should not have to travel far to get to school. For
     health and social reasons, they should be able to walk to school.
     Neighbourhood schools build community.
   • Yes, but is it feasible? Some movement of children from growing residential
     areas is inevitable.

3. Which alternate structures beyond the current K-8, 9-12 school
   organizational structures should be considered for possible implementation?
   What are the facilities’ implications of the suggested structures?
   • Almost anything that will offer enhanced opportunities for students and
      services to the community. Build schools that share walls/heating/cooling with
      civic centres, health centres. Integrated schools and public libraries. Shared
      management or out sourced management of the facility.
   • Having middle years (7-9) is sensible particularly if education is “child-
      centred”.
   • Have middle schools for Grade 6, 7, and 8.
   • Grades 7, 8, and 9 should be separated into their own school. This would be
     beneficial to the children, families, and communities.
   • Fastest growing population is aboriginal and also immigrant, maybe more
     specialty schools will be needed ESL etc.?
   • I think middle schools are very important. 7-8 should not be in the elementary
     schools.
   • Move schools would be needed.
   • Use old schools.
   • Middle years 7, 8, 9 would be bused/maybe to older schools.
   • We think it’s okay they way it is now.
   • A trial Middle School (Grade 7-9) should be considered with teachers and
     students applying to attend. The trial should not involve new buildings but
     reorganization of existing space. This will likely require busing of the older
     students.
   • We support sharing facilities with the Catholic Board, City libraries, rec.
     centres or other applicable Social Service organizations.
   • Perhaps the concept of schools with a permanent core but flexible number of
     classrooms needs to be reconsidered in case improved building methods now
     make this a viable option.
   • A middle years (or junior high school) should be considered – it may be a good
     transitional structure – I would think it is worth investigating the literature and
     other communities that have such a system.
   • Combine school with community library, other department services,
     community centre. If K-3 or K-5 schools and middle years school in existing
     structures – would decrease class size, would allow for resources to be more
     specialized – would increase bus costs – could also have comfort of knowing
     children are transported safely (big issue for parents).
   • I’ve always liked the idea of Junior High (grades 7, 8, and 9). As well, I
     support the programs like Royal West. People over 18 are too old to be mixing
     socially with youth in Grade 9. These programs free up space in high schools.
   • Joint use facilities similar to that in Tisdale might be considered in the City
     Park, Wilson, North Park, Richmond, River Heights areas, for example. What
     facilities does the city and/or government need that could be considered for
     joint use? what about the same concept for the new high schools?


4. What do you think will be the impact of the implementation of the Strategic
   Direction and SchoolPLUS on our school facilities? (think 10 years ahead)
   • Schools will play an even greater role in the community they serve. Health,
      Social Services, and other provincial service providers may have a presence in
      the school – which evolve into a community services centre.
   • Don’t know what that is.
• Future planning is imperative but there has to be a good plan to begin with.
• SchoolPLUS will if every school is community school have a great impact.
• The only way the Strategic Direction & SchoolPLUS will work is if the Board of
  Education becomes a business. This program will only succeed if the Board
  runs itself like an official business.
• need more liaison with health (e.g. Nurse input) & police (e.g. at high schools)
• liaison person (salary need)
• business partnerships
• increase work, planning, increase money for projects – community links for
  less money
• The innovative projects that come forward for little or no cost for facilities
  should be prioritized over the large cost items. Consider using school space for
  offices etc. for our partners in these projects. Consider having rent paid by the
  other government departments if necessary.
• These plans sound good in theory but we are doubtful that there is either the
  money or human resources in the school system, health board or social services
  to make this happen. Our personal experience is that we are currently well
  served by a nearby Public Health Unit and community police officer, for e.g.
  so it wouldn’t be fiscally responsible to expand this current set up. For this
  reason, we believe that any changes should be targeted to each specific
  school’s needs.
• Schools will potentially become the hub of the community, as long as the
  supports and services are truly meeting the needs of that community. It could
  mean the services are coming to the community rather than the community
  going to the services. May result in a reduction of costs overall?? Would be
  beneficial to newcomers in a community.
• As enrolments continue to decline, it may make better use of facilities.
• Schools will be busier and will need lots of space.
5.   What percentage of the Division’s annual operating expenditures should be
       devoted to its facilities?
     •    The Division may want to use a figure that is comparable to other typical
          divisions.
     •    Do not have enough information to make an informed statement.
     •    Without knowing the costs this is an unfair question.
     •    Facilities that need urgent repair and updating should get them, and then a
          percentage allocated to maintaining why can’t business get more involved as
          the UK now where they are bidding on building a school.
     •    Most inner city schools are in desperate need of repair. I think this matter
          should be addressed immediately. Once this done then a percentage can be
          allotted to other schools as well as the inner city.
     •    Take care of older schools – especially if we aren’t building new.
     •    Our central budget doesn’t give us a percentage to maintain each school (e.g.
          16% per school).
     •    Put more money into maintenance of older schools.
     •    We can not respond to this question due to a lack of information and
          knowledge about the subject. Obviously we don’t want money diverted from
          teachers, programs or resources to support facilities but we can not send our
          children to poorly maintained, unsafe buildings.
     •    This is hard to comment on. It seems reasonable that we would spend a similar
          percentage as other divisions, which we are not (approximately 16%).
     •    We don’t feel we have enough information to adequately answer this question
          –if we ask for increased expenditure on facilities, what areas would suffer as a
          result?
     •    I can’t answer this. Surely, we have people working in our division who have
          the training and expertise to answer this question.
     •    2% - 3% on a continuum would not be excessive.

6.   How can the Division increase the space utilization of its facilities in order to
     create greater efficiencies?
       • Rent them out.
       • Build smaller classrooms.
       • Move community pre-schools into unused spaces.
       • Unclear, are we talking “what about evenings, weekend, holidays, summer or
           the school year.
       • Stream lining programs and focussing them in one building would create a
          good use of space and program availability.
       • Inventive hours, shared facilities.
       • In my particular school the AcTal program could be eliminated. This way
          there would be more space for our pre-K program, and the regular program
          students would not have to be in splits or large classes.
      • Rent out/lease space.
      • Revisit rental fees and who rents for what reason (e.g. church in our school on
        Sunday night) rental fees for groups like this.
      • Our personal experience at Lawson Heights with declining enrolment has
        allowed us to provide classroom space for:
        - before & after school daycare program
        - coop preschool
        - teacher research room, which is used by teachers from many schools, but just
        our own. Programming around this facility enhances our children’s education
        experience.
      • More significant declines in enrolment will require more evaluation of our
        space usage and we are making links with local seniors, for e.g. which may
        lead to other new possibilities that we don’t know about yet.
      • Our school is currently well used after school and on weekends by community
        association activities for children and adults
      • Be more open and welcoming to outside groups??
      • Look at offering year round schooling, shifts in classes – some morning shifts,
        some afternoon shifts – article in paper recently saying school in not in time
        with teenager’s internal clock – is a later start more effective for some?
        - more rentals of school space for after-hours activities.
      • Not sure what this question means.

7.   Should the Division adopt a school size policy limiting the size of its schools to a
     maximum identified by research as optimal for learning?
      • Likely not feasible without a major capital spending spree. How would that
         policy deal with the cyclical nature of communities: as they nature the number
         of school age children goes down – then established couples sell and young
         families move in and the number of children increases?
      • Great idea, hard to say what the money implications would be.
      • Yes, but more NB to keep student/teacher ratio down.
      • This would be a good idea as money would be spent wisely and stop the
         spending money twice for the same services.
      • If practically possible.
      • I do agree smaller classrooms are much better, but you need to maintain the
         schools you have.
      • No, every neighbourhood is different. Every decade (needs bused) is different.
         Give research information to each individual school to consider individualize
         more the school and its community of families.
      • Demographic projections are ready for older areas.
      • Yes, but bulges in population will likely occur and we may have to respond
         with portable classrooms or busing.
      • My concern would be that a school size policy might inhibit families from all
        attending the same school. I also think we need to pay attention to the
        research, so there must be a way to meet the needs of families in the
        community and also adopt a school size policy.
      • Yes, if funding were available – if funding is not available, what do you do if
        schools are maxed out and no new schools were available? Of course this
        would be optimal in a perfect world, but what is practical, given monetary
        constraints?
      • Yes! We can promote this as one of our strengths. Why would we aim to
        achieve something less than the optimum for our children and our community?
      • Yes! The information provided reinforced the need for this.

8.   How important is it to maintain our older structures? It is least as expensive to
     renovate/restore they schools as it is to build new ones.
       • Let Brunskill be your guide. If the older structure meets accessibility
         requirements and does not have structural issues, it may make sense to
         renovate it.
       • What does one do with the abandoned structures?
       • Very NB, because if you do not maintain schools in older neighbourhoods, you
         get no new families moving into the area, and the area does not turn over and
         rejuvenate. (ex. Exhibition Area)
       • This is very important to the sense of community and keeping all taxpayers
         interested in issues and paying the school taxes if the older are kept.
       • Go for the most cost effective route, but if building new ones then in same
         area.
       • It is very important, as they are part of the history of the city. I’m sure you
         could find cost effective ways.
       • Important to maintain what we have had.
       • Lots of bad feelings have arisen in communities where schools where shut
         down. Consider leaving a core structure with the community and bus nearby
         kids to older schools.
       • Older buildings are part of our communal heritage and do have an intrinsic
         value beyond their real estate value. They are often more aesthetically
         satisfying than newer buildings but may suffer lack of accessibility, which is a
         hallmark of public education. Some of these buildings, though close to 100
         years old are more structurally sound than newer buildings and their
         maintenance may be a worthy investment. Having acknowledged this, our
         school which was built in the 1970’s is no less needy with a leaking roof,
         unsafe gym floor, plumbing upgrades & painting required and there is
         unsatisfactory funding available for these priorities. If we do not find more
         efficient and cost-effective ways of taking stewardship of our buildings with
         regular maintenance, none of them will serve us well.
• If an older school is in the right place, that can’t be ignored. The decision to
  build new on that site or restore the old school would have to be made on a
  school-to-school basis.
• Would like to see schools brought to accessibility standards – schools are a
  major centre in older neighbourhoods. They house students, community
  activities. They are already established. Would leave a huge void if taken
  away. Would like to see full-sized gyms and lunch rooms added (help
  decrease mess and reduce allergens) in older schools that are full.
• I believe it is important to maintain older structures when they have historic
  significance, e.g. Victoria, Nutana, Caswell. For schools built in the 1960’s,
  we should close the most cost effective option.
• This will vary, but generally renovations/restorations should seriously be
  considered.
                                     Your Advice


•   Do NOT spend money on facilities if it means in-classroom resources will suffer.
    Look at getting the Saskatchewan provincial government to all school boards to
    issue debenture to Saskatchewan residents that have interest payment that are tax-
    free.
•   Interest rates are fairly low currently – maybe now would be the time to finance a 3-
    10 capital program. Does the School Board have to pay for land it requires to build
    schools and associated playgrounds in new developments? If so, maybe the
    city/developers can be convinced to “provide” such land for free.
•   Plan to share/integrate facilities with other service providers. Plan to coordinate
    facilities management with the other providers.
•   As this document states, Saskatoon is growing and the needs will change over next
    20-25 years. Learning from the successes and failures of other cities who have
    grown seems sensible.
•   Decisions should be taken keeping in mind that the ”public” school system should
    be strengthened, not eroded.
•   We would like to have more time to consider the questions. We feel these are
    important questions to answer; however without more information we don’t feel we
    can give a complete and thoughtful answer. How helpful will these answers be to
    you?
•   Unless the public school board presents a unified front and learns to speak with one
    voice, public perception will be poor. The boards need to get its house in order and
    show the public that it has the children’s best interests at heart. It needs to build
    trust, otherwise any decisions it makes regarding facilities will be seen as political
    and viewed with skepticism.
•   Before any of these questions can be addressed, funding needs to be considered. If
    additional funding isn’t available, how can money that is available be directed to
    where it is needed most?
•   A school in each neighbourhood.
•   Consistency and fairness between neighbourhoods. When my son who attends
    Victoria, saw the renovations at Brunskill, he felt like the “poorer cousin”. New
    school and renovations need to meet our needs, but don’t need to be palaces.
•   Keep school populations small, both at elementary and high school.
•   Seriously consider the Tisdale and Yorkton models.
•   The use of joint facilities with the Catholic system should continue to be pursued,
    perhaps!.
•   I think that school populations need to be kept at reasonable level in keeping with
    the research conclusions.
•   Existing buildings that available for sale or lease should be considered for schools.
    Some examples might be using the former Hudson Bay department store as a high
    school with indoor recreational space and within proximity to community green
    space, small community strip malls with space available for lease and have a large
    green space attached to the facility where play space could be created for children.
    The safety of all children would need to be given the highest consideration with
    these options.
•   I think it is important to support families in the older neighbourhoods to have access
    to quality school buildings, teaching and easy access to a community based school.
•   As we have been lining in the Erindale area now for seven years, patiently waiting
    for a high school to be built in our area so that we didn’t have to bus our children to
    high school. That has not happened for our eldest, and I have to say that it was
    traumatic for her, not only to start off catching a bus FULL of people, but to go to a
    high school where a lot of her friends have chosen not to attend, as they close the
    closer Catholic school.
    There is no much potential in this area, the community has pulled together with an
    absolutely awesome proposal, and I would ask that a multi-purpose facility and
    school be put up in our area. There is definitely an immediate need for a high
    school, and the are seems to be growing faster all the time. That means there are
    more tax dollars that could and should be put toward this multi-purpose facility.

    My children are also in soccer and I am finding the times that they are playing is
    somewhat late, and sometimes very early for the, just so they can be scheduled time.
    This is only going to increase.

    I also believe that it should happen fairly quickly as it takes years to complete
    projects after an announcement and I have two other small children that would
    benefit from having a high school near.

•   Thank you for being able to participate in the meetings mentioned above. I
    understand the difficulties in formulating plans in light of provincial and city
    methods and formulas of taxation, “agendas” of the Catholic Board and the
    population trends and demographics that are taking place in our city.

    My personal viewpoint is that I hope the board will be courageous, creative and
    show leadership to other agencies in the city. I hope the board will try to address
    financial and social concerns of our city, (this might mean strategies such as a
    separate mill rate, shared use of facilities and demolition and rebuilding of current
    facilities).
    I hope that in our plans we can use our facilities to enhance opportunities for all
    populations in all of our communities. I hope that we can share these facilities with
    other departments to provide to the local communities access to recreation and
    health facilities to strengthen the local community. As an example I envisage use of
    gymnasiums and outdoor facilities to be used in evenings and holidays. I envisage
    space be given to community associations and Medical personnel to strengthen the
    local community.

    I concur with the people at my discussion table that an “elementary” school must be
    located in each neighbourhood, that efforts should be made to share facilities with
    other boards, that multi-use of facilities be part of the planning process.

    As a representative from the STA my feeling is that teachers welcome the
    opportunity to discuss and share ideas about future plans with administration and the
    board.
•   Bring back structure, discipline, consequences for actions. Bullying should not be
    out of control. Not should violence be so high in our public school system.
•   Understand that the Aboriginal population is growing and that they need to be
    educated now. Long term studies are not an option.
•   Cost effectiveness can be met by cutting administrative staff by at least 50%.
•   Revisit rental revenue e.g. Wildwood rents to a Church on Sunday evenings.
•   Sustain the older schools. Communities get very upset when schools are closed in
    their areas. Consider busing children and bringing new families into smaller
    communities. Older areas always rejuvenate with new young families eventually.
•   Downsize spending on NEW schools in new areas.
•   Decisions on priorities are likely to vary from school to school and neighbourhood
    to neighbourhood. Policies must be flexible and respond to the various needs
    identified.
•   A trial of a Middle School may open the door to using some of our underused
    spaces more effectively.
•   The Public board and other groups (i.e. Catholic board, City) must increase our
    ability to share and cooperate to maximize the usefulness of our space whether it is
    for building new structures or maintaining the old. As taxpayers, we fill the money
    pot whether the money is distributed from provincial or municipal sources. If we
    ask to more money then we need to provide accountable stewardship for its
    investment.
•   Look further than 10 years – look 20 or 30.
•   Consider the background of the school population in 10-20 years – if more
    Aboriginal/immigrant need more specialty schools.
•   Pay more attention to enrolment patterns, who goes where and why?
•   Buildings should be built for restructuring – future housing of different groups.
•   Resources should be based on needs not on number of students.
XV. INPUT AND ADVICE FROM THE FACILITY INDUSTRY FOCUS GROUP

   Participants

   On March 11, 2003, members of the facilities industry participated in a focus group.
   About half of the 30 people invited participated. Included in the group were
   developers, architects, contractors, consultants, engineers, the President of CUPE
   34, and a representative of Saskatchewan Learning’s facilities branch. Table groups
   were facilitated by principals and facilities staff.

   The Process

   Participants were briefly introduced to the Master Planning process and to
   significant factors that must be considered in long-range facilities planning.
   Participants discussed eight questions, several of which were tailored specifically to
   tap the expertise of this group. Participants were asked to consider options in the
   Division’s general approach to facilities in the future. Individuals were also asked
   to offer the Division their advice using an open format.

   Input and Advice

   The written records of the group discussions, as well as the advice submitted by
   individual participants, are appended to this section. It is interesting to note that
   because of this group’s expertise and experience, the responses are often unique
   relative to other focus group responses. This focus group was a very valuable
   activity as many thought-provoking responses were recorded.

   The responses to the discussion questions brought out some interesting ideas.
   Where themes could be determined or unique ideas surfaced, they are recorded
   below.

   •    Integrated community centres have the potential for lower construction and
        maintenance costs.

   •    Developers and the Division must plan together to better determine the need
        for schools in new neighbourhoods.

   •    Developers could build schools and lease to the Division. This would help
        areas to develop more quickly.

   •    Partnerships will require all partners to give up some control and to trust
        others.
•    Neighbourhoods need a community centre. Having a school depends upon the
     type of housing in the neighbourhood.

•    Some support was offered for the restoration of heritage buildings although the
     opinion was also expressed that the old buildings should be knocked down.
     The difference between the quality of the castle schools (high) and the schools
     of the 60’s (low) was pointed out.

•    School closure could result in the loss of a sense of community, the obesity and
     poor fitness of children, and increased traffic as children are bused or driven to
     school.

•    When asked about the schools built in the 1950’s and 60’s, some participants
     mentioned that these are some of our worst buildings. Participants also
     suggested that a thorough assessment of each of these buildings is necessary.

Options

Due to the timelines and the depth of discussion on the first seven questions, none of
the groups expressed a preference among the four options for our future facilities.
One group did comment that new criteria need to be developed because things have
changed.

Advice

The facilities professionals who participated in the focus group provided some very
thoughtful advice to the Division. The verbatim comments are appended to this
section. Several themes and unique ideas are highlighted below:

•    Some participants advised the Division to invest in high quality, long-term
     facilities. One asked the Division to stop being proud of its low per student
     expenditure.

•    Some participants encouraged entrepreneurial ideas to generate revenue
     through the rental of available space.

•    Some participants suggested that the current practice of building and owning
     schools be retained.

•    One participant reminded the Board that it is vital to focus on its facilities
     people, that good people will make good decisions.
                                    Appendix XV: 1

                 FEEDBACK FROM INDUSTRY FOCUS GROUP
                       Meeting held Tuesday, March 11
                                  Verbatim

1. What options to the traditional approach to planning, building, financing,
   operating, and owning school facilities should be considered by the Saskatoon
   Public School Division?
   • integrated community centre facility – lower maintenance and construction costs
   • Regional Colleges could be integrated
   • developers to own facility – funding from Sask Learning affected? May have a
      positive impact on sales in neighbourhoods.
   • size and cost of housing with determine need for education facilities (# of
      children)
   • need a closer liaison with developers re: planning & their target markets
   • partnership with Public/Separate Boards/City, etc.
   • What are the city plans for the size of communities
   • Explore joint use.
   • Joint use might mean larger number of students overall.

2. What are the possibilities fort he participation of the private sector in the
   planning, development, operation, and ownership of school facilities?
   • Developer hold sites for school development without knowing if schools will be
      built – costs. If school was there, area would develop quicker. Developer builds
      schools – lease to School Division. Could integrated facilities, e.g. YWCA, retail,
      coffee shop, civic facilities to encourage use of people of all ages.
   • Partnership – Village Square idea.
   • Plan schools so they could be used for either purposes (i.e. care home) after it is no
      longer a school.

3. From the perspective of professionals involved in the facilities industry, what are
   some of the important issues, factors, and trends that must be considered by the
   Division as it makes its facility plans for the next decades?
   • integrated services
   • declining enrolment
   • family structure
   • busing
   • school groupings – middle schools for grade 6-9
   • everyone has to be prepared to give-up some control and trust enough to allow a
      general manager with no vested interest in any of the partnerships.
4. Saskatoon will grow significantly over the next 20-25 years. How important is it
   for each neighbourhood to have its own school? Why?
   • needs community centre to develop sense of community
   • area by Willows will not have school
   • what defines a neighbourhood?
   • No, it will depend on the type of housing e.g. Briarwood.

5. Based upon your expertise, should the Division restore its oldest school
   structures? We assume that the cost of restoring a pre-1930 structure will be
   similar to the cost of a new school structure.
• preference –“past” vintage vs. modern appearance
   • heritage buildings should be restored
   • use the technology to lower cost of operating the facility (in renovation)
   • renovate only the monuments… K.G., Caswell, etc. not those built in the 60’s.
   • Some schools need to be replaced i.e. W.P. Bate. It is not possible to restore an
      old building to the standards of new construction.
   • Sometimes land value more than value of school. Historic Preservation could be
      an issue. Some old schools are in good shape (Westmount, Mayfair). Some
      schools underutilized (Brevoort Park). Redevelop site – add seniors housing
      facilities. New neighbourhoods larger than in past – distance factor.
   • If you don’t worry about sentimental value, better off to knock it down and build
      new (air quality, mold, accessibility). Safety Issue – get Sask Learning money
      more quickly. Sentimental assets but costly to maintain. Need to assess each
      facility – stairs, elevators. Mechanical and electrical may not be up to code. Bring
      them up to what standard? Long-term plans?

6. Should the Division choose not to restore and to close some of its older schools,
   what are the potential uses of such schools by our community?
   • private sector would likely take care of these e.g. condos/housing
        - Grosvenor Park School site
        - Thornton School site
        - Albert School
   • Some parents want students bused to school.               School needed in each
      neighbourhood? Lose sense of community, obesity and fitness of students, parents
      drive students leads to traffic issues. Bus students – people do not know each
      other in community.

7. Please provide your views on approaches to modernizing the Division’s buildings
   constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s?
   • don’t write them off – do a thorough assessment of these buildings
   • look at site re: ability to carry existing school and construction
   • update demographics before re-construction
   •   renovate what is needed, then add portables
   •   good principals bring in kids, therefore, admin staffing is N.B.
   •   might be more cost effective, over time, to build a new structure
   •   Every summer doing more to maintain. Probably less value than castle schools.
       Worse shape of all schools – so many built so quickly – older schools solid, never
       schools better built.

8. Please discuss the range of options outlined on the long sheet of paper. Draw a
   vertical line that represents your opinion about which option the Division should
   adopt as it plans its future service to our community’s young people.
   • We can’t do what we were doing in past. Things have changed. We need to
      develop new criteria for making decisions and not assume every neighborhood
      will have a school. We do need to develop a sense of community however.

                                     Your Advice

• Maintain the traditional approach to design and construction of schools. Do not
   entertain P3 options. These are not in the public’s best interest. Encourage
   entrepreneurial ideas to generate rental revenue from schools and especially low
   population schools i.e. district health office, dental clinics etc.
• Construct schools for low-term durations. Do not minimize on quality. Historic
   schools are not worth saving unless funds are available from historic societies. Lobby
   Sask Learning for the right to sell redundant school properties and market values.
   This may be attractive to government as long as the profits are reinvested into
   schools. This one avenue for free enterprise to pay taxes twice on the same property.
• Neighbourhood schools are very important but incorporate revenue generators into the
   business from the concept stage i.e. high tech offices, medical labs, dental offices.
 • 1) Always own your schools. Although (I’m We’re) in private business ownership of
   schools must stay public.
   2) Rent/Lease facilities for single use or short-term use.
   3) Public/Private/Partnership (3P?) have been black holes for many!
• Continue to pursue partnership joint use with Separate Board. Consider options of
   working with people/groups like YWCA, YMCA, Saskatoon Business Collegiate.
   This would take a change of mindset for both our board and system as well as public.
• Key concept of sustainability. We have the tragedy of short-term investment. Invest
   in people who have the understanding, knowledge – trained and committed – then this
   money is used well. Restore attention to Facilities Department – leadership need, thus
   avoid costly short-term budget decisions. Educators & Boards of Education don’t
   make best facility decisions. Stop cutting small staff early in building to save small
   money only to cost much more later. Build to own is different than build to sell.
   Build to own well!
• Sask Learning should stipulate exactly what a portable should be – right down to
  appearance and then able to be move anywhere. Won’t look like a Shack Town when
  we have 10-12 in one location.
• Focus on your facilities people. Good people make good decisions and do good work.
  How do you get responsibility/accountability?
• Maintain what you have. Poor/deferred maintenance greatly increases cost of
  operation and/or depreciation. If you make a decision to close/modify do it properly.
  Get value for you investment. Don’t assume low debt is good. Money is to spend
  wisely. We should focus on value – good education for a good price. Need to market
  this concept. Measure society by its goals of quality – not how little it spends.
• Make facility related decision based on “long-term” ownership and maintenance not
  on short-term budget issues.
• Keep neighbourhood schools
  - expand use where enrolments decline – invite all generations of the community into
  facility.
  - joint use – hub of the neighbourhood – older ones as well as new
• Castles and older buildings
  - bull doze and build one the other side of the playground
  - invite dentist office to generate some money
• Some should be demolished
  - maximize revenue if you can sell the site.
  - may need legislative change
• Get proper professional building assessments.
  - avoid environmental liability which will cost more than a complete new building
• You need a marketing person. Stop being proud of the lowest money spent on
  student. Be proud of being able to provide best quality of education for students in
  our city. McDonalds doesn’t have the cheapest food – 1) spend a bit more to get off
  the bottom of the pool 2) be proud of quality education and facility 3) market and sell
  ourselves.


XVI. INPUT AND ADVICE FROM CUPE 34 EXECUTIVE

     The Participants

     CUPE 34 represents the Division’s employees who work directly with the
     Division’s facilities. This group includes the Division’s caretakers and maintenance
     workers. On March 19, 2003, the Deputy Director of School Services and several
     members of the Facilities management staff met with the executive of CUPE 34.

     The Process
The first step of this meeting was a presentation regarding the master planning
process and some of the important factors that are being considered in this planning
process. This presentation was similar to the one delivered to other focus group
participants. The second step was to have executive members work through a series
of discussion questions, consider some options for the future, and offer their advice
to the Division.

Input and Advice

Major points from the discussion of the structured questions are outlined below:

•   It is not in the best interests of the community to have large numbers of non-
    Catholic children and youth in Catholic schools. Members indicated that the
    Lord’s Prayer issue had contributed to the Public to Catholic shift. They also
    indicated that this should be addressed at the trustee level.

•   New neighbourhoods require new schools. SchoolPLUS and findings from the
    Role of the School report offer a rationale. Members also commented that the
    Division should not be too quick to close low enrolment schools due to the
    possibility of neighbourhoods rejuvenating.

•   Alternate school structures should be looked at by the Division. Middle schools
    were supported as was the concept of integrated community centres.

•   The implementation of SchoolPLUS and the Strategic Plan will result in school
    facilities being used for more of the day and through the summer months.
    Members expressed some caution that the cost of these extended hours must not
    be borne by education dollars.

•   When discussing whether or not the Division’s oldest structures should be
    restored, members shared various viewpoints. Both “yes” and “no” were
    expressed. Another viewpoint was that if the structures are sound, restore them.
    If not, then knock them down. If the Division were to close some older schools,
    members indicated that they could be reused as community centres.

•   The Executive indicated their opposition to public-private partnerships in school
    construction and ownership. They did not support private ownership with the
    Division leasing space. The Executive provided a copy of Public Risk, Private
    Profit: Why Leaseback Schools are Bad for K-12 Education. This publication
    was presented to Saskatoon Public and Catholic trustees by CUPE locals 34,
    1948, 2268, and 3730 in 2001. This publication is available from Traci Toth.
•   The Executive indicated that it would like to partner with Board to lobby for an
    increase in government revenues for the Division.

In looking at the Division’s options for the future, the Executive expressed a
viewpoint that generally favored a larger number of schools, some new schools,
smaller school size, greater facilities expenditures, and schools more closely tied to
the community.

Beyond the responses to the structured questions and options, the Executive also
offered the following advice:

•    Education should be less reliant on local property taxes.

•    The provincial government must fund education properly.
XVII. INPUT AND ADVICE FROM THE PRINCIPALS

   Participants

   Both elementary and collegiate principals participated in a session at a regular
   principals’ meeting.

   The Process

   The principals received a presentation regarding the Master Planning process and
   some of the significant factors that must be considered in long-range planning.
   Table groups discussed eight questions regarding policy direction, then as a group,
   determined which general option they believe the Division should adopt from
   among four offered. Principals were then invited to individually submit their three
   most significant points of advice using an open format.

   Input and Advice

   Although the discussion questions were not intended to generate direct feedback at
   this session, nonetheless, several groups submitted their thinking regarding the eight
   discussion questions. Common themes expressed include:

   •    It is not in the best interests of the community to have large numbers of non-
        Catholic children and youth in Catholic Schools.

   •    Some groups indicated an interest in trying middle schools as an alternative
        structure.

   •    Principals clearly supported placing limits on school size, especially when new
        schools are planned.

   Options

   Eleven table groups considered the four options A through D.

   •    Six groups chose Option A featuring a larger number of schools, some new
        schools, renovating/restoring old schools, smaller school size, greater facilities
        expenditures, and schools more closely tied to neighbourhoods.

   •    Three groups chose an option between A and B. This indicates a response
        similar to, but less emphatic than Option A, with an openness to the possibility
        of closing some older schools.
•    One group selected Option B.

•    One group selected Option D which would reduce the number of schools, build
     no new schools, have larger school size, reduce facilities expenditures, and
     have schools less closely tied to neighbourhoods.

The principal’s choice of general approach to planning facilities gravitated toward
Options A and B with the clear exception of one group of the eleven that chose
Option D. Some ideas were also placed on the option selection sheets that should be
shared here:

•    One group suggested that new communities might be well-served by small K-3
     schools with older students bused to nearby schools with room for grades 4-8.

•    One group suggested that gymnasia and libraries need to be large if they are to
     serve the wider community.

•    The group that selected Option D did qualify their choice by indicating that the
     Division might build in new neighbourhoods, but only those that will be
     “family-intensive”.

Advice

The advice from individual principals is presented verbatim in the appendix of this
section. The advice is thoughtful and varied. Major themes did emerge. They
include:

•    The strongest theme was that our schools must be smaller.

•    Many principals suggested that the Division begin to implement middle
     schools.

•    Some principals clearly expressed their opinion that the mandate of public
     schools in relation to Catholic schools must be vigorously addressed.

•    Some principals expressed the need to build new collegiates in the northeast
     and west of Circle Drive. One commented that we cannot let the Catholic
     Division put a school west of Circle Drive ahead of the Public Division.
                                    Appendix XVII: 1

                                  Discussion Questions
                                (Think Policy Direction)

1.   Is it in the best interests of this community to have large numbers of non-Catholic
     children and youth in Catholic schools?

2.   Saskatoon will grow significantly over the next 20-25 years. How important is it to
     each new neighbourhood to have its own school? Why?

3.   Which alternate structures beyond the current K-8, 9-12 school organizational
     structures should be considered for possible implementation?

4.   What are the implications of the implementation of the Strategic Direction and
     SchoolPLUS on our school facilities? (think 10 years ahead)

5.   What percentage of the Division’s annual operating expenditures should be devoted
     to its facilities?

6.   How can the Division increase the space utilization of its facilities in order to create
     greater efficiencies?

7.   Should the division adopt a school size policy limiting the size of its schools to a
     maximum identified by research as optimal for learning?

8.   How important is it to maintain our older structures? It is at least as expensive to
     renovate/restore these schools as it is to build new ones.
                                 Appendix XVII: 2

                               Advice from Principals

    •   Push for joint facilities within neighborhoods (Public/Catholic together).

    •   A northeast collegiate is a must. The population is clearly increasing in the
        northeast – we need to be proactive and build for our future.

    •   Quality of work being done presently in schools needs to be:
        a. improved
        b. more closely monitored
        c. tendered differently
        Costs to redo shoddy work will hamper us in the future.

    •   Add more schools:
        a. Northeast collegiate
        b. Westside collegiate (joint use?)

    •   Lobby Saskatchewan Learning to change the way they fund and the way they
        decide about putting 2 schools in one neighbourhood.

    •   More schools:
        a. a few new – smaller
        b. should bring down enrolment in current schools
        c. renovate older schools which are now smaller (enrolment) to accommodate
           special needs and interactive classrooms

    •   Address Public/Catholic equity issue vigorously – Provincial level.

    •   Let’s pay attention to the literature. Our schools need to be smaller.

•   Relocate special programs to other schools that have more space i.e. S2 to Roland
       Michener, ActTal to Alvin Buckwold.

    •   Close boundaries Briarwood students should be going to Roland Michener.
        a. promise smaller class size
        b. entice them
        c. do what we know is best for kids

    •   When building new, consider the intended nature of the neighborhood. We
        won’t likely need a school out at the Willows, but may need one in the
        northwest.
•   Focus on the Kindergarten entry point:
    a. best teachers
    b. best equipped classrooms, including technology
    c. offer the option of alternate full day programs
    d. provide/arrange “Kindercare” as an extension to our “before & after
       school” programs for Kindergarten
    e. introduce Religious Education (academic education about world religions)
       and moral education (Borba’s moral intelligence)

•   Focus work on Kindergarten registration, have parents designate taxes at that
    time.

•   Option B:
    a. close some and bus
    b. build where needed
    c. plow some schools under (perhaps after you have built on the same
       property)
    d. at some point, renovations are not cost effective

•   Consider facilities that meet the needs of the academic program and practical
    and applied arts.

•   Small, expandable schools in the middle of developing areas so they can
    accommodate larger numbers for periods of time.

•   Where building happens with an intent to address families, a school should go
    in. Where the focus is for singles or empty nesters, don’t go there.

•   Maintain neighbourhood schools.

•   Create middle schools:
    a. improve academics – higher performance indicators
    b. decrease size of high school
    c. more efficient use of “buildings”

•   Keep the neighbourhood philosophy – if we don’t we will lose our market
    share. Don’t want larger schools – if not Catholic/Public presence schools
    would be 600+.

•   Close schools reluctantly. the impact is severe for the community yet the
    impact of no school in a community is equally as damaging.
•   Temperatures in schools and classrooms needs to be improved in order for
    teachers and students to maximize learning, e.g. adequate blinds, fans, a/c,
    when weather is hot and classroom temperature is 90+ or –65 in winter.

•   New schools will lower populations in schools – hence supporting the research
    around smaller schools.

•   Restructure – K to 5, 6 to 9, 10 to 12 schools to create economies of
    congregation.

•   Involve partners willing to share costs to renovate and share our current old
    space.

•   Build new if the cost of a renovation is close.

•   If we are to differentiate instruction use constructivist strategies, integrate
    specific needs and respond to information such as in HRDC report, then we
    need to create more and larger spaces in which to do our work.

•   Before any schools are closed – place alternative programs in the building i.e.
    7,8,9, - like a “young City Park” or a (Zion) – or perhaps other special
    programs – Fine Arts Schools.

•   Magnet/Specialty Program Schools or West side school.
    a. amalgamate – Caswell/Westmount/Princess Alexandra/Pleasant Hill
    b. renovate/addition Howard Coad (major) – childcare, preschool and pre-
       kindergarten center

•   Renovate and replace existing facilities – build it and students will come (i.e.
    Brunskill – enrolment up.

•   Joint facilities – encourage government legislation – would meet
    recommendations of School PLUS
•   When renovations costs approach 50-60% of building new – seriously consider
    building new – even in older neighbourhoods. Brunskill has shown us if we
    build it or fix it – students will come.

•   Deal with the tax issue (Catholic vs. Non-Catholic tax designations).
    a. inform banks, real estate agents, City Hall employees of legal obligations
       related to religious affiliation
    b. hire a bounty-hunter on a commission basis to enforce the law
    c. change forms used to designate taxes to clearly explain legal
       responsibilities based on their religion. e.g. if you are Catholic check here,
       regardless of where your children go, or will go to school (have this
       question asked for each owner)

•   Deal with the tax issues at the banks when the property is sold. Make sure you
    have some one to seek out those people who are sending taxes to the wrong
    place.

•   Go public re: Catholic vs. Public
    a. financial issues
    b. social issues
    c. bias in press and government

•   At the elementary level we need to follow research and build smaller schools.
    We should do the same at the collegiate level. We should consider establishing
    middle years schools.

•   Changing education to include trade (practical) stream. Examine the reasons
    why students are dropping out and failing and look at new programs to capture
    those students to be more productive in long term.

•   There must be a level where the cost of renovations exceeds the cost of
    building. Renovations generally cost way more than projections. Bulldozing
    the old and building a new may rejuvenate in old neighbourhoods.

•   Smaller school size elementary 250 – 350.

•   Older buildings – decisions need to be made that are cost efficient around
    restoration vs. renovation (keep Buena Vista).

•   K-8, 9-12 concepts may not serve us well – evaluate by community – try some
    new things – middle schools.
•   Work toward keeping schools within the optimal learning enrolment. Too
    small or too large for some areas is a problem. Having said this, numbers do
    not tell the whole story. 400 students in inner city is too large, 600 in suburbia
    is just fine.

•   Schools need to be large enough to maximize flexibility for staff and students
    e.g. number of supervisions, staff for extra curricular activities, combined
    classes.

•   Renovate existing buildings to accommodate instruction. Explore leasing and
    generating new revenues to support renovation and building new schools.
    •   Reduce class sizes to create more classrooms and increase space utilization.
        Lease available space to agencies.

    •   Involve partners willing to share costs to renovate and share our current old
        space.

•       In the meantime, let’s make sure we look after basic caretaking and
        maintenance.

    •   It is important to maintain the notion of neighbourhood schools. Teachers,
        students and families need to have the opportunity to build strong relationships
        and sense of community.

    •   Facilities must be maintained – use weekends, evenings, etc.

    •   Bus equals less cost than building in every new community i.e. Calgary Model
        may change structure of school day time. Westside eastside environment
        (research)

    •   Busing will occur – make it friendly – driver plus 1 additional adult to
        meet/greet students – especially young ones.

    •   Keep enrolment to what research says is best practice 400 max elementary, 900
        max secondary.

    •   Give serious consideration of lease arrangements – lease out space in schools:
        a. community clinics
        b. dental clinics
        c. police stations
        d. sheltered workshops

    •   Build first in communities! We’ve lost in the N.E. … put our priority on a
        Westside now and return to the N.E. a.s.a.p. If a Catholic High School is built
        in the west, we will continue to lose students and continue to chase after the
        loose horses.

    •   Do not let the Catholics build a secondary school in the west without a public
        school or they will burn us like they did in the northeast.

    •   Improve image
        a. paint is cheap and effective
        b. in school administrators need to share with media at all opportunities
•   With the advent of SchoolPLUS we will need to put office and conference space
    into our schools – as well as classrooms.

•   Consider middle year schools.

•   Where people are buying in new areas – especially those not intended for
    families – then is likely to be a re-birth in older communities.

•   Middle years school take a change experiment

•   Extend school year to 12-month school year.

•   School size – small.

•   Do not impose a size policy limiting school enrolment:
    a. hurts community
    b. hurts market share
XVIII. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

   To ensure that all interested parties could offer input into the Facilities Master Plan,
   the Division placed an advertisement in the Saskatoon Sun asking for written
   submissions from interested citizens or groups. A copy of the advertisement is
   appended to this section.

   A total of five written submissions were received.

   1.   One written submission was received from the Saskatoon Community Youth
        Arts Programming Inc. (SCYAP). Mr. Darrell Lechman, President of SCYAP,
        proposed a partnership between SCYAP and the Division “…in the restoration,
        renovation and revitalization of the Public School Division facilities.” Such a
        partnership would see young artists affiliated with SCYAP participate in the
        beautification of our facilities through their art. These young artists have
        created murals at City Park Collegiate and the White Buffalo Youth Lodge.
        They have also created murals and decorated many objects for the City of
        Saskatoon. A copy of Mr. Lechman’s submission is available from Traci Toth.

   2.   Two written submissions were received from citizens urging the Board to build
        a new collegiate in the northeast section of the city. Tammi Feltham believes
        that the Board must invest in the future and that crowded conditions at several
        collegiates are detrimental to a quality education. Pat Rogal points out that the
        northeast area is growing and that the nearest public high school is bulging.

   3.   One submission was received from Mr. Daniel Guenther on behalf of the
        Eighth Street Business Association. Mr. Guenther expresses concern over the
        off-loading of the financial responsibility for education onto cities and
        municipalities. He encourages the Division to include space in new facilities
        that could be leased for compatible uses much as medical clinics, and he
        expresses support for the idea of multi-use facilities.

   4.   The Citizens for a Northeast Collegiate circulated the discussion questions
        used at the stakeholders focus group: 73 people completed the survey. The key
        results are:

        •    88% of respondents indicated that it is not in the best interests of the
             community to have large numbers of non-Catholic children and youth in
             Catholic Schools.

        •    79% of respondents indicated that each new neighbourhood should have
             its own school.
•   Respondents indicated significant interest in integrated community
    centres and middle schools.

•   66% of respondents did not think that the Division should restore its
    oldest school structures (assuming that the cost of restoration is similar to
    the cost of a new school).

•   84% of respondents believe that the Division should adopt a policy
    limiting the size of its schools to a maximum identified by research as
    optimal for learning.

•   A large number of comments from citizens regarding these questions
    were also received. They are available in an input folder (see Traci Toth).
                                  Appendix XVIII: 1


                              REQUEST FOR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
                              SASKATOON PUBLIC SCHOOL DIVISION
                                   FACILITIES MASTER PLAN



The Saskatoon Public School Division is developing a plan for the maintenance,
renovation, restoration, construction, and consolidation of the Division’s facilities from
2003-2012. In developing this plan, the Division seeks the advice of members of the
public regarding its facilities policy and planning direction for the future.

The Division wishes to hear from as many interested citizens as possible. To this end,
written submissions regarding the current status of the Division’s facilities and
suggestions for the future of the Division’s facilities are requested. Such submissions
should be submitted by Friday, March 21, 2003 to:

                                       Traci Toth
                           Saskatoon Public School Division
                                 310 – 21st Street East
                               Saskatoon SK S7K 1M7
                                  (totht@spsd.sk.ca.)
XIX. MAJOR THEMES FROM THE CONSULTATION

   In this section, major themes will be derived from the input and advice from the
   various focus groups, meetings, and written submissions. All ideas and themes
   cannot be expressed here. Only the strongest themes that were expressed across
   various groups are highlighted.

   Mandate

   The best interests of the community are met when non-Catholic children and youth
   attend public schools. This theme was expressed strongly by participants including
   the stakeholders group, the CAC respondents, CUPE 34, and the principals. Some
   suggested that the mandate issue must be vigorously pursued.

   Integrated/Shared Facilities

   Creating schools that are a part of integrated, joint, or shared facilities was one of
   the strongest themes from the various participant groups. This theme is also
   connected to support for the use of available school space by community agencies.

   School Size

   Strong support for smaller school size was expressed by the stakeholders group, the
   CAC respondents, and the principals. Some caution was expressed that policy
   governing school size should be flexible enough to address the cycles of growth and
   maturation in the City’s neighbourhoods.

   New Schools

   Building new schools in new neighbourhoods was generally supported. Participants
   stressed the importance of the school as a community centre and of developing
   relationships among the neighbourhood’s children and families. Some concern was
   expressed about expense. The suggestion that schools will be built only in new
   neighbourhoods that will have enough families with school-aged children was
   expressed by several participant groups.

   Middle Schools

   Significant interest in the exploring the development of middle schools was
   expressed by the stakeholders, the CAC respondents, CUPE 34, and the principals.

   Differences of Opinion
The discussion of two issues resulted in healthy disagreement among participants.

•   Strong positions were expressed both for and against the restoration of the
    Division’s oldest schools. This disagreement was often expressed within
    participant groups.

•   The leasing of schools from developers also resulted in significant
    disagreement. Generally the stakeholders group supported exploring this
    practice, while CUPE 34 adamantly opposed it. The members of the facility
    industry focus group expressed strong views on both sides of this issue.

General Approach to Facilities Planning: Preferred Option

The stakeholders focus group, the CAC respondents, the principals, and the CUPE
34 Executive all expressed their preferences for a general approach to facilities
planning. Four general options were presented along defining continuums including
larger number of schools – fewer schools, some new schools – no new schools,
smaller school size – larger school size, greater facilities expenditures – lower
facility expenditures, and schools more closely tied to neighbourhoods – schools
less closely tied to neighbourhoods.

A consensus among the participating groups has developed somewhere between
Option A and Option B. Very few participants expressed support for Options C or
D. The consensus point between Options A and B represents the following
approach to facilities planning.

•    The Division should maintain or slightly increase its number of schools.

•    The Division should build some new schools. It might need to close some of
     its older schools.

•    The Division should have smaller schools than are currently the case.

•    The Division should increase expenditures on its facilities.

•    The Division must maintain the close connection between schools and their
     neighbourhoods.

Figure XIX: 1 graphically depicts the consensus position among the four options.

The stakeholders, citizens, and staff consulted during this process have provided the
Board with some clear advice to use in its deliberations.
                  FIGURE XIX: 1 CONSENSUS POSITION OF PARTICIPANTS IN INPUT SESSIONS
                      OPTION A         OPTION B         OPTION C          OPTION D
                     INCREASE # OF    SAME # OF SCHOOLS     KEEP CURRENT     REDUCE # OF SCHOOLS
                       SCHOOLS           BUILD NEW             SCHOOLS           CLOSE SOME
                  BUILD NEW SCHOOLS   CLOSE SOME OLDER    RENOVATE/REPLACE    RENOVATE/REPLACE
                   RENOVATE OLDER     SCHOOLS & BUS TO      OLD & BUS NEW       SOME SCHOOLS
                       SCHOOLS         NEARBY SCHOOLS      NEIGHBOURHOODS


  LARGER # OF                                                                                      FEWER SCHOOLS
   SCHOOLS




   SOME NEW                                                                                        NO NEW SCHOOLS
    SCHOOLS




SMALLER SCHOOL                                                                                     LARGER SCHOOL
     SIZE                                                                                               SIZE




    GREATER                                                                                        LOWER FACILITIES
   FACILITIES                                                                                       EXPENDITURES
 EXPENDITURES




 SCHOOLS MORE                                                                                        SCHOOLS LESS
CLOSELY TIED TO                                                                                    CLOSELY TIED TO
NEIGHBOURHOODS                                                                                     NEIGHBOURHOODS




                          CONSENSUS POSITION
           FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE DIVISION’S FACILITIES

This major section brings the initial report to a conclusion. First of all, a synthesis of the
policy and planning considerations and the major themes from the public consultation is
presented to the reader. This synthesis puts forward recommended key directions in the
Division’s policy and planning for its facilities.

The second part of this major section is a description of the next steps to be taken in the
Master Planning Process.
XX. KEY DIRECTIONS IN FACILITIES POLICY AND PLANNING

   This section of the report will attempt to pull together key points from the policy
   and planning considerations in each section as well as the major themes from the
   consultation process with our public and our staff. Rather than simply restating all
   of the considerations and themes, an attempt has been made to synthesis them into a
   smaller number of recommended key directions in planning the Division’s facilities
   of the future. These recommended key directions are organized under nine
   categories.

   A.   Mandate And Purpose Of Public Education

   1.   The Division’s purpose, the learning of all of our young people, must remain
        central to facilities planning.

   2.   The Division must ensure that the City’s young people have access to public
        education. First of all, this means that a high quality education must be
        available in all of our schools. Secondly, it means that schools must be built in
        reasonable proximity to where students live. Thirdly, it means that Catholic
        schools cannot stand alone in areas that are distant to the closest public school.

   3.   The mandate of the Saskatoon Public School Division must be protected from
        the inclusionary interpretation of the Catholic mandate currently employed by
        St. Paul’s Roman Catholic Separate School Division. Facilities planning must
        include provision for the Division to meet its mandate throughout the City of
        Saskatoon. The public to Catholic shift which has become so destructive to the
        public division in recent years can and must be reversed. It is not a matter of
        being against Catholicism, but rather a matter of protecting the values of public
        education and ensuring the long-term health of public education in Saskatoon.

   4.   The Division must work with Saskatchewan Learning to develop a policy that
        the first school in any new neighbourhood must be a public school.

   B.   New And Old Schools

   1.   The Division should build new schools only in neighbourhoods with
        sustainable school populations. Collaboration with the City of Saskatoon and
        developers will enable good decisions.

   2.   Older school facilities (including relocatable classrooms) need to be audited to
        evaluate the educational, structural, and financial viability of restoring them.
        Such audits should also evaluate the historical significance of these structures.
C.   Features Of Schools

1.   The construction and renovation of the Division’s facilities must reflect the use
     of more active learning strategies and the use of technology in learning. Larger
     classrooms facilitate these innovations.

2.   The number of students with mobility challenges will require the Division to
     provide facilities that are accessible to these young people. New or renovated
     schools must be made accessible.

D.   Alternative Structures

1.   The Division should implement middle schools as well as consider the
     implementation of smaller K-5 schools.

2.   Whenever the Division builds or restores schools, the opportunity to work with
     partners to establish integrated community centres must be pursued.

E.   Collegiates

1.   Our collegiates are too large for optimal student learning and for the
     development of caring environments that ensure no student is anonymous. The
     Division should construct two new collegiates of moderate size (600-900) to
     alleviate the enrolment pressures on our current collegiates. Two new
     collegiates, combined with the projected enrolment decline, would allow our
     current comprehensive collegiates to fall to about 1000 students, with our four
     current and two new mid-sized collegiates moving to the 700-800 enrolment
     range, Nutana dropping to a more comfortable 400 students, and City Park
     staying at its current level just below 300 students.

2.   Heavy space utilization of current collegiate facilities must be addressed
     through the construction of two new collegiates. Although enrolment decline
     may eventually diminish this concern in some schools, it will remain an issue
     for many collegiates through this decade.

3.   The Division must correct the current situation in the northeast by building a
     new collegiate. Failure to build a new collegiate will result in a further loss of
     enrolment share and revenue especially as new communities expand further to
     the northeast and thus further from Evan Hardy. Building a new northeast
     collegiate presents the Board with the opportunity to improve its enrolment and
     revenue, as well as to ensure that the Public Division can address its mandate
     in the northeast sector of the city.
4.   The Division must move forward its planning of a new collegiate west of
     Circle Drive. A new west collegiate will relieve overcrowding and create
     smaller school sizes. If the Catholic Division decides to build west of Circle
     Drive, the Public Division must do the same.

F.   School Size

1.   The Division should consider a policy determining the upper limits of school
     enrolments. Such numbers must be established with enough flexibility to
     account for the growth and decline of school enrolments over the life of a
     neighbourhood. For the purpose of discussion, an upper limit of 1000 (with a
     target range of 300-900) for a collegiate and of 500 (with a target range of 100-
     400) for an elementary school is proposed.

2.   The research identifies the value of small schools and especially of very small
     schools for children who live in lower socioeconomic neighbourhoods. The
     Division should reconsider the enrolment number of 115 students for the
     initiation of school consolidation procedures. The success of the Saskatoon
     Christian School speaks to the value of very small schools. The fact that
     neighbourhoods do rejuvenate speaks to a very cautious approach to school
     closure given the clearly established value of small schools. The Board might
     consider a small school policy where a school that declines below a reasonable
     enrolment is staffed more economically. Does a school smaller than 150
     students require a full-time principal, a .5 teacher librarian, and a .5 resource
     teacher? The careful placement of congregated programs may help to reduce
     the inefficiency of small schools.

G.   Community And Schools

1.   Lower space utilization in some of the elementary schools can be considered
     an asset with the coming increase of services offered to youth and the
     community at the school as SchoolPLUS is more fully implemented.

2.   Various factors will increase and decrease space utilization in our schools. The
     space demands of the implementation of SchoolPLUS and the strategic direction
     may offset the space made available by declining enrolments.

3.   The Board must ensure that other agencies will be charged for the use of
     school space. Precious educational dollars needed for teachers and learning
     resources must not be diverted to supplying facilities (utilities, caretaking,
     maintenance, etc.) to other agencies.
4.   The concept of the community school, a key facet of SchoolPLUS, means a close
     connection between a school and its geographic community. The school acts
     as the community centre, the place where a community gathers. This means
     that consideration for the community’s health must be made should a school
     closure for enrolment or poor facility condition be contemplated.

H.   Early Learning

1.   The Division should plan significant interventions to improve the learning
     opportunities for its youngest students. The research-proven intervention of
     small class sizes in the primary (K-3) grades would require the use of an
     additional 50 classrooms across the Division.

2.   The Division should prepare for the significant growth of early learning
     programs and family support programs that are currently beyond the Division’s
     mandate. To properly address the needs of our community’s small children,
     additional child-care and pre-school programs will need to be initiated. Parent
     and family support centres may also be initiated in conjunction with child-care
     and pre-school programs. There would be benefits to locating these programs
     in schools.

I.   Fiscal Considerations

1.   In making its facility decisions, the Division must plan to improve or maintain
     its enrolment and thus its grant revenues. The strong connection between
     facilities, enrolment, and revenue must be considered in facilities planning.

2.   The Division’s expenditures per student are significantly lower than other
     divisions and its cost per student for plant operations and maintenance is also
     relatively low. With low levels of existing debt and a very small percentage
     (less than 1%) of annual operating expenditures devoted to debt charges, the
     Division is well positioned for significant additional expenditures on its
     facilities.

3.   The significant fluctuations in contribution to capital over recent years should
     be changed to reflect a sustainable, predictable and more substantial approach
     to facilities funding. This would greatly assist with facilities planning over
     time.

4.   In its facility deliberations, the Board should seek to maximize the provincial
     government’s contribution to any given project. In some cases, however, such
     as the Montgomery School project, the Board will need to ensure the best long-
     term decision, even if this means the Board’s share of the project is larger than
     usual.

J.   General Approach To Planning

1.   A consensus among the participants in groups developed regarding an
     approach to facilities planning. This approach is consistent with measures that
     will address challenges regarding learning, mandate, enrolment, revenue, and
     the connection of schools to their neighbourhoods. It is also consistent with
     the merging core strategies that will be used to implement the Strategic
     Direction. This general approach includes the following directions;

     •    The Division should maintain or slightly increase its number of schools.

     •    The Division should build some new schools. It might need to close
          some of its older schools.

     •    The Division should have smaller schools than is currently the case.

     •    The Division should increase expenditures on its facilities.

     •    The Division must maintain the close connection between schools and
          their neighbourhoods.
XXI. NEXT STEPS

   This section outlines the next steps in the Board’s deliberations regarding the
   Facilities Master Plan. This sequence begins with reading and dialogue followed by
   deliberations regarding the general direction for facilities policy and planning (Level
   One Decision). Setting the general direction is a large “What” decision using the
   terminology of our strategic planning process. Once the Board has determined a
   general direction, then more specific planning can begin. These more specific
   decisions (Level Two Decisions) will result in the actual Master Plan. They
   represent the “How” work that will be carried out by administration and brought
   back to the Board for its approval. The Board and administration will also need to
   consider the timely invitation of public input into this planning process. The flow of
   these next steps is outlined in Figure XX1: 1.

                                    Figure XXI: 1

                    Next Steps in the Master Planning Process

                                  Read & Dialogue


                                Level One Decision
    P                        (General Direction: “What”)
    U                                 • Options
    B                                 • Criteria
    L                     • Apply Criteria to Options (Grid)
    I
    C

    I
    N                          Level Two Decisions
    P                     (More Specific Decisions: “How”)
    U                                • Options
    T                                • Criteria
                                   • Information




                               Facilities Master Plan
Read and Dialogue

The next step in this process is for our trustees to read this report, reflect upon their
own knowledge and experience, and engage in a significant dialogue regarding the
future of the Division’s facilities. The word dialogue is used with the meaning
introduced to trustees and administration by Mr. Gregg Cochlan. Dialogue is
intended to be exploratory and is intended to open participants’ minds to new
insights, questions, and perspectives. It is intended to free participants from firm
positions or stances that are required in a more traditional debate.

Level One Decisions

In the 1989 document, Long-Range Planning of School Facilities for the Saskatoon
Public School Division, the authors, Dr. Fast and Mr. Hartsook, write about two
levels of decisions in facility planning. Level One decisions determine the Board’s
general direction in its policy and planning for facilities. Level One decisions deal
with large, very difficult questions. Three such questions were outlined in the 1989
document.

1.   Should older schools with low enrolments be closed, while new schools are
     built to accommodate children in new neighbourhoods?

2.   Should older schools with low enrolments remain open while the Board
     transports children to them, rather than constructs new schools?

3.   Should the Board continue to operate older schools with low enrolments and
     build new schools in new neighbourhoods? (p.82)

Fast and Hartsook indicate that the resolution of these questions will result in policy
decisions. The resolution of these policy questions is facilitated by applying
criteria. They suggest criteria such as quality of education, neighbourhood schools,
community expectations, financial considerations, and the cost – quality dilemma.

Level One decisions are very similar to the choice of options for the general
direction of facilities planning that were considered by focus group participants.
The Board will need to spend considerable time and energy determining the correct
option for its general approach to facilities planning. The four options with five
descriptive continuums are outlined in Figure XXI: 2.
                            FIGURE XXI: 2 OPTIONS FOR LEVEL ONE DECISIONS
                     OPTION A          OPTION B         OPTION C         OPTION D
                    INCREASE # OF    SAME # OF SCHOOLS     KEEP CURRENT     REDUCE # OF SCHOOLS
                      SCHOOLS           BUILD NEW             SCHOOLS           CLOSE SOME
                 BUILD NEW SCHOOLS   CLOSE SOME OLDER    RENOVATE/REPLACE    RENOVATE/REPLACE
                  RENOVATE OLDER     SCHOOLS & BUS TO      OLD & BUS NEW       SOME SCHOOLS
                      SCHOOLS         NEARBY SCHOOLS      NEIGHBOURHOODS


  LARGER # OF                                                                                     FEWER SCHOOLS
   SCHOOLS




  SOME NEW                                                                                        NO NEW SCHOOLS
   SCHOOLS




SMALLER SCHOOL                                                                                    LARGER SCHOOL
     SIZE                                                                                              SIZE




    GREATER                                                                                       LOWER FACILITIES
   FACILITIES                                                                                      EXPENDITURES
 EXPENDITURES
 SCHOOLS MORE       SCHOOLS LESS
CLOSELY TIED TO   CLOSELY TIED TO
NEIGHBOURHOODS    NEIGHBOURHOODS
Options

The four options are:

Option A: Using Option A, the Division would increase its number of
schools. It would build some new schools and renovate older schools. It
would seek smaller school size for optimal learning, and it would spend more
on its facilities. The Division would ensure that schools were closely
connected to their neighbourhoods.

Option B: If the Division were to select Option B, it would seek to maintain
the same number of schools that it currently operates. Some new schools
would be built and some would be closed. Average school size would be
smaller due to a projected enrolment decline. Facilities expenditures would
increase somewhat. For the most part, the close school – neighbourhood
connection would be maintained.

Option C: In implementing Option C, the Division would keep its current
schools open. Some would need to be replaced or renovated. No new schools
would be built and students from new neighbourhoods would be transported to
older schools where there is room. School size would diminish somewhat due
to overall enrolment decline. Facilities expenditures would be maintained or
perhaps slightly increased. New neighbourhoods would not have a school.
Some other civic facility might serve as the community centre.

Option D: In employing Option D, the Division would reduce its number of
schools. No new schools would be opened. Some older schools would close.
Some older schools would be replaced or renovated. School size would remain
similar to those in the present. Facilities expenditures would diminish. New
neighbourhoods and some established neighbourhoods would not be closely
connected to schools.
Criteria

The criteria employed to facilitate a decision are very significant. They
represent the values and beliefs of the Board, the Division, and the community.
They also represent the Division’s mandate, the aspirations of the community,
and the level of resources that the community is willing to invest in its children
and youth. Level One decisions should be clearly linked to the Division’s
Strategic Direction and, therefore, to its purpose, vision, goals, and principles
and beliefs. The Strategic Direction should inform the criteria used for these
decisions. The Board will need to determine its own criteria, however, several
criteria are listed below that will offer the Board a starting place in making
their Level One decision.

Health And Safety: A key objective in the strategic plan within the larger
goal of our student’s learning is that the Division must “create a caring climate
and safe environment that facilitates learning.” The health and safety of
students, staff, and the community who use our schools is an absolute
requirement. As such, it may not work as an effective criterion (criteria are
used to help differentiate), but it must remain paramount in the minds of
decision-makers.

Inspiring Learning: The Division’s purpose is to inspire and sustain learning.
The Division seeks to have children and youth “discover, develop, and act
upon their potential.” The Division’s primary goal is to have its students
“engage in relevant and challenging learning opportunities to enhance their
academic, personal, and social/cultural growth.” Facility decisions such as
school size can have a significant impact on learning, therefore, optimizing
learning is the first criterion for a Level One decision. Do some options better
enable the Division to achieve its students’ learning?

“Open To All”-Achieving Our Mandate: The Division’s purpose expresses
its desire to be “open to all children and youth”. Facility decisions must ensure
that all children and youth in Saskatoon have ready access to public schools.
The strength of diversity and community-building offered by public schools
must be extended to all children and youth in our city. The Public Division
must vigorously defend its mandate against the invitational interpretation of the
Catholic Division’s mandate. The Division must also be prepared to
implement SchoolPLUS on a wide front and must be mindful of initiatives such
as integrated community centres. Achieving our mandate is a key criterion. Do
some options better enable the Division to achieve its mandate?
School Community Connection: The Division’s purpose indicates that an
important reason to inspire learning is to enrich the community. A key goal in
achieving the Division’s purpose is that “we seek to build with our community
shared ownership and responsibility for the well-being and education of our
children and youth.” SchoolPLUS includes the concept of community schools.
Our children and youth’s learning is inextricably connected to the health and
development of the local community. Do some options better enable the
Division to strengthen its school-community connections?

Revenue: Some facilities decisions will increase the Division’s capture rate
and therefore, increase its grant revenues. Building a west collegiate will serve
to protect not only the Division’s mandate, but also its revenues. Building a
northeast collegiate has the potential to increase enrolments well beyond
current projections. Do some options provide better opportunities to generate
revenue?

Cost: Facilities expenditures compete with other significant needs such as
staff and learning resources. The fiscal condition of the Division must be
carefully considered in facility decisions. Other fiscal considerations including
debt load and per student expenditures must be analysed within this criterion.
Efficient use of space is also an aspect of this criterion. Do some options allow
the Division to reduce its expenditures on facilities and maintain a favorable
fiscal position?

Applying Criteria to the Options:

Fast and Hartsook illustrate the application of the selected criteria to the
options being considered using a grid. Figure XXI: 3 presents a similar grid to
illustrate the application of five suggested criteria (Health and Safety is an
absolute and is, therefore, not included) to the four options for a general
approach to facilities planning. Use of such a grid can create focussed
comparisons of the four options with regard to one criterion at a time. The
conclusion row on the grid is designed to indicate which option is preferred for
each criterion. One important consideration is the weight of each criterion.
The Board must decide if some criteria are more important than others. The
total column is intended to be used should trustees decide to use a numeric
ranking of the option against a criterion. A simple 1-4 ranking might work or a
10 point scale might provide more separation of options.
                      FIGURE XXI: 3 APPLICATION OF CRITERIA TO FOUR OPTIONS

                                                  CRITERIA
    OPTIONS         INSPIRING   ACHIEVING     SCHOOL       REVENUE   COST      OTHER     TOTAL
                    LEARNING     MANDATE    COMMUNITY                         CRITERIA
                                            CONNECTION
OPTION A:
INCREASE # OF
SCHOOLS
BUILD NEW SCHOOLS
RENOVATE OLDER
SCHOOLS
OPTION B:
SAME # OF SCHOOLS
BUILD NEW
CLOSE SOME OLDER
SCHOOLS & BUS TO
NEARBY SCHOOLS
OPTION C:
KEEP CURRENT
SCHOOLS
RENOVATE/REPLACE
OLD & BUS NEW
NEIGHBOURHOODS
OPTION D:
REDUCE # OF
SCHOOLS
CLOSE SOME
RENOVATE/REPLACE
SOME SCHOOLS


CONCLUSION
Level Two Decisions

After the Board has determined its option for general facility planning, the Master
Planning process must then move to what Fast and Hartsook call Level Two
Decisions. These decisions in effect operationalize the determined general
direction. If, for example, the Board selected Option D, decisions would need to be
made regarding which schools to close, renovate, or replace. If the Board selected
Option B, it would need to determine which schools to build and restore, and which
ones to close.

     Criteria

     Fast and Hartsook also proposed criteria to be used when the closure of low
     enrolment schools was being determined.             These include:      projected
     enrolments, quality of the school plant, proximity to neighbouring schools,
     location of schools to student population, the politics of school closing, and the
     disposal of schools.

     A number of criteria for Level Two Decisions are suggested by the analysis of
     significant factors earlier in this report.

     Saskatoon’s Growth: In determining which schools to build, restore, or close,
     the Division must consider the likely growth and maturation of the City’s
     neighbourhoods.

     Condition of Facilities: The condition of the current schools is an important
     criterion as the Board makes decisions to restore, rebuild, or close schools.
     Administration has planned in its capital budget to audit a number of school
     structures this year. The information generated by RECAPP software will also
     provide vital information for these decisions.

     Enrolment Projections: Although the margin of error for individual school
     enrolment projections is large, the Division must nonetheless consider the
     future enrolment of each school. In these individual school projections, local
     information must be carefully considered in addition to enrolment history and
     trends, and the data generated by Baragar software.

     Space Utilization: The current use of space in our schools must be considered
     when making Level Two Decisions. This information is currently being
     brought up-to-date. The implementation of SchoolPLUS and the Strategic Plan
     will complicate this evaluation of space.
Mandate: Although achieving the Division’s mandate is a criterion for a
Level One Decision, it must also be considered in Level Two Decisions.
Ensuring that our community’s children and youth attend public schools must
be considered when deliberating about school renovation, replacement,
construction, or closure.

Implementing the Strategic Plan: Level Two facilities decisions must
contribute to the Division’s ability to achieve the Strategic Direction and Plan.
Attention must be paid to the wide-range of core strategies that have
implications for our facilities.

School Size: The impact of school size on learning must be carefully
considered as facilities decisions are made.

Fiscal Considerations: Fiscal considerations are a criterion for Level One
Decisions, however, a range of matters that determine the Division’s fiscal
ability to carry out specific projects including revenue, cost, per pupil
expenditure overall and specifically to facilities, debt load, and provincial
contributions to projects must be considered. A close working relationship
between the Facilities Section and Finance and Administration has been
established.

Integrated, Joint-Use Projects: The opportunity to work with other
governments, agencies, and community groups must be carefully considered in
making Level Two Decisions.

Readiness: In making Level Two Decisions, the Board must consider the
Division’s readiness to implement decisions. Currently, administration is
completing its construction specifications for new or renovated collegiates.
Construction specifications for elementary schools are complete as are the
educational specifications for collegiates. Completing space utilizations and
implementing RECAPP is well underway. School audits must be initiated and
individual school projections are being developed. Some matters, however, are
beyond the Division’s control. Work on integrated/joint facilities will require
more up-front planning and depend to some extent on other organizations. The
site for a new school must be determined in conjunction with the City, and the
servicing of that site is done on the City’s timetable. Before Level Two
Decisions can be made, the Division’s readiness to implement these decisions
must be considered.

Information
          A significant amount of up-to-date information is required to make Level Two
          Decisions. Administration is developing this information in preparation for
          this stage of deliberations. This information includes:

          •    Individual school enrolment histories.

          •    Analysis of where students come from to attend each school.

          •    Analysis of where students who live in a specific neighbourhood go to
               school.

          •    Individual school enrolment projections.

          •    RECAPP analysis of our facilities.

          •    Facility audits of our schools.

          •    Analysis of school closure scenarios.

          •    Complete and accurate space utilization calculations.

          •    Principals’ evaluations of how well their school facilities meet 21st
               century learning needs.

Planning for New Opportunities and Changing Trends

The successful completion of Level One and Level Two decisions will result in the
completion of a Facilities Master Plan. This plan must be revised regularly and it must
be built with a significant degree of flexibility to take advantage of new opportunities and
changing trends.