Regular Board Meeting February 24, 2015 Estimated Time 1 Call to Order 10:00 AM 2 Adopt Agenda Board Work Plan 216.pdf 5 3 Meeting Minutes Link 5 4 Delegations and Presentations 4-1 Alberta School Boards Association Edwin Parr Award Nominations – 11:30 am (P. Barron) 30 5 Communication and Engagement 5-1 Media Highlights 2015-02-11 Clearview Transportation Staff Asked to Consider Smaller Buses Stettler Independent 2015-02-11 Global Play Day was Marked at SES Stettler Independent 2015-02-11 Great Afterschool Program off to a Good Start Stettler Independent 2015-02-11 JV Boys Enjoy Surprise Win Over Ponoka Stettler Independent 2015-02-11 Semester 2 is on Stettler Independent 2015-02-11 Sr. Girls Overtake Lacombe in “Relentless” Game Stettler Independent 2015-02-11 Stettler Teens Challenge Town to Meet Vital Need Stettler Independent 2015-02-12 Clearview Transportation Staff Asked to Consider Smaller Buses The Castor Advance 2015-02-12 Valentine’s Day Full of Friends The Castor Advance 2015-02-18 Erskine Hosts Olympics with Heart for Playschool Program The Stettler Independent 2015-02-18 JV Girls Take Consolation Prize in Wetaskiwin Tournament The Stettler Independent 2015-02-18 Lots of Valentine’s Day Activities The Stettler Independent
Transcript
Regular Board Meeting February 24, 2015
Estimated
Time 1 Call to Order 10:00 AM
2 Adopt Agenda Board Work Plan 216.pdf 5
3 Meeting Minutes Link 5
4 Delegations and Presentations
4-1 Alberta School Boards Association Edwin Parr Award Nominations – 11:30 am (P. Barron)
30
5 Communication and Engagement
5-1 Media Highlights
2015-02-11 Clearview Transportation Staff Asked to Consider Smaller Buses
Stettler Independent
2015-02-11 Global Play Day was Marked at SES
Stettler Independent
2015-02-11 Great Afterschool Program off to a Good Start
Stettler Independent
2015-02-11 JV Boys Enjoy Surprise Win Over Ponoka
Stettler Independent
2015-02-11 Semester 2 is on Stettler Independent
2015-02-11 Sr. Girls Overtake Lacombe in “Relentless” Game
Stettler Independent
2015-02-11 Stettler Teens Challenge Town to Meet Vital Need
Stettler Independent
2015-02-12 Clearview Transportation Staff Asked to Consider Smaller Buses
The Castor Advance
2015-02-12 Valentine’s Day Full of Friends
The Castor Advance
2015-02-18 Erskine Hosts Olympics with Heart for Playschool Program
The Stettler Independent
2015-02-18 JV Girls Take Consolation Prize in Wetaskiwin Tournament
The Stettler Independent
2015-02-18 Lots of Valentine’s Day Activities
The Stettler Independent
Regular Board Meeting February 24, 2015
2015-02-18 News from School Clubs The Stettler Independent
2015-02-18 Sr. Boys Take Third Place in Lacombe Tournament
The Stettler Independent
2015-02-18 Straight Talk from Robb Nash
The Stettler Independent
2015-02-18 The New Man in Black ECA Review
2015-02-19 Valentine’s Planning Success
The Castor Advance
5-2 Superintendent Highlights (P. Barron) Link 10
5-3 Support Staff Professional Day Report – February 17, 2015 (S. Gerlitz)
10
5-4 School Council Workshop Report – February 12, 2015 and Planning for Next Meeting
Link 10
6 FIRST
6-1 Board Principles and Priorities (and Annual Board Plan Review)
Link Link
30
7 Committees
7-1 Shared Facilities Committee (D. Goodwin/C. Neitz)
10
7-2 Policy Committee (Yard Service Conversation)
Link 30
7-3 Internal Teacher Workload Committee – February 3, 2015 (K. Holloway/C. Neitz)
10
7-4 Performing Arts Centre Committee Report – January 21, 2015 (D. Goodwin)
Link 15
8 General Administration
8-1 Recognition Night Planning Link 10
8-2 Annual Capital Plan DRAFT Link 10
8-3 School Bus Tenders Link 30
9 ASBA & PSBAA
9-1 Public School Boards’ Council Report – February 5-7, 2015 (D. Goodwin)
10
9-2 Alberta School Boards Association Zone 4 Report – February 23, 2015 (K. Holloway)
10
Regular Board Meeting February 24, 2015
10 Registrations
11 Information
11-1 Balance Sheet & Revenue Link
11-2 Accounts – Cheques and Purchasing Link
11-3 Superintendent Calendar Link
11-4 Action Plan Link
11-5 Board Letter to the Minister of Education Link
Set Level of Trustee Governance Budget within Total Budget for 2015-16
2015-03
Capital Projects Final Submission – Erskine, Coronation, Stettler Elementary
2015-03
Budget Update 2015-03
Clearview Foundation Statements 2015-03
School Visits 2015-03
Rural Education Symposium – March 1-3, 2015 Report
2015-03
ASBA Bylaw, Directives and Policies Review 2015-03
March, 2015 and Enrolments for 2015-16 2015-03
Review Meeting Dates for 2015-16 2015-03
Local Government Education Meeting 2015-03
Regular Board Meeting February 24, 2015
Budget Conversations “What We Heard”
Report and Recommendations DRAFT 2015-03
School Bus Tenders 2015-03
Stettler Schools Update 2015-03
Board Meeting Dates (Draft) 2015-04
Division Instruction Professional Day – Planning and Trustee Participation
2015-04
Final Approval for Gus Wetter SEVEC Request
2015
Moving Forward Initiatives • Educational Issues • Shifts with Students (eg. Learning) • Staff Initiatives
POLICY 216 – Board Work Plan Effective May 21, 2009 Amended June 26, 2014 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
1. August 1.1. Participate in Opening Divisional PD day 1.2 Start CEO evaluation (In an election year)
2. September 2.1 Review annual Board Plan (set the previous February) 2.2 Monitor opening day enrolment reports (at first monthly meeting) 2.3 Plan for School Councils Workshop 2.4 Plan for Board retreat 2.5 Monitor preliminary Provincial Achievement Test and Diploma Examination results (as
available from Alberta Education 2.6 Receive annual Technology Report 2.7 Receive annual Human Resources Report
3. October
3.1 Organizational Meeting 3.2 Monitor detailed Provincial Achievement Test and Diploma Examination results 3.3 Monitor Sept.30 enrolment and class sizes 3.4 Schedule school visits for school year 3.5 Review funding allocations 3.6 Plan for Remembrance Day
4. November 4.1 Approve Annual Education Results Report and 3-Yr Plan (Accountability) 4.2 Approve Reserves Report 4.3 Approve Audited Financial Statement Approve Fall Budget Update 4.4 ASBA/PSBAA Fall General Meetings 4.5 Start stakeholder consultation re Board Plan
4.5.1 School Councils, Communities, Principals, Teachers 4.6 Start CEO evaluation (after quantitative data for last year is in)
5. December
5.1 Complete CEO evaluation – Plan for CEO evaluation following year 5.1.1 Book consultant 5.1.2 Book interviews with Principals and direct reports (as per contract)
5.2 Complete Board self-evaluation 5.3 Continue stakeholder consultation re Board Plan. 5.4 Approve IMR and Capital Facilities Plan 5.5 Receive Facilities Report. 5.6 Review draft calendar for next school year and circulate for feedback
POLICY 216 – Board Work Plan Effective May 21, 2009 Amended June 26, 2014 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
6. January 6.1 Complete stakeholder consultation re Board Plan 6.2 Hold a Board retreat to review Board Plan and Board Issues 6.3 Monitor Alberta Education review of our 3 Year Plan (as available form Alberta
Education)
7. February 7.1 Approve school year calendar 7.2 Review Transportation accountability data 7.3 Establish annual Board Plan (goals, measures, targets) for upcoming school year 7.4 Set level of Board expense within total Admin budget 7.5 Plan for Recognition Night in June 7.6 Monitor Class sizes semester 2 High School only. 7.7 Capital Plan Discussion
8. March 8.1 Review ASBA bylaws, directives and policies for submission to Zone meetings 8.2 Monitor March 1 enrolments for the current year. 8.3 Monitor enrolment projections for the following year. 8.4 Set meeting dates for Board for following school year 8.5 Capital Plan finalized
9. April 9.1 Recognize teaching award finalists 9.2 Select recipient of Clearview Award of Merit 9.3 Review first draft of Annual Budget
10. May
10.1 Approve Annual Budget and submit budget report to Alberta Education 10.2 Plan for Opening Divisional PD day .
11. June
11.1 Approve any facility lease agreements 11.2 Monitor school fees 11.3 ASBA/PSBAA Spring General Meetings
11.4 Monitor draft of 3 Year Education Plan with most recent data as per May Accountability Pillar report (Approval is by Nov 30 along with AERR)
11.5 Receive Special Education Program report
POLICY 216 – Board Work Plan Effective May 21, 2009 Amended June 26, 2014 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Monthly
13. Ongoing 13.1 Public consultation processes 13.2 Policy approvals 13.3 Committee meeting reports 13.4 Curriculum updates 13.5 Recognition of students, staff and partners 13.6 Advocacy initiatives 13.7 Delegations, appeals and hearings
____________________
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FEBRUARY 12, 2015
1
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CLEARVIEW SCHOOL DIVISION NO.71 HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015 COMMENCING AT 4:00 PM AT THE CLEARVIEW SCHOOL DIVISION OFFICE IN STETTLER, ALBERTA.
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:04 pm by Chair Cheri Neitz PRESENT Chair: Cheri Neitz
Vice Chair: John Schofer Trustees: Yvette Cassidy (arrived at 4:25 pm), Ken Checkel, Staci Gerlitz, Dave Goodwin and Karen Holloway Superintendent of Schools: Peter Barron Associate Superintendent, Business and Finance: Peter Neale Executive Assistant: Jill Lepard Media: Joel van der Veen and Debra Johnston
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2015-02-01 Moved by Dave Goodwin “THAT the agenda be adopted as amended:
• 5-5 Student Learning Assessment (C. Netiz) • 10-2 Support Staff PD Day - February 17, 2015 (K. Holloway) • 10-3 Public School Boards’ Council Report (D. Goodwin) • 12-4 Budget Conversations (P. Neale)”
CARRIED Trustee Checkel left the meeting at 4:07 pm. MEETING MINUTES 2015-02-02 Moved by Karen Holloway “THAT the Minutes of the Regular Board Meeting that was held on January 29, 2015
be approved as presented.” CARRIED Trustee Checkel returned to the meeting at 4:09 pm. COMMUNICATION Superintendent Highlights Superintendent Barron provided a verbal report on the work being done in the
Clearview School Division. Transportation Request 2015-02-03 Moved by Dave Goodwin “THAT the Board now 4:10 pm go In Camera session to discuss the following:
• Transportation Request #2015-02.” CARRIED Trustee Cassidy arrived to the meeting at 4:25 pm 2015-02-04 Moved Karen Holloway “THAT the Board now 5:13 pm go out of In Camera session.” CARRIED 2015-02-05 Moved by Yvette Cassidy “THAT the Board, regarding Transportation Request #2015-02, supports
Transportation Services to pick up the student(s) at their residence and transport them to Donalda School, and the legal guardian(s) would pay the school of choice fee.”
In Favour – Yvette Cassidy, John Schofer Opposed – Ken Checkel, Staci Gerlitz, Dave Goodwin, Karen Holloway, Cheri Neitz
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FEBRUARY 12, 2015
2
DEFEATED 2015-02-06 Moved by Dave Goodwin “THAT the Board, regarding Transportation Request #2015-02, supports
Transportation Services to pick up the student(s) on the existing bus route (will not reroute the bus), the legal guardian(s) pay the school of choice fee if applicable, and communicate to the legal guardian(s) that the route will be reviewed next year.”
In Favour – Ken Checkel, Staci Gerlitz, Dave Goodwin, Karen Holloway, Cheri Neitz, John Schofer
Opposed – Yvette Cassidy CARRIED Clearview Spotlights Chair Neitz discussed the Board’s focus on moving forward in a positive way, and
reviewed the communication items: First Assembly of 2015 Held Last Week, 2015-01-28 Stettler Independent Lots of Success in Sports, 2015-01-28 Stettler Independent Stettler Students Unaffected by Server Failure During Diploma Exams, 2015-
01-28 Stettler Independent Minor Football Teams Host Activity and Movie Night, 2015-02-04 Stettler
Independent Medieval Days Come Big to SES, 2015-02-04 Stettler Independent SMS Teams Host Big Valley in Basketball Matchup, 2015-02-04 Stettler
Independent Sr. Boys Reach Finals in Forestburg Tournament, 2015-02-04 Stettler
Independent Students Learn the Knight’s Code During Medieval Days, 2015-02-04 Stettler
Independent Trustees Approve New Configuration for Stettler Schools, 2015-02-04 Stettler
Independent Clearview Set to Implement New School Structure, 2015-02-03 ECA Review The Start of the Last Half, 2015-02-05 The Castor Advance
School Council Meeting Preparation Superintendent Barron discussed the preparations for the workshop with School
Councils on February 12, 2015 at 7:00 pm. School Visits – Erskine and Donalda Chair Neitz reviewed the recent tours of Erskine School and Donalda School on
Tuesday, January 27, 2015. Student Learning Assessment Update Chair Neitz discussed Alberta Educations decision to postpone the Student Learning
Assessments and to reinstate the Provincial Achievement Tests for this year. 2015-02-07 Moved by Karen Hollow “THAT the Board direct Chair Neitz to send a letter, on their behalf, to the Minister of
Education regarding the challenges with the implementation of the Provincial Achievement Tests this time of year.
CARRIED FIRST Clearview Foundational Statements Superintendent Barron brought forward for review the Clearview Foundational
Statements. Moving Forward with Stettler Schools Grade Configuration Superintendent Barron proposed the next steps in the process of moving forward
with the grade reconfiguration at the Stettler School Complex. 2015-02-08 Moved by Karen Holloway “THAT the Board of Trustees, for the purposes of Alberta Education identification and
funding, shall establish grades for three schools in the Town of Stettler as follows
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FEBRUARY 12, 2015
3
effective for the 2015-16 school year:
• K-6 Elementary School (“Stettler Elementary”) • 7-9 Middle School (currently “Stettler Middle School”) • 10-12 High School (currently “Wm. E. Hay High School”)
AND FURTHER THAT the Board of Trustees establishes that for operational and budget purposes, the Middle and High Schools shall be run as an amalgamated learning centre under a school principal.”
CARRIED 2015-02-09 Moved by Dave Goodwin “THAT the Board of Trustees hereby directs the Superintendent of Schools under
Policy 422 “Naming of Facilities” to form a committee of representatives to consider a name for the schools which will operate as a combined grade 7-12 school in the Town of Stettler, with the intent that the new name be effective for the 2015-16 school year. In accordance with the policy, local elected representatives Trustee Goodwin and Trustee Gerlitz will sit as the representatives on the committee.”
CARRIED GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Student Mental Health Conference Trustee Gerlitz discussed the Student Mental Health Conference she attended on
January 29-31, 2015. 2015-02-10 Moved by Yvette Cassidy “THAT the Board accept the verbal report from Trustee Gerlitz regarding the Student
Mental Health Conference as information.” CARRIED Trustee Fee Sheets 2015-02-11 Moved by Ken Checkel “THAT the Board approve the Trustee Fee Sheets, effective February 12, 2015, as
presented.” CARRIED ASBA & PSBAA Alberta School Board Association (June 1-2, 2015) and Public School Boards’
Association of Alberta (May 29-31, 2015) Spring Conferences and Policy Submissions
2015-02-12 Moved by Dave Goodwin “THAT the Board authorize each trustee to attend the Alberta School Boards’
Association and the Public School Boards’ Association of Alberta Spring General Meetings on June 1-2, 2015 and May 29-31, 2015 respectively.”
In Favour – Ken Checkel, Staci Gerlitz, Dave Goodwin, Karen Holloway, Cheri Neitz Opposed – Yvette Cassidy, John Schofer CARRIED Alberta School Board Association Call for Success Stories Chair Neitz discussed the Alberta School Boards Association’s request for success
stories from school divisions across the province. REGISTRATIONS Rural Symposium Date Confirmations Associate Superintendent, Business and Finance, Neale communicated the date for
the Annual Rural Education Symposium as March 1-3, 2015 and confirmed trustees that are intending to attend.
Support Staff PD Day 2015-02-13 Moved by Karen Holloway “THAT the Board allow all trustees, in accordance with Policy 206 “Trustee
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FEBRUARY 12, 2015
4
Honorarium”, who wish to attend the Support Staff Professional Development Day on February 17, 2015, may do so.”
In Favour – Ken Checkel, Staci Gerlitz, Dave Goodwin, Karen Holloway, Cheri Neitz Opposed – Yvette Cassidy, John Schofer CARRIED CLOSED SESSION 2015-02-14 Moved by Dave Goodwin “THAT the Board now 6:08 pm go in Camera session to discuss the following:
CARRIED The Media and Executive Assistant Lepard left the meeting at this time. OPEN SESSION 2015-02-15 Moved by Dave Goodwin “THAT the Board now 7:01 pm go out of In Camera session.” CARRIED BOARD HIGHLIGHTS The Board reviewed the draft Board highlights for distribution. ADJOURNMENT Chair Neitz declared the meeting adjourned at 7:01 pm. Board Chair Associate Superintendent,
From: Peter Barron February-02-15 5:49:36 AMSubject: Barron's Read - Feb. 2To: Division Staff Info Principals ConferenceCc: Senior Leadership Team
Greetings everyone!
Happy Groundhog Day! I only really mention it because I so enjoyed the film of the same name starring Bill Murray. While entertaining, this charming comedy also illuminates some important points about learning. Bill Murray plays Phil Connors, an egocentric weatherman on assignment to cover the annual Groundhog Day in Punxsutawney. He becomes caught in a time loop and relives the same day over and over again. At first, Connors uses his time to indulge in carnal pleasures, but soon becomes disenchanted and despairs. He is even unsuccessful in ending his life as he seems doomed to repeat the same day over and over again. His producer, Andie Mcdowell’s character, listens to his tale of woe and offers a suggestion which changes everything. She wonders if in fact, he is not cursed, and maybe it all depends how he looks upon his circumstance. What happens next is intriguing. Much like the Dr. Seuss’ Grinch, his heart grows larger as he connects with townspeople and endeavours to help out. He catches a youngster falling from a tree, assists some ladies with a flat tire, and helps a homeless person.
I am particularly struck by Phil’s desire to learn and grow. He learns to play the piano and ice sculpt. Each day he perseveres and finally masters each of these skills. Again, like the Grinch, once Phil has learned to care for others and to have a growth mindset, is he released from the prison of time loop.
This film reminds us that each of us is capable of more than we currently can do. Failure is part of the learning process; very few of us get it right the first or second or third time. Mastery of any skill demands perseverance and grit. I have been very pleased to provide staff who are interested with a copy of Carol Dweck’ book “Mindset” which I believe offers insight to educators and parents alike. The offer remains open; just let me know.
Moving Forward With Stettler Schools
At the Board meeting on January 29th, a unanimous decision was made to restructure Stettler schools to a K-6 and 7-12 configuration with the continuance of a separate Outreach school. This forward thinking step was taken with the best interests of students in mind. However, I realize many parents have expressed concern that younger students in grades 7 and 8 may be forced to grow up faster, and will somehow be negatively influenced by older students. Parents can be assured that caring adults will still teach and look after the grade 7 and 8 students. Younger students will not be physically moved to be among high school students. Younger students will continue to be well supervised, and will not be afforded the same freedoms and privileges as high school students. In reality, younger students will continue to be cared for as they are now in likely the same rooms they currently occupy.
I recognize there is a sense of loss and frustration among some staff. Anxiety also comes from not knowing the details of what will happen. Many decisions are still to be made. In the coming weeks, we will know better the timelines for change. Staff and parents will be invited to be part of the decision making process. We begin the process of developing action plans this week. It is likely both school codes (SMS and Wm. E. Hay) will be retired, and a new school will be created. Decisions around administration and the name of the new school are high on priority lists.
Great Start to Learning - EYE - Early Years Evaluation
Learning to read is a critical challenge in primary grades. Grades 3 and 4 are a critical transition from learning to read to reading to learn. Low literacy skills affect academic and social functioning during and beyond school years. The foundational skills for learning to read involve multiple areas, and these skills develop long before children enter school. It is important to identify children not ready for school in playschool. Most reading difficulties can be
prevented with early identification, excellent classroom instruction and appropriate intervention.
The Early Years evaluation (EYE) provides a leading indicator of children's development. The results provide accurate data that help teachers organize their instruction, increase learning time and monitor each child's progress. The evaluation also stands to inform parents about their child's progress. The Early Years Evaluation is designed to assist educators in assessing the skills of children ages 3 - 6 years as they prepare for and make the transition to school.
In January there was training in EYE for playschools from Erskine, Donalda, Big Valley, Botha, Byemoor, Gus Vetter, Coronation, SES Early Learning Program. ECS teachers from the above schools will be attending. Many thanks to Eileen Johnstone for taking in the lead in moving this important learning forward.
Excellence in Teaching Award Nominations Closing Soon
The deadline to nominate an outstanding educator for an Excellence in Teaching Award is Friday, February 6. Parents, students, colleagues, principals, superintendents and all Albertans are encouraged to nominate a teacher or principal who demonstrates excellence, and inspires students and colleagues with their creative, innovative, and effective teaching practices. Nominations for pre-kindergarten teachers are also being accepted.
Take this opportunity to show your appreciation for the leadership and great teachers in your school by recognizing their contributions.
To learn more and to submit a nomination, visit the “Teacher” tab of [ http://www.education.alberta.ca/ ]education.alberta.ca, email [email protected] or call 1-866-590-1660 (toll-free number).
Medieval Days at SES
A recent highlight for me was my attendance at Medieval Days at Stettler Elementary School. The decorations were amazing, and I was impressed how organizers embedded their character education program, 7 Habits, into the festivities. Congratulations to Kim Poapst and Jill Neitz for their extraordinary efforts in making this event fun and memorable for students.[Image:20150201_114107_0.jpg]
[Image]I hope you have a great week - Peter
School Councils’ Workshop - Feedback February 12, 2015 7:00-9:00 pm Clearview Public Schools Central Services Building Board Room Reflecting the professional development workshop done in October around the role of school councils… (items in bold are the bigger, shared ideas from the groups) Question 1 What are the big initiatives that your school council does successfully? Be sure to brag and share the great things you are doing!
Playground purchases, help with purchasing, new equipment Community involvement and involving community members. Brownfield:
community members come to our meeting and provide input (e.g. 4H, etc.). Keeps everyone involved.
Support school related activities: hot lunch, dances, transportation, breakfast baskets, supplying healthy snacks
Politically involved/arm of the school, stand up for your school Audio/Visual system for SES Increased participation levels Hot lunch in Botha weekly, Big Valley every second Friday Hoodies for Erskine students – School spirit School Foundation (Registered Society) – Casino, swim lessons Botha: pay for swimming lessons, fundraising (cookie dough sales) Stettler High School: Dances, refreshments at sporting events Playground purchase Movie in the Park Community Involvement – all organizations come and present reports (Brownfield):
Brownies, 4H, Library, Rec Centre, High School, All teachers, Hot lunches, Churches Community Calendar Magic Show Silent Auctions – money for School exchange Movie nights Breakfast baskets (Donalda) – fruit, granola bars; given to each class Sponsorship – Breakfast for learning (Outreach) – donations New Years Eve – kids and family danced, played games
Bussing – Extra Curricular Welcome Back Breakfast & BBQ (Donalda) Outreach: Help community, rummage sales, BBQ fundraisers Wednesday Soup Days Block Party (Stettler) Leader In Me – Middle & Elementary school
Question 2 How do you build trust and communication with the school and school principal? What does your school principal do to build trust with you?
Communication, open honest accountable Principals are more human, being present, relating to students/kids, empathetic Being supportive to the students, going in with the idea that the principal/teachers
are wrong, parents go in to find solution, teachers and principals are listening, support should go both ways
Communication: open, honest, solution based, proactive, frequent and accountable, use multiple methods
Humanity: accessibility, one on one interaction, empathetic, being present Supportive: by parents and students Build Trust: help when asked, show understanding to situations, support decisions,
mutual respect, being trustworthy Question 3 What is the best way your school council can support students and schools?
Communication Show trust and respect Two way communication Using the proper ways to communicate Show support Speak positively and through advocacy Positive example for students Be involved in school activities Collaborate with other schools Realize there are many perspectives in the room Trust parents/School Council trust staff & respect staff trust parents Assume everyone there for the good of the kids Follow proper channels to deal with concerns – know that there are channels to deal
with concerns Support Schools and Board in Advocacy Fund raise for field trips, do hot lunches Guide for decision making – discuss and have parental support – parents and staff on
the same page Speak positively everywhere Facebook page to inform about positive events Good knowledgeable communication link between Clearview, Principals and parents –
two way open communication
Question 4 What further supports from Clearview Public Schools would your school council need to support learning?”
Consistency of funding Update school council page on website, go to spot for ideas, sharing, contact
information for chairs, can contact directly Council of School Councils (advocating to government, work together as a whole) Figure out how to lobby together as a group of schools Not having schools “pitted against each other” Tools to help School Councils collaborate/work together Clearview could put page on Facebook/website of ideas from each School
Council/School – could include things like how to run a meeting, start a School Council, etc.
Recognize individuality of each School/School Council Consistent funding formulas year to year Knowledge that Clearview values small schools
Question 5 “Wrapping up for the session, what is a word that you could share which would best summarize what models a good school council?”
Positively Proactive Communication Honesty Supportive Respect Help Engaged Compassion Empower Kids Community Team work Hopeful Cooperation Responsibility Participation All the good ones are gone… Consistency Accuracy Us Integrity Investment
Education Plan &
Results Report
2015-2018 Draft Feb. 24, 2015
Clearview Public Schools
(School Division No. 71)
2nd Floor, 5301-50th Street
Box 1720
Stettler, AB
T0C 2L0
Phone 403-742-3331
Fax 403-742-1388
www.clearview.ab.ca
“Success is Measured One Child at a Time”
Parental Involvement
2
Principals involve their school councils in their school Education Plan and Results
Reports and share school results and interpretation of Accountability Pillar Measures.
Rutherford Scholarship Eligibility Rate (Revised) 67.0 66.2 62.1 60.9 61.3 60.8 High Improved Good
Preparation for Lifelong Learning, World of Work, Citizenship
Good
Transition Rate (6 yr) 64.4 63.4 60.8 59.2 59.5 59.1 High Maintained Good
Work Preparation 81.1 80.0 79.2 81.2 80.3 80.0 High Maintained Good
Citizenship 85.4 86.5 84.4 83.4 83.4 82.6 Very High Maintained Excellent
Parental Involvement Excellent Parental Involvement 82.3 83.5 81.0 80.6 80.3 80.0 Very High Maintained Excellent
Continuous Improvement Excellent School Improvement 84.1 88.2 85.5 79.8 80.6 80.2 Very High Maintained Excellent
Notes:
1. PAT results include: English Language Arts (Grades 6, 9, 9 KAE), Franҫais (Grades 6, 9), French Language Arts (Grades 6, 9), Mathematics 9 KAE, Science (Grades 6, 9, 9 KAE), Social
Studies (Grades 6, 9, 9 KAE). Grade 3 results were not included due to the introduction of the Student Learning Assessment Pilot.
2. Diploma results include: English Language Arts 30-1, English Language Arts 30-2, French Language Arts 30-1, Franҫais 30-1, Chemistry 30, Physics 30, Biology 30, Science 30, Social
Studies 30-1, Social Studies 30-2.
Measure Current Result Prev Year Result Prev 3 Year Ave Safe and Caring 2013/14 2012/13 2010-2013
Program of Studies 2013/14 2012/13 2010-2013 Education Quality 2013/14 2012/13 2010-2013
Drop Out 2012/13 2011/12 2009-2012 High School Completion 2012/13 2011/12 2009-2012
Work Preparation 2013/14 2012/13 2010-2013 Citizenship 2013/14 2012/13 2010-2013
Parental Involvement 2013/14 2012/13 2010-2013 School Improvement 2013/14 2012/13 2010-2013
Source Data Reference
Priority 1: Create a “First-Choice” Learning Environment
Students engaged in learning are:
Becoming self-directed and successful, taking ownership for their learning.
Being self-reliant, motivated and personally responsible.
Building strong literacy and numeracy skills to achieve education outcomes throughout the
grades.
Developing the skills, knowledge, and understanding needed to deal positively with adversity.
Understanding, developing and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
Learning and demonstrating the importance of caring for and respecting self and others.
8
Clearview Public Schools is the “First-Choice” for students and families in our communities. We create a learning environment so engaging, enviable and successful that parents and students choose Clearview Public Schools over any other educational alternatives.
Outcomes Strategies
1a: Children reach
development
milestones and are
ready for school. (AE)
1b: Students including
those with special
needs and First
Nations, Métis and
Inuit (FNMI) achieve
learning outcomes,
demonstrate
proficiency in literacy
and numeracy and
demonstrate
citizenship and
entrepreneurship.
(AE)
1c: Students use
technology to support
authentic learning.
(LTPF)
1d: All students and
communities have
access to safe and
healthy learning
environments. (AE)
Support parents with child readiness for school through early learning programs. Enhance early learning programs (playschool, PUF, pre-K) in preparing children for Kindergarten. Identify developmental levels of 3 and 4 year olds using benchmarks to inform parents about child development. Partner with community to improve child literacy/numeracy Early Development Initiative (EDI). Communicate to parents what their pre-school children usually learn by years of age.
Provide all students with appropriate opportunities and experiences to engage in learning (as per the tenets of Inspiring Education and the Ministerial Order May 2013) supported by effective assessment practices and appropriate technologies. Align K-3 programs with Alberta Education’s Primary Programs Framework. Develop and implement a Clearview literacy and numeracy strategy incorporating Alberta Education’s literacy and numeracy benchmarks. Align classroom assessment of student learning with Alberta Education’s Classroom Assessment Project. Enhance student collaboration and engagement through use of project-based and experiential learning, Google Apps for Education (GAFE) and emerging technologies. Transition libraries to Learning Commons. Include FNMI perspectives as applicable within classroom learning, address specific needs of individual FNMI students and provide appropriate support and appropriately use resources reflecting FNMI heritage. Prepare and implement Career and Technology Foundations (CTF) for Grades 5-9.
Support all high schools in engaging students. Investigate the benefits and feasibility of participating in Alberta Education’s high school initiatives such as Moving Forward with High School Redesign to enhance student engagement, achievement and high school completion. Investigate the benefits and feasibility of promoting or implementing additional opportunities for dual credit learning.
Provide safe and healthy learning environments. Support Health and Wellness committee. Implement Children and Adolescents Being Resilient and Self-regulating (CARS) to complement our Family School Liaison Program. Develop student threat risk assessment protocol. Review and update emergency response plans for each school.
Note: See Measures and Data following Priority 2. Measures for Priority 1 are the same measures for Priority 2.
Priority 2: Hire and Inspire Quality Staff
Staff engaged in reflective practice and leadership roles are:
Demonstrating openness to new and innovative ideas.
Engaging in successful collaboration to enrich learning opportunities and experiences.
9
Our staff is our most important resource. It is in the best interests of students to invest in our staff and to develop and to refine our Human Resources’ practices and strategies.
Outcomes Strategies
2a: Teacher
preparation and
professional growth
focus on the
competencies needed
to help students
learn. (AE)
2b: Achieve effective
learning and teaching
through collaborative
leadership. (AE)
Develop a division-wide professional learning model that meets the needs of all staff. Ensure budget supports for professional development in every school budget. Use professional growth plans to meet needs of individual teachers, and of school and jurisdiction goals. Support professional development opportunities for educational assistants, learning commons facilitators and school secretaries. Participate in a Learning and Technology Policy Framework leadership research community of practice. Develop leadership, induction, mentorship and coaching strategies for principals and teachers. Support communities of learning.
Engage all principals and teachers in professional learning and collaboration that supports the strategies in Priority 1 (e.g., literacy and numeracy benchmarks, effective assessment, project-based and experiential learning, GAFE and emerging technologies). Support teachers with PBL implementation. Support teachers with CTF implementation. Provide opportunities for teachers to collaboratively work on standard setting, developing common assessments including rubric development and identification of appropriate exemplars.
Develop a welcome mentorship strategy for all new staff.
Review and update Human Resources policies, administrative procedures, forms and practices.
Review performance review for each staffing group for best practices.
Enhance our staff recognition program.
Develop a “leaving employment” transition strategy.
Formalize process for employees on long-term (>3 days) sick leave.
Implement safety initiatives for compliance with Occupational Health and Safety and safety best practices for school jurisdictions, including implementation of PublicSchoolWorks.
Create communication and conversations with staff through liaison committees and/or survey feedback.
Supports and Interventions Accommodations include: changes in the learning environment, equipment, teaching or assessment strategies, and other supports that address a student’s individual needs. The goal of accommodations is to give the students opportunities to be successful. We employ the following accommodations to ensure students receive appropriate and timely support and intervention: Environmental Accommodations, e.g., alternative seating, adaptive devices, flexible
timing, frequent breaks, out of class assistance—before and after school and during breaks.
Instructional Accommodations, e.g., hands-on materials, printed copies of notes and study guides, alternative reading materials, peer/partner tutoring/support, learning games, reader and scribe services, verbal discussions of written responses, assistive technology and direct teaching or organizational strategies, test taking skills and self-monitoring skills.
Assessment Accommodations, e.g., specific feedback, reduced number of tasks, extra time, oral tests, repeated opportunities to show improved achievement on assignments or test, student choice of assessment tool, diagnostic testing and reader and scribe services.
Emotional and Behavioral Accommodations, e.g., support of Family School Liaison Workers.
Teachers engage parents in discussions of student’s current learning and about how the accommodations support the student’s learning.
10
Measures for Priority 1 and 2 Appropriate and timely supports and interventions provided to students (CPS) Provincial Achievement Tests results (AE) Diploma Examination results (AE) Diploma Examination participation rates (AE) Rutherford Scholarship eligibility rate (AE) High School Completion rates (AE) Annual dropout rate (AE) High School to post-secondary transition rate (AE) Teacher, parent, and student agreement that students are safe at school, learning
the importance of caring for others, learning respect for others and are treated fairly at school (AE)
Teacher, parent, and student agreement that students model the characteristics of active citizenship (AE)
Teacher, parent, and student satisfaction with the opportunity for students to receive a broad program of studies, including fine arts, career, technology, and health and physical education (AE)
Teacher, parent, and student satisfaction with the overall quality of basic education (AE)
Teacher and parent agreement that students are taught attitudes and behaviours that will make them successful at work when they finish school (AE)
Teachers, parents, and students indicating that their school and schools in their jurisdiction have improved or stayed the same in the last three years (AE)
Students in our area attending our schools (CPS) Staff completing applicable safety courses (CPS)
11
Provincial Achievement Tests
Performance Measure Results (in percentages)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Overall percentage of students in Grades 6 and 9 who achieved the acceptable
standard on Provincial Achievement Tests (overall cohort results). 78.5 80.7 78.8 74.9 76.0
Overall percentage of students in Grades 6 and 9 who achieved the standard of
Note: Grade 3 results were not included due to the introduction of the Student Learning Assessment Pilot.
Targets for Standard of Excellence: Exceeded target for 2014 of 75% for Acceptable Standard. Closing the gap on target for 2014 of 14.5% for the Standard of Excellence. Given only Grade 9 data in 2015, our target is 16% (our 2013 simple average for
Grade 9 tests was 13.9% and the 2013 provincial simple average was 17.9%). We will have no PAT data for 2016.
Provincial Achievement Tests—Acceptable Standard Provincial Achievement Tests—Standard of Excellence
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Clearview Province
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Clearview Province
12
Tests (by number enrolled) Clearview Alberta
2014 Prev 3 Yr Avg 2014 Prev 3 Yr Avg
Course Measure N % N % % %
English Language Arts 6
Acceptable Standard 187 84.5 183 87.8 81.9 82.7
Standard of Excellence 187 9.1 183 14.9 17.6 17.5
Mathematics 6 Acceptable Standard 187 77 183 81 73.5 73.8
Standard of Excellence 187 13.9 183 15.3 15.4 17
Science 6 Acceptable Standard 186 79.6 182 81.9 75.9 77.2
Standard of Excellence 186 18.3 182 21 24.9 26.4
Social Studies 6 Acceptable Standard 186 68.3 183 79.9 70.4 72.3
Standard of Excellence 186 12.4 183 18 16.6 19
English Language Arts 9 Acceptable Standard 174 73.6 182 77.2 76.3 77.8
Standard of Excellence 174 10.3 182 10.2 15.1 15.8
English Lang Arts 9 KAE Acceptable Standard 2 * 10 80 62.9 63.7
Standard of Excellence 2 * 10 0 3.5 6
Mathematics 9 Acceptable Standard 161 75.8 181 71.3 67.1 66.5
Standard of Excellence 161 17.4 181 18.1 17.3 17.8
Recommendation from Alberta Commission on Learning (2003) Establish and implement province-wide guidelines for average class sizes across school jurisdictions. Rather than set legislated limits or hard and fast rules, there should be flexibility in the size of
classes. School jurisdictions should be expected to meet the guidelines for average class sizes across their
school jurisdiction. That means the guidelines would not necessarily be met in each and every classroom but should be met on average across the school jurisdiction.
The suggested provincial guidelines should be: Junior kindergarten to grade 3: 17 Students Grades 4 to 6: 23 Students Grades 7 to 9: 25 Students Grades 10 to 12: 27 Students
Class composition should be considered by schools in setting class size. Generally, classes with special needs students, students whose first language is not English, and vulnerable and at-risk students should be smaller than the suggested guidelines. Classes should also be smaller in cases where there are safety considerations such as vocational classes.
We will review and refine our Foundational Statements to ensure they reflect our current educational philosophy and focus.
Outcomes Strategies
3: Clearview has a
widely shared and
understood vision,
mission, values and
beliefs about student
learning and well-
being that is
congruent with the
parameters set by
Alberta Education.
(CPS)
Revise vision, mission, values, beliefs and motto taking into account the tenets of Inspiring Education and embodying the Ministerial Order of May 2013.
Create a communications strategy to inform and establish the foundation statements and, if applicable, new logo.
Measures Completed statements embedded in policy (CPS) Policies aligned with vision, mission, values, beliefs and motto (CPS)
Priority 4: Continue Focus on Communication and Engagement
Parents engaged in their children’s learning processes:
Involving themselves in decisions about their children’s education.
Providing input into decisions at their children’s schools.
Involving themselves in decisions at their children’s school.
23
Recognizing and valuing our school and community stakeholders, we seek opportunities to increase student, staff and parent engagement, and invite community partners to join us in advocating for public school education.
Outcomes Strategies
4: The education
system demonstrates
collaboration and
engagement. (AE)
Develop a communication strategy to effectively engage all members of the school community (students, staff, school councils, local governments and other community partners).
Partner with community agencies and other local governments on a shared-recreation facility in the Town of Stettler.
Assign communication portfolio to a specific Central Services position.
Implement a new website to enhance the communications among our students, parents and community.
Increase community awareness of pre-K programs.
Establish an advocacy roadmap with the Board of Trustees to create clear statement on important issues for the benefit of Clearview students including the voice of the students.
Develop a Board communications committee to discuss communication initiatives and opportunities.
Develop a survey to gather staff, parent and student feedback related to how we are doing with specific strategies.
Provide a way to receive parents’ commendations for staff.
Collaborate with appropriate participants in completing the Stettler Schools Exploratory Process including resolution.
Support the student ombudsman initiative.
24
Measures Teacher and parent satisfaction with parental involvement in decisions about their
child’s education (AE)
Parental Involvement
Performance Measure Results (in percentages)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Percentage of teachers and parents satisfied with parental involvement in decisions about
their child's education. 81.3 77.2 82.2 83.5 82.3
Parental Involvement
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Clearview Province
Priority 5: Maintain Small Schools in our Division
25
We commit to maintain small schools based on the continued commitment of the Government of Alberta and of the small school communities.
Outcomes Strategies
5a: Our small schools
confidently provide a
quality education.
5b: The number of
schools remains the
same.
Senior administration will work with our small schools to ensure all available strategies are in place or developed to maintain or increase enrolments (if possible).
Communicate with our communities to ensure communities and parents know the Board of Trustees and Senior Administration support having and maintaining local community schools.
Priority 6: Maintain a Predictable Funding Allocation Structure
Outcomes Strategies
6: The schools confi-
dently budget and
plan.
Continue a budget process that will address the need for a predictable funding allocation structure.
Develop a financially sustainable model for allocations to and staffing for the schools in the Town of Stettler.
Foster understanding of funding formula.
Finance
26
Outcomes Strategies
Evidence of
continuous
improvement in
business services.
Create a business continuity plan for the division in event of emergent conditions.
Move all staff to an FTE basis (allowing for better use of averaging for budget and costing models).
Continue the process to streamline operations (division of duties and cross-training).
Implement the SRB Dashboard (accounting software).
Investigate further electronic payments for schools and parents.
Guiding Principles
1. The Board will budget and account for all funds received in accordance with the School Act and regulations.
2. The Board will allocate funds to schools.
3. Principals, in collaboration with school councils, staff, and students where appropriate, will develop guiding principles for the school budget based upon the school’s education plan.
4. It is essential that an audit trail is available for all funds. All accounting systems, processes and procedures must be acceptable to the Associate Superintendent, Business and Finance.
5. Monthly and quarterly budget status reports will be prepared to monitor revenues and expenditures.
Financial reports are available on the web:
Click Here
Web link to the Jurisdiction’s Audited Financial Statements and related
(unaudited) schedules for 2013-2014:
Click Here
Comparative information is available in a provincial report—web link to the
provincial roll up of jurisdiction AFS information:
Click Here
See Policy 217 “Clearview Funding Model” for more information
on the allocation and uses of grant dollars: Click Here
1. The Clearview School Division Board of Trustees plans the budgeting and spending of funds based on their Guiding Principles (listed on previous page).
2. School Generated Funds:
a. Sources of School generated Funds are fundraising activities, grants, school fees, and donations.
b. Expenditures from School Generated Funds are for items that are not covered by the Alberta Education funding model, including playgrounds, special events, etc.
c. Schools in the Clearview School Division raised $739,299 in School generated Funds in 2013-2014 (2012-13: $753,836).
3. Clearview School Division had an operating surplus for the 2013-2014 school year of $4,856. The majority of the deficit was planned and budgeted for the year as schools and departments used reserves to maintain teacher and support staff levels.
Actual Expenditures 2013-2014
Web link to the Jurisdiction’s financial statements for 2013-2014:
($963,445) $4,856 $968,301 3.0% See below for the breakdown between the budgeted deficit and break even total.
Instruction - Schools
($76,970) $270,499 $347,469 1.9% Additional dollars were received during the year which were not able to be estimated. $22,000 High school funding $28,900 ESL/FNMI $44,500 Small School by Necessity (due to Coronation qualifying by one student) $50,000 High School Flexibility Initiative $54,500 Dual Credit Initiative Further, schools did not spend to budget. Larger variances include travel/subsistence ($34,300), field trips and extracurricular ($53,200), textbooks ($40,000), and equipment ($31,000).
Instruction - School Generated Funds
0 $41,338 $41,338 5.8% Schools generated $41,338 more dollars than budgeted. Budgeted for a break-even at year end. Dollars carry forward to be spent in 2014-15.
Instruction - Other
$2 $465 $463 0%
Instruction - Other Shared Services
($274,122) ($148,530) $125,592 5.9% Staffing costs were lower than budgeted by approximately $130,000. Further, received a WCB Rebate of $26,400.
Instruction - Student Support
$31,613 $111,574 $79,961 5.6% Early learning funding was higher than expected due to increased enrolments after November 2013 which provided net additional dollars of $80,000.
Instruction - Technology Services
($23,345) $8,804 $32,149 3.9% Staffing position budgeted for was not filled.
Instruction - Flex ($113,795) ($18,588) $95,207 38% Costs budgeted for expenditures were not needed for the 2014-15 year end. Unspent dollars can be carried forward to 2014-15 to address strategic initiatives.
POM - Maintenance Services
($366,952) ($333,368) $33,584 0.7% There was a decrease in project costs and some staffing costs, the savings of which was offset by an increase in utility costs of $95,000 over budget.
Transportation Services
($141,243) ($1,379) $139,864 4.2% There was a cost savings in substitute staffing and contingency staffing of approximately $100,000. There was an increase of approx $40,000 in the transportation grant (finalized after the budget approval).
Administration - Central Services and Trustee Governance
$1,367 $74,041 $72,674 5.2% Additional investment income of approximately $10,000. Expenditures lower than historical: travel $12,800, professional services $16,300, and equipment $17,200. Trustee compensation $14,000 under budget.
Many dollars not spent in 2013-14 have been budgeted for expenditures in 2014-15, with a projected budget deficit of $1,106,634, $848,136of which is school-based and instruction supports. 2014-15 actual staffing estimated to increase by 5.6 FTE from the Spring budget projection, with teaching staff increasing 2.9 FTE and 4.1 FTE increasing for support staff in the early learning program.
Under reserves (reserves not targeted to a particular program) increased to $545,000 from $209,000. The increase is primarily the result of amortization being higher than capital purchases, representing a possible shortfall in the reinvestment of capital equipment and buildings. $500,000 is a reasonable level of unrestricted reserves to address unforeseen costs, and to address the risk of funding shortfalls and estimate assumptions.
29
Actual Expenditures by Department 2013-14 Actual Expenditures by Category 2013-14
Instruction $23,366,211
Operations & Maintenance $4,950,124
Pupil Transportation $3,367,392
Governance & System Admin $1,335,457
External Services $206,211
$33,225,395
Salaries & Benefits $24,736,759
Services, Supplies & Equipment $5,878,679
Debt Services & Capital $2,609,957
$33,225,395
Fall Budget Allocations for 2014-2015
Key Financial Information
1. Clearview School Division September 30, 2014 enrolment was higher overall by 58 students of 2.4% compared to September 30, 2013.
2. Clearview School Division is committed to providing quality instruction and support to students. During the Spring Budget Projection Clearview School Division was not willing to terminate teaching and/or staff positions just to balance the budget. Instead, the Board elected to utilize additional remaining reserves to cover the projected deficit. This remained as the guidance for the Fall Budget revision.
Web link to the jurisdiction’s budget and all budget information for 2014-2015:
Click Here
Projected Allocations by Department 2014-15 Projected Allocations by Category 2014-15
The following information outlines key information and highlights to the Board in the proposed 2014-15 budget. While the provided information is not exhaustive, all budget details are provided in the appendix to the memo for review.
Readers are encouraged to review the Budget Conversations Toolkit provided at the beginning of the process and the “What We Heard” Report provided on March 19, 2014 during the budget planning cycle. Further, all budget information is also provided on the website at www.clearview.ab.ca/financial
Highlights
Deficit Projection and Breakdown
The projected in-year deficit for all budgets is $1,106,649 (Spring Budget: $661,016).
Included in the above deficit information for 2014-15 is $95,207 for Strategic Initiatives and $100,000 for contingency, both of which are assumed to be fully spent by the year end.
In general, the increase in school-based budgets is from the Stettler Schools Reserve and schools’ reserves being spent down. Staffing has been increased for teaching staff and support staff which are reflected in the increased deficit for 2014-15.
Budget Process
Schools have revised and provided their budgets based on student enrolments and updated information. Schools prepared their budgets based on available allocations and reserves. Schools were asked to ensure their “other revenues” (e.g. rental fees, textbooks fees, etc.) estimates were reasonable as compared to prior years, and to ensure non-sick leave absences (personal leaves for teachers) were increased with the new personal leave days effective September 2014.
Support Services budgets (Maintenance, Administration, Transportation, and Trustee Services) were reviewed in detail by the
Associate Superintendent and management, and updated based on revised funding and cost estimates. The Instruction Support budgets were also reviewed.
No changes were made to the allocation system following the Board’s direction on March 19, 2014. To better reflect costs, next year’s salary increase (1.34%) and pension costs for teachers are now reflected as both an allocation and cost item in site budgets (budget neutral to schools, as these amounts are supported by the Alberta Government).
Grants for high school programming (CEU funding) has been estimated based on a two-year average. Actual funding is dependent on actual CEUs, which is usually confirmed at or after the year end.
The Mental Health Initiative has been amalgamated to the Family School Liaison Worker program. Funding has been approved for $246,506 for 2014-15 (same funding as 2013-14).
School generated funds are now fully amalgamated in the final budget numbers. Revenues are assumed to be equal to expenditures.
Coronation School has qualified for the Small School by Necessity grant, and therefore the revenue estimates and allocation projections for schools has considered this and allocated dollars based on the existing allocation formula.
Fall Budget 2014-15
Spring Budget 2014-15
Fall Budget 2013-14
$1,106,649 $661,016 $963,455 Total Deficit
$605,959 $100,581 $182,445 School-Based and Instruction Supports
$242,192 $280,416 $242,193
Non-Departmentalized Instruction ($195,000 Funding Clawback, $47,192 Amortization of Unsupported Assets)
$188,985 $176,091 $366,959 Plant, Operations and Maintenance
Enrolment information is prepared based on the September 30, 2014 count date, with adjustments after this date to be addressed during the year end process. From the Spring enrolment estimates, student enrolment has increased about 1% (without colony schools) or 21 students in total, primarily from our kindergarten and pre-kindergarten enrolments.
Reserves
Under Board Policy 217:
“11.5.2 In general, school operating reserves will be maintained towards a goal of 5% of their annual operating allocations. Schools that are in excess of 10% of their operating allocations or less than 3% of their annual operating allocations shall provide a plan and obtain approval from the Superintendent, or designate. The Superintendent shall inform the Board of any schools outside these guidelines, during both the budget process and throughout the year as needed.”
School budget reserves are expected to decrease by a net of $42,135 or 4.5% to a total reserve balance of 4.4% (without the Stettler Schools Reserve). Schools with significantly low reserves include Coronation School (2.4%), Donalda School (2.9%), Colony Schools (2.8%), Stettler Middle School (0%), and Stettler Outreach School (0%).
Three schools are projected to be above the 10% range: Byemoor School (at 12.1% or $8,404 above 10%), Big Valley School (at 11.7% or $12,820 above 10%), and Brownfield School (at 10.3% or $1,558 above 10%).
The Stettler Schools Reserve, established in 2013-14 from dollars available at the finalization of the Wm. E. Hay Modernization project, has been drawn down to address staffing needs and the Stettler Outreach School deficit: $273,711 has been committed to date (for 2014-15) at 1.0 FTE for the Stettler Middle School (SMS $98,151), $15,000 for Professional Development (SMS), 0.5 FTE for Wm. E. Hay High School ($49,076), and to address the deficit for the Stettler Outreach School ($111,484). There are some further Fieldhouse costs that will also be netted to this reserve, once this project is finalized.
A tow truck reserve was further established at year end for $175,000, $139,500 from
operating and $35,500 from capital reserves. Further, the Strategic Initiatives Fund was established for $95,207 as was a $30,000 reserve for Safety Services, both of which were funded from surpluses in 2013-14.
Clearview Public Schools has been drawing down on reserves in a planned manner to meet operational needs. Since August 2011, total net assets are projected to decrease by 26% or $2,591,346 (from $10,406,850 to $7,815,504 at August 2015). As projected, at the end of 2014/15 the ability to continue with the current operating model may be challenged due to lack of resources. Non-controllable expenditures have continued and are providing financial stress to the system, compounded by the lack in funding increases from the Alberta Government.
With the decline in students, increases in costs, and funding concerns, services to students are impacted and will continue to be impacted in the current and future years. Reductions in services to students may include staffing, centralized support services such as inclusive education, and the ability to maintain transportation routes and school facilities.
Allocations
While there are differences on a per school basis, the overall average decrease in allocations to schools during the Spring budget process was estimated go down $80 per student, or 1%.
Based on the revised projections, allocations per student for schools will be on average $7,896, or a 1.5% increase to Spring projections (this is calculated without the teacher salary increases or pension contributions, as these are budget neutral for 2014-15). The 1.5% increase to the Spring projections is largely driven by increases in the Small School by Necessity funding (due to Coronation School qualifying as a SSBN) and the increase in parents self-identifying First Nations, Metis and Inuit students. Further, allocations to support Inclusive Education were increased to schools based on the available dollars carried forward from 2013-14.
The net allocations per student for schools range from $7,027 (Stettler Middle School) to $12,066 (Byemoor School). With higher Equity of Opportunity and Small School by Necessity allocations available economies of scale, such as the ability to have “full” classes and cover overhead costs; for larger schools the per student allocations are smaller whereas with larger enrolments, larger schools have the advantage of economies of
32
scale not available to smaller schools.
Staffing Costs
Staffing levels and costs for all budgets have been calculated based on actual staffing. Salary information was prepared based on actual staffing, and adjusted for grid movements. Staffing compensation and benefit considerations approved by the Board for 2014-2015 were incorporated, including a 1.34% increase for staff and the addition of a $50 increase to the Health Spending Account for non-qualifying ASEBP staff. Further, schools have considered the additional substitute costs for the additional personal leave day provided to teachers starting September 1, 2014. Benefit and statutory deduction costs were also calculated based on actual information.
Starting this year, education assistants (EAs) and librarians are also charged to schools based on an average costing. Secretaries continue to be charged at actual, and teachers have and continue to be charged based on average.
Changes from the Spring budget projections for total salary and benefits costing are as follows:
Average costing's for teachers include a 0.05% (one-half of one percent) contingency to address unforeseen cost escalations which may occur during the year.
Staffing Levels
Staffing estimates have been revised to reflect available resources and actual enrolments. Total staffing is estimated to increase from the Spring budget by 5.644 FTE to a total of 320.449 FTE, with increases reflected primarily at the school-level.
Teacher staffing will increase by 2.90 FTE, of which 1.75 FTE is funded through the Stettler Schools Reserve (one-time).
Support staff will also increase at the school-level by 1.31 FTE. Early learning staffing will see the largest increase due to the continued success of this program in identifying students, which at this time is projected to increase a minimum of 4.09 FTE.
Students to Teachers and Students to All Staff ratios also decreased, representing a school-
based ratio of 16.1 students for each teacher (Spring: 16.4) and 11.5 students for each staff member (Spring: 11.7). These ratios help to show that, in general, staffing has increased slightly more than the enrolment increases since the Spring projection.
Credit Enrolment Units
In developing the projections, the past two years of actual activity was used to project to the next year. The estimates now consider the new funding rules that provide 40-50% of previous funding for distance learning credits, and the lower-funded work experience (Tier 4). These projections, including CEUs that qualify for class size, are detailed in the schools’ and Clearview’s budgets.
First Nation, Metis, and Inuit Self-Identified Students
One of the budget strategies discussed during the Spring budget process was the opportunity to communicate the First Nation, Metis and Inuit Self-
Declaration. For each self-identified FNMI student, schools would receive $1,178 to support the education of students. A communication was sent to parents from schools in September 2014, and Clearview’s self-identified students increased from 16 students (2013-14) to 112 students. The increase in self-identified students provided Clearview and schools with an additional $114,275 in funding. As this is the first year, the amount is expected to increase in the future as parents are presented with more opportunities to self-declare in the future.
Student Support Services
Early learning student enrolments have increased from 2013-14 as has staffing: Clearview had 36 early learning students (PUF) last year and 41 so far this year. Based on average revenues per student, the increased revenues in PUF is consistent with increased students. Staffing for PUF operations is also reflecting the increased students, with an additional 4.09 FTE
2014-15 Fall 2014-15 Spring
Teacher (w/o ATRF, annual) $98,151 $98,639
EA/Librarian (per hour) $30.52 $29.43
Average CEUs WEH Coronation
Gus Wetter
Tier 1 30.53 32.45 32.91
Tier 2 0.91 1.26 1.24
Tier 3 6.50 3.70 4.57
Tier 4 3.49 4.08 2.49
33
budgeted for the Fall over the Spring budget (part of the increase occurred during 2013-14 as more students are coded throughout the year).
For Inclusive Education, all reserves are budgeted to be expended. Of the $107,987 in reserves being used, $98,000 is being budgeted to address testing needed for students and a contingency to address unforeseen needs.
Transportation Services
Based on current year projections, the overall budget for Transportation Services is projected with a $18,236 deficit, a decrease of $81,764 from the Spring projections ($100,000 deficit).
The transportation budget continues to receive a $300,000 allocation from instructional grants to support student ride times and services.
The budget projection has been adjusted to reflect increased costs for insurance and fuel. Further, due to the capital reinvestment of buses in 2013-14, amortization expense has increased $40,000 from prior year.
Costs, including salaries, have been adjusted to reflect two less operating days in 2014-15. Further, two routes were reduced due to low utilization (where ridership less than 10 students).
Salaries have been decreased by $30,000 from the Spring projection, while operating costs have increased by approximately $40,000. The increase in operating costs is attributable to some observed cost escalations from the 2013-14 actual expenditures, as well as $5,000 more in fuel and $25,000 budgeted for movement and installation of radio equipment in the east of the Division due to the local gas company needing to relocate a shared tower.
The net result of the adjustments will see the budget incur a $18,236 deficit, and ending reserves of $205,664 at the end of 2014-15. Further, finance staff will be adjusting the general ledger and payroll accounts to better track the various activities of bus driver costs and increase the details of salaries in the Transportation Services budget. This will allow for more accurate information and budget planning in the future.
Maintenance
Maintenance services is budgeted to have a $179,985 deficit at the end of 2014-15, with an ending reserve balance of $109,828. The ending reserve is increased to the $109,828
level through a payback from the unrestricted reserves for amortization of non-maintenance buildings and equipment. An ending operational reserve of $116,000 is recommended.
For 2014-15, observed cost increases are, in the short-term, not controllable and have been factored in for 2014-15 (such as gas, power, and water), as well as increases in insurance costs. Staffing levels will be maintained at 2013-14 revised levels, with a cost escalation for 1.34% increase in salaried and increases in the health spending account.
To reduce maintenance services costs, salaries for maintenance staff are being cross-charged to infrastructure maintenance renewal (IMR). Starting in 2014-15, 50% of the Director of Operations and 10% of our two other maintenance employees will be absorbed through IMR for a total of $76,344. Further, $30,000 of the Administration Services reserves was established for a Safety Services budget which will absorb 0.25 FTE for Safety Coordinator duties.
There is a year-end transfer of dollars back to the maintenance reserve at the year end to “pay back” the amortization charge for non-supported buildings (administration, fieldhouse, and two modernization projects) of an estimated $50,844.
Administration Services and Governance
Administration Services and Governance has a budgeted deficit of $48,277, up from the Spring projection, due to evergreening of capital assets and salary increases provided to staff, with a small increase in 0.125 FTE in staffing. The deficit can be fully supported through existing reserves, leaving a projected net reserve at the end of 2014-15 of $59,790.
Administration staffing will be maintained largely at the Spring projections, with some corrections done due to not fully staffing for a maternity leave and providing for increased staffing (0.25 FTE) throughout the year to address increased supports for communications (net increase for 2014-15 of 0.125 FTE).
On March 2014 and October 2014, the Board direction was to maintain the trustee budget and is reflected in the Fall budget estimates.
Costs have been budgeted to address evergreening for capital assets (equipment and furniture) through using part of the reserves left at the end of 2013-14. Without the evergreening costs, non-staffing expenditures are consistent with the Spring projections.
34
Outcomes Strategies
Service for bus riders.
Revise policy addressing yard service process, fees for school of choice and in-town busing, double-runs,
and non-rider students from bus routes.
Continue to find a way to be financially sustainable and find efficiencies. Best fit for transportation in regards to school bell times.
Seek opportunities for a shared transportation system with East Central Catholic Schools in the Town and County of Stettler.
Enhance communications, relationships and teamwork with school bus drivers and mechanics. Continue the work of the Transportation Liaison Committee. Continue communication publication with DRIVERview. Ensure two PD days per year are provided to all bus drivers. Implement safety initiatives for compliance with Occupational Health and Safety and safety best practices for bus drivers and mechanics, with the implementation of PublicSchoolWorks. Complete “S” endorsement refresher courses & driver and route evaluations with the remaining 1/3 of drivers (complete 3 year evaluation cycle).
Continue to work towards a common standard for yard service and develop a Board policy.
Seek strategies to create stability in bus driver staffing, both permanent and casual.
Develop an advocacy strategy that will focus on increased funding for the Transportation budget.
To maintain ride times and transportation services to students, $300,000 has been transferred from instructional grants to support transportation operations and student ride times.
Transportation
Measure: Total daily ride times for K-9 riders going to designated schools. Target: Even distribution of ride times with average not over one hour and less than 3% of riders over two hours. Measure: Total daily ride times for High School riders going to designated schools. Target: Even distribution of ride times with average not over one hour fifteen minutes and less than 15% of riders over two hours.
Transportation Operation Results 2013-2014
Transportation Challenges Some of the challenges in providing transportation services in our rural area are: Bus driver shortages Rising age of current bus drivers Budget shortfalls for:
Rising costs of bus maintenance and repairs Rising fuel costs Increased insurance costs Bus purchase costs; aging bus fleet
Increased ride times for students Road Conditions
Increased external paperwork
requirements (i.e. National Safety Code Audits and Requirements)
Availability of driver examiners; bus driver training costs
Cap of the density portion of the grant Competitive compensation with local
industry Availability of local mechanical services;
attracting and retaining bus maintenance personnel
35
I. Summary
The goals provided by the Board are determined through the strategic planning of the
Clearview Public Schools. Under the strict requirements of the School Act and Regulations, the
required service delivery for school divisions in the province are to provide transportation for
any student that would need to travel more than 2.4 kilometers to their designated school
from a street pick-up, or where they have special needs.
In the analysis provided based on 2013-14, Clearview is meeting the goals provided by the
Board, and noting the K-9 ridership more than two hours is at the threshold of 3%.
Since 2008-09, average ride times for Stettler In-Town runs has decreased by 7% for both high
school and K-9 riders. When considering the data for transportation other than Stettler In-
Town ridership, the ride times for all riders has decreased 9% since 2002-03, with a 5%
decrease for K-9 riders and a 13% decrease for high school students.
For the number of students riding the bus longer than two hours, Clearview has seen
improvement in service levels, with a decrease to 7% riding more than two hours in 2013-14
compared with 11% in 2002-03 (similar improvements are observed across the board for all
designated students in each of the K-9 and 10-12 grades).
Measurement Tool
Grade K-9: Not over One Hour
10-12: Not over One Hour, Fifteen Minutes
K-9: Less than 3% of riders over two hours
10-12: Less than 15% of riders over two hours
All Grades 0:58 hours (All Routes)
1:03 hours (excl In-Town)
6% (All Routes)
7% (excl In-Town)
K-9 0:56 hours (All Routes)
1:00 hours (excl In-Town)
3% (All Routes)
3% (excl In-Town)
10-12 1:09 hours (All Routes)
1:12 hours (excl In-Town)
12% (All Routes)
13% (excl In-Town)
36
Number of Riders Total Riders HS Riders Type 1 K-9 Riders Type 1 Other Riders
13-14 1,113 280 612 221
12-13 1,128 276 609 243
11-12 1,149 295 625 229
10-11 1,216 323 651 261
09-10 1,235 331 655 249
08-09 1,244 335 661 248
07-08 1,310 348 687 275
06-07 1,305 342 688 275
05-06 1,327 353 700 274
04-05 1,351 358 710 283
03-04 1,357 377 716 264 02-03 1,440 397 777 266
III. Ridership Summary
Type 1 Rider: Resident students bused to designated school (not including Stettler In-Town buses).
Goal Status Determine with the Board of Trustees the appropriate level of yard services for students in the school division.
In Policy stage.
Determine with the Board of Trustees the appropriate pay structure for drivers, and specifically pay where routes include students that do not need transportation services.
Non-rider survey done this year and currently being assessed.
In the upcoming budget process, consider the cost of upgraded radio systems, with possible inclusion of GPS.
Upgraded with a tone system. GPS financially not viable.
Consider an administrative policy of evergreening buses greater than 10 years in the active fleet, with Board support and direction.
Done. Seven buses purchased in 2013-14 for $697,911.
Provide a plan to the Board for a route review by a consultant, with changes, if any, in the 2014-15 or 2015-16 school years. The Board would need to provide direction on yard service and the goals for transportation services to incorporate in the review (for example, would Clearview continue to have different times for K-9 and 10-12 and what should those times be). Increases in ride times and percentages can represent costs savings, which can have budget benefits with impacts to students.
Review proposal provided to the Board. Board elected not to proceed.
Seek confirmation with the separate school board if a co-operative busing agreement is viable for 2014-15.
In progress.
Develop and communicate idling procedures for all buses.
Aligned with draft Education Plan 2015-18 (Rev. Feb 24, 2015)
Priority 1: Create a “First-Choice” Learning Environment Clearview Public Schools is the “First-Choice” for students and families in our communities. We create a learning environment so engaging, enviable and successful that parents and students choose Clearview Public Schools over any other educational alternatives. Students engaged in learning are:
● Becoming self-directed and successful, taking ownership for their learning. ● Being self-reliant, motivated and personally responsible. ● Building strong literacy and numeracy skills to achieve education outcomes throughout the grades. ● Developing the skills, knowledge, and understandings needed to deal positively with adversity. ● Understanding, developing and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. ● Learning and demonstrating the importance of caring for and respecting self and others.
Outcomes: 1a: Children reach developmental milestones and are ready for school. (AE) 1b: Students (including those with special needs and First Nations, Métis and Inuit (FNMI) achieve learning outcomes, demonstrate proficiency in literacy and numeracy and demonstrate citizenship and entrepreneurship. (AE) 1c: Students use technology to support authentic learning. (LTPF) 1d: All students and communities have access to safe and healthy learning environments. (AE) General Strategy: Support parents with child readiness for school through early learning programs. Specific Strategy Actions Resources Time Lead Measure Enhance early learning programs (playschools, PUF, pre-K) in preparing children for Kindergarten.
Enhance EL/Pre-K program at SES. Create and utilize common play school curriculum with common assessments of school readiness aligned with the Community Curriculum Connections framework. Work with Kindergarten teachers to create a checklist, or identify key aspects of a playschool program that will prepare kids for Kindergarten.
Developmental Milestones information Stettler and County Child Resource list Read-It-Once Again literacy program
Ongoing By June 2016 By December 2015
Sharon Fischer Eileen Johnstone
Number of children enrolled. Common play school curriculum adopted. Checklist in use.
Identify developmental levels of 3 and 4 year olds using benchmarks to inform parents about child’s development.
Expand understanding of results from ECMap. Connect with local AHS (Speech) to identify children at a very young age. Work with agencies to establish a process, or an Early Childhood Fair, to have one day at the beginning for the school year where early years students have access to
Barb Gano AHS (Speech) Parent Link Public libraries
Spring 2015 Ongoing Spring 2015
Eileen Johnstone Better understanding of results. Young children identified. Joint process in place.
assessments for PT, OT, etc.
Partner with community to improve pre-school literacy and numeracy.
Work with health unit and other community agencies to pre-screen and catch students who are in need of early interventions /and to offer information to families. Partner with community agencies to deliver extended early development programs ie Read and Rhyme, etc.
Health unit Other community agencies Public library
Spring 2015 Spring 2015
Eileen Johnstone Students identified. Joint programs in place.
Communicate to parents what their pre-school children usually learn by years of age.
Offer Early Years Evaluation tool. Interview experts to find out what indicators are signs of school readiness.
EYE developmental charts Speech and OT
Inservice January 22 Spring 2015
Eileen Johnstone EYE in use. Indicators identified.
General Strategy: Provide safe and healthy learning environments. Specific Strategy Actions Resources Time Lead Measure Support Health and Wellness committee.
Increase awareness of a Health and Wellness committee.
AHS - Staci Pederson To June 2016 Barb Gano, committee and school health champions
Increased awareness.
Implement Children and Adolescents Being Resilient and Self-regulating (CARS) to complement our Family School Liaison program.
CARS - building profile. LLT inservice on self-injury behaviour, depression and suicide. Increase teacher understanding of mental health.
Red Deer Mental Health - Piet Langstrat Mental Health First AId - Don Porter and Eileen Johnstone
Spring 2015 February 2015 By June 2016
Don Porter, CARS workers and FSLs Don Porter
Profile complete. LLT inserviced. Information provided to teachers.
Develop student threat risk assessment protocol.
Revisit, approve and apply protocol.
Committee members By June 2015 Cam Brown, committee and principals
Protocol in place.
Review and update emergency response plans for each school.
Work with RCMP-SRO, and Clearview OHS personnel to develop and implement lock down procedures, and emergency preparedness drills. Standardize where possible.
Bill Lewadniuk, RCMP/SRO
By September 2015 By September 2015
Peter Neale Peter Neale, principals and site managers
Emergency response plans reviewed and updated. Plans standardized where possible.
General Strategy: Provide all students with appropriate opportunities and experiences to engage in learning (as per the tenets of Inspiring Education and the Ministerial Order May 2013) supported by effective assessment practices and appropriate technologies. Specific Strategy Actions Resources Time Lead Measure Align K-3 programs with Alberta Education’s Primary Programs Framework.
Align K-3 programs with the AB Ed Primary Programs Framework.
AB Ed
By December 2015 Principal in each school
Consistent implementation.
Develop and implement a Clearview literacy and numeracy strategy incorporating Alberta Education’s
Align practice with current Alberta literacy and numeracy including any future approved AB ED
AB Ed CARC
By Spring 2016 and/or when changes are approved by AE
Rob Rathwell and principals
Practice reviewed and aligned. Adoption of any future approved AB ED
literacy and numeracy benchmarks.
literacy and numeracy benchmarks. Develop common literacy and numeracy assessment tools for teachers (common language, benchmarks and indicators). Create teacher access to a online Livebinder for curated-resources on literacy and numeracy benchmarks.
Spring 2015 - June 2016 Spring 2016
literacy and numeracy benchmarks. Common literacy and numeracy assessment tools for teachers developed. Teachers have access to online literacy livebinder.
Align classroom assessment of student learning with Alberta Education’s Classroom Assessment Project.
Align our assessment and reporting practices with current assessment research and provincial directions. Create teacher access to a Livebinder for curated- resources on effective assessment.
AB Ed CARC AAC
By June 2016 Ongoing
Rob Rathwell, assessment committee and principals
Practices reviewed and aligned. Access to Livebinder for all teachers.
Enhance student collaboration and engagement through use of project-based and experiential learning, Google Apps for Education (GAFE) and emerging technologies.
Teachers engage students in PBL. Prepare infrastructure for GAFE environment. Implement GAFE in a district wide PD format. Study and implement appropriate use of technology - what is needed, for what, by whom (e.g., desktops, laptops, iPads, Chromebooks).
Charity Allen CARC
Ongoing By Fall 2015 May 2015 Spring 2015
Principals Peter Barron, Steve Meyer and principals Peter Barron, Steve Meyer and principals Peter Barron, Steve Meyer and principals
Students engaged in PBL. GAFE environment created. GAFE implemented. Study completed and plan in place for appropriate use of technology.
Transition libraries to learning commons.
Facilitators and principals will attend Learning Commons Conference in Red Deer April 16, 2015. Create a Clearview Learning Commons strategy.
CARC April 2015 Spring - Fall 2015
Principals with support from Peter Barron, Steve Meyer and Rob Rathwell.
Learning Commons facilitators and principals attended conference. Strategy created and implemented.
Include FNMI perspectives as applicable within classroom learning, address specific needs of individual FNMI students and provide appropriate support and appropriately use resources reflecting FNMI heritage.
Utilize FNMI funding to support and enhance the strategies in individual schools.
Ongoing Principals FNMI strategies in individual schools.
Prepare and implement Career and Technology Foundations (CTF) for Grades 5-9.
Provide CTF inservice for administrators. Work with teachers to prepare for implementation. Implement CTF programming.
General Strategy: Support all high schools in engaging students. Specific Strategy Actions Resources Time Lead Measure Investigate the benefits and feasibility of participating in Alberta Education’s high school initiatives such as Moving Forward with High School Redesign to enhance student engagement, achievement and high school completion. Investigate the feasibility and benefits of promoting or implementing additional opportunities for dual credit learning.
Investigate the potential benefits that initiatives may hold for Coronation and Gus Wetter students. Meet with post-secondary partners and local employers. Meet with representative from Careers Next Generation.
CARC and ARPDC By June 2015 Ongoing Fall 2015
Cam Brown and Daram Van Oers Cam Brown, Daram Van Oers and Norb Baharally Cam Brown, Daram Van Oers and Norb Baharally
Schools aligned with Moving Forward initiative. Meeting conducted. Meeting conducted.
Priority 2: Hire and Inspire Quality Staff
Our staff is our most important resource. It is in the best interests of students to invest in our staff and to develop and to refine our Human Resources’ practices and strategies. Staff engaged in reflective practice and leadership roles are:
● Demonstrating openness to new and innovative ideas. ● Engaging in successful collaboration to enrich learning opportunities and experiences.
Outcomes: 2a: Teacher preparation and professional growth focus on the competencies needed to help students learn. (AE) 2b: Achieve effective learning and teaching through collaborative leadership. (AE) General Strategy: Develop a divisionwide professional learning model that meets the needs of all staff. Specific Strategy Actions Resources Time Lead Measure Ensure budget support for professional development in every school budget.
Provide school staff with appropriate funding for professional learning.
Spring 2015 Principals PD budget at each school.
Use professional growth plans to meet needs of teachers and of school and jurisdiction goals.
Investigate the use of ATA’s online professional growth plan process.
ATA By June 2015 Principals Investigation of the online process.
Support professional development opportunities for educational assistants, learning commons staff and secretaries.
Host Support Staff professional development day..
CARC February 2015 Peter Neale coordinating with principals and department directors.
Support Staff PD Day.
Participate in a Learning and Technology Policy Framework leadership research community of practice.
Participate in LTPF research community of practice (RCOP) to advance understanding and implementation of action items contained within the framework.
AE Spring 2015 - June 2016
Peter Barron, Steve Meyer, Rob Rathwell, principals
Participation in RCOP.
Develop leadership, induction, mentorship and coaching strategies for principals and teachers.
Provide PD during LLT events - on topics our staff will learn. Support program for new principals and for
Ongoing 2015-16
Peter Barron PD at LLT meetings. Program in place.
teachers aspiring to be leaders (informal/ formal) - develop a “Leadership in training” group - building leadership capacity.
Support communities of learning.
Support small schools in a cohort group.
Ongoing Principals of small schools
Small schools staff working as cohort group.
General Strategy: Engage all principals and teachers in professional learning and collaboration that supports the strategies in Priority 1 (e.g., literacy and numeracy benchmarks, effective assessment, projectbased and experiential learning, GAFE and emerging technologies). Specific Strategy Actions Resources Time Lead Measure Support teachers with PBL implementation.
Provide access to Charity’s PBL toolkit. Create online environment for sharing of and collaborating on projects. Create teacher access to online resources for project based learning.
Charity Allen and Michael Baer from Buck Institute for Education (BIE)
Spring - Fall 2015 Rob Rathwell and Steve Meyer
PBL toolkit available. PBL shared folders available. PBL resources available on Google Docs.
Support teachers with CTF implementation.
Work with teachers to prepare for CTF implementation.
Spring 2015
Principals Teachers prepared to implement CTF.
Provide opportunities for teachers to collaboratively work on standard setting, developing common assessments including rubric development and identification of appropriate exemplars.
Teachers work together to develop/share exemplars by grade level and subject areas.
2015-16 Principals Teacher collaboration. Standards set. Common assessments developed.
1 | P a g e
Clearview Public Schools (Clearview School Division No. 71)
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 14, 2015
From: Clearview Public Schools
Resource Person(s): Peter Neale, Associate Superintendent Maryann Wingie, Director of Transportation
Re: Yard Service Background and Information
Appendix Page Current Guidelines ................................................................................................... 6 DRAFT Policy Guidelines ......................................................................................... 7 2014-09-14 SURVEY Yard Service Common Standards ........................................ 8 2014-06-09 MEMO Yard Service Common Standards (Summary Only) ................ 22 2014-04-24 MEMO Yard Service Common Standards ............................................ 25 2014-04-24 MEMO Survey of Yard Services (Other School Divisions) ................... 28 Purpose To provide information regarding the background of consultations on yard services, and the draft policy being considered. Background Following the memo dated April 24, 2014, the Board of Trustees were presented with information on yard service standards in comparable school divisions. Further, on June 9, 2014 the Board was provided with the survey data and the revised guidelines for standardizing yard services in the school division. In September 2014, the Board of Trustees were provided with the survey done over the summer and into September 2014 on yard services, and directed the Policy Committee to draft a policy establishing revised standards. To meet the Board targets of finding efficiencies, reducing costs, and ensuring the best services possible for students, a possible criteria has been developed to find a balance between maintaining or improving transportation services (ride times), services provided by other divisions, and operational (budget) realities. The main driver for the analysis is to create a reasonable expectation and standard in our communities on where the school division would be able to provide yard services. Although a standard was developed and in place for many years, in practice it was left for bus drivers to apply the standard, with little central mechanism to review the levels of services provided or an annual review as students demographics changed. As more yard services are provided, there are increases to ride times for all students and increases in costs for bus driver salaries and kilometres. As the application was not consistent it created possible inequities in service delivery. Budget realities are also being considered. With declining enrolments, the same geographic area is serviced with fewer students and less grant dollars. The Alberta Government has reduced transportation funding with direct reductions to some grants and little to no increases in funding rates. Further, cost escalations in insurance and fuel cannot be avoided. Transportation Services financial reserves have declined in the past years as services have largely been maintained. A supplement of $300,000 is transferred each year from the Equity of Opportunity grants available to schools to Transportation Services, to recover in part the loss of the Fuel Price Contingency grant in 2012-13.
Page 1 of 28
2 | P a g e
For 2014-15, the Transportation Services department has reduced operations by two routes, is estimated to have a deficit of $100,000 and no future reserves. A communication went out to all parents that receive transportation services on May 12, 2014 with a deadline of May 30. The information and survey results were provided to the Board of Trustees on June 9, 2014. The Board of Trustees elected to accept the report with no further action at the time. After the Board meeting on June 9, 2014, Trustees were to communicate directly with their stakeholders to consider the matter further and discuss again in September 2014. At the Board meeting on June 26, 2014, the following motion was passed:
“that the Board direct Senior Administration to mail out invitations to complete a survey for yard service common standards. This invitation will be sent to all families who have children eligible to ride the bus or children who rode the bus in the 2013-14 school year.”
From the motion, surveys were sent to all parents of students who qualify for transportation (including non-rider students), school of choice students, and incoming kindergarten students. The total families that received the letter and survey was 790. On September 25, 2014, the Board of Trustees after receiving further information and the survey results passed the following motion:
“that the Board of Trustees direct the Policy Committee to draft a policy addressing yard services applicable for all students based on Option A (Revised) detailed in the memo provided to the Board.”
The Policy Committee provided a recommendation to the Board on November 13, 2014, and the Board requested the policy be distributed for feedback. Requests for feedback were provided on the website and through the Board Highlights communication tool that includes all staff and media. The Policy Committee did not receive any feedback to the policy up to January 12, 2015. The Committee will be seeking further conversations with the Board of Trustees in February 2015. Cost and Ridership Considerations
Total riders in the school division are 1,310 (2013-14), and families surveyed were 790. Of these riders, Clearview provides yard service for 252 families (not students), or 32%. Of the 252 families, an estimated 120 families (47%) do not fit our current criteria.
Based on a minimum estimated time per yard of two (2) minutes per yard service, each morning the school division provides 504 minutes of yard service, or 1,008 minutes per day. This translates to 16.8 hours per day in total of service time each day. As a long-term strategy, a possible reduction in ride times would have a positive financial benefit to the school division through the reduction in routes without a reduction in current levels of ride times, and/or a reduction in the financial supplement from schools. Actual benefits may be higher based on yard services in excess of two (2) minutes.
the estimated direct costs of current yard services are as follows:
Safety Conversations on safety have been heard throughout the discussion on yard services. Although not universal, there are themes during the consultations and surveys where parents have a high degree of concern that the safety of students will be impacted should the school division limit or reduce yard services. Although this concern was sought to be addressed in June 2014 with the added consideration of road conditions into the criteria, themes from the August 2014 survey suggest this continues to be a topic for further consideration. Currently the school division provides yard services to approximately 32% of families that qualify or use transportation services. Of the 252 families (2013-14) that received services, 47% would not fit our current (versus proposed) criteria. While there is a significant percentage of families that receive yard services, the majority of families do not. Safety is an important factor and needs to be among the top considerations for transportation operations. Based on the research done and discussion of best practices with other school divisions, there is no evidence found that the provision or non-provision of yard services places students at increased risk; with the addition of strobe lights and flashing lights available when buses are stopped assists in ensuring the visibility of buses even during weather conditions. The actual risk to students in the event of an accident plays into a host of factors, including weather, speed, driver attention and response, design and size of vehicles, and point of impact. In managing the risk to students, best practices would always be considered to reasonably minimize that, in the event of an accident, students are not negatively impacted. Senior Administration would like the Board of Trustees to consider in their deliberations the large number of families in our school division (and Alberta) that do not receive yard services and the excellent track record on safety school bus transportation has in ensuring students are safely transported each day. To gather information for the Board of Trustees on the safety of school buses and the research on collisions, Senior Administration contacted Ken MacLean (Golden Hills School Division) who sits on the D250 Standard Committee (D250 is the standard of safety designs for school buses in Canada). The following information was provided (see http://1drv.ms/ZuqC07 for the respective reports on bus safety):
high seat backs and compartmentalization safety is most effective in front and rear impacts since students are more likely to be thrown into the seat ahead or hit backwards in their own seats. In side impacts, the safety design is less effective as passengers are more likely to be thrown across the aisle or into the side windows causing more severe injuries to students. (Transport Canada)
school buses are designed with raised floors and large rear bumpers so that smaller vehicles
hitting the bus will often go right under the bus. As in the Rimby and Calgary accidents, school buses hit on the side and on angles often peel metal back exposing the riders to more serious injuries. (Transport Canada)
An average of three school-age children died in school bus collisions each year (over a 10 year
period) (Transport Canada, “School Bus Collisions 1995-2004” (2007))
For all school bus crashes which result in a passenger fatality, frontal and side crashes produce the most fatalities, followed by non-collision (typically a rollover) and rear crashes. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research” (2002))
The potential acceleration loads from frontal and rear crashes with vehicles of similar mass are
also effectively minimized by the manner in which the body of the bus is coupled to the chassis of the bus. The frontal crash test demonstrated that by allowing the body to slide along the frame of the bus, much of the kinetic energy of the bus could be dissipated before loading the passenger compartment. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research” (2002))
Page 3 of 28
4 | P a g e
In a side impact, the construction of the body of the bus does very little to prevent passenger compartment intrusion. However, due to the high ground clearance of the school bus, passenger vehicles are not a serious threat to generate passenger compartment intrusion. Vehicles of sufficient size in which intrusion is a significant probability are of a sufficient mass that no feasible body structural design will effectively mitigate this condition. Passenger compartment intrusion at the point of impact is severe. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “School Bus Safety: Crashworthiness Research” (2002))
Survey Results
Total riders in the school division are 1,310 (2013-14), and families surveyed were 790. Of these riders, Clearview provides yard service for 252 families (not students), or 32%. Of the 252 families, an estimated 120 families (47%) do not fit our current criteria. (Repeated)
In the survey, there were 74 responses (the earlier survey was 61 responses) with a response
rate of 9.4%.
97.3% of respondents currently used transportation services, with the highest responses from the Town of Stettler (16 or 22%) and Big Valley (12 or 16%).
86% of respondents qualify for transportation (are entitled to transportation services). Of the remaining respondents, 11% are school of choice or in-town busing and 3% are not receiving transportation.
49% of respondents indicated they currently receive yard services and, under the proposed guidelines, would continue to receive services. 33% of respondents do not receive yard services, and 18% indicate they would no longer qualify for yard services.
The majority of respondents (62%) indicated they were not aware the Alberta Government did not
provide funding to address yard services.
In the question regarding asking if there were other criteria to consider than what is being proposed, 40 respondents answered the question and 34 skipped the question. Of those that answered, the following themes are shown as additional considerations:
o Line of sight in the yard, e.g. if the house can be seen from the road (6 or 15% of
responses and 8% of all responses) o Winter and cold conditions (5 or 13% of responses and 7% of all responses) o Bus driver discretion (up to the bus driver) (4 or 10% of responses and 5% of all
responses) o Fees should be charged for yard service (4 or 10% of responses and 5% of all
responses) o Age of the child should be increased or a factor (3 or 8% of all responses and 4% of all
responses)
When asked in the survey if respondents would support a consistent level of yard service, 89% indicated they would support a consistent level of services. In supporting this, respondents would support a standard criteria provided the following is a benefit/result:
o Ride Times (32%) o Dollars to Schools (25%) o No Fee for Yard Service (25%) o Fee for Yard Service (18%)
Of the respondents, 27 would support a fee for yard service, and 28 would not support a fee for
yard service.
Page 4 of 28
5 | P a g e
To transition to a new standard, and where a new standard is implemented, 45% indicated all current services should continue to the end of the year and then start in September 2015, 38% would see all current students grandfathered indefinitely, and 17% would prefer to see changing service levels in two years.
From the survey, 37 respondents or 61% would prefer longer ride times or fees than the current or the proposed guidelines for yard service standards. 6 of the respondents in the comments section or 10% support implementing fees (this result may not be representative, as respondents were not required to address the question of fees directly).
Further Considerations In February 2015, the Board will consider based on the Policy Committee recommendations the following:
proceeding with the draft policy
consideration of “grandfathering” families that currently receive services, or providing a transition time to implementation;
proceeding with a fee of $200 per year per yard, provided the yard can accommodate a bus. This
should seek to address many parent concerns on perception of safety and line of site for yards. Should the Board consider a fee for service, ride times will be negatively impacted (more yard services increase ride times for students, all else equal); and
impacts, if any, with our co-operative busing
Page 5 of 28
Clearview Public Schools School Bus Yard Service Guidelines
All new requests for yard service must be approved by the Clearview Public Schools’ Transportation Department prior to providing the service. Whenever there is a request from a family for a school bus to enter a private yard to provide yard service, the following guidelines will be used to evaluate if a request can be accommodated:
• Need for a location to turn the bus around due to direction of bus routing.
• Assessment on student safety due to poor visibility, location of residence, high volume traffic concerns, etc.
• Distance of driveway. Generally with no safety issues, the following criteria may be used (minimums):
- less than 0.5 kms (1/4 of a mile) we would not provide service;
- between 0.5 kms and 0.9 kms (between 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile) we would go in until the youngest child is in Grade 2; and
- over 0.9 kms (1/2 mile) we would go in. Not any one factor above will determine the ability to receive yard service and the decision to provide is the responsibility of the Clearview Transportation Department. When the door service has been approved, a waiver must be signed and returned by the family requesting the service.
Page 6 of 28
POLICY 511 – YARD SERVICE STANDARDS Effective Amended _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 1
REFERENCES: POLICY 504 – TRANSPORTATION FEES
Through establishing a common criteria in the provision of yard services, the Board seeks to meet the targets of finding efficiencies and ensuring the best services possible for students, while maintaining a reasonably safe transportation environment. The Board hereby supports the establishment of a common criteria for yard services for all students receiving busing services from Clearview Public Schools. GUIDELINES
1. Yard service is provided for students where: a) the driveway is greater than 500 meters; and b) the youngest child in the family is in Grade 2 or earlier;
2. Yard service is provided for students that qualify for special needs funding (and would
require yard service, as determined by Student Support Services);
3. Yard service is provided where, at the discretion of the Transportation Services Department, it is needed for operational purposes;
4. Yard service is provided where due to the traffic volume of the road (such as Highway 56)
and lack of line of sight visibility (500 metres) to a stopped bus on the road, the legal guardian or independent student requests yard service. Line of sight visibility applies only to line of sight along the road to a stopped bus, and would consider line of sight to the top or bottom of the bus and the use of strobe lights.
5. Yard service is subject to: a signed consent form, and the driveway is considered safe for
school buses with an allowance for a turn-around (including winter snow removal)
6. The Board of Trustees may determine a fee for yard services, including for yard services identified in this policy.
Page 7 of 28
2.70% 2
10.81% 8
21.62% 16
16.22% 12
5.41% 4
9.46% 7
12.16% 9
9.46% 7
12.16% 9
Q1 In what area of the school division toyou live closest to?
Answered: 74 Skipped: 0
Total 74
Donalda
Erskine
Town ofStettler
Big Valley
Byemoor
Botha
Castor
Coronation
Brownfield
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Donalda
Erskine
Town of Stettler
Big Valley
Byemoor
Botha
Castor
Coronation
Brownfield
1 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 8 of 28
86.49% 64
13.51% 10
Q2 Do you live more than 2.4 km from yourchild's catchment school (or is your child
receiving transportation due to specialneeds)?
Answered: 74 Skipped: 0
Total 74
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
2 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 9 of 28
2.74% 2
86.30% 63
5.48% 4
5.48% 4
Q3 Please indicate which of the followingapplies to you (select one):
Answered: 73 Skipped: 1
Total 73
My child is(my children...
My child is(my children...
I pay anin-town busi...
I pay a schoolof choice fee
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
My child is (my children are) not receiving transportation services
My child is (my children are) receiving services and I do not pay a school of choice or in-town busing fee
I pay an in-town busing fee for transportation in the Town of Stettler
I pay a school of choice fee
3 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 10 of 28
33.33% 24
48.61% 35
18.06% 13
Q4 Please indicate which of the followingbest fits:
Answered: 72 Skipped: 2
Total 72
My child(children) d...
My child(children) d...
My child(children) d...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
My child (children) does not currently receive yard services
My child (children) does currently receive yard services, and would continue to qualify under the revised common standards
My child (children) does currently receive yard services, and would not qualify for services under the revised common standards
4 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 11 of 28
38.36% 28
61.64% 45
Q5 The Alberta Government funding modelfor transportation does not provide fundingfor yard services. Therefore, yard servicesprovided by the Clearview Public Schoolsrepresents less in resources that could be
used for other instructional andtransportation services.Were you
previously aware before we startedsurveying for feedback that the Alberta
Government does not provide funding foryard services?Answered: 73 Skipped: 1
Total 73
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
5 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 12 of 28
Q6 Clearview School Division No. 71 iscurrently establishing a consistent standard
for granting yard service for families. TheREVISED yard service common standardsbeing proposed are as follows (note that
any ONE of the following would qualify forservices):1. Yard service is provided for
students where:a) the driveway is greaterthan 500 meters; andb) the older child in the
family is in Grade 2 or younger;2. Yardservice is provided for students that qualify
for special needs funding (and wouldrequire yard service);3. Yard service isprovided where, at the discretion of the
Transportation Services department, it isneeded for operational purposes (such as a
turn-around);4. Yard service is providedwhere due to the traffic volume of the road
(such as Highway 56) and lack of line ofsight visibility on the road (500 metres), the
parent would prefer yard service.(Revision)Do you have any other criteria
you feel is important for establishing yardservice?
Answered: 40 Skipped: 34
# Responses Date
1 No. 9/15/2014 4:08 PM
2 Temperatures below -15 degrees - -40 standing outside in windchill and cold days waiting for bus especially itbus is delayed, bus should come to yard.
9/15/2014 4:05 PM
3 Yes listen to and trust the bus drivers! They know the roads and children best. If they don't feel a situation is safe,let them decide what to do, not what people who don't travel those roads think is best
9/15/2014 4:02 PM
4 The only information needed to qualify for "yard Services" are: 1)Does you child(ren)/student(s) attend a schoolin Clearview School Division? 2) Are you a county taxpayer?
9/15/2014 4:00 PM
5 We are less than 500 metres but the bus has to turn around anyways so it would be slower to do a turn aroundthan drive through my other driveway.
9/15/2014 3:55 PM
6 Bus driver discretion. Our kids were picked up at the end of driveway. But after 3 cars passed the bus while thekids were trying to get across the road and onto the bus, our bus driver decided it was unsafe. She came into thedriveway after that.
9/15/2014 3:51 PM
6 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 13 of 28
7 Absolutely! Yard service needs to be a governed on a yard by yard basis. Some yards are set up to that yearsservice makes more sense than backing up or stopping on a county road. If our transportation superintendentwould ride each route, this would be evident to her. Clearview's motto is "one child at a time" So why isn't busingbased on this same motto? Yes, the word is run around the almighty dollar, but can and should such a price tagbe put on children's lives? I guess Clearview feels this is the case - how very sad! If you rode the bus routes, youwould see that money can be saved o bus routes that simply don't make sense (ie. backtracking - why doesJocelyn's bus cross Hwy 835 twice, specifically to head 3 miles west when buses are already in that area?) Lookinto what's so evident to all; don't go by "rules" just because they're rules. I guess "common sense" really isn'tvery common!
9/15/2014 3:44 PM
8 I have no comments on the school bus services as my granddaughter gets on the bus right in Big Valley and getsdropped off there also. The ride isn't out of order for length of time on the bus either, so I hope you can do what isthe best route to save dollars and yet have the best service for everyone.
9/15/2014 3:30 PM
9 No. 9/15/2014 3:00 PM
10 No, those criteria seems fair and mindful of the safety of children. 9/15/2014 12:07 PM
11 I feel very strongly that on days where the bus driver feels the need to have the fog light flashing, that yardservice be provided especially on main or secondary highways. I have on many occasions felt very uneasyhaving my children cross the highway in the fog or heavy blowing snow on 872.
9/15/2014 10:18 AM
12 As a bus driver and a parent, I agreed with the above guide lines. I think it is wise to turn around in some yardson higher risk roads. - Norman Black
9/15/2014 9:34 AM
13 I think that yard service should also be weather dependent, at the driver's discretion, we would be willing to payextra taxes for this, to a point. Thank you.
9/15/2014 9:32 AM
14 As we are in Alberta, has any consideration been given to possible alterations in yard pick-up when the weatheris cold or inclement? My child is older and my driveway only 300m but I wouldn't want her waiting at the end ofthe driveway in -20 or blowing snow conditions for any length of time considering the bus seems to have a 20 minwindow at which it arrives and my laneway closest to the Road is County Road.
9/15/2014 9:29 AM
15 We may qualify under standard #4 because we have no line of sight to the end of the driveway. 9/15/2014 9:12 AM
16 #1 - should be changed to where the Youngest child is in Grade 3. A kid in kindergarten should not have to walkor stand in the cold just because she has a sibling older than grade 2. They are still little and should be picked up.Also, I don't want my Grade 2 child being "responsible" or having to help my kindergarten child to the bus.
9/15/2014 9:07 AM
17 I didn't even know there was yard service. 9/15/2014 9:04 AM
18 I support yard service, even though I don't require it In some cases it may not be necessary - but it is absolutelynecessary on Hwys and secondary Hwys. I would revise #1. If any child is in Elementary School (K-5), theyshould qualify.
9/15/2014 9:02 AM
19 The public road is too narrow, safer to pull in and use our turn around. 9/15/2014 8:58 AM
20 Over 550 m from house -roadway is not visible from house - cannot hear or see bus coming - 5 of 6 students inour home are diagnosed with FASD, ADHD, ODD and are not provided with yard services.
9/15/2014 8:52 AM
21 We live in an enclosed yard and can not see end of driveway from house or yard is just under 500 m. Our child isin kindergarten and feel it is unsafe for her to walk alone.
9/15/2014 8:47 AM
22 Before our driveway is a dangerous curve, would not be safe to pick up children or drop off. i would gladly pay tokeep yard service.
9/12/2014 4:27 PM
23 Medical condition of child, ie. disability that does not qualify for funding considerations. 9/12/2014 3:59 PM
24 If our bus had to turn around at the road, it would not be safe and could possibly endanger all occupants of thebus.
9/12/2014 3:55 PM
25 Traffic volume and road condition will be important to consider. We live on a gravel road that is unpaved and verybusy with oil traffic and gravel trucks at certain times of the year. It is very hard to see flashing lights through thedust both for oncoming traffic and stopped traffic.
9/12/2014 3:51 PM
26 We live on Hwy 56 so #4 fits. 9/12/2014 3:40 PM
27 Safety! is the most important criteria regardless of age of child! You can not predict how other drivers will react toschool bus.
9/12/2014 3:39 PM
7 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 14 of 28
28 We have a round about and we are the last stop in the road. The end of the driveway is by hidden corner, oil tanktrucks travel the road. It would be safer to pull in than try to turn around on the road.
9/12/2014 3:34 PM
29 Instead of charging a fee for yard service, charge a larger fee for those families that are NOT going to the schoolin their catchment area!!!
9/12/2014 3:03 PM
30 Our laneway is at the bottom of a very steep hill. I'm assuming that would qualify for the "lack of line of sightvisibility". This is crucial for safety!
9/12/2014 2:34 PM
31 All highway pickups should be yard pickup with no conditions attached to them. 9/10/2014 7:22 PM
32 When at the bus driver's descrition, they feel it is unsafe or unreasonable to apply the common standards. 9/9/2014 10:17 AM
33 We live on a busy secondary highway with a very narrow treed driveway, however our large farmyardconveniently has a circular road leading to a second driveway. On the current bus route the bus has to come fromthe east, pick up my three kids then drive out and head back east. It is common sense for the bus to drive in pickup my children and drive through on our yard road and drive out the second driveway to head back (a turnaround). It would be dangerous and not make sense for the bus driver to try and back out our narrow treeddriveway on to a busy highway that is at its busiest during pick up and drop off times with Super B Semi trucks,mine and oilfield traffic!! That being said, I also think with the long bus rides, that the door to door service foreverybody does not make sense either! Most children can and should walk out to the end of their driveway andmeet the bus at the road! I grew up here and from the beginning of my schooling walked out to the bus. Themorning walk was refreshing, gave me a bit of exercise and responsibility (which is sorely lacking for mostchildren now) and ensured that I was dressed for the weather!!! Finally, if the people making these decisionswould get out of their office and actually ride the routes like the one retired bus supervisor did (now there are twobus 'supervisors' for less children but that is another $ issue that parents are talking about all over the schooldivision), they would be able to make informed common sense decisions a lot easier! Use common sense, getout of your box and listen to your bus drivers please!
9/4/2014 10:37 AM
34 High traffic volume areas which may be a concern for children or other traffic 9/4/2014 9:18 AM
35 -Line of site from the house to road -Traffic volume on the road - The time you will wait at the end of a driveway, itwould be quicker to pick up in yard - blind spots on road - the turn around is available in yard
8/19/2014 7:43 AM
36 -Line of site from the house to road -Traffic volume on the road - The time you will wait at the end of a driveway, itwould be quicker to pick up in yard - blind spots on road - the turn around is available in yard
8/19/2014 7:29 AM
37 Coming from a community that lost a child in a bussing accident due to the bus stopping on the side of a HWY invery foggy weather a few years ago I feel it is most important that there is yard service in any time ofquestionable weather.
8/5/2014 4:16 PM
38 Safety is for all ages. Grade 2 or younger is a little too young. It can not be the responsibility of an older siblingwho is in Grade 3 and up to keep their sibling at a public gravel road under control and safe. Any children in lowerElementary grade 3 and under should have yard service.
7/28/2014 8:17 PM
39 The criteria is unacceptable in our particular case. We have 3 children (Grade 3 - Age 7, Grade 1 - Age 5 andpre-school - Age 3). We live on a busy country gravel road where morning commuters (large oilfield trucks areoften speeding). Our driveway is 160 meters, but the road is out of sight from the house (due to hills and trees).Unfortunately, this would mean that we would have to rely on our 7 year old to "watch" our just turned 3 year oldfrom running on to the busy road (out of sight from the house). This is unacceptable and a fatality waiting tohappen. Clearly this is not the intention of your proposal, however your proposal would put us as parents in avery awkward situation. We would have to weigh our children's safety vs your proposal. That's not something ithink parent's should have to do. At the very least allow parents the option of paying for the time (use a stopwatchif you'd like) or fuel for the extra distance, as I think those of us that value our children's safety would do it in aheartbeat. Child safety should not be about the money. I think some of the discretion should be left up to the busdriver on a "case by case" basis to use their discretion. It would be one thing if these were teenagers, but in ourcase, the extra 10 seconds of driving up the driveway to turn around for safety reasons is well warranted. If thebus were to try to turn around at the entrance to our driveway it would likely take them just as long, plus it putsthe bus at risk due to having to back up onto a road where visibility (driveway entrance at the bottom of a hill) is afactor, puts the entire bus at risk. There is not enough time for a vehicle to stop if the bus tried to let the childrenout on the road. I can guarantee that this would result in an accident within the first few years of adoption.
7/24/2014 12:26 PM
40 No 7/10/2014 9:09 PM
8 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 15 of 28
47.22% 34
38.89% 28
38.89% 28
27.78% 20
9.72% 7
2.78% 2
6.94% 5
Q7 Ride times are currently designed to beno longer than 60 minutes on average (K-9)
for each day. If yard services were tocontinue without the use of guidelines, ride
times may increase and fees may beneeded for all students to meet this
service.Which of the following best reflectsyour thoughts on establishing common
standards for yard services? Note you canselect more than one.
Answered: 72 Skipped: 2
Total Respondents: 72
I wouldsupport a...
I wouldsupport a...
I wouldsupport a...
I wouldsupport a...
I wouldsupport no o...
I wouldsupport no o...
I wouldsupport no o...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
I would support a consistent level of yard services for all students to keep ride times the same or lower
I would support a consistent level of yard services for all students to provide more dollars to schools
I would support a consistent level of yard services, and there should be no fee for services
I would support a consistent level of yard services, and wish to see a fee for yard services
I would support no or little standard of yard services, and wish to see a fee for yard services
I would support no or little standard of yard services, and would be willing to accept longer ride times
I would support no or little standard of yard services, and would be willing to see dollars moved from schools to support continuing currentlevels of services
9 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 16 of 28
38.46% 25
16.92% 11
44.62% 29
Q8 If a consistent standard were to beapplied, what is the best way to implementthe standard:All new students would use
the standard, andAnswered: 65 Skipped: 9
Total 65
existing yardservices wou...
existing yardservices wou...
existing yardservices wou...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
existing yard services would continue indefinitely (less benefits for change, and less impact to existing students)
existing yard services would continue for one or two years (more benefits for change, and provides some time for transition)
existing yard services would continue to only for a short time, and no longer than June 2015 (best benefits for change, new standards effectiveno later than September 2015)
10 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 17 of 28
Q9 Do you have any other comments orconcerns you would like to address on yard
service?Answered: 42 Skipped: 32
# Responses Date
1 This survey is very confusing and poorly worded. I do not want the current system to change as we are fine totake responsibility for our own yard services and do not want these services to reduce funding for educationalprograms and staff.
9/15/2014 4:08 PM
2 When very cold, when child was on bus waited in house, however unable to see if bus coming from the north,driver would wait for child to go to bus from house.
9/15/2014 4:05 PM
3 Without the actual benefit from this proposal being openly discussed, I am unclear on the actual benefit to theschool or staff or "services" as mentioned. As it is already difficult to find and maintain bus driving staff, I do notsee this as a viable solution. As a county resident, I wonder how will you decide this money? Will it be pro-ratedto each school based on the new limits of yard service? I also wonder if town residents feel this is an attempt toappease the loss of staff they have suffered.
9/15/2014 4:00 PM
4 1) Students being bused out of their catchment school should pay exactly what it costs to bus which thousands ofdollars not $200. per year. 2) Be careful how much you cut yard service, the Catholic School system has noproblem with yard service. You may find parents switching their children to the Catholic School
9/15/2014 3:55 PM
5 I don't understand why you don't leave it at the bus drivers discretion. They are the ones who deal with trafficvolume etc. By setting a stringent standard how do you decide what would be considered high volume withoutpersonally witnessing it (in the dark!). As far as ride times go, I've seen no effort to reduce ride times! To save $maybe we should look at how much money it costs us to drive empty buses into town to get fuel (from remoteareas). I know one bus that drives over 200 km a week, just to get fuel..
9/15/2014 3:51 PM
6 Again, ride the routes and see the actualities! It can't get any simpler than this. Maybe our TransportationSuperintendent should prove that she is earning her wage, because backtracking on existing routes prove thatshe is earning her wage, because backtracking on existing routes prove she is not. Interesting, how families canget bused out of their catchment area 9 with or w/o a fee) yet Clearview can't figure out something as straightforward as yard service. Ride the routes! Did you even think that not driving into some of these longer drivewayswill mean more idling time as the drivers wait for the students trying to stay ware somewhere close to theirhouse?
9/15/2014 3:44 PM
7 I support any changes that save money but do not put children at increased risk to their safety. I don't think achild in grade 3 is old enough to be responsible for younger children on the edge of a road with both oilfield andagriculture traffic. My driveway is not long enough to qualify under new guidelines but it is long enough that mychildren cannot be seen from the house when it is dark in the morning and that they will be very cold on thosefrosty mornings if their bus is late
9/15/2014 3:03 PM
8 This survey is very confusing and poorly worded. I do not want the current system to change as we are fine totake responsibility for our own yard services and do not want these services to reduce funding for educationalprograms and staff.
9/15/2014 3:00 PM
9 I appreciate the Board's commitment to research bus service and to look into the safety issues for kids when itcomes to yard service. I would like to see fees apply, if parents insist on yard service (and their circumstance fallsoutside of the standards set).
9/15/2014 12:07 PM
10 I agree a "standard" should be set, but that flexibility be allowed for common sense scenarios where it may bemore dangerous not to provide yard service, the bus driver's discretion due to heavy traffic, the child's ability tofollow direction and safely cross, etc. there are always exceptions to rules, and common sense should prevail atthe bus drivers discretion. If a disagreement between parent and driver occurs, then it should be taken up by thetransportation head/ board to make a decision. Thank you
9/15/2014 10:18 AM
11 Our grade 12 student drives most days saving the school money. Can we get a credit for yard pick-up? 9/15/2014 9:39 AM
12 Really happy with the level of our Clearview Bus Service. George Nichols is our excellent driver. See Previouscomments.
9/15/2014 9:32 AM
11 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 18 of 28
13 Not on yard service per se, but my understanding is Clearview, when looking into new buses, chose the largermore expensive ones as they "require less maintenance" instead of the smaller ones. Considering the drop inridership was this truly the correct route to take? My child rides the bus consistently and has commented on morethan one occasion how there are less than 20 students on the bus. I'm not sold on the larger buses being morefinancially responsible when the district is looking at cutting costs.
9/15/2014 9:29 AM
14 There is no reason that families to have to pay for yard services, it should be included in the pick up/drop off, It isimportant that the children are safe for pick and drop off. This is most important!!
9/15/2014 9:20 AM
15 It's fine the way it is! 9/15/2014 9:15 AM
16 I am very happy with all of the services our family receives from Clearview School Division. Though at themoment I do not pay a transportation fee, I would be very willing to pay a fee in order to maintain the excellentservices we currently receive. Thanks!! Mary Unger, Coronation School.
9/15/2014 9:14 AM
17 We just need enough notice and time to plan ahead so we can put some sort of wind shelter at the end of ourdriveway. We have 4 children on the bus and even though the oldest is beyond grade 2, we do have some safetyconcerns about them from in the yard. We would also request time to have the county add "children at play" signsby our driveway, due to a larger number of heavy duty vehicles on our road.
9/15/2014 9:12 AM
18 Please err on the side of caution not $$ when making these decisions. Any of our children's lives are worth farmore than $45,000 that you might save by cutting yard service. It is not worth the price of a life.
9/15/2014 9:02 AM
19 In smaller rural communities, I believe yard services are a good idea. Many kids would have to stand out in colderweather for longer periods of time. The distance between houses is further apart than towns and all depends onthe weather but the busing times may vary, if the weather is more poor therefore the kids are at the end of theroad longer.
9/15/2014 8:56 AM
20 I would gladly pay a fee for yard services to ensure my children get on the bus safely. The stop is not visible fromhouse or yard.
9/15/2014 8:52 AM
21 I would like to see students have less ride times and every bus driver used efficiently. Also first on should be firstoff!
9/15/2014 8:49 AM
22 I think 500 m is way to far, especially on days of inclement weather. Buses are not always on time and badweather can be a factor for arrival times as well. Please rethink this!. *My kids ride, on average, 90 min/day.
9/15/2014 8:45 AM
23 If child meets the criteria in the new revision then no fee should apply. If the criteria is not met then the parentshould have the option of paying a fee and those fees being returned to the child's school.
9/15/2014 8:43 AM
24 My son is only in school for 1 more year so i don't feel I should be one to decide what happens in the future. I dosupport bus rides to be NO LONGER THAN A HOUR at any age. Our stop is at the end of the route and thereforeis a turn around point. We have a u-shaped driveway so coming in the yard and turning around is a necessity andhas never been a problem
9/12/2014 4:30 PM
25 I think we all should be paying a fee for yard services! I would not want longer times or farther distance for mychildren.
9/12/2014 4:27 PM
26 The harder you make this for students and parents, the more students you will lose to home school. Its another"kick in the head" for the rural kids, good thing they are tough!
9/12/2014 3:55 PM
27 f you are now picking upon the road, where before you did not, signs will need to be posted on these roads, whichwill also cost money to do. School of choice should pay for their service in my opinion - especially if youimplement a fee for going to the "correct" school. (the school they are supposed to)
9/12/2014 3:51 PM
28 In regards to yard service, we are a turn around point. If things changed, I would not mind having my childrenwalk to RR102. It is more important to me to keep ride times down. I also would request to keep the school busoff of TWP400 (N of our residence (SW35 39 10) It is a dangerous road as it curves along river valley.
9/12/2014 3:39 PM
29 All families that have current yard pickup need to be notified of what is happening with their yard pickup. Someparents are still confused based on the revised standards. Communicating with them once the board reaches adecision even if it doesn't change so parents know what is happening. Thank you.
9/10/2014 7:22 PM
30 Please just use common sense! You can make rules but there is always acceptable exceptions! 9/4/2014 10:37 AM
12 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 19 of 28
31 We are entitled to yard service for our children under the new revisions due to the fact that we have poor visibility(we are in a little valley below a hill not allowing traffic enough time to stop once they crest the hill). In the past,the County of Stettler has requested we have yard service due to this poor line of sight and a large volume ofheavy traffic (we are across from an Oilfield Battery so large vehicles are common). This year, the bus providedfor our driver is too large to accommodate yard service even though we have a turn about loop at the end of ourlane (no backing up required) and therefore now not only are my children, but the other children on the bus aswell as other drivers, in a situation where danger is higher of an accident happening as they are loading andunloading on the road again. I understand our bus driver is a Stettler feeder bus from Botha however I don't feelthat priority should be taken over a child's safety loading the bus itself. My second note is in regards to bussing inour area. I am not an expert on the routes however I don't understand why the bus that picks up the youth on thenorth side of the highway has to travel 3 miles south to pick up our neighbors kids and 3 miles back (only kids onthat road), when our bus could drive one mile north, pick them up and return back. I think there could be betterways to route the busses so there is not so much empty backtracking. Just my opinion though.
9/4/2014 9:18 AM
32 I am a single parent of 2 living in the country and I would support paying some kind of fee for the services as longas it was not to outrageous as I am on a fixed income or maybe suggest that you add some kind of fee on to theschool fees that we have to pay for the kids. Just a suggestion in order to off put some of the cost of expenses ofrunning bus for the year. I would recommend a slow transition with whatever the decision would be as manyparents may go into shock with sudden changes. I grew up taking the bus to school and because it was such along drive way I was very thankful that the bus could come up to the door especially in the winter time. So if therewas some small fee to pay to help out and keep the services going I would not mind paying it as long as it wasnot a crazy amount. I would say you should consider offering some choices on amounts to parents who need thebus service and see what they have to say would be reasonable. Thank you for your survey, your time andconsiderations I look forward to the possible solutions if not decisions made on options. Thank you
8/19/2014 2:25 PM
33 The money the board is talking about saving by changing yard service seems silly. The amount of idle time at theend of driveway compare to driving in peoples yards will not save thousands of dollars or time. If the yard hasadequate space for the bus this would not only be safer but more time saving as you are not waiting for kids towalk down a drive way just out the door. The most important thing the board should consider is safety, busy roadway, parents unable to see kids waiting at driveway is a huge concern let alone to mention standing out there insnow with cold temp or the fast speeds people driving by which kicks up gravel. Parents can educate kids all theywant but kids will be kids and not making the best choices at times by playing around could put them in danger.The other factor that Could save money is by designing a bus route that does not have two Clearview busesgoing down the same road in the mornings let alone to add to the mix the Catholic bus.
8/19/2014 7:43 AM
34 The money the board is talking about saving by changing yard service seems silly. The amount of idle time at theend of driveway compare to driving in peoples yards will not save thousands of dollars or time. If the yard hasadequate space for the bus this would not only be safer but more time saving as you are not waiting for kids towalk down a drive way just out the door. The most important thing the board should consider is safety, busy roadway, parents unable to see kids waiting at driveway is a huge concern let alone to mention standing out there insnow with cold temp or the fast speeds people driving by which kicks up gravel. Parents can educate kids all theywant but kids will be kids and not making the best choices at times by playing around could put them in danger.The other factor that Could save money is by designing a bus route that does not have two Clearview busesgoing down the same road in the mornings let alone to add to the mix the Catholic bus.
8/19/2014 7:29 AM
35 It's always best to keep the children's safety at best interest. I am aware of some gravel roads being just as busyas some local HWY's, and would only hope some of these families would be considered for yard service. I'veseen first hand how the gravel gets so dusty, the roads are narrow and people are driving too fast not payingattention first thing in the morning. The concern would be for these kids waiting the few minutes before the busarrives.
8/5/2014 4:16 PM
36 Yard service changes should be put into place for the upcoming school year to save the maximum amount ofmoney, and put that towards our kids education.
7/31/2014 2:15 PM
37 Yard service standards need to be implemented for September 2014 waiting longer ans wasting additional dollarsis not acceptable.
7/31/2014 11:03 AM
38 Yard service standards need to be implemented for sept 2014 school year. It is a waste of time and moneydelaying this decision any further. From the lack of response to the first survey I would say the board needs toactually make a decision instead of running more surveys.
7/29/2014 11:58 AM
39 Yard service has to be fare for all parents. Perhaps because if a parent lives on a busy hwy doesn't mean theyshould be the only parent paying for yard service. It would have to be charge and averaged out amongst allparents.
7/28/2014 8:17 PM
13 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 20 of 28
40 Our driveway is 160m long, but we can not see the road from our house. Our road isn't a highway, but it's a wellused oil field road, that had a significant amount of early morning "rush hour" traffic driving 80-100km/hr andcoinciding with our kids pick up time. In addition, our driveway is not lit so the kids would have to walk down andwait in the dark for most of the year. We technically don't qualify for yard service according to the proposedguidelines, but still feel that it is a valued service that helps us keep our kids safe both from the traffic, from beingexposed to those individuals who would seek to harm them and from the elements. We feel that morning yardservice is significantly more important than afternoon as it is dark for most of the year when the kids are pickedup. In addition, in the afternoon they can walk straight home, where as in the morning they would have to wait forthe bus. In all honestly, if I had to warm up my vehicle to drive them down the driveway to wait 5 min for the buson a dark cold winter morning, it would make far more sense for me to drive them the 7 minutes down thehighway to school, drive home again, and then leave again for work an hour later. That said, if most families haveto resort to driving their kids to school, as is the case at the Stettler Elementary School, then the Erskine schoolwill just have new transportation and child safety issues due to a higher volume of vehicles dropping kids off atschool. I believe that MORNING yard service for rural kids is an important service that I would like to seecontinue, even at the expense of a reasonable fee.
7/24/2014 3:04 PM
41 I think the two concerns that the board has are reasonable (the cost of providing the service and the additionaltime it takes). I don't however think that the proposed standards are an acceptable means of achieving this. Ithink it should be left up to the discretion of the bus driver (as to whether the option should be available) andparents (to whether they'd like to pay for it - charge per distance, or time on a rate determined by the board). Asa parent I would probably have to stop sending my children on the bus as a result of the proposed standards as Ivalue their safety above the proposed changes. But maybe your intention is to reduce the reliance on busingsystem in order to reduce bus times? This might achieve it then.
7/24/2014 12:26 PM
42 Two comments, ride times while have a goal of 60min have not been met for a number of years for our children.They are on the bus 55 min in the morning and 45 min at night, this while only being a 15 min drive from theschool. We live out of town. Second comment this needs to be implemented for this September in order tomaximize the savings allowed. The board has wasted enough time in making tough decision and needs to actSept 2015 implementation is too late. You cannot please everyone and need to make the hard and sometimesunpopular choices.
7/16/2014 1:00 PM
14 / 14
Yard Service Common Standards Feedback
Page 21 of 28
1 | P a g e
Clearview Public Schools (Clearview School Division No. 71)
BOARD MEMORANDUM
Date: June 9, 2014
To: Board of Trustees
From: John L. Bailey, Superintendent of Schools
Resource Person(s): Peter Neale, Associate Superintendent Maryann Wingie, Director of Transportation
Re: Yard Service Common Standards
Appendix Page 2014.06.09 Options for Consideration ..................................................................... 3 2014.06.04 SURVEY RESULTS Yard Service – Parents ....................................... 4 2014.06.06 SURVEY RESULTS Yard Service – Drivers ....................................... 24 2014.05.12 LETTER Parent Survey ........................................................................ 32 2014.04.24 MEMO Yard Service Common Standards ............................................ 39 Purpose To seek direction from the Board of Trustees towards establishing common services standards for yard services in the school division. Background Following the memo dated April 24, 2014, the Board of Trustees were presented with information on yard service standards in comparable school divisions. To meet the Board targets of finding efficiencies, reducing costs, and ensuring the best services possible for students, Senior Administration developed a possible criteria to find a balance between current services, services provided by other divisions, and operational (budget) realities. The main driver for the analysis is to create a reasonable expectation and standard in our communities on where the school division would be able to provide yard services. Although a standard was developed and in place for many years, in practice it was left for bus drivers to apply the standard, with little central mechanism to review the levels of services provided or an annual review as students demographics changed. As more yard services are provided, there are increases to ride times for all students and increases in costs for bus driver salaries and kilometres. As the application was not consistent it created possible inequities in service delivery. Budget realities are also being considered. With declining enrolments, the same geographic area is serviced with fewer students and less grant dollars. The Alberta Government has reduced transportation funding, with direct reductions to some grants and little to no increases in funding rates. Further, cost escalations in insurance and fuel cannot be avoided. Transportation Services financial reserves have declined in the past years as services have largely been maintained. For 2014-15, the Transportation Services department is expected to reduce by two routes, have a deficit of $100,000 and no future reserves. A communication went out to all parents that receive transportation services on May 12, 2014 with a deadline of May 30. The survey was closed June 4 to ensure possible responses that were slightly late could still be considered.
Page 22 of 28
2 | P a g e
Considerations – Parent Survey Total riders in the school division are 1,310. Of these riders, Clearview provides yard service for
252 families (not students). Of the 252 families, an estimated 120 families (47%) do not fit our current criteria.
In the survey, there were 61 responses. Assuming one result per child, the response rate was
4.7% of our ridership and assuming one result for every two children the response rate was 9.3%.
All respondents currently used transportation services, with the highest responses from the Coronation area at 18 (30%) and 14 from the Town of Stettler (23%). Of the responses from or around the Town of Stettler, 7 or 50% are receiving school of choice bussing.
The majority of respondents (57%) indicated they were not aware the Alberta Government did not
provide funding to address yard services.
In the question regarding asking if there were other criteria to consider than what is currently being considered, 42 respondents answered the question and 19 skipped the question. Of those that answered, the following themes are shown as additional considerations:
o Road conditions, such as highway traffic (18 or 30% of all responses (61)) o Line of sight in the yard, e.g. if the house can be seen from the road (8 or 13% of all
responses) o Winter and cold conditions (7 or 11% of all responses) o Age of the child should be increased or a factor (4 or 7% of all responses)
When asked in the survey if respondents would support a consistent level of yard service if there
were benefits in doing so, 33 of the responses or 54% would support this. In the comments section, there are 12 responses that highlighted the need to ensure the safety of students should be the main or primary consideration for determining service levels.
From the survey, 37 respondents or 61% would prefer longer ride times or fees than the current
or the proposed guidelines for yard service standards. 6 of the respondents in the comments section or 10% support implementing fees (this result may not be representative, as respondents were not required to address the question of fees directly).
To transition to a new standard, 57% indicated all current services should be grandfathered and
43% believe changing service levels either immediately or in one-two years should be considered.
Recommendation: Please see the list of options the Board may wish to consider. Based on the survey results, Senior Administration is recommending proceeding with the revised standard with the added consideration of road traffic (with line of sight) and a one year transition for existing students. Fees can also be considered, however this may be a second survey process that can be done next year prior to implementation to gather more feedback. Senior Administration is recommending the following motion for consideration:
“that the Board of Trustees direct the Policy Committee to draft a policy addressing yard services applicable for all students based on Option A detailed in the memo provided to the Board.”
John L. Bailey Superintendent of School
Page 23 of 28
Clearview Public School Options for Consideration Yard Service Standards June 9, 2014
Option A (June 9, 2014) - Recommended Option B (April 24, 2014) Current Standard (Not Universal) Yard service is provided for students where:
a) the driveway is greater than 500 meters; and
b) the older child in the family is in Grade 2 or younger;
Yard service is provided for students that qualify for special needs funding (and would require yard service); Yard service is provided where, at the discretion of the Transportation Services department, it is needed for operational purposes; Yard service is provided where due to the traffic volume of the road (such as Highway 56) and lack of line of sight visibility (500 metres) the parent would prefer yard service. Yard service is subject to a signed consent form, and the driveway is considered safe for school buses, including an allowance for a turn-around (with winter snow removal)
Yard service is provided for students where:
a) the driveway is greater than 500 meters; and b) the older child in the family is in Grade 2 or younger;
Yard service is provided for students that qualify for special needs funding (and would require yard service); Yard service is provided where, at the discretion of the Transportation Services department, it is needed for operational purposes; Yard service is subject to a signed consent form, and the driveway is considered safe for school buses, including an allowance for a turn-around.
Distance of driveway. Generally with no safety issues, the following criteria may be used (minimums):
- less than 0.5 kms (1/4 of a mile) we would not provide service; - between 0.5 kms and 0.9 kms (between 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile) we would go in until the youngest child is in Grade 2; and - over 0.9 kms (1/2 mile) we would go in.
Need for a location to turn the bus around due to direction of bus routing. Assessment on student safety due to poor visibility, location of residence, high volume traffic concerns, etc.
Page 24 of 28
1 | P a g e
Clearview Public Schools (Clearview School Division No. 71)
BOARD MEMORANDUM
Date: April 24, 2014
To: Board of Trustees
From: John L. Bailey, Superintendent of Schools
Resource Person(s): Peter Neale, Associate Superintendent Maryann Wingie, Director of Transportation
Re: Yard Service Common Standards
Appendix Page Survey of Regional School Divisions………………………….4 Summary of Current Guidelines (October 2013)…………….5 Purpose: To communicate to the Board of Trustees the history of yard service, current guidelines, and recommendations for changes. As background information towards the discussion, memo includes information of yard service with other school divisions in the region. Background: The current guidelines for yard service are provided in the attached, which have been used for over 17 years. Yard services prior to September 2013 can be summarized as:
bus drivers have in the past made the determination, based mainly on factors involving safety of students, to provide yard service;
the provision of yard services may also have been approved through the Transportation Services department;
bus drivers were not always aware of the yard service standards, or required to follow them. As such, the determination for service may have been based on the guidelines or a self-assessment (practice has not always been consistent);
once yard service was provided, there was no consistent or standard mechanism to review the service or stop the service.
Alberta Education funding does not provide for yard service and accordingly our routing program measures the home to school distance from roadways to their designated school. In September 2013, the Transportation Services department developed a written guideline for yard service, a letter for parents, and a waiver for yard service.
Page 25 of 28
2 | P a g e
As part of the process, the Transportation Services department requested drivers to record on their September 2013 bus route sheets all door service they were currently providing to families, whether or not it met the guideline criteria. Many drivers confirmed yard services according to practice that had been in place for many years, including services developed by the previous Transportation Services leadership in conjunction with previous bus drivers. Bus drivers noted that not all door service provided met our written guidelines. To ensure no immediate changes were made without full information, the Transportation Services department did not change existing levels of yard service to families nor cease providing yard services if waivers were not signed. The process was completed to gather the information according to what yard service level Clearview Public School bus drivers were currently providing. Bus drivers were informed that starting October 2013, all requests for yard services would be approved by the Transportation Services department, to ensure consistency of services to the guidelines. Where Clearview was providing yard service, drivers were asked to give families the letter and waiver to complete and return to Division Office. The Transportation Services department gathered the yard service information by route and compiled it into a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is also attached for reference. From the spreadsheet, the estimated costs of current yard services are as follows: Wages & Benefits: $10,754.62 Mileage Costs: $31,421.37 Total Estimated Costs: $42,175.99 Further for consideration is the increased ride times to the transportation system for our students, which is not measured here. For each of the 252 families where Clearview Public Schools provides yard service, 3-5 minutes per yard could be a reasonable estimate, or 756 to 1,260 minutes per route (double per day). Considerations: Currently Clearview is providing yard service for 252 families. Of these, 132 are clearly eligible under the current guidelines. 120 families do not fit the criteria for distance. Some families may still receive yard service where it would be advantageous for Clearview to provide such, as in the example of a turn-around. Transportation Services department estimates that of the total 196.3 kilometers school buses travel for door service, 81.7 kilometers per day are for the 120 families not meeting the distance criteria. The remaining 114.6 kilometers per day are for families who clearly meet the distance criteria.
Page 26 of 28
3 | P a g e
For consideration, Senior Administration is seeking direction on the following:
1) As Clearview does not receive funding for providing yard services, should the provision of yard services be continued?
2) Based on the survey results with other school boards (attached), should Clearview be looking at changing existing yard service standards?
a. Should the standard be based on length of driveway? b. Should the standard be based on line-of-sight to the house? c. Should the standard be based on age of the oldest child? d. Does the first pick-up time on the respective route factor in the approval process?
3) Where a standard is determined or confirmed, should the change occur in September of
2014, 2015, or be grandfathered for existing families receiving the service?
4) Should parents that wish for yard service be charged (note: charges would recover costs, but not likely to improve ride times for students).
Recommendation: Senior Administration is seeking Board direction on the next steps towards finalizing a standard yard service for the Division, and timelines. Without Board direction, Senior Administration suggests the following, subject to the establishment of a Board Policy and/or Administrative Procedure. The advantage of a Board Policy is that it has a clear process for opportunity for consultation, and establishes a standard for Senior Administration to follow in their work:
1) A communication tool can be considered, that will include the guidelines (current or revised) and request input from parents. As part of the communication, questions can be asked to determine alternatives.
2) An alternative standard to past guidelines, based on the survey of other school divisions, may be:
a. Yard Service is provided for students that qualify for special needs funding considerations;
b. Yard Service is provided for students where: i. the driveway is greater than 500 meters, and ii. the older child is in Grade 2 or younger;
c. Yard Service may be provided where, at the decision of the Transportation Services department, it is needed for operational purposes;
d. Parents may purchase yard services on a first-come, first-serve basis where the route is less than one hour per trip. Fee could be $200 per family (roughly $42,000 / 252 families). (NOTE: the Board may also choose to provide a fee for all students wishing yard service at $200 per family);
e. Yard service is subject to a signed consent form, and driveway is considered safe for school buses, including an allowance for turn-around.
John L. Bailey Superintendent of Schools
Page 27 of 28
Prairie Land Buffalo Trails Chinooks Edge Golden Hills Battle River Wild Rose Wolf Creek Peace River Wetaskiwin ClearviewDoes Your Division Allow for Door Service? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Does Your Division Provide Door Service for Special Needs Students? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Do You Allow Door Service for Safety Concerns? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Do You Allow Door Service for Turnaround Locations? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Minimum Distance Requirement for Door Service? 400 meters No 550 meters No No No No 400 meters 800 meters 500 meters
Do You Make Families Sign a Waiver? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Do you Charge Fees for Yard Service? No Yes No No No No No No No No
If Yes How Much are Fees
$350 Year Round $175 Winter Only or
ECS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Anything else? Inclement Weather Note 1 NA Note 2 Note 3 Note 4 Note 5 Oldest Under Gr. 3 NA Note 6
Note 1:
Note 2:
Note 3:
Note 4:
Note 5:
Note 6:
Wolf Creek is currently developing written procedures. Currenlty granted on a case by case basis. Transportation staff review and deterimine eligibility.
Clearview goes in between 500 meters ‐ 900 meters until youngest is in Grade 2. Over 900 meters we go in regardless of age of children.
Yard Service Survey
Buffalo Trails charges for all door service regardless of the reason. It is a first come first serve basis, with preference given to special needs. Door Service denied if first pick‐up prior to 7:30 a.m. Service provided for the year will not be revoked if new children move on making the first pick‐up prior to 7:30 a.m.
Golden Hills grants on a case by case basis. Transportation staff review and determine eligibility. Often drivers go in on inclement weather days.
Battle River grants on a case by case basis. Transportation staff review and determine eligibility. Try to restrict granting for handicapped students or when deemed unsafe to pick up at the roadway.
Wild Rose only does yard service for special needs students on special needs routes. All turnarounds are done at the end of a laneway and routes are developed so no students have to cross major roadways to board the bus.
Page 28 of 28
Performing Arts Centre Committee Meeting January 21, 2015
Location: PAC (Wm. E. Hay High School) In Attendance:
Dave Goodwin (Chair) Clearview Public School Trustee Norbert Baharally Wm. E. Hay Composite High School, Principal Carrie Reish Wm. E. Hay Composite High School, Support Darren Fleischhacker Wm. E. Hay Composite High School, Teacher Peter Neale Clearview Public School Administration Ismay Seyer Stettler Variety Showcase and Heartland Arts
Troupe
Regrets:
Philippa Brysiuk Stettler Music Festival Will Brown Stettler Town Council Sherry Rempel Stettler Music Festival and Music Teachers Teresa Tempest Stettler Music Festival Rhonda Gillrie Rhonda McCulluch Danceology Aubrey Brown Stettler Regional Board of Trade
1. Call to order: 7:07 pm
2. Approval of minutes of September 24, 2013
MOTION: Approval of minutes CARRIED
3. Old Business
a. Fire Regulations Discussed seating in front lobby and front stairs. NEXT ACTION: seek clarification from the Town of Stettler’s Fire Inspector on seating allowances for lobby and access via the front stairs.
b. Sound and lighting booth training
The Committee would like confirmation that only trained/experienced technicians are used by groups. NEXT ACTION: Clearview to consider providing further training and advance training courses for use of the equipment. Clearview to consider hiring a part-time manager that can be the first call for lighting and sound booth operations and assist group with the use of the facility.
Page 1 of 8
c. Cost of Comparable Facilities The Committee discussed the previous meeting’s minutes. It was determined that the PAC is unique in that the facility would not normally reside in as small of a community as Stettler without the support of the various partners. Committee discussed the need to set the new rates and grandfather any events already scheduled. It was mentioned that there needs to be a clean-up fee and a re-set fee. Policy 603 “Use of the Performing Arts Centre” governs the use and rates of the facility, and states “User fees will be set by the Clearview Division in consultation with the Advisory Board of the Centre.” Current rental charges are attached to these minutes. NEXT ACTION: Seek support from the Board of Trustees for the pricing structure for the rental of the facility should be increased as follows:
Where a group wishes to use the sound and lighting booth, group must do so through Clearview and Clearview will provide a technician for cost. Per Hour Event $75 Rehearsal $110 Recital (events that students perform with a fee under $5 for a
teacher’s own students $150 Technical $300 Performance
Where the event is for profit, rates would be twice the above. Consider grandfathering rates for groups that have booked to the end of August
2015.
4. New Business
a. Bookings: Committee discussed booking procedures. NEXT ACTION: Associate Superintendent Neale and Principal Baharally with meeting with support staff from Wm. E. Hay High School and Central Services to discuss booking procedures for the PAC during school hours and after school. NEXT ACTION: Associate Superintendent Neale will see if there is a way to open up communication on the use and availability of the PAC through sharing the electronic calendar.
b. Locks: look to replacing locks with combination locks which can be accessed by WEH
staff as needed.
NEXT ACTION: WEH to identify locks of concern and addressing as needed.
Page 2 of 8
c. Microphones: The Committee discussed the need for wired microphones for user
groups, should the wireless microphone not work.
NEXT ACTION: WEH will purchase wired microphones.
d. Hazer: The Committee would like to add a hazer to the PAC which will allow for fog effects during performances. Cost is estimated at $1,200.
NEXT ACTION: WEH will consider this as a possible equipment need through their fine arts board.
5. Future Projects
• Replacing Black Curtain System • Cyclorama film installation • Temperature – re possible installation of Air Conditioning System • TV Closed-Circuit System to Lobby
NEXT ACTION: the Committee recommends where a renter’s event provides that tickets are sold, the division applies a surtax. Where a renter’s event does not provide for tickets, a flat-rate be applied. Funds raised should be sufficient to afford an air conditioning system and the installation of the TV feed and equipment into the foyer in three-years.
6. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM
7. Next Meeting: TBD
Page 3 of 8
POLICY 603 – USE OF PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE Effective November 25, 1996 Amended August 9, 2007 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 1
POLICY
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
The use and operation of the Theatre shall be decided by the Associate Superintendent, Business and Finance based on the following objectives and guidelines: 1. That the Clearview Division should be given priority use of the theatre between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, during any school term. Schools are required to communicate and coordinate school use of the Performing Arts Theatre at Stettler through the Division Office.
2. That the Community shall be given priority use of the theatre between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and closing on any school day, 8:00 a.m. to closing on Saturday and Sunday, and 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. seven (7) days per week outside the school term.
3. Booking, collection of user fees and general operations shall be the responsibility of the Division Office.
4. The theatre will be made available for community use and any conflict in use will be resolved by the Associate Superintendent, Business and Finance.
5. User fees will be set by the Clearview Division in consultation with the Advisory Board of the Centre.
6. Any anomalies will be referred to the Board of Trustees through the Associate Superintendent, Business and Finance.
7. Rental will be as described in Exhibit 1. 100% of charges to be credited to the maintenance block.
8. There shall be no alcohol or tobacco products sold, consumed or otherwise used in or on school property.
1. Fee covers use of all facility, full use of lights and sound. 2. As at #3, presuming a charge is being made for people to attend. G.S.T. on all the above figures is extra. Technical and usher staff are an extra costs. Caretaking charges are included.
G:\Wpdocs\Wp\Txtschpo\603.doc
Page 5 of 8
Performing Arts Centre Committee Meeting September 24, 2013
Clearview School Division Office In Attendance:
Peter Simons (Chair) Clearview Public School Trustee Leona Thorogood Stettler Town Council Mitch Hammond Stettler Variety Showcase Darren Fleischhacker Wm. E. Hay Composite High School, Teacher Peter Neale Clearview Public School Administration Philippa Brysiuk Stettler Music Festival
Regrets:
Sherry Rempel Stettler Music Festival and Music Teachers Teresa Tempest Stettler Music Festival Norb Baharally Wm. E. Hay Composite High School, Principal Myranda Shepherd Wm. E. Hay Composite High School, Vice Principal Rhonda Gillrie Rhonda McCulluch Danceology Mark Dennis Stettler Regional Fire Department, Fire Chief Aubrey Brown Stettler Regional Board of Trade
Peter Simons chaired the meeting.
1. Call to order: 7:00 pm
2. Approval of agenda
“6. Daytime Booking Procedures”
MOTION: Approval of agenda as amended CARRIED
3. Approval of minutes of June 5, 2013
MOTION: Approval of minutes CARRIED
4. Old Business
a. C.A.R.S. rental issues Committee recommends a letter to C.A.R.S. group is sent to confirm that if they wish to rent the PAC, the access will be through Parish Hall for daytime use and the group would not have access to the school (primarily on the Friday). Peter will follow up with Donna Jacobs to determine if a letter has been sent yet, or will be sent.
Page 6 of 8
MOTION: that a letter be drafted and sent to C.A.R.S. confirming that the Friday is not available for renting, and that the event cannot be held in the foyer.
CARRIED
b. Cyclorama Screen Darren indicated the current black screen tracking could be used for the
Cyclorama screen. Darren is also looking into getting a frosted Cyclorama screen. Darren will be developing a project proposal. The Town has arts funding that will be available.
Leona mentioned that Ed Cameron would know if the curtain tracking system in the Lottery building was available, or if it even still existed.
The Committee discussed installing an air conditioning system in the PAC for an estimated $50,000. The group brain-stormed various ideas to fundraise for the system (additional ticket charge, fundraising event, grants from municipal partners, etc.) It was commented about installing a good quality TV feed into the foyer of the PAC and another set-up back-stage without sound. Rhonda mentioned that other venues usually have the set-up.
MOTION: that the Committee recommends where a renter’s event provides that tickets are sold, the division applies a surtax. Where a renter’s event does not provide for tickets, a flat-rate be applied. Funds raised should be sufficient to afford an air conditioning system and the installation of the TV feed and equipment into the foyer in three-years.
CARRIED Dave Goodwin joined the meeting at 7:30pm
c. Sound and lighting booth training The Committee would like confirmation that only trained/experienced technicians are used by groups. They would like Clearview to consider requiring groups that wish to use this equipment do so through Clearview, and that Clearview has casual technicians approved by the division for this purpose. Clearview should seeks a policy or administrative procedures to this effect.
d. Cost of Comparable Facilities
Darren presented his interim findings about how much groups are being charged for using the PAC and has come to the conclusion groups are not being charged enough. Some facilities charge different rates for: non-profit, profit, commercial, performance, rehearsal, local, out-of-town. Every place has an hourly tech fee and provides their own tech person. Darren presented some of the fees that other facilities charge. Questions were raised about the locations of the facilities, the size of communities, and if the
Page 7 of 8
facilities were attached to schools. It was determined that the PAC is unique in that the facility would not normally reside in as small of a community as Stettler without the support of the various partners. Darren will be collecting more information and bringing it back to the September meeting for further discussion by the committee. Leona mentioned the need to set the new rates and grandfather any events already scheduled. It was mentioned that there needs to be a clean-up fee and a re-set fee. Recommendation: That the pricing structure for the rental of the facility should be increased as follows:
Where a group wishes to use the sound and lighting booth, group must do so through Clearview and Clearview will provide a technician for cost. Per Hour Event $75 Rehearsal $110 Recital (events that students perform with a fee under $5 for a
teacher’s own students $150 Technical $300 Performance
Where the event is for profit, rates would be twice the above.
5. Future Projects • Replacing Black Curtain System • Cyclorama film installation • Temperature – re possible installation of Air Conditioning System
6. Events Happening During School Day
The Committee discussed if there can be a shared calendar the schools can access to book events during the day. Peter will follow up with Donna Jacobs.
7. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 PM
8. Next Meeting: December 2013 at 7:00 PM in the Clearview School Division office.
Page 8 of 8
1 | P a g e
Clearview Public Schools (Clearview School Division No. 71)
BOARD MEMORANDUM
Date: September 11, 2014
To: Board of Trustees
From: Peter Barron, Superintendent
Resource Person(s): Peter Neale, Associate Superintendent
Re: Recognition Night
Appendix Page 2013-14 Recognition Costs Summary ..................................................................... 2 Purpose To report to the Board the costs of the Recognition Night held in June 2014, and to gather feedback on the location and date for the Recognition Night for the 2014-15 year. Considerations
For 2013-14, the Recognition Night was held in Castor, AB. Senior Administration is recommending alternating years between Castor and Stettler, and so would propose to host the event in Stetter for June 2015.
For dates, Senior Administration is recommending June 10, 2015 (Wednesday) or June 11, 2015 (Thursday) as two possible dates. Stettler Elementary has requested we do not host the event the week of June 15 due to a pre-planned camping trip which was also a conflict in June 2014.
Note the Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees is currently scheduled for 10:00 am on June 11, 2015. Recommendation Once the Board has determined the location and dates for the 2015 Recognition Night, the following motion is recommended:
“that the Board confirms the Clearview Public Schools Recognition Night will be held in the Town of _______ on ____________, 2015.”
Page 1 of 2
Recognition Night Expenses
Particulars AmountAwards/Gifts 4,210.83$ Catering 2,192.00$ Hall Rental and Clean up 650.00$ Entertainment 500.00$ Wine, drinks and mix, bar tenders 614.85$ Decorations, flowers, supplies, etc 315.74$ Approximate Manpower Costs 3,548.14$ Trustees Per diem and Mileage 753.47$ TOTAL Expenses 12,785.03$
TOTAL Revenue Collected 1,332.00$
TOTAL COSTS 11,453.03$
Page 2 of 2
1 | P a g e
Clearview Public Schools (Clearview School Division No. 71)
BOARD MEMORANDUM
Date: February 24, 2015
To: Board of Trustees
From: Peter Barron, Superintendent of Schools
Resource Person(s): Peter Neale, Associate Superintendent
Re: 2015-16 Capital Plan
Appendix Page 2014-15 Capital Plan ................................................................................... 2 2014 Facilities Report ................................................................................. www.clearview.ab.ca/Facilities Purpose To consider changes, if any, to the Clearview Public Schools’ Capital Plan. Background Each year, the Alberta Government seeks confirmation on the capital needs of the school division, such as modernizations, right-sizing, or new classroom spaces. Considerations Attached is the current Capital Plan. Based on the review of the current plan, no changes are recommended. The current capital plan can be summarized as follows:
Modernization of Stettler Complex (Middle Component) Two modular units for Gus Wetter School
While the current Infrastructure Maintenance Renewal plan considers the Coronation School paving project, priorities and resources may see this project not proceed in 2014-15. It is possible there will be dollars available at the end of the two capital projects being finalized (Erskine School Gym Ceiling and Stettler Elementary Roofing), however dollars remaining will not address the full measure of resources needed. Recommendation Senior Administration is recommending the following motion for consideration:
“THAT the Board of Trustees adopt the 2015-16 Capital Plan as presented.”
Page 1 of 4
BLIMS Projects - Web Access for Capital Plan SubmissionWAP1000 Detailed Report Printed: June 11, 2014 03:58 PM
Clearview School Division No. 71 (0052)
11021 - Stettler Middle School Moderization and Right Sizing
Capital Plan Submission Year: 2015/2016 (GOA)Capital Program: School Facilities Submission Status: Submitted
Title: Stettler Middle School Moderization and Right SizingKey Driver(s): Environmental factors, Health / Safety,
Backlog?: Yes Previously submitted with Wm E. Hay project - not approved as a total projectDescription:
(Project scope) Right size school to meet current needs as per Value Analysis performed on December 12 and 13, 2012 (Report dated January 15, 2013). Upgrade the mechanical and electrical systems.
Plan includes band room conversion, CTS conversion, infill courtyard, new student gathering and possible reconfiguration of library and/or gym space, as well as utilizing current wasted space.
Cost estimates include a new gymnasium ($3 million) and escalation factor ($1.2 million). Reason:
(Project benefits) This modernization is determined to be essential to allow for better usage for students, to meet the current needs of students, and improve the environment where the students and staff reside for a good portion of the day. Stettler Middle School student count has stayed steady between 278 to 314 over the past seven years.
Consequences:(Implication for delaying project)
Continued mechanical deterioration continues to affect the health and safety of students, staff and visitors. Electrical systems are old and causing increased maintenance costs. Most systems affect all three schools (Wm. E. Hay, Stettler Middle and Stettler Elementary) as the schools are resident in one connected facility. Gymnasium is undersized to student use and population.
Change in Capacity:(For Learning and PSI this should be
the change in enrollment capacity.For Health, this could be the change in
beds,surgical procedures, diagnostic and
treatment services, etc.)
Probable in-filling of Stettler Middle and possiby Stettler Elementary courtyards to create student gathering areas. One of the options removes a classroom in the Elementary portion of the complex to allow access to a reconfigured space for a computer lab that would exist within the Middle School defined space. Other options reconfigure gym spaces.
Gross Area M2: 4674.54 Preservation Area M2: 4674.54
New and Expansion Area M2: 438 Demolition Area M2: 0
Full Load Equivalent (FLE): 503 Funding Details for Cost-shared
Projects:This project may have a cost-shared component. Discussions are on-going with the Town of Stettler, County of Stettler, and possibility the separate school division.
P3 Potential?:(Is there a potential for this project to be funded as a public-private partnership?
Please specify.)
No
P3 Project: Not Applicable P3 Supported by Client Group:
Schedule / Comments: Project would start as soon as approval is grantedA value analysis was performed on December 12 and 13, 2012 and submitted to Judith Wright and Avi Habinski for January 15, 2013.
Page 1 of 2BLIMS Projects - Web Access for Capital Plan Submission - Detailed Report
Total Provincial Support (TPS): $13,387,563.78Other Alberta Government Funding: $0.00
Alberta Infrastructure & Transportation Funding: $13,387,563.78 Other (Federal, Private) Funding: $0.00
Budget DetailsBudget item Cost Description
Building Construction and Site Development :
$10,599,836.00 Amount of funding to be used for the physical construction of the school facility...
Consultant Fees : $151,997.00 Amount of funding for prime and sub-consultants that provide the design of the facility...
Project Expenses : $759,984.00 Amount of funding provided to pay for normal project expenses and services associated with a school building projects...
Furniture & Equipment : $303,993.00 Amount of funding provided for the basic furniture and equipment for approved projects…
Career Technology Studies (CTS) Equipment :
$150,000.00 Amount of funding provided for expansion or modernization projects being conducted in facilities in which the project provides or upgrades a CTS area(s)...
Other (Escalation Factor (per Report)) :
$1,210,926.00 Amount of funding provided for items not covered by the above components.
Sub-total: $13,176,736.00 Sub-total of funding for all items above.Non-Refundable GST : $210,827.78 Amount of funding provided for non-refundable GST is calculated at 1.6% of the
sub-total above.
Total Project Cost: $13,387,563.78 Sum of the funding for all items above.
File AttachmentsFile Name Description
STETTLER REPORT FINAL MARCH 6 2013.docx Value Analysis Report
SMS ATTACHMENT Costing and Design Options.pdf Costing of Options
Page 2 of 2BLIMS Projects - Web Access for Capital Plan Submission - Detailed Report
6/11/2014https://wap.gov.ab.ca/wp1000.cfm
Page 3 of 4
Jurisdiction:
BoardPriority
# Facility Name LocationIs this a P3
school?
Number of Type A Units
Required
Number of Type B Units
Required
Number of Washroom
Units
LinkRequired(Yes or No)
CategoryCode
Required Documents Attached?
Age of unit (in years)
Site Ready Date
Site Layout
Attached? Detailed Explanation for Category Code / Modular Request
1 Gus Wetter School Castor, AB No 1 Yes 2 N/A N/A 11/1/2014 Yes
Enrolments have increase from 173 students in 2003-4 to 228 students in 2014-15. The school was opened in Sep 2003 and
current utilization calcuations do not reflect the full need, in part due to the design of the building, for more classroom spaces.
Projections for the future indicate continued enrolment growth.
2 Gus Wetter School Castor, AB No 1 Yes 3 N/A N/A 11/1/2014 Yes
There are class-size pressures at the elementary and junior high level. Future projections indicate that enrolments will continue to
increase over the next few years. At the high school level, a lack of classrooms has made breadth of programming a challenge.
3
We propose to have the modulars located to the north-east of the school. As this area contains gym and library, locating the
modulars a hallway-width from these learning spaces will avoid noise bleed from the gym and keep the windows for the library on
the north side. Corridors or links (modular or built) should be provided on either side to allow for indoor hallway space between
the modular classrooms and the existing structure.456789
1011121314151617181920212223
Total of New Units Requested 2 0 Category Codes:1 = Health and Safety (Please explain)2 = Enrolment Pressures (Please explain)3 = Program Delivery (Please explain)4 = Evergreening (Please Explain)
Information on Smaller Buses and Routes ................................................. 8 2013.02.14 Report on Micro Buses ............................................................ 11 Purpose To seek final approval for the purchase of five (5) school buses. Background On January 29, 2015, the Board of Trustees passed the following motion:
“THAT the Board of Trustees direct management to proceed with a Request for Quotation towards the purchase of Four-46 Passenger Buses and One 52-Passenger Bus as well as Five 24-36 Passenger Buses and gas powered engines. Quotes for buses will be brought back to the Board of Trustees for final determination.”
Senior Administration, with the Director of Transportation, preceded with a request for quotation (RFQ) process in accordance with Policy 404 “Tendering for Goods and Services”. Information was placed on the Alberta Purchasing Connection Electronic Tendering System (APC). Information was also sent directly to companies we have previously worked with for bus tendering. The RFQ package was developed a few years ago in consultation with legal services. The information package outlines the specification of the vehicles being looked for, and the criteria by which the received proposals will be rated on. The assessment is as follows: 30% Cost 15% References 15% Availability of Parts 15% Compatibility with Existing Fleet 10% Proven Durability on Rougher Roads 10% Warranties 5% Delivery Time 100% Total
Page 1 of 15
2 | P a g e
The Associate Superintendent, Business and Finance, confirms that the purchasing process and evaluation process was done in accordance with Board Policy and New West Partnership Trade Agreement (trade partnership with the Governments of Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan to ensure fair purchasing practices). The tender documents requested pricing for gas and diesel models for the different size of buses, and associate fuel consumption. Gas is not available for many buses due to the inefficiencies of this type of fuel for the usage and needs of school bus operations and vehicles. Considerations Vehicle Pricing Following the January 2015 Board meeting, Senior Administration requested pricing on both 28 passenger micro buses in gas and diesel, 36 passenger route buses which only come in diesel, along with our normal tender for four 46 passenger and one 52 passenger buses. Prices were as follows: 28 Passenger Micro Buses Gas $61,758.75 - $67,402.38 28 Passenger Micro Buses Diesel $79,402.38 35 Passenger Diesel Factory Order $98,026.25 35 Passenger Diesel Stock Order $92,130 (2 Units) 46 Passenger Diesel Factory Order $91,675.00 - $99,058.75 46 Passenger Diesel Stock Order $91,795 (1 Unit) 52 Passenger Diesel Factory Order $93,805.00 - $99,845.00 52 Passenger Diesel Stock Order $88,789.00 (5 Units) Detailed Price Comparisons (without optional storage) Bus Size Usual load * Fuel Kirkman
(Bluebird) Western IC (International)
Bus Centre (Thomas)
28 Passenger 18 students Gas $61,759 $67,402 18 students Diesel $79,402 35 Passenger 24 students Diesel $98,026 35 Passenger (2 Stock)
* Assuming two students per seat The micro bus which came in at $61,758.75 is on a Ford Chassis and does not come with an option for a diesel engine. From the report done in 2013 on micro buses, school divisions surveyed were not purchasing the Ford Chassis due to being less reliable and more costly to maintain. The $67,402.38 micro bus does come on a GM Chassis and comes with an optional diesel engine for an additional $12,000, bringing the cost of the unit to $79,402.38.
Page 2 of 15
3 | P a g e
Information on smaller buses and bus routes (see Appendix for more information) The micro bus is a 28-passenger unit would hold 18 students at two to a seat. These buses have a 33-gallon fuel tank. Manufactures estimate fuel consumption to be between 5 to 7 miles per gallon for gas versus the 8.5 to 10 miles per gallon of a regular diesel school bus (The Bus Centre). Manufacturers are estimating this bus has an 8-year amortization schedule instead of the 10-year amortization schedule of a regular sized bus based on rural usage (The Bus Centre and Kirkman). When asking the three bus manufacturers about sales of micro buses, they indicated that they sell very few micro buses to school divisions except for special needs runs. There are a few contractors who use micro buses on routes that are mainly highway usage. Further, should co-operative busing with the separate school division be considered (both with current routes and expanded to include routes within the County of Stettler and Town of Stettler), smaller buses would impact our ability to offer co-operative busing due to size of runs and additional student loads using existing routes. The Board of Trustees may also consider that should a reduction in routes be needed to save dollars resulting from less resources, less routes would require more students on buses. With increased capacity needs, larger buses would be needed to accommodate this cost savings. Currently in the existing fleet of buses, Transportation Services has seven buses which are 36-passenger or smaller (three 25-passenger, one 30-passenger and three 36-passenger buses which were purchased in 2006 and 2008). None are scheduled for evergreening this cycle. Information for consideration from Transportation Services staff (leadership, mechanics and bus drivers) about purchasing micro buses, whether gas or diesel, are as follows:
Currently we service our diesel engines every 10,000 kms. Gas engines would require service every 5,000 kms. This doubles the cost of service for both driver costs and mechanics costs considering usage of small buses are normally in smaller rural schools.
Micro buses are lower to the ground. With rough gravel roads, buses will have increased maintenance work for brakes and suspension.
Low clearance causes buses to get stuck more easily in roadways and yards. Towing costs will
increase, for staff time and fuel consumption. There was also a worry over damage to low under carriages during recovery.
No current diagnostic equipment for micro buses. Licensing costs of current programing are
normally $1,000-$1,500 per year for two diagnostic computers which would increase for more equipment, and set up costs (estimated at $2,500). All three bus manufacturers currently offered tenders on the same Cummins engines on the 46 and 52 passenger buses as we are currently are using in our bus fleet.
No inventory held for micro buses inventory. Clearview will need to consider spending money
obtaining inventory for start-up.
Safety concerns over smaller buses being rougher on gravel roads. Safety of micro buses is reduced in the event of a collision versus the safety of a full sized bus. Studies show that larger buses are safer in front, rear and side impacts. Micro buses are also more likely to rollover than larger buses.
Due to an increasing average staff age, we often have to rotate drivers off of existing small buses
due to back and shoulder complaints to prevent WCB claims and driver turnover.
Page 3 of 15
4 | P a g e
Smaller fuel tanks will increase the need for buses to fuel more often. Small micro buses have
only a 33 gallon fuel tank in the Thomas microbus and a 40 gallon on the Bluebird microbus. Currently our 46 passenger buses come with 60 gallon fuel tanks. This increases deadheading costs for drivers to fuel buses. The more rural areas would be more likely to be using the smaller buses. Rural areas such as Byemoor and Big Valley rely on fuel from small local suppliers. They have run out of fuel in the past causing drivers to need to travel long distances for fuel. Because of this drivers already do not let their tanks get below half in winter months.
Even though there are about a third of the total routes which can use small buses, rotation of buses will become challenging if we have smaller gas micro buses. Amortizing some buses for 8 years, being limited to use as a spare for small routes, and lack of buses in areas to accommodate schools field trips will become very challenging. Some months see 50-75 field trips per month and filling these represents an existing challenge. The ability to offer out-of-school field trips, during school field trips, and CTS programming would be significantly impacted. From the work done, Transportation Services continues to recommend the use of 46-70 passenger buses for our fleet, and believes the cost difference (capital cost, possible fuel usage/cost and maintenance costs) is not significant when considering the benefits achieved through flexibility of fleet inventory, need to drive on rural roads (driver and rider experience), and the actual space availability on buses (that is, a 70- or 46-Passenger bus typically carries less students than the name implies). In both price and in the rating system used, Western Canada IC Bus tender using Stock Units is the preferred bid. Western Canada IC Bus is in line with budget at a net cost of $451,354.19, out of budgeted resources of $498,342. The pricing for the stock units is advantageous as they are already in stock and purchased when the Canadian dollar was more “on par” with the United States dollar. It was noted that costs have increase to prior year, due to the Canadian dollar. This may need to be considered for future evergreening strategies. Recommendation In the pricing analysis: 28-Passenger 36-Passenger 46-Passenger 52-Passenger Option 1A (Factory) Four One Option 1B (Stock) Four One or Five (Stock) Option 2A (Gas) Four One Option 2B (Diesel – Thomas Only)
Four One
Option 3A (Factory) Four One Option 3B (Stock) Four One Based on pricing, Senior Administration recommends the purchase of five 52-passenger stock buses from Western Canada IC buses, without underfloor storage, for the purchase price of $451,354.19. This would leave approximately $46,988 in budgeted resources (capital reserve of $498,342). Remaining dollars could possibility be used for a future purchase of an extra-curricular bus later this year or next year. Board motion:
“THAT the Board award to Western IC the purchasing of five 52-passenger school buses for $451,1354.19 (inclusive of GST)”.
Page 4 of 15
Factory Order Option 1A:Price for 46 Passenger Route Bus $ 99,058.75 x 4 Units $ 96,489.00 x 4 Units $ 91,675.00 x 4 Units
Price for 52 Passenger Route Bus $ 99,845.00 x 1 Unit $ 97,499.00 x 1 Unit $ 93,805.00 x 1 Unit
Four 46 Passenger Buses and One 52 Passenger Route Bus $ 496,080.00 AMVIC & Tire Tax Incl $ 483,455.00 $ 460,505.00
Total with Options $ 489,201.46 $ 104,704.90 $ 97,603.31
Incomplete QuoteIncomplete Quote
Incomplete Quote Incomplete Quote
Our recommendation this year would be to accept the bid from Western Canada IC bus for stock buses, Option 1B.Page 7 of 15
Page 1 of 3
Clearview Public Schools Bus Size and Route Detailed Information
ECS – Grade 6 can sit 3 to a seat on short trips or routes. Grade 7 – 12 weighted at 2 to a seat. Longer field trips normally do not sit more than 2 to a seat at any age. Bus Sizes: 70 passenger – 47 students at two to a seat 64 passenger – 42 students at two to a seat 52 passenger – 34 students at two to a seat 46 passenger – 30 students at two to a seat 36 passenger – 24 students at two to a seat 30 passenger – 20 students at two to a seat 28 passenger – 18 students at two to a seat 25 passenger – 16 students at two to a seat Currently in the existing fleet of buses, there are 7 route buses which are 36 passenger or smaller (3-25 passenger, 1- 30 passenger and 3-36 passenger buses which were purchased in 2006 and 2008) Big Valley - 77 students total at school, 89.5 weighted load, need two 46 passenger buses for
school field trips depending on staff and parents coming along. - 24 CTS Students, 36 weighted load. - 52 students are bused to Big Valley, currently all 6 bus runs can use smaller
buses. - The high school bus is currently a 70 passenger bus which currently has 38
students, weighted load of 50.5 students. This is currently down from previous years. This driver uses this bus for a lot of the daytime field trips in the Stettler area.
- Swim lessons and field trips we currently use two 46 passenger buses for trips. Botha School - 52 students total at Botha school, 52 weighted load, needs two 46 passenger
buses for school field trips depending on staff and parents coming along. - With Botha, Stettler Middle and Wm. E. Hay students, we transport 211 students. - Currently 5 am buses and one elementary bus route (consisting of 27, 28, 31, 62
and 63 students). We have two 70 passenger and three 46 passenger buses in this area in the a.m.
- There is one additional pm ½ route that has 10 elementary students. Only this pm Mon-Thurs ½ time route can use a smaller bus.
- Both high school feeder buses are 70 passenger buses and are loaded at 122% capacity. 62 and 63 students (85.5 and 85 weighted load) on 70 passenger buses.
Page 8 of 15
Page 2 of 3
Brownfield School - 40 students total at Brownfield School, 47.5 weighted load. School has used one
46 passenger bus for field trips but books 66 passenger bus for year-end trips due to staff and parent volunteers.
- 14 CTS students, weighted load 21. Any small bus would work for CTS. - Currently 3 am buses. 2 buses could use smaller buses, but currently the high
school bus rotates out with the other 46 passenger bus balance out mileage on buses.
- One of the three buses is already a 25 passenger 2006 bus. This driver has to switch out buses with another driver when driving field trips.
Byemoor School - 32 students total at school, 36.5 weighted load, needs one 46 passenger bus for
school field trips - 9 CTS students, 13.5 weighted load, any small bus would work for CTS. - Currently all 4 buses can use smaller buses, including high school feeder bus.
One of the four buses is already a 25 passenger 2006 bus. This driver has to switch out buses with another driver when doing field trips.
Coronation School - 286 students at school, 362.5 weighted load - Currently five routes (consisting of 21, 29, 26, 13, 25 students). Two buses could
use smaller buses. - Field trips usually use the 70 passenger extra-curricular bus and a second or third
46 or 52 passenger bus to accommodate students, depending on numbers. Currently one small 36 passenger bus in this area. Driver has to switch out buses for field trips.
Donalda School - Currently 66 students at school, weighted load 73 students. - CTS is 14 students, weighted load 21 students so small bus would work. - Field trips usually request 70 passenger extra-curricular bus, due to cost of two
buses and drivers. Two small buses would not accommodate field trips in the event the extra-curricular bus was not available.
- Both buses individually could accommodate smaller buses on routes. Currently one 25 passenger bus in the area and one 46 passenger bus. 25 passenger bus is on a 36 passenger chassis, retrofitted with larger fuel tank several years back.
- Two high school buses in this area (28 and 31 students). Both buses require minimum 46 passenger buses.
Erskine School - Currently 126 students at the school, weighted load of 146.6 students. Requires a
minimum of three buses for extra-curricular trips depending on staff. Usually use the 64 passenger bus and two 52 passenger buses for field trips.
- CTS is 41 students, 61.5 weighted load. Currently five buses in the area (25, 25, 27, 28 and 37 students). There is one 46, two 52, 64 and a 70 passenger bus in
Page 9 of 15
Page 3 of 3
this area. The 46 passenger bus needs to switch with other drivers for CTS or swimming lessons.
- The 70 passenger is used for high school to Stettler. In the past there has been a waiting list for students coming to Stettler for school of choice, but currently numbers are down this year compared to prior years.
Gus Wetter School - Currently 227 students at the school, weighted load of 296 students. Depending
on the trips requested, usually need three to four buses for ski trips, guest speakers, etc. Often the Coronation bus shop or drivers bring over the 70 extra curricular bus over to Castor for trips, which costs extra money for fuel and driver time.
- Currently seven buses in this area (32, 27, 25, 25, 23, 14 and 13 students). Currently there is two a 25, 30, two 36 passenger buses, and three 46 passenger buses in the Castor area. The three 46 passenger buses always have to switch out for field trips.
- There are four bus routes which use smaller buses currently. Halkirk School - Currently there are 37 students at the Halkirk school, weighted load of 44.5
students. The school normally can accommodate the field trips with one 46 passenger bus.
- Both buses are 46 passenger buses as one driver takes students to Castor in the a.m. for school at Gus Wetter and the other bus picks them up in the afternoon. The high school bus has 27 students, weighted load of 34.5.
Stettler Area - Currently there are 1243 students at the three Stettler school. Field trips are of
various sizes depending on groups. The largest groups are the ski trips and year end trips, which use three 70 passenger buses to accommodate.
- There are two town buses which are both 70 passenger buses. The buses currently make two trips each with 29, 56, 62, and 60 students.
- There are seven other buses in the area (39, 38, 36, 36, 33, 33, 26, 25, and 15 students). Currently the buses are four 46 passenger, two 52 passenger, and a 64 passenger.
Summary: 51 route buses. Only basic daily routing, smaller buses could be used for 21 bus routes. Of those 21 routes, 7 smaller buses are already in our fleet. The ability to offer field trips, during school trips, and CTS programming would be significantly impacted.
Page 10 of 15
1 | P a g e
Clearview Public Schools (Clearview School Division No. 71)
BOARD MEMORANDUM
Date: February 14, 2013
To: Board of Trustees
From: John L. Bailey, Superintendent of Schools
Resource Person(s): Lewis G. Hill, Secretary Treasurer
Maryann Wingie, Transportation Supervisor
Re: Report on Micro Buses
Background:
The Board of Trustees passed a motion at the November 22, 2012 meeting as follows:
2012-11-32 “that The Board of Trustees direct Administration to investigate the use of smaller
buses (i.e. “Microtour”) with maximum capacities of 12 to 30 passengers for
rural routes, and report back to the Board by February 28, 2013.”
Administration contacted eight other school divisions and the main suppliers of schools buses in
the province of Alberta. All three manufacturers sell a small micro bus which can seat up to 29
passengers. These units come in both gas and diesel models.
Cost (approximate):
29 passenger micro bus – Gas $56,000 to $59,000
29 passenger micro bus – Diesel $68,000 to $71,000
36 passenger standard bus - Diesel $78,000
46 passenger standard bus - Diesel $80,425
Specifications:
Most micro buses come with the choice of either a Ford or GM engine, however in discussions
with other divisions it was recommended to purchase the GM engines if the division decides to
purchase micro buses. They have proven to be more reliable and therefore less costly to
maintain.
The micro bus has a maximum available fuel tank of 33 gallons. The Division’s current bus
specifications indicate a fuel tank of 60 gallons on the 46 passenger units. According to the
salesmen and other divisions, fuel economy in rural conditions would be very similar to that of
36 or 46 passenger standard buses irrespective of fuel type. Due to the smaller tank size and
Page 11 of 15
2 | P a g e
similar fuel economies the micro buses would need to be refueled almost twice as often as the
standards buses.
Salesmen from all contacted suppliers indicated that the small 29 passenger micro bus would
have a smoother ride than the standard 36 passenger units on gravel roads, but would not be as
durable. The salesmen also indicated that these units do ride lower to the ground and would not
have as much clearance in the snow and mud as standard buses. Unlike the standard bus there is
no room to add under floor luggage compartments to the micro bus due to the clearance issues,
but there is a possibility to add a rear interior luggage compartment if a few seats were removed.
The Bus Centre indicated that they sell about twenty C2 full sized buses to every one micro bus
since there are not a lot of school divisions using the micro buses in their regular fleets. The
most common use is for special needs routes.
Administration contacted the Transportation departments of eight other school divisions in
Alberta and asked the following questions:
Do you run micro buses in your fleet?
If so, how many, in what type of runs (daily routes, special needs, extracurricular),
operations and maintenance experience?
If you would say yes to keep, or no not to keep, such buses in your fleet, what are the
reasons for your response?
The following is a summary of the answers:
Division Number
of units
Type of run Keep Issues / Reasons
Prairieland 12 units Daily runs,
extracurricular
No Significant damage and rust to lower
body, safety concerns due to size and
construction, frequently stuck in snow
and mud, “money pits”
Wildrose 4 units Special needs Yes Lower life expectancy, in spare fleet at
200,000 km, increased maintenance
costs, no big ticket maintenance items if
increased maintenance occurs, good for
special needs and small group
extracurricular
Prairie
Rose
Contract
a few
units
Daily runs Undecided Stability issues compared to standard
buses, parts availability and warranty
issues. All micro buses are factory orders
that take double the amount of time to
receive, up to contractors if want to use
micro bus or standard bus
Battle
River
2 units Extracurricular No Stability and safety issues, significant
maintenance costs, engine and
Page 12 of 15
3 | P a g e
suspension damage on gravel roads,
lower body damage and rust, lower life
expectancy 200,000 km max.
Golden
Hills
No units
anymore
No Not durable on gravel roads, high
maintenance costs, stability and safety
issues.
Currently run only 52 and 70 pass. buses
for rotation versatility, parts
compatibility and life expectancy, use 52
pass. for routes of 10 students
Foothills None NA No Stability and safety issues, significant
maintenance costs, lower life
expectancy, lack of rotation versatility
Wolf
Creek
Few School based
extracurricular
No Not durable on gravel roads, high
maintenance costs, stability, construction
and safety issues.
Currently run mainly 52 pass. buses for
rotation versatility, parts compatibility
and life expectancy, use 52 pass. for
routes of 15 students
Chinook’s
Edge
None NA No Stability and safety issues, lack of
rotation versatility
Clearview Administration would offer the following comments based upon information gathered
in researching the use of micro buses:
Smaller buses would typically be used in surrounding small schools farther from the
shop(s). Since the micro bus is lower to the ground and lighter there may be a problem
getting stuck more easily. The only Clearview tow truck is located in Stettler. When
farmers are used to assist in pulling out buses there is a concern over potential liability,
damage to the bus and the farmer’s vehicles. When buses are lower in clearance, there is
a tendency to cause more damage if the bus is pulled out incorrectly.
In Big Valley and Byemoor Clearview has sometimes had delay with getting fuel when
the service stations are waiting for the fuel truck to come out. Typically the
Transportation department has drivers keep their tanks topped up so that if the service
stations run out of fuel there is a buffer before having to drive for fuel. With the larger
tanks, the drivers usually can wait an extra day before having to travel for fuel. The
smaller 33 gallon fuel tank could be a problem as buses would need to fuel more often.
Rotation of buses could be a challenge. The chart below shows average mileages and
what the Transportation department would expect to see on both a 10 year life span (past
practice) and a 12 year life span (Transportation Review consultants’ recommendation):
Page 13 of 15
4 | P a g e
Area Yearly
Average Km’s
for Area
10 Year
Average for
Area
12 Year
Average for
Area
Big Valley 31,472 314,721 377,665
Donalda 27,614 276,137 331,364
Byemoor 32,663 326,627 391,952
Average 30,805 308,051 369,662
Salesmen estimated lower repair costs on major components (i.e. engines) ranged in the
$8,000 range rather than the $22,000 cost of a diesel engine. Although the
Transportation department can replace an engine, the small micro bus body issues are not
something the Transportation department is presently qualified to perform, therefore
additional training for mechanics would be required. In other divisions eight year old
micro buses were either already in their spare fleet or needed major body work to keep
them on regular runs. Mileages on units owned by other divisions were not nearly as
high as what Clearview would have expected to see for the same year larger bus in the
fleet.
Shorter life spans on micro buses may reduce the future number of spare units the
Division would have available for the fleet. If it is questionable if the Division can get
the life out on regular runs, it would not leave the spare fleet much unit availability and
life. Also, it is expected the small units would not be as versatile as spare buses since
their size would limit the routes on which the buses can be used.
Administration has the same concern as other Divisions over the safety of students in a
small micro bus versus the larger standard school buses. Battle River discussed an
accident in their Division a few years ago where a semi-trailer truck hit one of their
buses, but no children were hurt. They felt if the same accident occurred in one of their
micro buses, that there would have been serious injuries and possibly fatalities. In
Calgary in 2009 a micro bus sideswiped a parked truck with catastrophic results; the
whole passenger side of the bus was torn away from the frame and a student was killed.)
Clearview has had a bus rear ended by a half ton pickup truck. The half-ton was written
off, but the bus only had minor damage requiring repairs (tail light and glass on rear
door). The child at the rear of the bus did not have any injuries even though sitting near
the rear of the bus. A small bus would likely have had more damage and potential
passenger injuries.
Administration believes the purchase of a 46 passenger bus with under floor storage to
use for extracurricular trips would be beneficial to the Division. A 46 passenger bus
accommodates approximately 30 high school students versus the 46 students
accommodated on the 70 passenger unit.
Recommendation:
Administration recommends the Board continue to use the standard school bus design with a
minimum of 46 passengers on all routes. Furthermore, it is recommended the Board authorize, if
Page 14 of 15
5 | P a g e
future budget funding allows over the next four years, the purchase of up to two 46-passenger
extracurricular school buses in addition to the annual school bus replacement tender. Further,
that unless directed otherwise by the Board the Superintendent will consider the task undertaken.
John L. Bailey
Superintendent of Schools
Page 15 of 15
Date: 06-Feb-2015 12:13 Clearview School Division #71 Page: 1
Balance SheetAs of January 31, 2015
2014-15 2013-14
FINANCIAL ASSETS
Cash And Cash Equivalents 2,917,869 2,121,371
Accounts Receivable 862,240 1,217,681
Portfolio Investments 1,659,755 1,644,816
---------- ----------
Total For FINANCIAL ASSETS 5,439,864 4,983,868
LIABILITIES
A/P & Accrued Liabilities -280,124 -328,933
Deferred Revenue -438,729 -153,190
Deferred Revenue-Unexpended D C R -111,726 -175,829
Deferred Revenue-Expended D C R -25,584,659 -27,012,758
All Day Event Jill in OfficeAll Day Event Work on foundation statements - board/principals9:00 AM - 4:00 PM Board Workshop Day
All Day Event Jill in Office8:00 AM - 9:30 AM Agenda setting meeting9:30 AM - 1:00 PM Internal Teacher Workload Committee Meeting4:15 PM - 5:45 PM PD Meeting
All Day Event Jill in Office4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Reconfiguration Discussion
All Day Event Jill in Office2:00 PM - 5:00 PM Meeting with Minister3:15 PM - 4:30 PM Support PD Committee
All Day Event Jill in Office10:00 AM - 3:00 PM Possible meeting with red deer college
All Day Event Jill in Office9:00 AM Dr Johnson 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM Meetwith Norb2:30 PM - 3:00 PM Meeting with Sharon
All Day Event Jill in OfficeAll Day Event Learning Leadership Meeting
All Day Event Jill in OfficeAll Day Event School Tours with the Board
All Day Event Jill in Office11:00 AM - 12:00 PM Ricoh training1:00 PM - 3:30 PM C2 Committee4:00 PM - 8:00 PM Board Meeting
All Day Event Jill in Office8:00 AM - 9:00 AM SLT Meeting9:30 AM - 11:00 AM Meeting to Discuss Facilities
All Day Event Jill in OfficeAll Day Event Family Day9:00 AM - 12:00 AM Holidays
All Day Event Jill in Office12:00 AM - 12:00 AM HolidaysAll Day Event Professional Day9:00 AM - 12:00 AM PBL training
12:00 AM - 12:00 AM Holidays12:00 AM - 12:00 AM PBL trainingAll Day Event Jill in Office5:00 PM - 7:00 PM Erskine School Council
12:00 AM - 12:00 AM Holidays12:00 AM - 9:30 AM PBL training
12:00 AM - 12:00 AM HolidaysAll Day Event Jill in Office
12:00 AM - 9:00 AM Holidays
All Day Event Jill in Office9:00 AM - 12:00 PM Policy Committee4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Big Valley School Council
10:00 AM - 4:00 PM Board Meeting
All Day Event Jill in Office8:00 AM - 9:00 AM SLT Meeting11:00 AM - 4:00 PM Colony Meeting
12:00 PM - 1:00 PM Soup Group
All Day Event HR Symposium
9:00 AM Dental cleaning
Feb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
P a g e | 1 Action Items Following February 12, 2015 Meeting
Action
Senior Administration Assigned to
Status Initial Stage Initial Stage Completion Date
Final completion date
Strategic Planning: Finalize Action Plan Superintendent
On-Going February 24, 2015: Learning Action Plan tabled March 19: Remaining will be tabled
October/November 2014 November 2014
February 2015 Learning Action Plan March 2015 Remaining (Support and HR)
Work on the Three Capital Projects (Erskine, SES, Coronation)
Associate Superintendent
On-Going Sound testing done at Erskine February 19. Final report in March 19. Will include a letter for capital dollars to be applied to two projects, as Coronation Paving was not moved forward on.
April 24, 2014 May 2014 March 2015
P a g e | 2 Action Items Following February 12, 2015 Meeting
Action
Senior Administration Assigned to
Status Initial Stage Initial Stage Completion Date
Final completion date
Review opportunities for updates to the Clearview Logo
Superintendent Director of Technology Services
Survey sent to school division for feedback. Process is at committee level. Report to Board expected September 25 or October. ON HOLD pending Foundation Statements
May 8, 2014 September 2014 ON HOLD
Foundation Statements Superintendent
February 2: Workshop done with school principal, division leadership and trustees February 10: Follow up done with Learning Leadership February 12: Draft presented to Board for feedback and ideas March 19: Discussion with Board on next steps
February 2, 2015 February 12 March 19 April
P a g e | 3 Action Items Following February 12, 2015 Meeting
Action
Senior Administration Assigned to
Status Initial Stage Initial Stage Completion Date
Final completion date
Arrange for School and Colony Tours with Trustees
Superintendent Associate Superintendent
Communicate dates and discuss opportunities for engagement with school principals
October 9, 2014 December 2014 May 2015
Shared Facilities Committee to meet with respective municipalities
Meeting to be set up in coordination with trustee representatives Request for meeting E-mailed to municipalities. Committee discussed next steps on Sept 24 Communication to go out January 2015 ON HOLD pending discussion with Board on February 24, 2015.
June 2014 January 2015 February 24, 2015
P a g e | 4 Action Items Following February 12, 2015 Meeting
Action
Senior Administration Assigned to
Status Initial Stage Initial Stage Completion Date
Final completion date
Moving Forward with Stettler Schools
Superintendent Associate Superintendent
January 29, 2015: Motion made to form schools to K-6, 7-12 and outreach. February 4, 2015: Meeting with divisional staff steering committee February 11, 2015: Budget modelling drafted to school leadership February 12, 2015: Motion made to reconfigured schools and maintain existing school codes February 13: 2015: Meeting with leadership to review existing facility and possible changes February 19, 2015 Walk through of facilities with consultant March 16: Open house meeting with staff March 18: Open house meeting with community
January 29, 2015 March 19, 2015 June 2015
P a g e | 5 Action Items Following February 12, 2015 Meeting
Action
Senior Administration Assigned to
Status Initial Stage Initial Stage Completion Date
2014-11-13: Draft presented to Board 2014-11-15: Sent out for feedback Back to Board in February 24, 2015 for further input on three items: fees, grandfathering, and cooperative busing
November 13, 2014 December 2014 February 24, 2015
Shared Transportation
Superintendent Associate Superintendent
Review in process
September 25, 2014 September 2014 March/April 2015
P a g e | 6 Action Items Following February 12, 2015 Meeting
Action
Senior Administration Assigned to
Status Initial Stage Initial Stage Completion Date
Final completion date
Invite Minister to meeting with neighboring Boards
Board Chair Superintendent
Write letter to Prairie Land and Prairie Rose Letter drafted and waiting for confirmation from Board Chairs to proceed.
November 27, 2014 December 2014 February 2015
Organize booth for Trade Fair April 10 -12, 2015
Executive Assistant
Student artwork to be featured. Popcorn machine reserved.
February 2015 April 2015 April 2015
Arrange Community Meetings for budget consultations
Associate Superintendent
Book dates once budget announcement is done March 19, 2015
December 11, 2014 May 2015 May 2015
Communication for Award of Merit
Executive Assistant
To be done. Will include notice on the community board in Stettler and radio ads Recognized at recognition night.
February 2015 March 2015 June 2015
P a g e | 7 Action Items Following February 12, 2015 Meeting
Action
Senior Administration Assigned to
Status Initial Stage Initial Stage Completion Date
Final completion date
Minister Meeting on March 9, 2015
Board Chair Superintendent
In progress January 2015 February 5, 2015 February 2015
Report on Project-Based Learning
Superintendent In progress January 2015 February 2015 February 2015
Letter to Minister on SLA
Chair Superintendent
In progress February 12, 2015 February 2015 February 2015
Confirm hotel reservations for PSBAA and ASBA in the Spring
Executive Assistant
Reservations made. Communication done with trustees Need confirmations from trustees on who would like a room for the days in May
February 19, 2015 April 2015 May 2015
School Council Meeting in late Spring
Associate Superintendent
Planning for last meeting with school councils, if needed. Feedback from trustees on February 24, 2015
