1. HD Stafford Middle School Plan October 9, 2007 School Board Meeting Presented by Robert McFarlane on behalf of HD Stafford PAC

2. “Really what we are looking at is two words – its student achievement. We’re not going out there just to talk about enrolment and money; we’re going to talk about student achievement and how we drive that.” (Chair Burton, Board News, September 26, 2006 regarding “Building for the Future”)

3. “‘Building for the Future,’ the process was part of discussions with the Langley community about planning proactively to improve student achievement and opportunities for learning while facing changing demographics in the school district.” (Superintendent Beaumont, Report on the Outcome of ‘Building for the Future – South Central, April 2007)

4. So the sole objective of this process is to improve student achievement. Sole purpose of the HD Stafford Middle School plan is improve student achievement.

5. Middle School Forum Experts selected by the Langley School District stated that: They do not have any information or data to suggest that middle schools improve student achievement. They do not claim that middle schools improve student achievement.

6. Objective is “student achievement and how we drive that” Experts do not have any evidence to suggest student achievement improves at middle schools. THE END? Can we now discuss Blacklock – Stafford K-12 Arts Oriented School, to improve student achievement? (A reply to the invitation is still requested.)

7. Other Stated Reasons for the HD Stafford Middle School Plan 1.Declining enrolment makes it necessary due to costs; 2.Secondary school spaces are too expensive to leave empty. 3.Nothing is wrong with HDS, we need to fix LSS. 4.Higher cohort size will improve student achievement;

8. The first two are based on the assumption that secondary school enrolment is declining. Is it?

9. Is secondary enrolment declining? Total secondary enrolment (including international students) is 8,621 students –8800 secondary seats; –3% more students than 2006 (280 more secondary students) –7% more students than 2003 (up 542); –4% more students than 2000 (up 364); If repeat this years growth of 280 students, more students than seats NEXT YEAR.

10. Fundamental School Construction Without the 575 additional seats at Fundamental, for September 2007, there would be: no empty secondary seats and 105% of capacity. We may have had to build a new school.

11. District Secondary Enrolment

13. 1.All of the SD 35 enrolment decline is at the Elementary School level; 2.Declining Elementary enrolment is not flowing through to secondary, as families move to Langley with older students. 3.Will the projected decline in secondary enrolment ever appear? Shouldn’t we wait for evidence the secondary decline? (given our inaccurate forecasts to date) Why reduce capacity before decline begins?

14. What if we do proceed? Number of secondary students = 8347 (Current 8621 – 274 HDS & LSS gr. 8) SD 35 secondary capacity = 7950 (Current 8800 – 850 of HDS) Occupancy = 105% of Capacity Exactly same as if we did not construct additional Fundamentals capacity.

15. 2007 Total Enrolment 2008 Total Enrolment LSSHDSHDS + LSS (9-12) Gr. 8119155Gr. 9274 Gr. 9160154Gr. 10314 Gr. 10181143Gr. 11324 Gr. 11188159Gr. 12347 Gr. 12181136 Total829747Total1259 Capacity10258501025 81%88%123%

16. LSS + HDS (2008: grade 9-12)123% Langley Fine Arts - Waiting list 118% RE Mountain114% Walnut Grove107% Brookswood - Turning students away 106% Aldergrove Secondary - Above capacity once grade 6-12 95% Langley Fundamental - Reportedly growing to capacity 90% DW Poppy - No action? 88%

17. 110% Enrolment Threshold at which the Ministry of Education will consider new construction. Not a target for school districts. Is our objective construction of a new secondary school? If not, 110% is irrelevant. Shouldn’t the objective be to have schools reasonably full, but with enough capacity to allow student choice?

18. Secondary school spaces are too expensive to leave empty. Are there any savings from the HDS Middle School Plan?

19. Increased Costs 1.Experts consulted by this school district state middle schools are more expensive to run than the equivalent mixture of elementary and secondary education. 2.Bussing costs would be incurred in the HDS Middle School plan. 3.More portables to rent. 4.This school district’s own figures indicate that over-crowded schools are more expensive to operate.

20. Cost Savings? (No additional elementary school closures) 1.Heat & maintain same number of buildings; 2.Same administration (principals/vice- principals). 3.Same teacher-student ratio. (Any savings by removing grade 6 & 7 at elementary schools are spent in the middle school, unless those students are offered less at middle school.) 4.School District overhead unchanged.

21. Nothing is wrong with HDS, we need to fix LSS.. What is the LSS problem?

22. LSS Enrolment Grew by 62 students (8%) this year, to 81%. (Projection was decline of 7 students (1%), to 74%) –Not had more students any time in the past 5 years. –Trades & Alternate programs attracting students from out of district and creating growth; –ISP showing strong enrolment. Does it need fixing?

23. If it does … Meet/discuss with the LSS community ways to solve the specific LSS problems …  Without disrupting education of approximately 2,000 students  Without overcrowding other schools.

24. Additional trades programs. –Trades & alternate programs are attracting students from out of district and creating growth (SD35) Choice Programs. –Reduce overcrowding & waiting lists (Arts, IB) Alternate use of a portion of LSS. –Revenue generating? –School district offices (some)? –Reduce use/cost of portables? LSS 6-12 Middle School. -LSS community supports the Middle School concept? -Grade 6 & 7 by choice? Embrace it as a small school. –Student achievement

25. Higher cohort size will improve student achievement.. a) More courses to choose from; b) More selection of the same courses;

26. Online options: make all courses available (as Poppy and Aldergrove demonstrated in the last meeting); SD35 Results: Districts own results demonstrate no connection between cohort size and student achievement …

27. # Students# GradesAvg. Cohort L. Fine Arts (secondary) - est 2007 4705 (gr. 8-12) 94 L. Fundamental Mid/Sec. - actual 2007 - If full capacity 582 650 7 (gr. 6-12) 83 93 L. Secondary - actual 2007 8295 (gr. 8-12) 166 HD Stafford – actual 2007 7475 (gr. 8-12) 149

28. Small Schools “Small schools – those with fewer than 300 students in an elementary and 700 in a high school – seem to be better all around” (Michele Schmidt, Psychology Professor, Simon Fraser University, CBC News) “While large schools may provide more comprehensive instructional programs, research indicates that students who attend small schools, including those labeled “at risk”, outperform those who attend large schools, and are more likely to graduate high school and proceed to higher education.” (“Does Size Matter?”, Simon Fraser University, 2007)

29. So, why are we considering a plan which will disrupt the education of ~ 2000 of our children?

30. 1.Experts do NOT claim that student achievement improves at middle schools. 2.Secondary enrolment is NOT declining, it continues to increase. 3.Net costs increase if proceed with HDS Middle School plan. 4.No evidence that higher cohort size will improve student achievement, and expert RESEARCH indicates secondary schools under 700 are better.

31. Why would you support this plan? We certainly hope you will not.