Fact or Fiction? Merv Holmes 309 Conc 8 RR#2 Paisley On N0G 2N0 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Watson Report Fact or Fiction?

Merv Holmes 309 Conc 8 RR#2 Paisley On N0G 2N0 519-353-4413

An Alternate Plan

• SDSS should be declared derelict and replaced

with a new secondary school of lower capacity (700) to accommodate the immediate local area plus any potential growth.

• Redraw school boundaries to move

approximately 50-75 elementary grades to Paisley from Port Elgin and Chesley. Alleviates current and future pressure from Port Elgin Schools and allows them to meet ministry class sizes.

An Alternate Plan

• Chesley School to remain in current
• configuration. Secondary school spaces are

needed locally within 5 years. Incremental increase from Paisley at that time also. Otherwise, a significant waste of previous

• expenditures. (and more waste to come).
• Paisley School to review a less exaggerated list
• f repairs required and actually schedule

repairs.

An Alternate Plan

• Cost changes?
• 2 additional bus routes to Paisley.
• Additional staff for 3 extra classes in Paisley.
• A modest $500K over 3 years for immediate

repairs in Paisley as required.

• State of SDSS may require removal of space to

reduce costs until replacement can be built.

An Alternate Plan

• BWDSB to engage MOE in recalculation of

Official Capacity of a school as it contradicts class size limits.

• A majority of Surplus positions cannot be

filled without violating ministry class size limits.

Watson Report

• Discussion to follow

Need for the Watson report

• No Terms of Reference available at this point.
• Who created the input data?
• How was the data vetted?
• Was there any public input?
• How were rural/urban needs and

requirements balanced?

Watson Report - Assumptions

• As previously indicated, no published terms of
• reference. Some speculation perhaps?
• Bigger schools are better. False.
• The current schools are sized appropriately for the

areas served. False.

• Schools with higher utilization are better. False.
• Economists should be driving educational change.

False.

• Mismanagement of resources is not an issue. False.
• All schools are equitably maintained. Not exactly.

Watson Report - Assumptions

• There is excess capacity in the existing school
• system. True, but to what degree is debatable.
• There are no extra expenses not covered in this
• report. False.
• New schools will be funded. No guarentee.
• The same approach used 10-15 years ago (and

rejected) is the correct approach today. False. The population trends have been known and studied for DECADES. Inaction or improper actions are no excuse for slash/burn/panic.

Watson Report – Input Data Problems

• Northport School is omitted from the study

although it’s capacity issues are having a spill

• ver effect on the schools in the Port Elgin

area.

• Facility Condition Index (FCI) omitted or

ignored when convenient. Not consistently presented or verified. No data to assess how accurate past estimates were.

Watson Report – Input Data Problems

• Age demographics are not clearly illustrated
• n how the “excess” spaces are distributed .

Uneven age distribution will negate this process.

Watson Report – FCI issues

• Estimated 5 year costs/Estimated replacement

cost.

• No standard or documented replacement
• costs. Assumed replacement of existing
• capacity. (Population trends ignored?).
• How accurate are the estimates?

Watson Report – FCI issues

• The 0.05 for Northport is calculated using the

average indicated in the Watson report (0.48) and the numbers in the SIP.

• Note SDSS has been above 0.8 for years.
• Some more examination is required.

Document NorthPort PESCS SDSS PCS CDS 2013/2014 Facilities Report 0.28 0.39 0.88 0.31 0.61 Watson 2014 0.30 ? 0.71 ? ? SIP 0.05? 0.41 0.89 0.45 0.60 AR2016.17-01 ? 0.41 ? 0.45 ?

Watson Report – FCI issues

School Sq Ft Rep Cost Factor Rep$ by Sq Ft FCI 5yr $ Rep$ By FCI Sqft by FCI Ratio PESCS 57543 0.1648 9483 0.41 5749 14022 0.2437 1.48 SDSS 132162 0.1796 23736 0.89 23241 26113 0.1976 1.10 PCS 24036 0.1648 3961 0.45 2838 6307 0.2624 1.59 CDS - 60% primary 73163 0.1648 7234 0.60 9546 15910 0.2175 1.27 CDS - 40% other 0.1796 5256

Cross calculation of replacement cost using board formula per sq ft, and using FCI and 5 year costs. Inconsistent ratios indicate incorrect cost data.

Watson Report – FCI issues

School Sq Ft Rep Cost Factor Rep$ by Sq Ft 2013 FCI 2016 FCI 10yr past $ PESCS 57543 0.1648 9483 0.39 0.41 3270 0.197 SDSS 132162 0.1796 23736 0.88 0.89 7725 0.465 PCS 24036 0.1648 3961 0.31 0.45 205 0.012 CDS - 60% primary 73163 0.1648 7234 0.61 0.60 5400 0.325 CDS - 40% other 0.1796 5256 16600

Assuming these numbers are maintenance, how effective has maintenance been in the last 10 years? Not effective in Port Elgin. SDSS numbers are disturbing. Effectively not done in Paisley. Self fulfilling prophecy, isolate it and degrade it, and then wonder why it is failing.

Watson Report – Surplus Spaces

• Ministry Guidelines of average 20 pupils per
• class. Capacity of a school would be number
• f classrooms X 20. (22 is allowed).
• Paisley has 10 classrooms, capacity = 200.

(245 official). 6 classrooms used average 22 per class. Extra room.

• PESCS has 25 classrooms, capacity = 500.

(694 official) All classrooms used average 24 per class. Full capacity.

Watson Report – Surplus Spaces

• Chesley District primary has 14 classrooms,

capacity 280. (Official 329) All classrooms used, 25 average per class. OVER FULL CAPACITY

• Chesley District Secondary will need current

secondary spaces in the next 5 years.

• SDSS will have surplus spaces in the next 10
• years. School should have been replaced 10

years ago. Cash income is likely costing the board 10 times the cash value in maintenance costs of derelict building.