Frequently Asked Questions

The following document was supplied by the board on Dec. 1st, 2009 and outlines their answers to the following questions:

1. Why is the review being conducted?
2. What is the purpose of the review?
3. How can you ensure that the voices of parents are being heard?
4. What is the role of the Elementary Alternative Program Steering Committee?
5. What are the reporting timelines?
6. How will staff develop recommendations?
7. Are the timelines adequate for the review?

The Steering Committee does not steer, investigate or set any agendas or policies for the Alternative Program Review. The sole purpose of the Steering Committee is to receive information from board staff and provide advice back to board staff. The board staff undertaking the review are under no obligation to accept the advice.
Perhaps a more accurate name for the committee would be a review or advisory committee, although the first term is confusing (the review review committee) and the second term is probably overused in the board. Names are important, however, and the term Steering Committee appears to have mislead both parents and some staff as to its role and purpose.

The board would respond that this is a regularily scheduled program review. Unfortunately the terms of the review, which set the main goals as determining whether the program should survive, does lend to the perception that this is about closing the program down.

Different players in the board have different reasons for wanting the Alternative program gone. The top ones we have identified are:

• The perception that Alternative program is no longer sufficiently different than the English program. While we do not believe this to be the case, we are also troubled by the lack of any investigation as to why the differences may not be greater than they are. You cannot make a decision based on a set of circumstances if you don't know what caused those circumstances. It is one thing to find that the English program has adopted Alternative principles, or that there is no longer much interest in the Alternative principles. It is another thing to find that the Alternative program has been hamstrung by the very people who are no going to close it down for not being different enough.
• Board administration's desire for consistency of program delivery and top-down management. By its very nature, the Alternative program encourages bottom-up innovation. Most bureaucracies do not like this.
• Busing costs. Because there are fewer Alternative schools in the board, they have larger catchment areas and consequently larger busing costs. This has, however, been analyzed in the past and found to be minor. It has also been found to be offset by other cost saving associated with the Alternative Program's support for integrated special education.
• Perception as downtown elitist program. The Alternative program was set up in the old OBE and never expanded after the amalgamation with the CBE. To parents and trustees in Kanata and Orleans, the program is something unavailable to them and seen as elitist. In fact, our second-language and IEP levels are significantly higher than those in the English program. We would like the program spread to all twelve zones so that it is available to all students in Ottawa as a choice.
• Choice versus Community Schools. The board is currently grappling with whether it wants a choice model of schooling or community schools that cater to all kids needs. Choice is still listed on brochures, but there is a strong push, especially during declining enrollment and closing schools, to keep local numbers up by discouraging students from leaving their closest school. The question is: is our goal keeping local schools open or making sure that all kids have an educational learning environment that meets their needs. Not all kids are the same and no one school can meet all their needs.