Proposed School Boundary Revisions

The School Board says that current McRoberts students will not be affected by the boundary changes. Even if the current students can complete their 5 years at McRoberts, what happens to the current grade 8s and 9s when they reach grade 11 and 12 and there are no younger students in the school? The halls are empty, many classrooms are closed, teachers have left. There won't be any mentoring opportunities or ways for older students to interact with younger students. Which teachers will want to work at a school that is closing? What kind of education will those students receive in their senior years? Will there be heat in an almost empty school? Or will those students suddenly be moved to another school to finish off their senior years? Of course, this will have a negative impact on the students currently attending McRoberts. The School Board needs to find a way to keep McRoberts open.

I strongly oppose the proposed boundary changes for McRoberts school. This first step of boundary change will probably lead to the speculated closure of McRoberts as reduced enrolled students. Close a High School like McRobert would be a disaster for families who have no time to drop off and pick up their children. And with less and limited public transit, students have to walk more than half an hour to new school. School Trustees should figure out some others ways instead of just closing a school. How may families, students will be affected, terribly affected?

Removed by moderator.

I have asked my son Eric's opinion about in the future he will probably move to McNair because the LRFP proposed school boundary revision. He strongly oppose it, even this is his first year in McRoberts, he like this secondary school very much, make lot of new friends.He like his teachers, new clubs. He is so happy every week day that he went to school even before 8 am, when actually the first class open at 8.45 am. So he will not accept either close the McRoberts or move to McNair, otherwise, he will be very sad, even he said he rather than self-study at home.

So, I totally agreed with my son. All my family members ( including my wife Ms.Grace, my son Eric and myself) oppose this school boundary revision proposal. Because it will eventually close McRoberts, lack of enough students in the future. I don't want to see after 2,3 years McRoberts disappear.

From the Bridge catchment, students who are moved to McNair will have to cross two major roads, this does not reflect SD38 commitment to safety. Closing McRoberts and moving to McNair will only make getting to school more difficult for parents. If students are walking this increases their walking time significantly.
Keep McRoberts open, there is more to offer students with all the amenities at SouthArm. Please take into consideration how much this will affect students, families, relationships and community.

I STRONGLY oppose the closure of McRoberts school. Living close to Steveston Hwy, we have 3 children who walk to school not having to cross any major roads. Two are enrolled in FI at McR and another following soon. To put FI at Palmer would mean our kids walk 41 mins each way and cross Williams & Francis. This is a SAFETY concern and they lose the amenities that McR and SA Comm Ctr have to offer. To lose the culture at McRoberts where our kids have thrived both academically and athletically would be extremely difficult. The McR community is unique with FI and English programs, this allows students to have that broader range of relationships, make use of SA Comm Ctr, tennis courts, playing fields, outdoor basketball and the support of local RCMP. Palmer does not offer this. Why close a school that has so much to offer? This closure does not reflect nurturing our communities' children, instead this proposal tears apart a lifetime of friendships, community & learning. Concerned Family.

I still remembered school board spent many years for planning merge Steveston and London Secondary, however, with such short time for planning closing McRoberts? I do hope school board reconsiderate this situation if they are really put students in priority. Also please face reality, Palmer and McNair are small schools, can they really take McRoberts students? Will students have same quality of learning environment? School board trustees should come to affect schools to listen our concerns, we voted you and believe you can help us out.

I strongly oppose the proposed school boundary revisions because this plan shows the intention of closing McRobert secondary school in south Richmond. McRoberts Secondary is the only multi-track secondary school in the South Central Region and is working very efficiently with southarm community and its neighboring elementary schools. Not mentioned the concerns of the longer distance and more traffics our children need to travel to McNair or Palmer, there are lot more concerns about how the teachers will be re-allocated into new school, how long they need to work closely, cooperate well within new school, and how the AP, French programs will be running. We pay tax for better life and expect to receive better community service and better education for our children. If the goal is just to cut the budget then find other solutions instead of closing schools. We need the School Board to hold a public board meeting before making the dicision to clarify the issue.

I do not agree with the proposed boundary revision impacting the South Central region. During the recent McRoberts PAC meeting, the district representative has clearly indicated that the district has not decided which of the three South Central high school (if any) will close in the future. As such, it does not make sense to make any boundary changes at the moment until that issue is resolved as it will preclude the board from seeing and considering the big picture. The school district has clearly indicated that the boundary changes is just a "first step" so we question what this "first step" is heading towards. So either the board is short-sited in making boundary changes without any clear goal or purpose or they are being deceitful by letting the residents know that this is just a minor "first step" without clearly letting the residents know that it's a first step to closing McRoberts.

I strongly oppose the proposed school boundary revisions. If the intention of this proposal is to close a secondary school in south Richmond. McRoberts will most likely to be the victim because the proposals are trying to reduce the catchment of McRoberts and move students to other schools. McRoberts is a very good secondary school, fitting well with the neighborhood communities. Why such a good school will be closed? If as the Board said is to "use the school utilities more efficiently". As we know McRoberts is running more effectively than many other schools in Richmond. Why don't close schools with less students and low efficiencies? If the purpose of the revision is to reduce the walking time to school for students, why families in the McRoberts neighborhood should spend more time for that? -- Something must be done to stop this nontrivial, unnecessary and troublesome action.

While I understand the goal of the LRFP and these beginning boundary changes, I am opposed to these boundary changes for McRoberts. I respect the difficult position of the board in trying to use district funds wisely and plan not just year to year, but over a decades-long planning horizon. However, the foundation of our community must be closely considered when making these financial decisions. We depend on the interplay between elementary and high school, sporting teams, preschools, community centre patrons and park users to foster a sense of belonging and watchfulness over each other that has kept our neighbourhood safe. High school students from McRoberts volunteer at Whiteside and Bridge weekly, and pick up siblings after school. It seems like these boundary changes are intended to acclimatize the neighbourhood to long-distance travel for high school to McNair or Palmer and overlook the cross-instructional language fabric of our neighbourhood we've worked so hard to cultivate.

I strongly oppose the school boundary revision proposal, which will strategically and inevitably lead to the planned closure of McRoberts. The reason is that the process conflicts with the School Board Policy 704 (Page 162 of AGENDA of Nov 13 2019 PUBLIC Board Meeting). “It is the declared intent of the Board to make its policies and regulations on school closure clear to all concerned, to provide ample lead time before closing any school, and to support a process that provides an opportunity for those who will be affected to be involved before any decision is made.” As significantly affected parents in McRoberts, none of near 1,000 families has been clearly informed of the proposed closure of McRoberts by the School Board as of today. The info is buried in the Long Range Facilities Plan containing the school boundary revision as the first step. Based on the above, we recommend the School Board to hold a special public board meeting by the end of Nov 2019 to clarify the issue.

Changing the boundaries around McRoberts will have long lasting negative impacts on the community. Students from the rental and non-rental residential areas south of McRoberts chose to raise their families there because of the school and community centre’s proximity. Reconfiguration of the boundary appears to be an effort to justify the school’s closure. Trustees need to find another solution that does not have such a devastating impact on so many low-income families who live so close by. McRoberts is ideally located for future growth, unlike McNair which is too far east and too close to MacNeill as it stands. There are other solutions. Do your job and find them.

We do not support the proposed "McRoberts to McNair 4" boundary changes for the following reasons:
1. We are in the Rideau Area, the proposal will more than double the distance to school and double the number of arterial road crossings. This will lead to driving as the only option to/from school, not walking or cycling.
2. The proposal will decrease the number of student enrollment to McRoberts- which will be used as "facts" to support the speculated closure of McRoberts in the future.
3. There is no sound, technical rationale provided to support the proposal. In fact, as noted in item 1, the proposal is contrary to key objectives/benefits identified by the School District.
4. Consultation process is flawed and not transparent. We only learned about this a few days ago.
5. Why close a perfectly fine school like McRoberts? One can only speculate the potential redevelopment potential (more $ for school district ) is higher at McRoberts than McNair.

Continued from previous submission...

We do not support the proposed "McRoberts to McNair 4" boundary changes for the following reasons:

6. The eventual closure of McRoberts is not consistent with City's plan to create a neighbourhood centre (densify) at Broadmoor. How can closure of a school be consistent with City's plan in creating a complete community at Broadmoor?
7. According to TransLink website, No. 3 Road is a frequent transit network where growth is encouraged... No 4 Road is not. How can the eventual closure of McRoberts, which is much closer to No 3 Road, be consistent with the objectives set forth by TransLink, which is a regional transit authority?

This is completely unnecessary. McRobert is one of the best dual track secondary school in Richmond. To shrink the catchment with the intention of closing this school is extremely upsetting to many parents like myself. We were not properly consulted and were not given enough time and options in time. The school trustees we voted in should have come out to meet with students and parents and hear their voices. We are actual people not jut a number on the paper. McRoberts is a high school running very efficiently with its space. 40% of its students are French immersion. Without taking this into consideration, it shows your plan has a major flaw. We can cut on anything, but the education of our children. After all, they are the future. We will take any resources we can to stop this. If that means to go to the Provincial level or the media, we will.

This is completely unnecessary. McRobert is one of the best dual track secondary school in Richmond. To shrink the catchment with the intention of closing this school is extremely upsetting to many parents like myself. We were not properly consulted and were not given enough time and options in time. The school trustees we voted in should have come out to meet with students and parents and hear their voices. We are actual people not jut a number on the paper. McRoberts is a high school running very efficiently with its space. 40% of its students are French immersion. Without taking this into consideration, it shows your plan has a major flaw. We can cut on anything, but the education of our children. After all, they are the future. We will take any resources we can to stop this. If that means to go to the Provincial level or to the media, we will.

McRobert is a very good school. I heard very positive reviews and feedbacks about it. Close the school will be a bad decision and impact quite a lot families.

Very disappointed after receiving the BAD news that they might close McRoberts Secondary School !! I feel really sorry for those parents who spent so much time and energy, not to mention financially, trying to relocate to the areas so their children can attend a good school like McRoberts. Its location is perfect. South Arm Community Center and Whiteside Elementary, parks and swimming pool just steps away. The whole block acts like a huge education/recreation center. I urge the School Trustees to look at the matter seriously and hopefully come up with a better solution.

I went to the McRoberts PAC meeting yesterday. The room was packed with parents visibly upset about the proposed boundary changes and how they will affect their children's education and sense of community. While we were told that we could only talk about boundary changes, all the questions and comments in the room had to do with what these boundary changes mean - can our children go to McRoberts? What happens to French Immersion students from feeder elementary schools? We could not understand how to only talk about the boundary changes and not the consequences of those changes. I left the meeting very disappointed, unheard, and questioning the motives of the School Board.
My son started the LFI program at Whiteside (not our catchment area) and I am sad to learn about the possibility of McRoberts closing down when it is time for him to go to grade 8. If McRoberts closes, where will I send my son to continue his French education? This is not clear to me and I worry about his future.