School Board Approves Catchment Areas, Registration & Transfer Revisions
Prince George, B.C. – The School Board in District 57 approved revisions to its policy regarding school catchment areas, student registration and transfers at its meeting last night.
The revisions were nearly unanimous with only trustee Kate Cooke opposed.
Cooke said she was largely opposed because the policy fails to guarantee siblings registration in non-catchment schools.
“I do believe that siblings should have priority within schools always. Once a family is in a school they should be able to stay in the school.”
In addition she argued “if we have room to fit them in one year then the rest of the family should be recognized as catchment. I really think that’s important.”
Trustee Sharon Bourassa said she supported the revisions because “so much energy has gone into it.”
She added that the revisions would “never be perfect and as time passes if we find any serious deficiencies we can bring it back.”
Also last night the board unanimously approved revisions to the board’s communication policy and approved for distribution to reference groups a respectful workplace policy.
The meeting began with a moment of silence for slain soldiers Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent.
It was the last board meeting prior to local elections November 15th.
Comments
When my wife and I separated we wrote it into the agreement that the kids would stay in the same school. If either of us wanted to move out of the catchment area we would forfeit our custody. It worked for us. If people cant come up with an agreeable plan for the kids themselves, why is it up to the school district to try and balance families for them?
Its no different then deciding to move for a job – one of the things to consider is where your kids will go to school. It is not up to the school district to try and sort out peoples personal lives.
I don’t think moving is the problem – it’s the non-catchment schools. My older daughter attends Lac des Bois. I was told my younger daughter would have preference for a place when it came time to register her for kindergarten. Now this leaves me wondering if that will really be the case. It would be pretty ridiculous to have siblings scattered throughout the school district. I’m sure they aren’t anticipating big issues that way, but it does seem odd to leave it out of the policy entirely.
Catchment areas have changed a lot due to school closures so even without moving you can be affected by this. 5 years ago our high school catchment was Lakewood Junior/PGSS then it was Duchess and now it is DP Todd. I think Kate Cooke raised some valid concerns.
This is why I’m voting for Kate Cooke. Admin could revised this policy to be more inclusive for siblings/family and then brought it back for approval by the new Board. I hope Bourassa’s comment of “so much energy has gone into it” was taken out of context, because that’s a ridiculous reason to vote for something. Policies can simply go back for revision and brought back at the next meeting. Policies need to be right. Bourassa may now lose votes over a comment like that.
Kate Cooke makes so much sense. We have four kids, and had difficulty getting our fourth kid into the same school as the other three because there isn’t a sibling priority currently and we are out of catchment. When our first two kids started at the current school, we were within the catchment area, but they changed the catchment, which means we had to transfer the two little guys in.
Comments for this article are closed.