This e-mail was sent to Brenda Ng, The Secretary-Treasurer of the VSB, on Dec 10th

It was also cced to Ken Denike (outgoing Chair of the Board of Trustees), Clarence Hansen (incoming Chair of the Board of Trustees), Chris Kelly (Superintendent of Schools) and Henry Ahking (Manager of Planning and Facilities).

Dear Brenda Ng,

In response to Gordon PAC's resolution, passed Nov 28 2007, stating its opposition to the recommendation of the Seismic Mitigation Feasibility Study (e-mailed to you Dec 2), Henry Ahking was kind enough to invite members of the PAC to the VSB offices. The meeting, held on Dec 7, also included our Principal, our Vice Principal and Craig Sidjak of your staff.

At that meeting, we attempted to convey that Gordon PAC, along with other PACs that we have spoken with, and our neighbouring community, are seriously concerned about the outcomes of the Seismic Mitigation Program. It is not the choice of renovation vs. replacement that we are all discussing, but the process itself.

Vancouver schools have features that are important their success: an auditorium, a stage, 'extra' space also used by an after-school care program, or 'too wide' corridors that are used as break-out areas in team-teaching. Harder to quantify but just as important, some of our schools are blessed with a quality of space, light, and air that helps contribute to the quality of the education. However, the Ministry of Education standards for new school facility construction don't account for any of this. Even playgrounds are left out of the picture.
So when your staff and their consultants conduct Feasibility Studies for improving seismic safety, they end up considering two different entities: a seismically upgraded school with all these features vs. a new school without them. Not surprisingly, the replacement school often comes up as the 'cheaper' option.

From the perspective of parents and community members, the choice appears as:
have a school that is adequate (the one we have now) or have one that is safe (the new one) - but not both. Henry Ahking tried to assure us that high-quality adequate facilities could be built even within the current budget constraints. Unfortunately, when members of our PAC that are architects by profession, inspected several recent projects in Vancouver, it did not give us confidence that our new school would be anywhere near as good as the one we already have.

We are asking if we can work with you to change the process.

It is clear that we need to move from 'Seismic Mitigation' to a broader 'School Renewal' program. Renewed schools should not only be sufficient for educational purposes, but be well-constructed collaboratively-designed buildings that can function as hubs of the community. We need your help in identifying staff within the Ministry of Education who could help start sketching such a program. We have a meeting with Premier Gordon Campbell in February where we could present this.

VSB Planning staff can jump-start us on this path by changing the way they work. Instead of developing options in a vacuum and then presenting them to the PAC at the end of the Feasibility Study as a choice that's already been made, they could start by collaborating with the PAC, school staff and the community to determine Study options that would all be acceptable choices. This is the key element in an Integrated Design Process.

In the specific case of Gordon, we asked Mr. Ahking not to proceed with committing the Board to the proposed school and budget while these efforts are coming together. We understand his reluctance to lose momentum and therefore appreciate his commitment to hold off for January as our efforts proceed.

Please could you ensure that our point of view is conveyed to the rest of the School Board.

Our sincere thanks for working with us,

Ingrid Sulston
Gordon Elementary PAC Chair
on behalf of the Gordon parents and neighbouring community
and for the educational future of the children that
attend Vancouver Public Schools