Strategic Report:

Potential School Closures

September 15, 2016

Vancouver School Board Staff Report to the Board of Education

Contents
1.0

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

2.0

Rationale for Considering Possible School Closure ......................................... 3

3.0

Decision-Making Process for School Closure ................................................... 6

4.0

Enrolment .............................................................................................................. 8

5.0

6.0

4.1

Historical Trends .................................................................................................................. 8

4.2

Current Enrolment ................................................................................................................ 8

4.3

Projected Enrolment ............................................................................................................ 9

4.4

Strategies to Manage Changing Enrolment Patterns .....................................................10

Operating Capacity and Capacity Utilization.................................................... 12

5.1

Definitions ...........................................................................................................................12

5.2

Operating Capacity.............................................................................................................13

5.3

Capacity Utilization ............................................................................................................13

Identifying Possible Candidates for Closure.................................................... 17

6.1

Approach .............................................................................................................................17

6.2

Elementary Annexes ..........................................................................................................18

6.3

Elementary Schools ...........................................................................................................19

6.4

Secondary Schools ............................................................................................................23

6.5

Preliminary List of 12 Schools that Might be Considered for Closure .........................25

7.0

Implications for Seismic Mitigation Program ................................................... 26

8.0

Financial Implications ........................................................................................ 26

9.0

Implementation ................................................................................................... 27

10.0

Summary ............................................................................................................. 30

11.0

Recommendation................................................................................................ 30

Appendix 1: Capacity Utilization for Each School (2015-16) ..................................... 31

1.0

Introduction

The delivery of a high quality learning experience is comprised of many components

including a wide variety of educational programs and opportunities, access to educational
resources, well maintained and equipped school facilities, qualified and dedicated school
staff, and engaged parents and communities. The Vancouver School Board (VSB) is
committed to providing the highest quality learning experience for all students, helping them
reach their full potential in a safe, inclusive, and supportive environment. Fulfilling this
commitment requires careful, ongoing management of the VSB budget.
During the development of the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP, May 2016), it was
demonstrated that due to the long term decline in the school age population in Vancouver,
VSB has more school capacity than required to accommodate both current and anticipated
student enrolment. Based on a formula set by the Ministry of Education, the overall school
district operating capacity utilization is 84.7% (revised) for 2015/16. Some Vancouver
schools are at or over capacity while others are significantly under capacity. Approximately
a quarter of the 92 elementary schools (including annexes and elementary schools) and
about a third of the 18 secondary schools were at less than 70% of their operating capacity
during the 2015-16 school year.
This available capacity currently totals about 6,100 student spaces across the entire school
district. Over time, some of this excess capacity could be taken up by enrolment growth
and some will be eliminated as new (smaller) schools are built to replace older schools as
part of the overall seismic upgrading plan.
Maintaining this extra capacity has a cost:
The extra space results in having more school buildings that require capital funding
upgrades and/or seismic mitigation.
Extra schools mean higher administrative costs for principals, vice principals,
clerical, and custodial positions and can also lead to inefficiency when allocating
teaching staff.
Extra space adds to district operating costs for utilities, cleaning, and maintenance.
Public consultation during the preparation of the Long Range Facilities Plan indicated that
at least half of the general public supports the idea of closing some schools if there are
tangible financial benefits such as facility costs shifted to teaching and programs or
accelerated seismic upgrading. Feedback also suggested 15% to 20% are opposed to
closing schools even if there are other educational benefits to doing so. Almost 30% are
opposed to closing schools just to reduce operating costs.
VSB fully understands that a school is more than a number of seats and an operating cost.
A school is an important part of community life and, every school provides not only an
educational centre, but a meeting place, a sports and play area, and a neighbourhood hub.
Closing a school impacts children, families, and communities. Such a challenging decision
requires clear information, full understanding of the rationale, informed discussion, public
consultation, and transparent decision-making. The district will work closely with any
impacted school communities to further develop a detailed plan and process specific to
each community.

Closing a school does not necessarily mean losing the school permanently. Board policy
stipulates that entire school sites will not be sold. However, school buildings could be used
for alternative purposes (temporarily accommodating students from schools being
seismically upgraded, leased for alternate community uses or to other organizations),
benefitting the community in new ways, or they can be mothballed for future re-opening.
The school would available if enrolment increases in the future, provided the growth cannot
be reasonably be accommodated elsewhere.
Notwithstanding the challenges involved, there are compelling district-wide educational
benefits to be achieved by shifting dollars from facility operations to teaching and programs.
Consequently, in the LRFP, the Board has stated that it will consider school closures as
part of a strategy to reduce extra capacity.
This report outlines a process for how implementation of any school closure approved by
the Board would proceed and how the district would work directly with impacted school
communities. It is the intent of this report to provide trustees, the school community, and
the public with clear and detailed information in order to support discussion, consultation,
and decision making.
To develop a preliminary list of schools that might be considered for closure, staff
conducted extensive analysis of all VSB schools. The preliminary list of 12 schools released
in June 2016 is:

Champlain Heights Annex at 7835 Champlain Crescent.

McBride Annex at 4750 St. Catherines Street.
Queen Elizabeth Annex at 4275 Crown Street.
Tecumseh Annex at 1551 E. 37th Avenue.
Admiral Seymour Elementary School at 1130 Keefer Street.
Dr. A.R. Lord Elementary School at 555 Lillooet Street.
Graham D. Bruce Elementary School at 3633 Tanner Street.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau Elementary at 449 E. 62nd Avenue.
Queen Alexandra Elementary at 1300 E. Broadway.
Sir Guy Carleton Elementary at 3250 Kingsway.
Britannia Secondary School at 1001 Cotton Drive.
Gladstone Secondary School at 4105 Gladstone Street.

Each school listed above has an individual report outlining the specific analysis for that
school (Administrative Report: Schools Considered for Potential Closure), referred to in
this report as the School Reports. The School Reports contain specific information
required by Board Policy FL-R: School Closures and as outlined in the Long Range
Facilities Plan (Section 4.3) and include information on Implementation Considerations.

2.0

Rationale for Considering Possible School Closure

The operating capacity of VSB schools is more than is required for the current and projected
VSB enrolment to 2030. Consolidation of excess space has benefits for the VSB.
School closures would allow VSB to:
1. Redirect operating costs to have more impact on educational outcomes:
Reducing the number of operating schools will mean VSB can spend less on building
operations (utilities, energy consumption, custodial supplies and labour, building
maintenance and repair), and reduce administrative costs for principals, vice principals,
and other support staff positions.
Saving funds in these operating categories will allow VSB to shift funds to budget
categories that have the most impact on educational outcomes including teaching,
programs, and educational resources.
The magnitude of these operating cost savings is significant (see Figure 1). Closing a
single, under-used elementary school building would save an average of more than
$570,000 per year in operating funds that could be redirected to educational purposes.
Figure 1: Average Facility-Related Operating and Administrative Costs, 2015-16
Potential Average Annual Cost Savings
Total Cost Savings Over 14 Years to
2030 (Seismic Mitigation Target date)
Elementary Elementary
Annex
School
Office & Administrative Staffing

Secondary Elementary Elementary

School
Annex
School

Secondary
School

$106,000

$252,000

$497,000

1,484,000

3,528,000

6,958,000

Utilities & Custodial Supplies

$89,000

$182,000

$694,000

1,246,000

2,548,000

9,716,000

Maintenance & Construction

Costs

$28,000

$82,000

$331,000

392,000

1,148,000

4,634,000

Cafeteria Costs

$153,000

2,142,000

Teaching Costs

$25,000

$116,000

$280,000

350,000

1,624,000

3,920,000

Subtotal

$248,000

$632,000 $1,955,000

3,472,000

8,848,000

27,370,000

Less: Mothball costs*

($20,000)

($54,000)

(280,000)

(756,000)

(2,940,000)

($210,000)

Net Operating Cost Savings**

$228,000
$578,000 $1,745,000 $3,452,000 $8,794,000 $27,160,000
* If not offset by lease income.
** The actual savings that would be achieved from any school closure that is approved by the Board will depend on
the specific schools that are considered. The above figures are averages only and are simply provided to illustrate
the magnitude of the financial savings.

2. Have more funding for improving the condition of school facilities: Many schools
in the district have significant deferred maintenance costs (i.e. costs of overdue
maintenance of major building components such as the roof, heating, and plumbing
systems). Reducing the number of operating schools would allow VSB to avoid these
deferred maintenance capital costs and redirect funding to other schools requiring
maintenance.
Closing a single, older, under-used elementary school building with deferred
maintenance projects could save an average of $3.9 million. (See Figure 2)
Figure 2: Average Deferred Maintenance Capital Cost, 2015-16
Potential one-time capital cost savings for VSB
Elementary Annex

Elementary School

Secondary School

$1.9 million

$3.9 million

$16.9 million

Average deferred maintenance capital costs*

* These are averages only and are simply provided to illustrate the magnitude of the financial savings. Actual savings
would depend on the individual schools approved for closure.

3. Seismically upgrade schools with a High seismic risk sooner: Of the 110 schools
in the district, 89 have a High seismic risk and were identified for extensive seismic
upgrading or replacement. Of these 89 High seismic risk schools:
25 have been seismically upgraded or are currently under seismic construction.
27 have been supported by the Ministry of Education for feasibility planning.
The remaining 37 have not yet been supported by the Ministry of Education.
In a letter dated December 23, 2015, the Ministry of Education directed VSB to consider
identifying potential school closures and the consolidation of catchment areas, thus
working towards a 95% operating capacity utilization. VSBs current capacity utilization
is 84.7%. By increasing the capacity utilization in the district, the Ministry is more likely
to support capital funding for needed seismic projects.
Figure 3 outlines the potential capital cost savings for the Ministry of Education
associated with seismic mitigation.
Figure 3: Range of Seismic Upgrade Capital Cost, 2015-16
Potential one-time capital cost savings for the Ministry
Elementary Annex

Elementary School

Secondary School

n/a

$8 to $16 million

$30 to $60 million

Range of seismic upgrade capital costs*

* These are cost ranges and are simply provided to illustrate the magnitude of the financial savings. Actual savings
would depend on the individual schools approved for closure.

4. Provide Temporary Accommodation for schools undergoing seismic

mitigation: To complete the Seismic Mitigation Program by 2030, it is necessary to
use existing school space to provide temporary accommodation for schools that are
undergoing seismic construction. Utilizing existing school space for temporary
accommodation reduces costs and makes the transition period faster and easier.
Without adequate temporary accommodation space, it will not be possible to
complete the seismic mitigation of high risk schools by 2030.

5. Build new schools in areas experiencing enrolment growth: Capital funding is

required to build new schools in areas experiencing significant enrolment growth,
such as the downtown core and South False Creek. The Ministry of Education is not
likely to support capital funding requests for new schools unless the VSB reduces
the amount of excess capacity in its existing network of schools.
These benefits have to be considered against the possible negative impacts of school
closures. By carefully selecting schools that might be considered for closure, VSB has tried
to minimize these negative impacts. VSB staff will work closely with any schools that are
approved for closure to develop a detailed implementation plan and process that is specific
to each community.

3.0

Decision-Making Process for School Closure

In September 2016, the Board will receive this report and will determine whether each of
the 12 schools identified should be considered for closure as per Board Policy FL-R: School
Closures.
For any school that the Board determines to be considered for closure, broad consultation
with the school community will occur during October and November 2016.
Following consultation, a report will be prepared for the Board, which summarizes the
results of the consultation process. VSB school closure policy (FL-R) requires that this
Consultation Report include, at a minimum, the following:
A fair consideration of the communitys input.
Consideration of future enrolment growth in the district.
Consideration of alternate community uses for all or part of the school.
As part of the consultation process, staff will be seeking input and information from the
school community to guide further development of an implementation plan. Section 4.3 of
the Long Range Facilities Plan outlines several implementation considerations should a
school be approved for closure (see Table 1)
Table 1 School Closure Implementation Considerations

Implementation Considerations:
In addition to the factors used to identify schools for possible closure, staff will work
closely with impacted communities in order to support staff, students, and families
through the closure process. Consideration will be given to the following in
planning for and implementing any approved school closure:
Enhanced services, such as literacy supports and meal programs, which
support students and families within vulnerable communities.
Other specialized services, programs, supports within a school.
Out of school care programs.
Community programs, daycare programs, other rentals.
Special Education programs and services.
District Choice Programs.
Partnership arrangements and agreements with community organizations.
Individualized support, as needed, for individual students who may require
additional planning to support successful transition to a new school
environment.

The Board will make a final decision regarding school closures in December 2016 following
consultation (see Table 2). If approved for closure, the earliest that any school would be
closed is June 30, 2017.

Table 2 School Closure Timeline

Note: Each school included in the closure process will be consider separately by the Board.

4.0

Enrolment

4.1

Historical Trends

VSB school enrolment has declined steadily over the past twenty years in spite of significant
residential development and overall population growth in the city of Vancouver. Figure 4
compares the City of Vancouvers population with VSB enrolment. VSB enrolment has
declined by an average of about 600 students per year since 1997, while in contrast the
City of Vancouver overall population has increased.
The reason for this enrolment decline in the face of population growth is that there is a
decrease in the number of school aged children living in Vancouver.
This decrease is a result of:
The average age of Vancouvers population increasing, resulting in more seniors
and fewer children living in the city.
Families in the child-rearing years are having fewer children, so birth rates are below
historical levels and the average household size is smaller.
Housing prices are prompting some young families to move to the suburbs, resulting
in enrolment growth in some of the Lower Mainland school districts and a decrease
in Vancouver.
Figure 4: VSB Student Enrolment and Total Population in City of Vancouver from 1996 to 2015

4.2

Current Enrolment

Methodology
The source of historical and current enrolment data is the 1701 data submission provided
to the Ministry of Education. These enrolment numbers are a headcount of funded students
in attendance as of Sept 30, 2015. Current enrolment figures will be submitted to the
Ministry of Education as of Sept 30, 2016.
Fee paying International students are not included in these headcount enrolment numbers.

Current Enrolment
For the 2015-16 school year, the total enrolment in the district was 50,387 students. This
number included all students in Kindergarten to Grade 12, including international students
but excluding adult learners and Vancouver Learning Network (online learning) enrolment.
It is anticipated that total enrolment in the district will decrease by approximately 200
students in 2016-17.

4.3

Projected Enrolment

Methodology
In generating long range enrolment projections, VSB uses baseline enrolment projections
provided by Baragar Systems. Baragar Systems is a BC firm that specializes in providing
enrolment projections to the majority of BC school districts. Baragar uses a projection
methodology that incorporates birth rates, migration rate, housing yields, participation rates
and student information system data provided by the district, to develop population
estimates and enrolment projections. Projections are updated on an annual basis. In
addition to a district wide projection, Baragar provides projections for each VSB school.
VSB staff add local school knowledge to Baragar projections thus determining a specific
enrolment projection for each site. Baragar district enrolment projections have proven to
be accurate within 0.6% of actual enrolments for the past four years.
Projections are based on a set of current assumptions for which there is historical evidence.
As with all projections, the reliability of enrolment projections decreases as the projection
timeline increases. However, changes to demographic trends that lead to changing
enrolment patterns occur relatively slowly. Demographic changes that do affect enrolment
can be successfully managed using enrolment management strategies.
These
management strategies are detailed in Section 4.4.

Projected Enrolment
The current enrolment projections indicate that VSB enrolment will be essentially flat, with
approximately 1% growth over the next 15 years. Currently, there is no indication that the
larger demographic trends of smaller families, an aging population and housing affordability
will change (see Figure 5).
VSB staff meet with the City of Vancouver staff quarterly to review and monitor the potential
impact of new developments on district enrolment. These projections account for the
current student yields from residential development taking place in the city. The City is
increasing efforts to make higher density housing more family-friendly and some younger
families may be looking more favorably at high density living for lifestyle and affordability
reasons. It is possible that the pace of future development may exceed the current and past
rate of development, and that new developments may increase yields of school aged
children. At present, student yields from higher density housing in Vancouver are lower
than historical yields from lower density housing.
The VSB participation rate is defined as the proportion of the school aged population living
within the district who are attending a VSB school. Although participation rates vary

between neighbourhoods, the overall rate has been stable for many years. Currently 84%
of school aged children living within the district attend a VSB school. There is no evidence
that the overall district participation rate will change substantially in the coming years.
Figure 5: Enrolment in 2015-16 (Current) and 2030-31 (Projected)

* Note: Total enrolment includes all Kindergarten to Grade 12 students, including international students but not adult
learners or Vancouver Learning Network enrolment.

4.4

Strategies to Manage Changing Enrolment Patterns

Changes to current demographic trends or to student yields resulting from development

can be managed by using the following strategies:
1. Existing Capacity: In many instances, if a school is closed and its enrolment
consolidated at a receiving school(s), the consolidated enrolment at the receiving
school(s) is lower than the operating capacity of the school. This additional capacity
may be used to accommodate future enrolment that is larger than projected.
2. Management of Enrolment: By actively managing the number of students accepted
through the cross boundary application process, school enrolments can be reduced to
ensure that space is available for students who reside in catchment.
3. Location of District Programs: The district can explore the relocation of district
programs to other VSB sites. District programs are intended to support the entire district
and, as such, the catchment area for these programs is the entire school district.

10

4. Adjusting School Catchments: The district has the option of adjusting school
catchment areas to redistribute student enrolment. These adjustments can be done
gradually to minimize disruption.
5. Adding Enrolling Space: In some instances, additional enrolling space could be added
to a school as part of seismic mitigation work to accommodate larger than projected
enrolment.
6. Reopen Closed Schools: The VSB has the option of reopening closed schools to
accommodate larger than projected enrolment in an area of the district with a closed
school.

11

5.0

Operating Capacity and Capacity Utilization

5.1

Definitions

Two key terms: operating capacity and capacity utilization.

5.1.a Operating Capacity
When VSB requests capital funding from the Ministry of Education for seismic upgrades of
schools, for renovation of schools, or for construction of new schools, the Ministry reviews
the operating capacity of VSBs schools.
Operating capacity is determined using the Ministry of Educations Area Standards and
includes regular classrooms in the school building, regular classrooms in outbuildings, and
modular classrooms for Kindergarten. The operating capacity can fluctuate slightly subject
to the number of classrooms used for Kindergarten.
Operating capacity does not include:
Multipurpose rooms, cafeterias, gyms, libraries, special education rooms, offices, or
play spaces in school basements unless these rooms were originally designed as
classrooms for regular instruction (e.g. some schools may be using a room for
multipurpose or special education uses but the room was originally designed as a
classroom).
Temporary portables.
Operating capacity is used for capital funding requests to the Ministry of Education. It is
based on a lower number of students per classroom than class size maximums which guide
staffing and school organizations (BC School Act). Therefore, schools can accommodate
more students than implied by the calculated operating capacity.
Operating
Capacity
19 students
average of
23.29 students*

Maximum
Class Size
Kindergarten classroom
22 students
Grade 1 to 3 classroom
24 students
Grade 4 to 7 classroom
30 students
Grade 8 to 12 classroom
25 students
30 students
* Note: For a K-3 annex, the ratio is 21 students per classroom.

12

5.1.b Capacity Utilization

Capacity utilization is the ratio between student enrolment and operating capacity, showing
the extent to which school classroom space is used.
Student enrolment

Operating capacity
= Capacity utilization
On a district-wide basis the Ministry of Education expects larger school districts including
Vancouver to achieve an overall capacity utilization target of 95%. Other large comparable
school districts are at or near the 95% capacity utilization target set by the Ministry.
Individual schools can be at, or above, 100% capacity utilization if:
The school has temporary portables.
The school accommodates students in rooms that are currently used as classrooms
but were not originally designed for regular classroom instruction.
The school has enrolling spaces not included in operating capacity.
Class sizes average more than 19 students in a Kindergarten room, 23.29 students
in a Grade 1 to 7 classroom, and 25 students in a Grade 8 to 12 classroom.

5.2

Operating Capacity

There are 110 schools in the district with a total operating capacity of 59,482 student spaces
district-wide as of August 2016 (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Total Operating Capacity at VSB Schools as of August 2016
Number of Schools
Operating Capacity
(# of student spaces)
Elementary annexes
15
1,957
Elementary schools
77
32,300
Secondary schools
18
25,225
Total
110
59,482

5.3

Capacity Utilization

With current enrolment of 50,387 students in 2015-16 and current operating capacity of
58,482 student spaces, the school districts capacity utilization is 84.7% (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Capacity Utilization by Type of VSB School, 2015-16
2015-16 Enrolment
(including international
students)
Elementary annexes
1,561
Elementary schools
27,575
Secondary schools
21,251
District-wide total
50,387

13

Operating Capacity
as of August 2016*
(# of student spaces)
1,957
32,300
25,225
59,482

Capacity Utilization

79.8%
85.4%
84.2%
84.7%

* Note: The May 2016 Long Range Facilities Plan stated that VSB had a total district-wide operating capacity of 59,585
student spaces in the 2015-16 school year. The figures from the LRFP have been updated to exclude the operating
capacity from Maquinna Annex (103 student spaces) which is now closed.

Appendix 1 lists the 2015-16 capacity utilization for every individual school. The results are
summarized in Figures 8 and 9.
Figure 8: Number of VSB Schools in each Category of Capacity Utilization, August 2016
Capacity Utilization
Elementary
Elementary
Secondary
Annexes
Schools
Schools
High
95% or more
6
30
4
90% to 94.9%
0
7
3
Moderate 85% to 89.9%
0
4
0
80% to 84.9%
1
6
1
70% to 79.9%
1
14
4
Low
60% to 69.9%
4
7
2
50% to 59.9%
1
5
4
40% to 49.9%
2
1
0
Less than 39.9%
0
3
0
Total # of schools
15
77
18

Total for All

VSB Schools
40
10
4
8
19
13
10
3
3
110

Figure 9: Number of Schools by Capacity Utilization Category*, August 2016

The figures above show that 6 of the 15 elementary annexes, 37 of the 77 elementary
schools, and 7 of 18 secondary schools have a high capacity utilization.

14

5.3.a East Side/West Side Variations in Capacity Utilization

The overall capacity utilization for East side schools (schools east of Ontario Street) is lower
than for West side schools. (Figure 10) Students are entitled under section 74.1 of the
School Act to enroll in a school outside their home catchment area if space and facilities
are available.
Figure 10: Overall Capacity Utilization for East Side and West Side Schools, 2015-16

In accordance with the School Act, VSB policy (JECC-R) outlines the process families
follow to attend a school outside their catchment area. This policy provides families and
students some freedom to choose a school that best meets their needs contingent on space
available.
Figure 11 shows the average cross boundary figures for the five-year period from 2010 to
2014 for regular program students. Over this period, there was an average net transfer of:
344 elementary students per year living on the east side but registering in west side
schools. This is approximately 1% of the total elementary school enrolment.
652 secondary students per year living on the east side but registering in west side
schools. This is approximately 3% of the total secondary school enrolment.
This indicates that cross boundary registration is not a significant factor affecting capacity
utilization.

Figure 11: Average Annual Cross Boundary Registration from 2010 to 2014
# of Elementary
Students

15

# of Secondary
Students

Students from east side residence registering in west side schools

Students from west side residence registering in east side schools
Average annual net transfer from east to west

5.3.b

621
277
+ 344
(1% of the 29,136
elementary students
in 2015-16)

802
150
+ 652
(3% of the 21,251
secondary students
in 2015-16)

Projected Capacity Utilization Assuming No Schools on the Preliminary

List are Approved for Closure

If there are no school closures and no new schools built before 2030, the district capacity
utilization would be 87.4%. This figure includes the potential school closures already being
considered (Laurier Annex, Henderson Annex) and the right-sizing of schools due to
seismic upgrading.
The potential closure of Laurier and Henderson Annexes, along with the projected
enrolment growth (1% increase by 2030), will marginally increase the districts capacity
utilization in the future. If no other reductions to operating capacity are made the VSBs
capacity utilization will still fall well below the Ministrys target of 95% capacity utilization in
2030.

16

6.0

Identifying Possible Candidates for Closure

6.1

Approach

VSB conducted extensive analysis of all 110 schools to develop a preliminary list of schools
that might be considered for closure. The criteria for analysis was aligned with the
Vancouver School Board Policy on School Closures and the Level One and Two Factors
outlined in the Long Range Facilities Plan.
Schools were examined in three groups: elementary annexes, elementary schools, and
secondary schools.
Board policy FL-R: School Closures outlines that a school may be considered for closure
when an assessment identifies that:
1.
2.

The students can be reasonably accommodated in other local schools, and

The students can be provided with access to appropriate educational programs.

In May 2016 the Board approved a Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) which outlined
factors to be considered in the preparation of a preliminary list of schools that might be
considered for closure. Factors are divided into two levels, with Level One factors applied
to all schools.
Level One Factors
Current enrolment: Catchment students attending a school being considered for
closure can be accommodated in local catchment schools. Out of catchment
students attending a school to be closed can be accommodated at their home
school and/or in local catchment schools. (Although the LRFP allows for the
possibility of returning out of catchment students to their home schools, staff
analysis contemplated the accommodation of all continuing students within local
catchment schools.)
Projected enrolment: The projected future student enrolment of the adjusted
catchment area, as the result of a school closure, can be accommodated.
All schools were assessed for Level One factors and Board policy regulation FL-R: School
Closures. An assessment was conducted as to whether the current and projected
enrolment of a school could be reasonably accommodated at 1 or 2 adjacent catchment
schools. This analysis considered an assessment of available space within schools
proposed for consolidation with a school identified for potential closure. It also took into
consideration seismic projects anticipated to proceed to construction and potential annex
closures.
Schools which met this first level of analysis were also reviewed and assessed for Level
Two factors as identified in the Long Range Facilities Plan.
Level Two Factors:
Geographic considerations
Seismic risk of the building
School site considerations

17

6.2

High deferred maintenance and high facility operating costs

Services and supports in place for vulnerable students, families, and communities
Education and social impacts of school closure on students and families, particularly
in communities with high concentrations of vulnerable students and families

Elementary Annexes

6.2.a Review and Assessment of Board Closure Criteria & LRFP Level One Factors
Elementary annexes generally offer kindergarten to Grade 3 programming and share a
catchment area with the elementary school where the annex students attend in Grade 4.
Staff assessed whether all continuing students from the annex could be reasonably
accommodated at the elementary school with which it shares a catchment. The only
exception was for Queen Elizabeth Annex which provides a K to Grade 3 French Immersion
program with Grade 4 to 7 students moving on to Jules Quesnel Elementary. In this case
staff determined the French Immersion program could be relocated to Queen Elizabeth
Elementary which is closer to Jules Quesnel than the Queen Elizabeth Annex.
It was determined that five annexes met Board closure criteria and Level One LRFP factors.
They are Champlain Heights Annex, Collingwood Annex, McBride Annex, Queen Elizabeth
Annex, and Tecumseh Annex (see Figure 12).
Figure 12: LRFP Level One Assessment
Annex

Champlain Heights Annex

Collingwood Neighborhood School
Dickens Annex
Douglas Annex
Garibaldi Annex
Kerrisdale Annex
McBride Annex
Queen Elizabeth Annex*
Queen Victoria Elementary
Roberts Annex
Selkirk Annex
Tecumseh Annex
Tillicum Annex

Current and projected student enrolment from the annex be reasonably

accommodated in the elementary school
No
Yes
Evaluate further
Evaluate further
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Evaluate further
Retain
Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Retain

* Students from Queen Elizabeth Annex could be accommodated at Queen Elizabeth Elementary. Students would
continue to be offered a French Immersion program and would continue to attend Jules Quesnel for grades 4 to 7.

6.2.b Review of LRFP Level Two Factors

Collingwood Annex was not placed on the preliminary closure list because it is a medium
seismic risk and its main school, Bruce Elementary has a High 1 seismic rating. In addition,
Collingwood Annex is centrally located within the community, attached to Collingwood
Neighbourhood House, and in close proximity to Grenfell Elementary. It is proposed that

18

Collingwood Annex would share a catchment with Grenfell Elementary should Bruce
Elementary be closed. Collingwood Annex was not considered further for closure at this
time.
Champlain Heights Annex, McBride Annex, and Tecumseh Annex can all be reasonably
accommodated at the elementary school with which they share a catchment. Based on a
review of Level Two factors they were included on the preliminary closure list.
The Early French Immersion program currently housed at Queen Elizabeth Annex can be
relocated to Queen Elizabeth Elementary. This Kindergarten to Grade 3 program would
continue to feed into Jules Quesnel for Grades 4 to 7. Based on review of Level Two
factors, Queen Elizabeth Annex was included on the preliminary closure list.
See the School Reports for each elementary annex.

6.3
6.3.a

Elementary Schools
Review and Assessment of Board Closure Criteria & LRFP Level One Factors

All elementary schools were assessed for Level One LRFP factors and Board closure
criteria (FL-R: School Closures). This analysis took into consideration the impact of the four
potential annex closures as outlined in Section 6.2. There were 66 elementary schools that
did not meet Board closure criteria and Level One LRFP factors. The 11 remaining
elementary schools were further evaluated based on Level Two Factors. (Figure 13).
Elementary Schools further evaluated were:
Begbie
Bruce
Carleton
Franklin
Grandview
Lord
MacCorkindale
Queen Alexandra
Seymour
Thunderbird
Trudeau
Figure 13: LRFP Level One Assessment
School

Current and projected student enrolment be reasonably accommodated in 1 or 2 adjacent schools

No
BAYVIEW ELEMENTARY
BEACONSFIELD ELEMENTARY
BEGBIE ELEMENTARY
BRITANNIA ELEMENTARY
BROCK ELEMENTARY
BRUCE ELEMENTARY
CARLETON ELEMENTARY
CARNARVON ELEMENTARY

Yes

Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Evaluate further
Retain

19

CARR ELEMENTARY
CAVELL ELEMENTARY
CHAMPLAIN HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY
COOK ELEMENTARY
CUNNINGHAM ELEMENTARY
DICKENS ELEMENTARY
DOUGLAS ELEMENTARY
ELSIE ROY ELEMENTARY
FALSE CREEK ELEMENTARY
FLEMING ELEMENTARY
FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY
FRASER ELEMENTARY
GORDON ELEMENTARY
GRANDVIEW ELEMENTARY
GRENFELL ELEMENTARY
HASTINGS ELEMENTARY
HENDERSON ELEMENTARY
HUDSON ELEMENTARY
INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE ELEMENTARY
JAMIESON ELEMENTARY
KERRISDALE ELEMENTARY
KINGSFORD-SMITH ELEMENTARY
KITCHENER ELEMENTARY
LAURIER ELEMENTARY
L'ECOLE BILINGUE ELEMENTARY
LIVINGSTONE ELEMENTARY
LLOYD GEORGE ELEMENTARY
LORD ELEMENTARY
MACCORKINDALE ELEMENTARY
MACDONALD ELEMENTARY*
MACKENZIE ELEMENTARY
MAPLE GROVE ELEMENTARY
MAQUINNA ELEMENTARY
MCBRIDE ELEMENTARY
MCKECHNIE ELEMENTARY
MOBERLY ELEMENTARY
MOUNT PLEASANT ELEMENTARY
NELSON ELEMENTARY
NIGHTINGALE ELEMENTARY
NOOTKA ELEMENTARY
NORMA ROSE POINT (K-8)
NORQUAY ELEMENTARY
OPPENHEIMER ELEMENTARY
OSLER ELEMENTARY
QUEEN ALEXANDRA ELEMENTARY
QUEEN ELIZABETH ELEMENTARY
QUEEN MARY ELEMENTARY
QUESNEL ELEMENTARY
QUILCHENA ELEMENTARY
RENFREW ELEMENTARY
ROBERTS ELEMENTARY
SECORD ELEMENTARY
SELKIRK ELEMENTARY
SEXSMITH ELEMENTARY
SEYMOUR ELEMENTARY
SHAUGHNESSY ELEMENTARY
SOUTHLANDS ELEMENTARY
STRATHCONA ELEMENTARY
TECUMSEH ELEMENTARY
TENNYSON ELEMENTARY
THUNDERBIRD ELEMENTARY
TRAFALGAR ELEMENTARY
TRUDEAU ELEMENTARY
TYEE ELEMENTARY
UNIVERSITY HILL ELEMENTARY
VAN HORNE ELEMENTARY
WAVERLEY ELEMENTARY

Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Evaluate further
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Evaluate further
Retain
Evaluate further
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain

20

WEIR ELEMENTARY
WOLFE ELEMENTARY
Count

Retain
Retain
66 Schools

11 Schools

*Macdonald has a Board approved moratorium on closure in effect and is therefore marked retain.

6.3 b Review of LRFP Level Two Factors

Based on a review of Level Two Factors five of the eleven elementary schools were not
included on the preliminary closure list. The rationale for excluding these schools from the
preliminary closure list is described below.
Franklin Elementary:
Where possible, staff avoided creating catchments that would result in new crossings of
major arterial roadways. Franklin is divided from other schools by Highway One. Franklin
was not considered further at this time.
Thunderbird:
Thunderbird students could be accommodated at Renfrew and Begbie. However, Renfrew
is across Broadway Avenue and the Grandview Highway from Thunderbird so it was not
considered a viable option. Thunderbird students could not be accommodated in Begbie
alone, and Begbie students cannot be accommodated in Thunderbird. Thunderbird was
not considered further at this time.
Grandview Elementary:
Grandview Elementary students could be accommodated by dividing the Grandview
catchment between Queen Alexandra to the south and Britannia Elementary to the north.
However this division of the catchment would create two new crossings of major arterial
roadways. The northern portion of the catchment would require students to cross First
Avenue to attend Britannia Elementary. The southern portion of the catchment would
require students to cross Broadway to attend Queen Alexandra. The Grandview site is
large and has lower traffic volumes on surrounding roads than Queen Alexandra which is
located on the corner of Broadway and Clark Drive (a major truck route). Grandview was
not considered further at this time.

MacCorkindale Elementary:
MacCorkindale was reviewed for consolidation with Carleton and Champlain
Heights. Bruce was not considered for consolidation with MacCorkindale as it is located
across Kingsway. It was determined that given the proposed consolidation of Champlain
Heights and Champlain Annex, that Champlain Heights should not be considered further
as a potential location for MacCorkindale students. Receiving students from both
Champlain Heights Annex and MacCorkindale elementary at the same time would result in
too much disruption to the Champlain Heights school community. In addition, both
MacCorkindale and Cunningham are located within quiet residential neighbourhoods.
Carleton is located on the corner of Kingsway and Joyce/41st. It was determined that the
consolidation of Carleton with Cunningham and MacCorkindale would result in new
catchment configurations which retain students within their communities and within

21

reasonable walk distances of their catchment school. MacCorkindale was not considered
further at this time.
Begbie Elementary:
Begbie students could be accommodated by dividing the Begbie catchment between
Thunderbird Elementary to the south and Lord Elementary to the north. However, this
would require students to cross at First Avenue to attend Thunderbird. In addition, the
seismic mitigation program for Begbie is support by the Ministry of Education and is likely
to proceed in the near future, whereas Thunderbird and Lord are not yet supported seismic
projects. Combining Begbie and Lord students at one site would not introduce new student
crossings of major arterial roadways. As Begbies enrolment cannot be accommodated
entirely at Lord, Lord was advanced to the preliminary list. Begbie was not considered
further at this time.
Following the review of Level Two Factors the following six elementary schools were
included on the preliminary closure list:
Dr. A.R. Lord Elementary
Admiral Seymour Elementary
Graham Bruce Elementary
Pierre Elliot Trudeau Elementary
Queen Alexandra Elementary
Sir Guy Carleton Elementary
All six elementary schools can be consolidated with either one or two school catchments
with which they share a boundary.
Lord, Seymour, Bruce and Trudeau Elementary can be consolidated with a single school
catchment with which they share a boundary. Lord can be consolidated with Begbie,
Seymour with Strathcona, Bruce with Grenfell/Collingwood Annex and Trudeau with
Moberly.
Queen Alexandra and Carleton can be consolidated with two school catchments with which
they share a boundary.
Queen Alexandra Elementary can be consolidated with Grandview and Nightingale
schools.
Carleton Elementary can be consolidated with MacCorkindale and Cunningham.
See the School Report for each elementary school for details.

22

6.4

Secondary Schools

6.4.a Review and Assessment of Board Closure Criteria & LRFP Level One Factors
All secondary schools were assessed for Level One LRFP factors and Board closure
criteria (FL-R: School Closures). There were 14 secondary schools that did not meet Board
closure criteria and Level One LRFP factors. Four secondary schools were evaluated
based on Level Two factors. (Figure 14).
Secondary schools further evaluated were:
Britannia Secondary
Gladstone Secondary
King George Secondary
Tupper Secondary
Figure 14: Level One LRFP Assessment

Current and projected student enrolment can be

accommodated in 1 or 2 adjacent schools
School

NO

BRITANNIA SECONDARY
BYNG SECONDARY
CHURCHILL SECONDARY
DAVID THOMPSON SECONDARY
GLADSTONE SECONDARY

Yes
Evaluate Further

Retain
Retain
Retain
Evaluate Further

HAMBER SECONDARY
JOHN OLIVER SECONDARY
KILLARNEY SECONDARY
KING GEORGE SECONDARY
KITSILANO SECONDARY
MAGEE SECONDARY

Retain
Retain
Retain

POINT GREY SECONDARY

PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARY
TEMPLETON SEONCARY
TUPPER SECONDARY
UNIVERSITY HILL SECONDARY
VANCOUVER TECHNICAL SECONDARY

Retain
Retain
Retain

WINDERMERE SECONDARY

Retain

Evaluate Further
Retain
Retain

Evaluate Further
Retain
Retain

6.4 b Review of LRFP Level Two Factors

Based on a review of Level Two Factors, two schools were not included on the preliminary
closure list. The rationale for excluding these schools from the preliminary closure list is
described below:
King George Secondary:

23

King George is the only secondary school located in the downtown core. Although it is
possible to accommodate King George students at Britannia this would leave the downtown
and west end communities without a secondary school. It would also require students to
travel great distance to Britannia which is located in the Grandview-Woodlands Community.
King George was not considered further at this time.
Tupper Secondary:
Tupper Secondary students could be accommodated at John Oliver and Gladstone,
however Tupper is seismically upgraded and has a seismic rating of M (medium). Both
John Oliver and Gladstone have a seismic rating of H1 (high 1). Tupper was not considered
further at this time.
The following two secondary schools were therefore included on the preliminary closure
list:
Britannia Secondary
Gladstone Secondary
Britannia Secondary School was included on the preliminary list. It can be consolidated
with Templeton Secondary which is located within close proximity to Britannia.
Gladstone Secondary School could be accommodated at John Oliver and Tupper
Secondary Schools. Upon review and analysis it was determined that this consolidation
would result in catchment borders inconsistent with neighbouring elementary catchments
and therefore deemed unreasonable. The division of the Gladstone catchment between
John Oliver and Tupper only would cause significant disruption to existing elementary
feeder school communities.
Consolidating Gladstone with Tupper, John Oliver, Windermere and Vancouver Technical
allows the current Gladstone catchment to be divided along existing elementary catchment
boundaries keeping elementary student cohorts together as they transition to secondary
school. Selkirk Elementary will feed into Tupper, Beaconsfield into Vancouver Technical,
Cunningham and Norquay into Windermere and Tecumseh (northern portion) into John
Oliver. This four way division of the Gladstone catchment will keeps student closer to their
local school than the two way catchment division described above.
See the School Report for each secondary school for details.

24

6.5

Preliminary List of 12 Schools that Might be Considered for

Closure

Figure 15: Preliminary List of 12 Schools that Might be Considered for Closure
Schools on Preliminary List
School(s) with which they will be consolidated
Annexes
Champlain Heights Annex
Champlain Heights Elementary
McBride Annex
McBride Elementary
Queen Elizabeth Annex
Queen Elizabeth Elementary
Tecumseh Annex
Tecumseh Elementary
Elementary schools:
Bruce Elementary
Grenfell Elementary / Collingwood Annex
Lord Elementary
Begbie Elementary
Trudeau Elementary
Moberly Elementary
Queen Alexandra Elementary
Nightingale Elementary and Grandview Elementary
Carleton Elementary
Cunningham Elementary and MacCorkindale Elementary
Seymour Elementary
Strathcona Elementary
Secondary schools:
Britannia Secondary
Templeton Secondary
Gladstone Secondary
Tupper, Vancouver Technical, Windermere, and John Oliver
Secondary Schools

25

7.0

Implications for Seismic Mitigation Program

Closing schools enables VSB to work towards its goal of completing the Seismic Mitigation
Program (SMP) by 2030 by:
1. Gaining support for capital funding for seismic projects: The Ministry of Education
is more likely to support capital funding requests for needed seismic projects if VSB
reduces the amount of excess operating capacity in its existing network of schools.
2. Using excess capacity for temporary accommodation: To complete the Seismic
Mitigation Program by 2030, it is necessary to make use of existing school space to
provide temporary accommodation for schools which are undergoing seismic
construction. Without adequate temporary accommodation space, it will not be possible
to complete the Seismic Mitigation of high risk schools by 2030.
Of the 12 schools on the preliminary list that might be considered for closure, 8 are good
candidates for providing temporary accommodation. The two secondary schools and
five of the elementary schools, plus Queen Elizabeth Annex, are candidates to be used
as temporary accommodation space.
Figure 16: Preliminary List of 12 Schools for Temporary Accommodation
Schools on Preliminary List
Annexes
Champlain Heights Annex
McBride Annex
Queen Elizabeth Annex
Tecumseh Annex
Elementary schools
Bruce Elementary
Lord Elementary
Trudeau Elementary
Queen Alexandra Elementary
Carleton Elementary
Seymour Elementary
Secondary schools
Britannia Secondary
Gladstone Secondary

8.0

Temporary Accommodation
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Financial Implications

Closing the 12 schools on the preliminary list of schools that might be considered for closure
would result in the following savings for VSB:
26

1. Ongoing annual operating cost savings of $7.7 million per year. VSB would save
$7.7 million per year in operating costs on an ongoing basis. This includes facility
related costs (e.g. maintenance, building operations), administrative staffing costs (e.g.
principal, vice principal, and support staff), and teaching costs. The savings would be
slightly lower in the year that each school is closed, because there would be one-time
costs associated with closure (e.g. moving costs, consulting costs, costs to mothball
any closed school building that is not immediately leased out or required for temporary
accommodation). This would be a total savings of more than $38 million over five years
or $107 million over 14 years to 2030 (matching the timeline for completion of the
Seismic Mitigation Program).

Figure 16: Ongoing Net Operating Cost Savings if the 12 Schools on the Preliminary List are Approved for Closure

Net operating cost savings

Potential Average Annual

Cost Savings*

Total Cost Savings

Over 5 Years

Total Cost Savings Over

14 Years

$7.7 million

$38.5 million

$107.8 million

*Potential Average Annual Cost Savings does not include the one-time closure costs incurred in the first year.

2. Capital cost savings of $67.5 million in avoided deferred maintenance. The 12

schools on the preliminary list have approximately $67.5 million in deferred
maintenance costs (i.e. maintenance work on major building components such as the
roof, heating, plumbing that is overdue) that would be avoided if the schools are
approved for closure.
3. Seismic Mitigation Program cost savings. A total 9 of the 12 schools on the
preliminary list of schools that might be considered for closure have a high seismic risk.
If approved for closure, capital costs associated with the seismic upgrading of the 12
schools would be saved by the Ministry of Education.
There is potential to generate revenue from leasing school buildings/sites that are not
needed for temporary accommodation. For a variety of reasons, this opportunity has not
been included in the Financial Implications analysis.

9.0

Implementation

If the Board approves the closure of any of the schools on the preliminary list, the earliest
date that school(s) would be closed is June 30, 2017. Admiral Seymour Elementary school
would be closed June 30, 2018, due to seismic work underway at Strathcona Elementary
and the opening of the elementary new school at International Village in 2017.
27

The district is committed to taking steps to help minimize the impact on students, parents,
and staff in school communities affected by a closure decision. VSB would ensure that
clear and timely information is provided to both the closing school and the schools receiving
students. A structure would be established to address concerns and issues specific to the
affected school communities.
A District Implementation Team will be established for any school from the preliminary list
that is approved for closure. This team will be led by a Director of Instruction and/or
Associate Superintendent and will include representation from Employee Services,
Planning and Facilities, Learning Services and Field Services. The team will be responsible
for working directly with the impacted school communities to develop and implement a
detailed plan.
Responsibilities of the District Implementation Team will include:
1. Student Enrolment and Placement: If approved for closure, all continuing students
(both in and out of catchment) enrolled at the school will be placed in the receiving
schools as outlined in this report.
Options for students at the closing school who do not wish to attend the receiving school
where they are placed:
Students who do not wish to attend the school where they are placed may submit
a cross boundary application to the school(s) they wish to attend. Cross
Boundary Applications are accepted in February for placement in September of
the next school year. Placements are offered based on available space and
guidelines as outlined in Board policy.
Students who live in the catchment of another VSB school may apply for
placement at their residential catchment school. Catchment students receive
placement priority based upon available space.
For further details see admission rules and guidelines see the VSB Admission and
School Choice Policy: https://www.vsb.bc.ca/district-policy/jecc-r-student-admissionand-school-choice-regulation-0
2. Supporting Students: The district has well developed structures in place to ensure
student transitions between annexes and elementary schools and between elementary
and secondary schools are successful. These structures will provide a framework for
supporting students in successful transitions in the event of a school closure.
Opportunities will be provided for students and their families to learn about and to visit
the school where they will be attending. Transition planning will also include
opportunities for the teachers and staff to share specific information regarding student
learning needs, strengths, and programming.
3. Programs and Services: Every school has varied, and often unique, programs and
services. As part of the consultation process, the district will hear from the school
community about the programs and services specific to the school. The District
Implementation Team will work with the school community to determine the possibility

28

and logistics of continuing to offer these programs and services within receiving school
communities.
4. District Choice and Special Education Programs: With both schools approved for
closure and receiving schools, the District Implementation Team will work closely with
staff, students, and families of any district special education programs or district choice
programs to facilitate the relocation of students and programs.
5. Out of School Care Programs: The district recognizes the critical role that Out of
School Care programs provide within any school community. VSB staff will work with
service providers in order to determine the possibility of maintaining childcare spaces
in the event of a closure. It is important to note that the VSB leases space to childcare
providers and does not operate or license these programs.
6. Supporting VSB Staff: The district recognizes that staff will also be impacted by any
decision to close a school. Throughout the process, the District Implementation Team
will work with the unions and associations of employees affected by the closure process
to provide clear and transparent information and to help minimize uncertainty. All
relevant contractual provisions will be followed in consultation with unions and
associations.
7. Materials and Equipment: The District Implementation Team will work with the school
community to determine if there is any specific equipment (such as newly installed
playgrounds and/or community gardens) which could be relocated in the event of a
closure.
The District Implementation Team will also be responsible for coordinating the packing
and moving of all materials and resources.
8. Preparing Facilities: The District Implementation Team will work with schools which
are going to be receiving students as the result of a school closure, to determine what
modifications and/or alterations to the facility are required to support increased student
numbers and to ensure the facility is ready to provide for educational program delivery.

29

10.0

Summary

Key Reasons for Recommendation:

1. Provide better utilization of existing space: There is excess capacity in the district

and consolidating schools will better utilize the existing number of student spaces. The
combined current and projected enrolment of the 12 schools on the preliminary list can
reasonably be accommodated in adjacent schools.
2. Make progress towards the capacity utilization target set by the Ministry: The

closure of the 12 schools on the preliminary list of candidates would increase the districtwide capacity utilization from 84.7% as of August 2016 to 92.8% in 2017. The capacity
utilization is projected to be 90.1% by 2030 when new school space is added. This
figure includes Henderson and Laurier Annexes, already under consideration for
closure, plus the impacts of right-sizing schools for seismic mitigation and construction
of up to 6 new schools or additions needed for enrolment growth.
3. Redirect operating funds to have more impact on educational outcomes: VSB

would save a total of $7.7 million per year in operating costs on an ongoing basis (which
works out to over $38 million in the first 5 years and $107 million over 14 years to 2030).
These funds could be shifted to budget categories that directly impact educational
outcomes (e.g. programs, teaching, and educational resources).
4. Provide more funding for improving the condition of operating schools: VSB

would avoid approximately $67.5 million in deferred maintenance costs. This capital
funding could be directed to upgrading operating schools, therefore improving the
overall condition of school facilities.
5. Support the Seismic Mitigation Program and provide safer schools sooner: The

Ministry of Education is more likely to support capital funding requests for seismic
projects if VSB reduces the amount of excess operating capacity in its existing network
of schools. A total of 89 of VSBs 110 schools have high seismic risk and 25 of these
have either been seismically upgraded or are undergoing seismic construction. There
are 64 schools with high seismic risk that need to be addressed.
6. Provide Temporary Accommodation space: To complete the Seismic Mitigation

Program by 2030, existing school space is required to provide temporary

accommodations for schools undergoing seismic construction.
7. Build new schools in areas experiencing enrolment growth: With increased

capacity utilization, the Ministry of Education is more likely to support capital funding
requests for new schools in areas where there is significant enrolment growth such as
the downtown core and False Creek.

11.0

Recommendation

Individual recommendations are contained within the individual School Reports.

30

Appendix 1: Capacity Utilization for Each School (2015-16)

This appendix shows the 2015-16 enrolment, operating capacity, and capacity utilization
for each school. Schools are grouped by type of school (elementary annexes, elementary
schools, and secondary schools) and listed from highest to lowest capacity utilization.
Elementary Annexes
School Name
Roberts Annex
Douglas Annex
Tecumseh Annex
Champlain Heights Annex
Dickens Annex
Kerrisdale Annex
Queen Elizabeth Annex
Queen Victoria Elementary
Collingwood Neighbourhood School
McBride Annex
Selkirk Annex
Tillicum Annex
Henderson Annex
Laurier Annex
Garibaldi Annex
Elementary Annexes Total
Elementary Annexes Total (including international students)

Count of # of
Schools

2015-16 Enrolment
(# students)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

156
200
109
107
125
100
87
141
126
82
79
90
53
44
59
1,558
1,561

2015-16
2015-16
Operating Capacity
Capacity Utilization
(# student spaces)
124
126%
185
108%
103
106%
103
104%
122
102%
103
97%
103
84%
187
75%
185
68%
124
66%
124
64%
143
63%
103
51%
103
43%
145
41%
1,957
79.6%
1,957
79.8%

Note: This excludes Maquinna Annex, which was approved for closure in June 2016.
Elementary Schools
School Name
Tyee Elementary
Fraser Elementary
False Creek Elementary
Cavell Elementary
Fleming Elementary
Hudson Elementary
Quilchena Elementary
Strathcona Elementary
LEcole Bilingue
Wolfe Elementary
Elsie Roy Elementary
Tennyson Elementary
Maple Grove Elementary
Dickens Elementary
Selkirk Elementary
Trafalgar Elementary
Carnarvon Elementary
Laurier Elementary
Kerrisdale Elementary
Weir Elementary
Carr Elementary
Quesnel Elementary
Nelson Elementary
McKechnie Elementary
Sexsmith Elementary
Livingstone Elementary
Jamieson Elementary
Maquinna Elementary
Roberts Elementary
Secord Elementary

Count of # of
Schools

2015-16 Enrolment
(# students)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

200
281
285
330
491
377
320
557
511
403
428
447
489
493
708
510
387
289
594
448
279
417
436
254
363
334
471
223
558
636

(Continued on the following page)

Elementary Schools ~ Continued

31

2015-16
2015-16
Operating Capacity
Capacity Utilization
(# student spaces)
135
148%
201
140%
224
127%
271
122%
411
119%
317
119%
271
118%
476
117%
453
113%
364
111%
387
111%
406
110%
453
108%
457
108%
658
108%
476
107%
364
106%
275
105%
569
104%
434
103%
271
103%
411
101%
430
101%
252
101%
364
100%
341
98%
481
98%
229
97%
574
97%
658
97%

School Name
Hastings Elementary
Shaughnessy Elementary
Bayview Elementary
Tecumseh Elementary
Douglas Elementary
Kitchener Elementary
Oppenheimer Elementary
Queen Elizabeth Elementary
Norma Rose Point School
Queen Mary Elementary
Britannia Elementary
Kingsford-Smith Elementary
Waverley Elementary
Lloyd George Elementary
University Hill Elementary
Van Horne Elementary
Henderson Elementary
Norquay Elementary
Gordon Elementary
McBride Elementary
Cook Elementary
Nootka Elementary
Moberly Elementary
Beaconsfield Elementary
Grenfell Elementary
Grandview Elementary
Franklin Elementary
Osler Elementary
Queen Alexandra Elementary
Trudeau Elementary
Southlands Elementary
Begbie Elementary
Mount Pleasant Elementary
Bruce Elementary
Mackenzie Elementary
Thunderbird Elementary
Nightingale Elementary
Brock Elementary
Renfrew Elementary
Cunningham Elementary
Champlain Heights Elementary
Carleton Elementary
Lord Elementary
MacCorkindale Elementary
Macdonald Elementary
Seymour Elementary
International Village (unallocated)
Elementary Schools Total
Elementary Schools Total (including international students)

Count of # of
Schools

2015-16 Enrolment
(# students)

31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

616
406
318
446
481
433
348
359
701
312
194
327
397
341
317
387
480
611
322
321
353
417
492
219
385
148
198
210
193
259
221
317
201
214
392
215
222
219
419
348
249
304
146
188
79
110
45
27,399
27,575

32

2015-16
2015-16
Operating Capacity
Capacity Utilization
(# student spaces)
658
94%
434
94%
341
93%
481
93%
523
92%
476
91%
387
90%
411
87%
813
86%
364
86%
229
85%
387
84%
476
83%
411
83%
383
83%
476
81%
593
81%
775
79%
411
78%
411
78%
457
77%
546
76%
654
75%
294
74%
527
73%
205
72%
275
72%
294
71%
271
71%
364
71%
317
70%
457
69%
294
68%
317
68%
593
66%
341
63%
364
61%
364
60%
709
59%
616
56%
462
54%
612
50%
341
43%
457
41%
248
32%
392
28%
476
9%
32,300
84.8%
32,300
85.4%

Secondary Schools
School Name
King George Secondary
Byng Secondary
Prince of Wales Secondary
Churchill Secondary
David Thompson Secondary
Vancouver Technical Secondary
Magee Secondary
Point Grey Secondary
Kitsilano Secondary
Hamber Secondary
Killarney Secondary
Windermere Secondary
Gladstone Secondary
Tupper Secondary
John Oliver Secondary
University Hill Secondary
Templeton Secondary
Britannia Secondary
Secondary School Total:
Secondary School Total (including International Students)

Count of # of
Schools

2015-16 Enrolment
(# students)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

449
1,296
1,042
1,881
1,444
1,542
1,087
928
1,182
1,334
1,711
1,052
1,029
937
1,006
571
754
577
19,822
21,251

2015-16
2015-16
Operating Capacity
Capacity Utilization
(# student spaces)
375
120%
1,200
108%
1,050
99%
1,900
99%
1,550
93%
1,700
91%
1,200
91%
1,100
84%
1,500
79%
1,700
78%
2,200
78%
1,450
73%
1,600
64%
1,500
62%
1,700
59%
1,000
57%
1,400
54%
1,100
52%
25,225
78.6%
25,225
84.2%

Summary
# of Schools
Elementary Annexes
Elementary Schools
Subtotal of elementary annexes + elementary schools
Secondary Schools
Total - All Schools in the District

15
77
92
18
110

33

2015
Enrolment
1,561
27,575
29,136
21,251
50,387

2015-16
Operating Capacity
1,957
32,300
34,257
25,225
59,482

Current Capacity
Utilization
79.8%
85.4%
85.1%
84.2%
84.7%