As with all of the board’s FI schools this year, the board’s policy on siblings means every child applying for September entry to JK FI who has a sibling in FI will get into the program. Other registrants are subject to the lottery to see who gets a JK FI spot and who stays on the FI waiting list.

The lottery was held in the presence of a scrutineer on Feb. 10, and parents whose children are subject to the lottery will be told the results on Feb. 28.

According to the board’s new figures, the Guelph school with the highest percentage of JK FI spaces available to non-siblings — 63 per cent — is Paisley Road, a dual-track school which has a cap of 46 JK FI spaces for next September. It had 58 “on time” registrants for its JK FI spaces, so 12 will be on the waiting list following the lottery.

At the board’s only other dual-track school in Guelph, Victory school, 60 per cent of JK FI spaces are open to children who don’t have siblings in FI, the board says. Victory’s cap is 30 and it had 29 on-time registrants for JK FI, so it had no waiting list after the Jan. 26 deadline.

Loney said the percentages of spaces open to non-siblings at other Guelph schools are as follows: 46 per cent at Edward Johnson (which has a cap of 46 incoming JK students in FI for September), 46 per cent at F.A. Hamilton school (whose cap is 35), 46 per cent at John McCrae (whose cap is 46), 48 per cent at the east end’s new Guelph Lake school (whose cap is 60), and 52 per cent at King George school (whose cap is 46). In Rockwood, 43 per cent of spaces at Harris Mill school will be open to non-siblings.

In a related matter, the board is wondering why the number of “on time” registrations this year for JK FI in Guelph is considerably lower than the number of new JK FI students who enrolled in Guelph schools last fall.

There were 485 such students enrolled at Guelph schools last fall, but only 424 children were enrolled in JK FI in the city by the Jan. 26 “on time” deadline for September 2017, Loney said.

However, “It’s important to note that these numbers are not comparing apples to apples,” she stressed in an email. “The 2016 numbers are for JK FI enrolment, whereas the 2017 numbers are for ‘on-time’ JK FI applicants. The numbers for applicants are not yet completely verified and may change as the verification process continues.”

Board officials aren’t yet sure how to interpret the lower numbers.

“In terms of explaining the differences we’re seeing so far in the numbers, there are simply too many unknowns to speculate ... Until we have final numbers and can compare October 2016 enrolment to October 2017 enrolment, we don’t know if total enrolment is up or down, if there is a smaller cohort this year, and so on,” Loney said.

Meanwhile, Bailey responded earlier this month to criticism from Ryan Norris, a Guelph parent opposed to the board’s policy of preferred sibling access to FI. In a letter sent to trustees and to local media after the board’s monthly meeting on Jan. 31, Ryan was critical of how the issue was handled, in particular by Bailey, at that meeting.

“The pillars on which the trustees are supporting the decision to allow a ‘sibling exception’ are incredibly weak,” Norris said in the letter.

In a lengthy email response to Norris, copies of which were sent to local media, Bailey said he understood the “difficult situation” many Guelph families have been placed in by the board’s new FI policy.

“Trustees understood that when we made the decisions regarding caps and siblings, certain community members would be significantly affected,” Bailey said, “and I can only offer you my assurance that we made these decisions intentionally, based on the parameters that the Ministry of Education has provided us, and with the best interests of our board students in mind.”

Addressing the issue of whether it’s equitable to give siblings preferred access to FI, Bailey said the board makes a distinction between equity and equality.

“Trustees should have perhaps made the distinction between equity and equality a little more forcefully over the past few months, and I will attempt to do so again now,” he said.

“Speaking as an individual, and not as chair of the board, I define equity as providing the supports and tools that our students need to succeed, in the areas of both academic success and well-being.

“This is directly related to the Ministry’s call on trustees to ‘close the gap’ between those who struggle to learn and those for whom school-based learning comes naturally. As such, our focus on equity tends to centre on our at-risk school communities, special education students, our FNMI (First Nations, Métis and Inuit) students, and other mainly minority groups whose life circumstances may prevent them from affording the family and life opportunities to succeed in our system that other students enjoy.

“In contrast,” Bailey continued, “I define equality as providing all of our students with the same treatment and opportunities.

“Although equality is something that I perceive our board aims for when possible, we simply do not have the resources to do so perfectly. While equity aims to ‘close the achievement gap,’ equality strives to provide equal access to opportunity.

“Thus, my reading of our vision statement, in particular (that) ‘opportunities and resources need to be equitably distributed,’ is not that we must make decisions that afford equal opportunity to all of our students, but that we must apply resources strategically to support those most likely to struggle in our system.”

Bailey also noted that in his three successful bids for election to the school board, he consistently advocated support for families in fostering learning relationships.

“Siblings present at the same school, in my personal opinion, facilitate this relationship,” he said in his open letter to Norris.

“You are free to disagree with me here, but it is a slogan that has helped me gain election, and, as an election promise, one that deeply informs my decisions,” he added.

Bailey also said that in grappling with what to do to control FI enrolment, Upper Grand trustees were constrained by Ministry of Education directives.

Trustees, he said, “were forced to make decisions that we admittedly found distasteful — and publicly said so — in our attempt to navigate the shoals of provincial policy that limits our decision-making ability in regards to an ‘optional’ FI program, and the unprecedented growth of the program.

“We made the decisions we considered to be equitable, and in the best interests of the most students in our board,” Bailey said.