DRAFT - not yet approved by full committee
Minutes of the Exceptional La Châtaigneraie Campus Development Group Meeting Monday 23rd. October, 2000.
Present:; Alan Roberts; Ann LeDiraison;Chris Binge; Constanza Vallenas de Villar; Donald Billingsley; Jan Powell; Jean-Jacques Streuli;; Michel Chinal; Philip Djaferis; Philippe Judas; Pierre André Ruchat; Robert Schmoll; Ron Forrest; Tim Vallence; Jan Powell, Ron Forrest, Mike Lee, Robert Schmoll, Wendy Bennett Powell.
This exceptional meeting was called following the Governing Board’s decision to establish the new campus for the Foundation at Grand Saconnex and for this Campus to be a Class 10 to 13 Campus.
The Chairman set the agenda. This was to define the process whereby the CDG could get a better understanding of the Board’s decision and help foster communication between the board and the La Chat campus constituents on this issue. The CDG was also requested by the Board to provide campus feedback on the idea of the proposed 10-13 campus.
It was confirmed that two letters from the chairman of the Board had been received. These were discussed and clarified. At the moment, the Board has only made a decision in principle to create a Class 10 to 13 Campus purely in order that clear initial instruction can be given to architects competing for the contract. It was a decision in principle, which had to be given because of the strict planning schedule that is needed to open the campus in the fall of 2003. The final, definitive decision on the makeup of the campus has not been made yet. The Board has called a special extraordinary Consultative General Assembly (CGA) for 28 November for a public consultation of the pending decision. It is now intended that the final decision on the composition of the campus be made at the December Board meeting although it could be made as late as February. There would probably be additional expenses incurred if that decision changed the composition of the campus.
It was reported that at the teaching staff meeting earlier in the day, the process of decision making by the Board and the process by which staff could come forward with their concerns, had been clarified. This had allowed for the high level of anxiety among staff to be dissipated. It was also reported that, based on a vote taken at its meeting, the teaching staff were almost unanimously opposed to the idea of a Class 10 to 13 campus.
It was clear that the planned CGA of the 28th November has to be fully constructive for all the constituents, and that, prior to the CGA, the Board should fully inform parents, students and teachers of the process that will be followed in its decision making.
It was stated that the Board is preparing carefully for the meeting with presentations on all aspects of the proposals. Prior to the meeting, information will be sent to parents with more details on the strengths and drawbacks of the different proposals for the new campus that have been examined by the Board.
It was proposed that there be a meeting at La Châtaigneraie purely for La Châtaigneraie parents, students and staff, since there are issues regarding the new proposal which are solely concerned with this campus and would be more difficult to discuss in a Foundation-wide meeting. After a long discussion this proposal was rejected. There was concern expressed that a La Chat only meeting could be duplicative of the CGA, that to have full answers to questions raised in that meeting the full Board should be present, and it would be difficult to convene up to three campus-specific meetings (LGB, La Chat, & Pregny) with full Board presence. Given that the Board represents the Foundation as a whole, it was felt that its meetings should be Foundation-wide. The CDG then sought other ways to allow for communication between the Board and La Chat constituents on this issue.
To enable parents’ and students' questions to be answered, it was proposed and agreed to have both an E Mail box and a mail box to which questions can be sent. Families would be notified about this as soon as possible. The Board and Administration would review and group the questions, and provide open answers to them by e-mail and/or by post to the full community. In addition it was reasserted that there would be written documentation of the process to be followed, and a more detailed rationale for the new campus sent out prior to the CGA of 28th November.
The choice of site of the new campus was discussed and it was made clear that this choice has definitely been made. It was reported that as the Board researched various options for a site, numerous possible sites had drawbacks. For example, some lacked the infrastructure needed for a school and would therefore be very expensive to build (i.e. the school would need to build a road to access the land). Others were not zoned for a school, and the petitions that would have to be submitted to the government to have the land rezoned could take several years. The site that has been chosen has several advantages, among them being that it is owned by the State of Geneva and the Foundation is hoping it will be donated by the State.
Concern was expressed over the size of the site since this is now 18,000 square meters and not the 40,000 previously described as ideal for a new campus. Assurance was given that the site was large enough for either a 10-13 or a 1-13 campus, based on a feasibility study that has been conducted. It was requested that the Board provide more information to parents on how the site could be used to provide good sports facilities and extracurricular facilities (art, music, theater, etc.) in a relatively small space.
It was stated that that the manner in which the Board appeared to make the decision has clouded the feedback.
Concern was shown for the safety and security of senior students traveling to and working in Geneva. Transport was discussed. This was seen as an area where more information should be sent to families.
Concern was raised about how almost all families would be split between at least two campuses, with the transportation and scheduling difficulties that would involve.
The greatest concern voiced was about the way a decision to establish a Class 10 to 13 campus would change completely the character of La Châtaigneraie. Pedagogical reasons must be given to support such a decision. La Châtaigneraie has developed with a strong community ethic. The proposition would destroy that community.
A concern was raised that if this new 10-13 campus is established, the remaining campuses are defined "by default" as being what is left. Arguments will need to be made to support the idea of a 1 to 9 campus as well as a 10 to 13 campus. If these pedagogical and social arguments are not made, the concern will be that the 1 to 9 campuses will be seen as leftover.
It was stated that the teachers are not convinced that more students will necessarily produce more subject options. The teaching staff is overwhelmingly in favour of a 1 to 13 campus.
Questions were asked about the pedagogical advantages and these were described in terms of subject options, and the facilitating of extracurricular activities such as theatre and school orchestra.
The history of the purchase of La Châtaigneraie was recounted and cited as a bold and radical step in the past equal to this new bold and radical step to build a school for students twenty years in the future. This proposal was not seen by some as such a great risk as that of the past.
The problems of pastoral care in a school with so many students in higher grades were raised. It was accepted that great attention to pastoral care would need to be taken if the new campus were classes 10 to 13.
Regarding the FLP program, concern was voiced by some that the Vaudois population may be reluctant to go to Geneva to the proposed new campus. Also, the FLP program needs to expand on the La Chat campus in classes 7-9, from one to two classes, and at the moment, there is only space for one class. If instead the Board chose to have three sites with FLP classes, this might risk diluting the program, with an insufficient number of students to make it workable. The benefits to the FLP and the future of the new Maturité were also described.
It was stated that families had made the choice to live in the Canton of Vaud because of the existence of La Châtaigneraie. The proposal would tear apart a good community.
The proposal would reduce the opportunity for families to choose schools since there would only be one option for older secondary students.
It was remarked that not much discussion had been generated for the third option reviewed by the Board: for a class 6-13 campus. It was felt there had not been sufficient information provided to allow a good discussion of this option.
It was stated that if the 10-13 campus structure were chosen, classes would be gradually phased into the new campus. Thus, the decision would only affect students who are currently in grade 8 or younger. The last La Chat graduation would be June 2005.
Fears that the new campus, whatever its structure, would drain resources from the established capital projects on existing campuses were allayed by the statement that the funding for these projects is already designated.
A benefit of the proposed 10 to 13 campus was seen to be that it might help nurture the various cultures that make up the Foundation. By having more of a concentration of some nationalities in one site, there could be new ways developed to support different cultures. However it was estimated by some that at the moment the most culturally diverse campus is the smallest one - Pregny, so that size alone may not be an important factor. Regardless of the number of nationalities represented on a campus, some believed we need to keep looking for opportunities to allow all the different cultures to express themselves. Whichever composition is decided for the new campus, it was suggested that more work could be done to improve mother tongue programs.
A 10 to 13 campus would allow the Foundation to reinvent itself and lose the division between the two main campuses. It could establish a stronger sense of identity for the schools within one Foundation.
It was affirmed that the CGA (Consultative General Assembly) on 28 November was the place for all the concerns to be fully discussed.
It was clear that the feeling of the meeting was strongly opposed to the proposed Class 10 to 13 campus. The chairman asked for a show of hands on a motion that the CDG recommend to the Board that no final decision on the campus structure be made until after the CGA. From among those present, and allowed to vote, there were 7 in favour of this recommendation, 0 against, and 2 abstaining.
Another motion was made that the CDG support a class 1-13 proposal for the new campus, rather than the 10-13 model. From among those present, and allowed to vote, there were 4 in favour, 2 against, and 3 abstaining.
The meeting closed at 20.35.
See other CDG minutes excerpts