An informal working group of people from La Chat, (including PTA and CDG reps) Pregny (inlcuding CDG and teacher reps) and LGB (including CDG and teacher reps ), and three members of the Board. The aim was to look at this draft proposal, discuss its pros and cons and come up with improvements, suggestions and further ideas. Its an interesting proposal which will be further discussed at the CGA.

An alternative to the ‘class 1 to 13’ and ‘class 11-13 terminal campus’ options is a third ‘class 6 to 13’ middle and upper school for the Foundation. The Saconay facility would be constructed to be capable of accommodating up to 1300 students, ages 11 to 19. These students would primarily be concentrated in an upper school comprised of classes 10 through 13 with the balance of the population in a middle school for classes 6 to 9. It would feature English as the primary language of instruction, emphasise teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL) as well as immersion French for Anglophone students. (Note that the Charter of the Foundation mandates that it provides both English and French as languages of instruction, but it does not require that both languages be offered at each individual campus.)

It would provide the widest range of options such as accommodation of special needs children beyond Primary school and IB options such as Music, Drama and Design Technology that draw limited numbers and/or require specialised facilities. It would also be paired with Pregny to provide a special needs facility to accommodate children across the full range of ages with mainstream education.

Initially, Saconnex would handle approximately 72 to 96 students in each class level in classes 10-13 with smaller numbers in each class level in middle school for a total campus population of around 675, allowing expansion of the capacity across the Foundation in classes 6 to 13.

Under the ‘class 6 to 13’ option, the Foundation would continue to offer a 1-13 structure for both English and French languages of instruction at both La Grande Bossière (LGB) and La Châtaigneraie (LC).

• The middle and upper schools at LGB would be limited to a maximum of 120 students (5 class sections) in each class level that would adequately accommodate the intake from the primary school. Both FLP and ELP instruction would be offered (a minimum of at least 1 class section at each grade level). Total campus population would be around 1600 (excluding ECE).
• The secondary school at LC would be limited to a maximum of 72 students (3 class sections) in each class level in middle school expanding to 96 students (4 class sections) in upper school. The middle school intake would be equal to the primary school matriculation on the LC campus. Both FLP and ELP instruction would be provided and the total campus population would return to the desired level of around 1,000 students
•  
• At both LC and LGB, the primary school would expand as 3 sections would be offered at LC in class 1 to 3 and as class 5 would be included into the primary school at LGB. This will require some redeployment of classrooms vacated by the reduced secondary school population as well as the vacant old secondary library at LC and the vacant old cafeteria at LGB.
• At Pregny, class 6 would be moved to Saconay, freeing a classroom for an additional section in classes 1 to 5 or to allow a Primary Reception class to be moved from Rigot to Pregny.
• At Mies, a full 1 to 5 ELP programme would be established. This campus would need to remain in operation for the foreseeable future.

The expectation is that the constant expansion and shrinking of class offerings at LC and LGB would be eliminated; these campuses would have a fixed number of places in the basic course offerings to fill in middle and upper school. Once these places are full, or if students have special desires for courses not met at these campuses, students would be accommodated at Saconay, which is a feasible alternative for students (particularly those in class 10 and above) and their families living on either side of Lake Geneva.

Advantages:

• It keeps a full range of students on the campuses where they have been historically offered - diminishing the potential alienation of alumni and answering the concern about interaction between senior students and primary school children.
• It ensures the Foundation continues to utilise the new science labs at both LC and LGB as well as the new multi-media centre at LC.
• It is not the total sweeping change that might be desired (or feared); however, the resizing at both LC and LGB would appear to give the Foundation an opportunity for renewal that is desired.
• It allows a more efficient use of our most scarce resource, land available and authorised for construction, as a senior school can be designed as a multi-story building, increasing its capacity, whereas a primary school requires more land for play space and is generally limited to a two story structure.
• It is in alignment with the Strategic Plan, which called for increasing enrolment by increasing the number of campuses. Under 6 – 13, the number of middle and upper schools grows from 2 to 3.
• It facilitates further expansion by establishing small primary school campuses. While middle and upper schools require special facilities and a critical mass of students to successfully serve older children, younger children can be successfully accommodated in small schools with a relatively limited amount of specialised building. The success of both the Mies and Grand-Sacconex primary facilities provide concrete examples of this view.
• It preserves the option for the Foundation to grow further if demand continues to increase at the edges of the Geneva metropolitan area. In particular, if the Vaud authorities become more receptive to expansion of facilities in the vicinity of LC, some or all of the primary students could be moved from the existing campus, creating spaces for additional middle and upper school students.

Disadvantages:

• It is inherently inefficient, with three middle and upper school campuses, requiring three sets of facilities, three sets of counselling staff, three sets of department heads, etc.
• The relatively small upper school populations, particularly at LC, will limit choice of courses offered and flexibility in scheduling certain combinations of IB subjects.
• It will not provide a natural mandate for a Foundation-wide uniformity of curriculum.
• It will require continuation of the relatively small French language of instruction secondary programmes at both LC and LGB. At LC, this small programme, split between the BI and MF, continues to struggle to maintain a critical mass. At LGB, the small numbers have reduced the secondary French language programme to offering only the BI. Providing a quality FLP offering without draining resources away from the ELP will be a significant challenge.