Moncton High School (1898)

Moncton High School
File:Moncton High.jpg
Address
207 Church Street Moncton , New Brunswick , E1C 5A3
Information
School type	High School
Motto	Latoires Fines Petimus (Seek Wider Horizons)
Founded	1935
School board	District 2
Superintendent	Karen Branscombe
Principal	Trent Munn
Staff	90
Grades	9-12
Enrollment	1200
Language	English, French Immersion
Area	Moncton, Westmorland County, New Brunswick
Colour(s)	Purple and White
Mascot	Purple Knight
Team name	Purple Knights
Yearbook	The Tower
Website	http://www.monctonhigh.ca

Moncton High School (MHS) is the oldest high school and current heritage property in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. Serving 1,300 students from the Moncton area and located in Moncton's inner urban core, MHS is housed in what the Heritage Canada Foundation calls an “outstanding example of Normandy Gothic Revival-style architecture”. However, due to lack of proper and regular maintenance by successive provincial governments, the building deteriorated and is facing closure. In July 2011, following the province's decision to relocate the school to Royal Oaks, a teetering private suburban development on the edge of the city, advocates have fought to maintain the school in its current location.

History

Moncton High School was established in 1935, upon the initiative of Fred Edgett, a local grocery wholesale manager, and was constructed by Ambrose Wheeler, a local construction genius of his day. Edgett convinced the public that Moncton needed a high school in a distinct building and that it was in fact possible to take on such a project in spite of the economic depression that had settled upon Canada's economy. Wheeler, along with his right hand man Stan Calhoun, both of whom having previously collaborated in the construction of the Assumption Cathedral, were successful in this large-scale project. The first chairman of the school, Fred Edgett, was nevertheless heavily criticized for spending $450,000 in the endeavor. However, he had rightly predicted that the relative cost of the school would diminish as the economy grew back. The dollars spent at the time of construction were “depression dollars” and lost much of their value as inflation kicked back in. During World War II, MHS played an important role in teaching aero engine mechanics to future aviation engineers involved in the war effort. Records show that between 1940 and 1945, the school basement was used as a shop for aeronautical engines, teaching students of aviation mechanics from all parts of the world. This instruction complemented the basic aviation instruction provided to new pilots who left afterwards directly to Europe.

School traditions

MHS school colours are purple and white, and the mascot is the Purple Knights. The origin of these colours was on and around the day of September 27, 1897, when the school was dedicated by the Governor General of Canada, the Earl of Aberdeen. He received a silver tower, which he used to lay the cornerstone, and after this, he gave a speech. One of the things he mentioned was that he hoped that the school never grew ashamed of him. Royal Purple and White were used to symbolize royalty. Many different mottos were used in the first few years following the creation of Aberdeen High School until 1907, when the school adapted Orcus es splendidus. The current school motto is 'Latiores Fines Petimus', which means 'We Seek Wider Horizons'. The MHS yearbook was first published in 1948. It was named the Tower in 1959.

Temporary closure

Before it became a heritage property, the government proposed closing the school, and constructing a new facility named Moncton High School that would rival the size and population of Fredericton High School. Due to political pressure, however, the school underwent major renovations including asbestos removal. MHS held the record for the largest number of students in the city for numerous years. Following repeated calls for renovation and upkeep funds by the District Education Council (DEC), Moncton High School was closed in late September 2010 due to corroded structural columns. During the first week of October numerous teachers complained that the air in the school was making them sick. While testing the air quality on October 7 went on, other workers checked behind walls for any other damage. In doing so, they noticed water damage in many rooms throughout the school, however the air quality was deemed safe, although due to the amount of damage, Karen Branscombe, School District 2 Superintendent, announced on October 8, 2010 that MHS would temporarily be closed. Students were separated according to grade and split into two different schools. The school reopened in September 2011, having undergone $2 million in repairs.

O'Shaughnessy Report

In accordance with Department of Education policy, in March 2010, School District 2 commissioned CS&P architects, a leading Toronto architectural firm specializing in the renovation of historic schools, for a community consultation on the future of MHS and to make a recommendation to the District Education Council (DEC). The consultation, says education facility planner and author of the report Maureen O'Shaughnessy, “is built on the goals of the Department of Education and the DEC to create a 21st Century learning environment which puts learners first.” The report weighed community feedback, student needs, financial impact of renovation and new construction of school building as well as long-term operations and maintenance. “An open dialogue with the community, allowed the community to assist in the development of options, fostering consensus and ownership of the recommended plan.”

The report recommended in November 2010 to re-build MHS on the existing site while retaining the most important heritage components of the existing building. However, the report recommended a phased acquisition of adjacent land north of the school for the development of an additional practice play field. The proposal did not require the maintenance of the existing auditorium but recommended pursuing alternative sources of funding as the auditorium was not required under existing provincial educational guidelines. The reasons for this choice can be summarized as follows:

• A majority of stakeholders supported the reconstruction or renovation of MHS on the existing site.
• The majority of MHS students live within a 6 km radius of the school. Taking into account the location of students attending feeder schools, “there is no geographic location within the MHS boundary that is more central to a majority of students”.
• The proximity of downtown amenities and services including health and dental clinics, retail, arts and cultural institutions, the universities, and public transportation.
• While using the existing site would include demolition costs, moving the school to a new site would include other costs such as land acquisition and site preparation.

The report concluded: "the re-building or replacement of an existing school in an existing community must include the community in the planning and development of the project." On November 16, 2010, the DEC recommended its support of the O'Shaughnessy Report to Education Minister Jody Carr. In addition to DEC and the City of Moncton, the O'Shaughnessy Report was endorsed by Downtown Moncton Inc and the Greater Moncton Chamber of Commerce.

Move to Royal Oaks

In spite of pre-existing consultations, recommendation by the DEC and general public approval of the O'Shaughnessy Report, Minister of Education Jody Carr announced on February 16 2011 that a new school would be built in a new location. Department of Supply and Services Minister Claude Williams announced during the same month that demolition preserving the auditorium and tower, would alone cost $10 million. He also added that no analysis had been conducted as to the actual cost of renovating the school. Nevertheless, he added: "MHS building would be preserved for future generations." On July 5, 2011, Education Minister Jody Carr announced that a new Moncton High School would be built on the Royal Oaks site. The Province did not own a new site at that time and on December 19, 2011 it purchased land belonging to The Royal Oaks subdivision for approximately 1.5$ million. The purchase agreement contains several conditions that have been blackened out from public view although they would probably account for services and conditions required from Province and Royal Oaks necessary to carry the project through.

Part of the opposition to the new school was based on the fact that the chosen location in Royal Oaks was beyond the city's serviceable boundary line, approximately 8km north of its current location although in a well wooded area on the edge of city limits. From a legal perspective, no new construction is to be serviced in such an area. Such services would include new roads, sewers, and water lines in order to service the displaced school. For this last reason, Rompsen applied to Moncton City Council on January 16, 2012, to have the serviceable boundary extended so as to include the newly purchased Crown land but also to change the zoning of the site from "Rural Residential" to "Integrated Development". One senior official was quoted as advising the Premier: “any attempt by the Province to locate schools in areas like the far reaches of Elmwood Drive-Royal Oaks-Irishtown or Harrisville would make no practical sense and would be met with stiff public opposition throughout the city.”[http://www.moncton.ca/Assets/Government+English/Agendas/Agendas+Decision+Meetings+2012+English/Minutes/2012-03-19+Minutes-Proc$!c3$!a8s+Verbal.pdf City of Moncton, Council Minutes, March 19 2012.]</ref> Moncton City Councillors also reiterated their opposition to the move, although no action was taken to follow through. Moncton's City Manager announced earlier on December 22, 2011 that rather than fight the move, the City intended to work toward an agreement with Royal Oaks subdivision and the Province. In addition, withdrawing the rezoning application did not affect the move because the s. 96 of the Community Planning Act exempts the Province from zoning bylaws and regulations: the rezoning application was only presented as a as a token gesture by Rompsen. As a result, the newly proposed school would go ahead with or without City approval. Accepting this interpretation of the Community Planning Act, Moncton City Council accepted on June 25, 2012 the Province's $12.8 million offer to cover part of the infrastructure costs for the new high school. The total infrastructure costs for the City would amount to $30 million because of the need to construct new roads, sewers and water lines to service the new location. Notably, these commitments to cover the schools infrastructure costs, necessary for the move to the new location, were deemed legal by the City even though they go against City of Moncton policy. As a result of the decision, two prominent philanthropists withdrew scholarships for the school.

Planning Issues

Several factors question the sustainability of the construction of the school at Royal Oaks. According to the Department of Education, Royal Oaks was the best of all 20 scouted locations because of anticipated population change, existing community amenities, community school use, catchment area, accessibility of the site, available utilities, community amenities and transportation strategies.

However, it is difficult to understand what the Province is thinking here. To begin, the City of Moncton has stated that the Royal Oaks area is not projected to have any increase in population. Moreover, the land where the school is being constructed is 8 km from the centre, in a wooded area, is not serviced by either city amenities and requires the construction of new roads, sewers and water lines. As stated in the O'Shaughnessy Report, the current location is the most central for all MHS students.

In contrast, United States EPA guidelines on school siting state very clearly what priorities and factors should be taken into account in determining school locations. For one, EPA guidlines state that sustainable schools are an integral part of education. School siting calls for integral and meaningful public involvement. In addition, "Schools should be located in environments that contribute to the livability, sustainability and public health of neighborhoods and communities." Last, "The school siting process should consider the environmental health and safety of the entire community, including disadvantaged and underserved populations."

In the case of MHS, all students attending the new school will have to be bused. Codiac Transit, the City's public transportation service, does not service the new location and has stated that it will not do so. There are no sidewalks leading to the school from downtown, and virtually all those attending or working in the school would have to use their cars or attend on a school bus. To this day, there are no plans for any service to bring students downtown to doctor or other appointment, which would imply that parents would have to take time off work in order to pick-up and drop off their kids. A taxi costs approximately $25 each way. Parents opposed to the move could move their children into other downtown High Schools such as Harrison Trimble or Bernice MacNaughton. Children of disadvantaged families will likely have more difficulty in attending after school activities.

There are also several safety concerns regarding the new site. For one, Moncton Fire Chief and Director of Emergency Planning Eric Arsenault stated that he was not consulted on the new location of the school. As it stands, Elmwood drive is the only access road to the new school. Normally, had the city approved the rezoning application of the Developer, responses times for the provision of emergency services would have to be considered given that fire services come within municipal jurisdiction. Thus neither the province nor the city have proceeded to evaluate basic planning concerns into the school location which will remain beyond the city's serviceable boundary. On a broader scale, the choice of site conflicts with several planning priorities of the city of Moncton, such as those enunciated in the City of Moncton's proposed municipal plan, namely to keep educational facilities accessible to the public and to promote community interaction therewith.

In addition, the displacement of the school will hinder the utility of residential development in the downtown, and would limit the utility of the new downtown Museum of Transportation, a $30 million investment by the City of Moncton, located within walking distance of MHS. Moving public services to the edge of City property will also encourage residents to move outside city limits, thereby losing tax revenues and promoting the extension of city services to lower population densities. In short, moving the school to the edge of City limits would promote urban sprawl, while asphyxiating the downtown.

Nature of Move

Technically, it appears that the move is not a "relocation" of the existing school or the closure of the existing school with the establishment of a new one on a new property. In support of this, the province has called the new establishment "a new Moncton high school" and has stated that a name for the new establishment will have to be chosen. A new catchment area for the school will likely be redrawn by the Department of Education since downtown high schools will be closer. Students living in proximity to the existing school will likely no longer be entitled to attend the new school.

The legal problem stems from the fact that the province's Education Act does not allow the Minister to move a school. Rather, the Act only provides for the closure of existing schools and the establishment of a new schools. Both acts are two distinct DEC - not Ministerial, decisions which the Minister may or may not approve. The "Education Act" therefore does not provide the MInister of Education any initiative in matters of high school closure or establishment. In spite of this, Department of Education Guidelines state that it is for the DEC to "recommend" a school closure to the Minister. Thus, Department of Education policies have reversed legislative authority, giving the DEC the impression that school closures, and incidentally their establishment, are for the MInister to decide. Next to this, in the case of a closure, Department of Education Policy requires the DEC to hold public consultations on a school's sustainability. The DEC must take into account the impact of a school closure on the local community, economic development, transportation, finances, among other factors. Such consultations were conducted for the O'Shaughnessy Report, an 8 month consultation process of all concerned stakeholders. Following the Report, the DEC resolved in November 2010 on the maintenance of MHS in its current location. However, the Minister of Education did not acknowledge the DEC's decision and declared in February 2011 that a new school would be built in a different location.

Zoning Immunity

Driving the Province's unilateral relocation of the school is legislation providing "zoning immunity" to government buildings such as schools. As a practical matter, this means that the school would not be bound by any zoning legislation and bylaws. However, there are doubts that the province can actually claim full immunity in this matter. According to the Education Act, jurisdiction over the determination of the location of school is split between the DEC, which determines the "general location" while the Minister of Education is to determine the "site" on which schools are to be built. This division of jurisdiction was enacted in 2000 most likely the result of the enactment of s. 16.1(1) of the Charter in 1993, a constitutional guarantee of independent educational facilities to both of the Province's linguistic communities. In the case of MHS, there was no DEC involvement in determining the 'general location' of the new school; the Province simply went ahead selecting a new site 8 km away from the existing school without any input from the DEC. In March 2012, School District 2 Superintendant Harry Doyle protested the Province's decision to move the school and stated that the DEC was given no role in determining its location.

As a corollary to such shared jurisdiction over school location, it is difficult for the Province to claim blanket immunity under s. 96 of the Community Planning Act over city by-laws such as the serviceable boundary line. As stated above, the driving justification for the unilateral decision to select the Royal Oaks location has been the Minister's jurisdiction over school "sites" as well as immunity from zoning legislation. However, in order to enable the selection of the Royal Oaks site, the DEC would have had to designate an area beyond the serviceable boundary line, something it does not have the power to do, as an ordinary non-Crown corporation. Moreover, no exemption was requested by the DEC, nor is it entitled to override the City's bylaws. Following this reasoning, only the site selected by the Minister within the “general location” designated by the DEC, would be immune, not the 'general location' as selected by the DEC.

The City of Moncton's Development Agreement with the Province pertaining the relocation could be vulnerable on the same grounds. According to this agreement, the City will receive provincial funding to extend roads, sewage and water beyond its own serviceable boundary line, even though this would be in violation of its own policies. On June 25, 2012, City management claimed that the development agreement it had been negotiating with the Province ever since the announcement of the new site was legal because the Province had immunity over the City's zoning by-laws. As a result, construction undertaken by the City would be covered the province's immunity. However, the development project did not require the City's participation and since the 1970s, municipalities such as Moncton do not have any immunity over their own by-laws.

On October 10, 2012, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled that concerned citizens had a 90 day time limit to contest the Minister's decision to move the school. The deadline would have had to be May 15, 2011, or October 5, 2011, depending on the timeframe used. The Court did not rule on the merits of the application. A subsequent application under rules of public interest standing is being contemplated pending the Court's written decision. All these factors raise the question as to why, it spite of broad public support of the maintenance of MHS in its current location, authorities favoured a move that will be costly both economically and environmentally for many generations to come.

See also

• Harrison Trimble High School
• MacNaughton High School

References

• CS&P Architects, "Community Consultation for the Future of Moncton High School", Nov. 2010 (O'Shaughnessy Report).
• Letter to Premier Alward from City of Moncton Official, March 8 2011.
• Province of New Brunswick, Department of Education, Multi-year School Infrastructure Planning, Policy 409, ss. 6.4 - 6.6.
• New Brunswick, Department of Education, Information on the relocation of Moncton High School.
• Province of New Brunswick, Community Planning Act, RSNB 1973, c C-12, s. 96.
• Province of New Brunswick, Education Act, SNB 1997, c E-1.12.

External links

• Moncton High Website
• Moncton High School Fan Page on Facebook
• Panoramic View of Moncton High School Auditorium.