The HWDSB briefly posted versions of its education centre site alternatives with different scoring than the final versions posted last Monday. Why did the scores change?
By Dan Jelly
Published February 22, 2012
On the morning of Monday, February 13, after discovering that the 18 PDF documents detailing the site analyses had been removed from the HWDSB web site where they had previously been, I attempted to use Google to find them, assuming they had simply been moved.
Upon conducting a search, I discovered that while the posted documents were no longer available, Google had taken and cached a copy of a previous version.
What we now know:
There are two versions of this analysis, the version that is published now, and a previous version cached on Google.
An example of the previous version was (and can still be) found by conducting a Google Search for: "HWDSB site 11 West Harbour pdf" and clicking on "Quick View" under the first result. This document was generated by Google from a PDF posted on the HWDSB web site. A similar version for some of the other 18 sites have also been available at various times since their original publication, sometimes in 'Quick View' format, sometimes as a cached HTML version.
The previous version used a Weighting Differenciation [sic] Factor of 2.0 instead of the current 3.0 and used a ranking of "B" for "Meetings [sic] topographical and geotechnical requirements" instead of the current "A". In seeing the "Quick View" version on Google, we know the analysis made it to this final, polished stage, complete with maps and photos, before the 2.0 was changed to a 3.0.
Using the parameters of the current and previous versions, the scores and rankings are below.
Notable differences: In the previous version, Jackson Square outscored Crestwood, and City Hall ranked 5th instead of 8th. Jerome finished 6th instead of 5th.
Here are the results of the site scoring, based on the previous version of the analysis. The number in brackets following each location is its rank position on the other analysis.
|Using Weight 2.0*||Using Weight 3.0|
|*Note: this version also used a ranking of "B" for the Category "Meetings (sic) topographical and geotechnical requirements". This difference is reflected in these results.|
|1||Jackson Square (2)||86.33||1||Crestwood (2)||86.69|
|2||Crestwood (1)||86.16||2||Jackson Square (1)||86.49|
|3||Highland (3)||83.11||3||Highland (3)||83.65|
|4||Innovation Park (4)||82.04||4||Innovation Park (4)||82.09|
|5||City Hall (8)||81.35||5||Jerome (6)||81.09|
|6||Jerome (5)||81.24||6||MacNab (7)||81.63|
|7||MacNab (6)||81.11||7||Stonechurch at Pritchard (8)||81.61|
|8||Stonechurch (7) at Pritchard||81.05||8||City Hall (5)||81.34|
|9||West Harbour (10)||80.44||9||Sheldon (10)||80.78|
|10||Sheldon (9)||80.07||10||West Harbour (9)||80.47|
|11||Ancaster (11)||79.20||11||Ancaster (11)||80.04|
|12||King & Queen (13)||77.38||12||Chatham (13)||77.48|
|13||Chatham (12)||77.11||13||King & Queen (12)||77.04|
|14||Aberdeen (16)||76.16||14||Windemere (15)||76.88|
|15||Windemere (14)||75.96||15||Pritchard & Rymal (16)||76.28|
|16||Pritchard & Rymal (15)||75.70||16||Aberdeen (14)||76.23|
|17||Upper James (17)||75.38||17||Upper James (17)||75.48|
|18||Flamborough (18)||68.39||18||Flamborough (18)||69.01|
Note: My calculations were made based directly on the documents found on Google and on the 18 evaluations made available by the HWDSB. No assumptions were made, all calculations can easily be explained and verified.
I think these are all valid questions given the lack of transparency demonstrated by the school board to date, and I think the public deserves some answers.
In the name of transparency, I am sharing my supporting documents, including all calculations:
Google Cached Link:
First published on Dan Jelly's blog, King and James.
You must be logged in to comment.