School closures - where is public debate?

Post Reply
XT225
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3913
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by XT225 »

twobits wrote:
Of course it is a a one time thing. It came out of admin savings in the current budget year. It does not mean similar savings will be achievable every year going forward. And every other media report besides this one you linked to, states it is a one time funding.
Further, I do know him and like him for most of his efforts for this riding but I do not think "buddy" would be an appropriate description. I would describe it as a respectful relationship. And rather than be cheap about it and suggest this action by Dano was some kind of attempt to secure a pension, I actually took a few minutes of my time and contacted my MLA and told him exactly what I thought about the sudden appearance of these white knight funds? Did you?


You obviously don't believe what our MLA just stated...let me quote it: "As far as the money being a one-time only offering, Ashton says budgets are annual events, and he’s not heard from the province this is to only be a one-time offering.

“I have confidence there will be continued funding coming,” he says. “This is about the kids, let’s make sure it remains about the kids.”

I have had past contacts with our MLA with no success; is a total puppet of the Christy Clark Government and if a concern of mine does not meet their Right Wing standards, it goes in the garbage. I would much rather vote for an Independent MLA, who would not be afraid to bring up topics to the Leaders that they might not agree with. This latest funding does not appear to be enough to keep the schools open and is a slap in the face of the Board Trustees, (who have a tough job trying to run things with the little funds that the Govt gives them).
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by twobits »

XT225 wrote:
You obviously don't believe what our MLA just stated...let me quote it:[i] "As far as the money being a one-time only offering, Ashton says budgets are annual events, and he’s not heard from the province this is to only be a one-time offering.



Ok XT, here's a direct quote from the BC School Trustee's Association President........

“BCSTA — I’m putting you on fair warning here — will continue to seek commitment from government to sustain these funds for future budget years and to make it a permanent addition to the overall K to 12 provincial budget,” Rezansoff said.


Does that not tell you that there is no future commitment for future years? Even the BCSTA confirms it is no commitment. All Dano said was that he has not heard that it is a one time thing from the Province. The corollary to that is that he has also not heard that it will be a continued funding stream. Dano's further comments of "These funds should at least be able to postpone the closure of these schools for a year" (sic) speaks pretty clearly as to the certainty of repeat funding from admin savings.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
XT225
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3913
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by XT225 »

twobits wrote:
Ok XT, here's a direct quote from the BC School Trustee's Association President........

“BCSTA — I’m putting you on fair warning here — will continue to seek commitment from government to sustain these funds for future budget years and to make it a permanent addition to the overall K to 12 provincial budget,” Rezansoff said.


Does that not tell you that there is no future commitment for future years? Even the BCSTA confirms it is no commitment. All Dano said was that he has not heard that it is a one time thing from the Province. The corollary to that is that he has also not heard that it will be a continued funding stream. Dano's further comments of "These funds should at least be able to postpone the closure of these schools for a year" (sic) speaks pretty clearly as to the certainty of repeat funding from admin savings.


I wouldn't put much stock in what our MLA says; he is only a puppet of Christy Clark; he wouldn't go against the Lie-beral Principles, ever. The Government only handed back "part of" what they took away in the first place. Had funding been sufficient, none of the schools would have had to close and by giving back just enough to attempt to make the Government look like some kind of Saviour, they didn't give enough to keep the schools open so the blame "appears" to shift back to the Trustees. It was a nice deflection of blame on their part but most folks can see right through it. Most folks.
Where was our MLA all during the talks; no where to be found.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by twobits »

XT225 wrote: Had funding been sufficient, none of the schools would have had to close


So you are happy to give a larger chunk of your paycheque every two weeks to keep open schools that have one teacher for every 8 students open. Give yer head a shake my friend and think about that. When do we cut off a school XT? When it gets down to 5 to 1? Or do we continue to *bleep* money down the drain until there is one student left in the school and when they graduate, they can turn off the lights when they leave?

Edit to add- An important thing to keep in mind is while some schools may be closing, it does not mean the wrecking ball is coming out. If for example in the Trout Creek example, housing booms there and they come up with new students, the school can be reopened. Why heat and staff it in the meantime?
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
XT225
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3913
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by XT225 »

twobits wrote:
So you are happy to give a larger chunk of your paycheque every two weeks to keep open schools that have one teacher for every 8 students open. Give yer head a shake my friend and think about that. When do we cut off a school XT? When it gets down to 5 to 1? Or do we continue to *bleep* money down the drain until there is one student left in the school and when they graduate, they can turn off the lights when they leave?

Edit to add- An important thing to keep in mind is while some schools may be closing, it does not mean the wrecking ball is coming out. If for example in the Trout Creek example, housing booms there and they come up with new students, the school can be reopened. Why heat and staff it in the meantime?


You bet I would pay more to keep every school that is still in good enough shape, open. Pretty sure there are no teachers teaching 8 students in our district; nice try though.

Trout Creek closing was enough to roust Ashton out of the woodwork (a nice, late tactic by the board) as he must be feeling some serious heat from his Trout Creek neighbours, and rightly so.

It has also not been stated for certain if any of the schools will just be mothballed for now (and reopened when enrollment increases) or sold off completely. Transparency? No way, Jose.

I will not be voting for Mr. Ashton next year and hopefully we will get some serious competition, possibly in the form of an independent who isn't afraid to speak up for the voices of ALL his constituents, even if they don't agree with the Government of the day.
Tony
Übergod
Posts: 1296
Joined: Aug 11th, 2005, 6:43 am

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by Tony »

So XT... if you ran a business and had two branches and one was siphoning money from the other, would you keep them both open so you could continue to employ 6 people? It would literally be costing you money out of your pocket.

If you answer yes, that's really bad business, and that's what is happening to the schools. They are NOT "profitable", or even at a break even point, and they siphon money from other schools in the district, so all the schools suffer. Shuttering them makes sense, and as noted earlier, they can be re-opened if the need is warranted.

Since schools are funded by taxes, and I pay taxes with no kids in school, I'm very happy to see this happen. As a kid I rode 2 buses every day to and from school. Once I got my license, I bought a beater car, got a job and was totally able to live a full and happy teenage life. I'm fairly certain the bus company will be running a late bus for any kids that want to participate in extra curricular activities, or, heaven forbid, maybe a parent could run into town to, wait for it, watch the intramural events and then give their kid a ride home.
rustled
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25209
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by rustled »

I wasn't impressed with Ashton before he threw the trustees (and the upset parents) under the bus for his little publicity stunt.

Now, I'm thoroughly unimpressed disgusted.
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
ToddT
Übergod
Posts: 1023
Joined: Dec 16th, 2010, 2:48 pm

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by ToddT »

I'm surprised how much support the trustees are getting on this board.
rustled
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25209
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by rustled »

Why are you surprised? The trustees were being responsible and doing what they're elected to do.

We elected them to make the best possible use of the funds we give them, to prioritize our children's educational needs, to maintain as many programs as they can, to offer the best they can. We elected them to make sure the students in the poorest areas of the district are given the same opportunities as those in the wealthiest. We elected them to make sure the budget considers the real educational needs of tomorrow's students, as well as today's.

Some here would be fine with paying higher taxes so all schools could be kept open, despite the declining enrollment that's been going on for years, hidden by alternative uses in elementary schools (strong start centers and daycare) propping them up. The decline shows no sign of turning around.

How long would you have us keep open these excess schools, and to what end? In Osoyoos, one of the issues is that the fewer students there are, the fewer programs they're able to offer. I attended a small high school, and each year I signed up for classes that didn't go ahead because there were too few students interested in that subject. Fortunately, those were arts electives. But what do you do when only a handful of students wants a higher math class, or a science class? And how much funding would you have the taxpayers provide to overcome this problem? Even then, wouldn't our taxes be better spent serving the fast-growing need in health care, instead of artificially maintaining unnecessary schools or providing programs to only a handful of students?

Somewhere in these threads, you'll find the current West Bench staff to student ratio. It's unsupportable. How far should the taxpayer go in supporting it, just so those kids who aren't already driven to West Bench don't have to be on a bus?

The trustees did the hard thing. Not the popular thing, the hard thing. They did it because it was necessary. And Ashton and Larson, who should have either supported them for doing this very tough but very necessary thing, or kept their mouths shut, instead did a very rotten thing here.

Sorry. Rant over. (Goes off to untwist knickers :D .)
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Osoyoos_Familyof4
Board Meister
Posts: 555
Joined: Nov 26th, 2013, 11:15 am

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by Osoyoos_Familyof4 »

I keep hearing statistics being thrown about carelessly like ratios of students to teachers 8:1. I have NEVER witnessed ratios like this ever! The province expects a 95% capacity, and yet that statistic never seems to get challanged. Since when is "pretty darn close to absolute full" the best option. I hear what some are saying (really I do). But full and maximum has become the objective and I feel this is wrong IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. The only time I've personally seen low student to teacher ratios have been special needs rooms where they have students with higher needs, or some level of playing catch-up for more typical students who are struggling (like resource teaching rooms). Otherwise, I'm just not in real time seeing many rooms with less than 20 students (usually they are closer to 25 on average ). Rooms with higher need children SHOULD have a low ratio - this is best.

This is so confounding to me. I guess "overall" the enrollment is accurate, but somehow what I'm seeing with my own eyes doesn't compute?

When the alternative is closing the ONLY high school in town, and adding a per week commute of about 7 hours per child on a bus, I think there ought to be some consideration of the fact that although we target capacity at 95%, perhaps there are other factors that should hold significant weight.
rustled
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25209
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by rustled »

Can't speak to the 8 students per class number, but from page 3 of this thread:
    Speaking of numbers, I keep thinking this has to be a typo:
    At West Bench, where generations of students have gone to school, there are now 97 students from kindergarten to Grade 5 and 22 staff members.

    Good lord. If it's accurate, that's not even a five-to-one ratio. It's astonishing it's been kept open this long. The other stats:
    Trout Creek Elementary, which opened in 1956 and has seen several renovations over the years, has 184 students and 18 staff, according to principal Jeff Redden.


    There are 210 students and 20 staff at McNicoll.

    http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/%20...%20-3-schools

SD67 had something like 25% more seats than they needed, although that wasn't evenly distributed across the schools. So if students were widgets, you'd say one in four administrators and non-educational support staff were unnecessary, one in four schools should be closed. And you'd make sure every classroom was at full capacity so you were making the most efficient use of your educational staff. But students aren't widgets, and using your educational resources that way isn't the most effective in the long run, which is what makes the trustees' job so difficult when it's the overall enrollment that's down so much and still dropping.

Here in SD67, bringing strong starts and early enrollment kindergarten and daycares into the elementary schools masked the problem of declining enrollment for a few years. Perhaps that's happening in your district, too?

Where's the 95% figure coming from?

And not meaning to sound hard-hearted, but I'd rather my kids rode the bus for 7 hours a week (as mine did for part of their school years, which was far less time than I spent getting to and from school) if that gave them better educational opportunities. The opportunities outside of education (jobs, etc.) are really not the trustees' responsibility.
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Osoyoos_Familyof4
Board Meister
Posts: 555
Joined: Nov 26th, 2013, 11:15 am

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by Osoyoos_Familyof4 »

95% comes from the SD53 communications where they state that Osoyoos Secondary needs to be at 95% in order to qualify for structural upgrades.

I can't comment in the West Bench ratios (or that SD in general because I don't know it personally ).

But in SD 53, I'm not seeing staff to student ratios a problem. In fact, like I stated, I'm seeing the opposite. Perhaps the resource teacher rooms where the ratio is low (and ought to be) are messing the averages (I dunno).

But in SD53, Osoyoos Secondary closing is just wrong, even if you are falling on the conservative side of life. There were good cost saving ideas that were offered that were not considered because the deal had already been done before the consultation process. The cost savings are not going to be as enormous as the impact of closing. Bussing is going to be enormous, also they still haven't even got a plan for bussing special needs children. They will likely have to hire a few more EA'S to ride the bus routes with special needs children (I haven't seen the financials or even a plan that addresses this yet). And the district in general will lose some families as a result of this debacle which will further erode the public school system in this district.
rustled
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25209
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by rustled »

I've only seen 95% used for the requirement for seismic upgrades, which are hideously expensive. I wasn't aware it applied to all upgrades. I suppose they have to set the benchmark somewhere. Would we want to foot the bill for upgrading every school in the province when we know we'll gradually be closing a bunch of them? We need more facilities for the elderly, too. Where does all the money come from?

I understand why from your perspective closing Osoyoos Secondary is wrong, but I wonder if you'd feel differently if it didn't affect your own family directly? And I wonder if you'd feel the same a few years down the road, if your children were unable to access the courses they needed in Osoyoos.

Where we lived when my oldest child was ready for high school, they insisted on keeping the high school grades in our community even though there were not enough students to support a decent high school program. (It was a resource community and the industry closed, so there were fewer families. Very similar in many ways to what we're seeing now on a provincial scale.) We were 45 minutes away from the nearest high school, and lived in an area that experiences real winter, but still I would have gladly had them ride the bus so they were in a larger pool of students with a greater number of options. Instead, we moved to meet their needs. It worked out well in many ways, but it was a costly and difficult decision. Still, these were my children and it was my responsibility.

I am sorry for those who have to make these decisions now, but frankly I do not see how the trustees can keep a school open in Trout Creek so these kids don't have to ride a bus, or in Osoyoos so they won't have to, even if some of the students do have special needs. At some point, people need to be realistic about what the trustees should do to accommodate some students at the expense of others. And while we could argue the Province should cover these costs by forking more money over to the districts, at some point that is unsustainable, too. Where you think it's unsustainable may not match up to where I think it's unsustainable, but no matter where they draw the line someone will be unhappy.

To my mind, asking the district (and the taxpayer) to direct a lot of extra money to keep any school open for another year, when the funds are needed throughout the district, is not only short-sighted, it's asking them to provide a service to one group of students at the expense of all others in the district. I'd feel differently if the enrollment hadn't been declining as much as it has, for as long as it has. But the reality is simply that we have too many schools. It's time to bite the bullet.

I know some of the proposals put forward during our consultation process were not feasible by current law, or hadn't been properly costed, etc. While I'm not fully familiar with the proposals for Osoyoos Secondary, that may be the case there as well.
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Osoyoos_Familyof4
Board Meister
Posts: 555
Joined: Nov 26th, 2013, 11:15 am

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by Osoyoos_Familyof4 »

It doesn't effect me directly and won't for many years (and by that time, everything can change).

Despite some liberal leanings, I have a background in business and finance, and truthfully despite my odd left - leanings I am square in the middle and often on the right side of economics.

I'm opposed to the SD53 position because it lacked imagination, consultation, serious consideration to alternatives because of behind the scenes obstinacy. It was wrong and continues to be wrong.

Further I think there is without a doubt an agenda from the province to privatize education and download a fiscal agenda upon the backs of the taxpayers. Same taxes you've always had,with less services. Mark my words - there will be a two-tired education system for the haves against the have nots. The have nots will have a public school system that is chronically under - funded and lesser than. The wealthy will go private as they often have. The rest if us in the middle will make a really hard choice of spending disposable income on services that used to be included in our taxes, and doing without consumables because now we're paying more to offset a private education.
rustled
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25209
Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm

Re: School closures - where is public debate?

Post by rustled »

I guess that's why your concerns are different than mine, then. I've never felt there was a hidden agenda behind the school closures (just reflecting the reality of a changing demographic), and I felt the consultation process here was more than adequate. It was interesting to me that Trout Creek got added as a consideration for closure because of the consultation process, which to me indicated pretty clearly the trustees hadn't decided ahead of time. But of course that means the Trout Creek parents don't feel they personally had enough opportunity to be involved in the consultation process.

Something to consider since your children aren't yet affected: If the number of students in your children's cohort stays static as they move into high school, would the numbers at Osoyoos Secondary sustain a full, well-rounded program?
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Post Reply

Return to “South Okanagan”