Legal action after closure
- Symbonite
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: Feb 16th, 2005, 9:30 am
Re: Legal Action after Closure
Well I have a family member that is a teacher and they said that they would love to get a master's degree but if they did they wouldn't have a position as they would price them out of a job.
**Disclaimer: The above statement is in my OPINION only.
-
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 25209
- Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm
Re: Legal Action after Closure
Symbonite wrote:Well I have a family member that is a teacher and they said that they would love to get a master's degree but if they did they wouldn't have a position as they would price them out of a job.
I can see where already having a masters could be a factor in getting hired in one's district of choice.
But once this family member is in a relatively secure position (with some seniority) in their district of choice, what would prevent this family member from obtaining a masters from Gonzaga and being paid substantially more for continuing to do the same job?
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
-
- Übergod
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Feb 21st, 2011, 4:38 pm
Re: Legal Action after Closure
rustled wrote:
But once this family member is in a relatively secure position (with some seniority) in their district of choice, what would prevent this family member from obtaining a masters from Gonzaga and being paid substantially more for continuing to do the same job?
This is exactly what happens, from what I hear, for most teachers who wish to obtain their Masters. They get established in the final area where they wish to remain teaching; then go for their masters. They know that if they obtain it first and then wish to relocate, few districts will hire them, due to the extra cost involved.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Nov 26th, 2013, 11:15 am
Re: Legal Action after Closure
^^ Is correct in some cases. A Masters holder who is looking for a contract may find it very difficult to get a contract because the districts must pay them more. A Masters holder looking to change districts will also possibly face the same problem.
Someone who will be staying in their district however and already has a contract does benefit from their Masters degree. As well, any teacher considering administration will need to get the Masters distinction.
As an educator and tax payer in Osoyoos, I don't necessarily agree with this lawsuit. I think it's a waste of time and money.
But I do think the school closure made little sense. Tuc El Nuit elementary should have closed first before the Osoyoos high school. Oliver Elementary should have been made a K-6 and the larger new (excessively fancy shmancy and overbuilt) high school should be a 7-12 institution. They need only one elementary school in Oliver before eliminating the only high school in Osoyoos ( when the children are looking at a MINIMUM of 6 hours a week extra on a bus...that by-the-way is the most conservative estimate, it's likely closer to 7).
The public consultation process was a sham. This is almost certain because there were so many options provided by the residents of Osoyoos (including a million dollars from town council) that were not even considered that could have and would have saved significant money in the district. The reasoning for the school district to reject the towns offer is absurd. The truth is the school districts across the board take private funds ALL THE TIME. They take corporate donations for equipment and programs. Schools in wealthy districts (like West Vancouver for instance) have incredible resources because their PAC has the ability to raise lots of money from the area residents. Etc. We should be embracing creative funding oportunities not limiting them.
I believe the not-so-hidden agenda of the province is to privatize education. And although I absolutely believe there are private institutions that do wonderful and incredible things for some children, this is a slippery slope to a two tier educational network of haves and have- nots. Wealthy people have historically sent their children to private schools. Religious institutions have also been very generous to support private schools for children who may not be thriving in the public environment (for whatever reason) at an affordable cost (and even waived tuition). But to erode the public system I believe is a tragic error and will further damage the life-choice of the middle class and below. The wealthy have always had options (good for them). I have no desire to limit options of personal choice. But I do also believe in providing good-quality public education that puts policy and rhetoric aside and is willing to be creative and cunning when it comes to making it work financially (and that includes encouraging private/public sponsorship). I could care less if my child comes home with a day-planner "brought to you courtesy of Safeway". Or laptops that have a "Best Buy" sticker on them. Let's deal with corporate endorcements and get off our high horse here.
But back to the topic: A lawsuit is a complete waste of time and energy. But a little civil disobedience towards the province is a marvellous idea. And remembering the total lack of leadership and assistance from Linda Larsen (the MLA) who was positively invisible in all of this should not be forgotten in the next election.
Someone who will be staying in their district however and already has a contract does benefit from their Masters degree. As well, any teacher considering administration will need to get the Masters distinction.
As an educator and tax payer in Osoyoos, I don't necessarily agree with this lawsuit. I think it's a waste of time and money.
But I do think the school closure made little sense. Tuc El Nuit elementary should have closed first before the Osoyoos high school. Oliver Elementary should have been made a K-6 and the larger new (excessively fancy shmancy and overbuilt) high school should be a 7-12 institution. They need only one elementary school in Oliver before eliminating the only high school in Osoyoos ( when the children are looking at a MINIMUM of 6 hours a week extra on a bus...that by-the-way is the most conservative estimate, it's likely closer to 7).
The public consultation process was a sham. This is almost certain because there were so many options provided by the residents of Osoyoos (including a million dollars from town council) that were not even considered that could have and would have saved significant money in the district. The reasoning for the school district to reject the towns offer is absurd. The truth is the school districts across the board take private funds ALL THE TIME. They take corporate donations for equipment and programs. Schools in wealthy districts (like West Vancouver for instance) have incredible resources because their PAC has the ability to raise lots of money from the area residents. Etc. We should be embracing creative funding oportunities not limiting them.
I believe the not-so-hidden agenda of the province is to privatize education. And although I absolutely believe there are private institutions that do wonderful and incredible things for some children, this is a slippery slope to a two tier educational network of haves and have- nots. Wealthy people have historically sent their children to private schools. Religious institutions have also been very generous to support private schools for children who may not be thriving in the public environment (for whatever reason) at an affordable cost (and even waived tuition). But to erode the public system I believe is a tragic error and will further damage the life-choice of the middle class and below. The wealthy have always had options (good for them). I have no desire to limit options of personal choice. But I do also believe in providing good-quality public education that puts policy and rhetoric aside and is willing to be creative and cunning when it comes to making it work financially (and that includes encouraging private/public sponsorship). I could care less if my child comes home with a day-planner "brought to you courtesy of Safeway". Or laptops that have a "Best Buy" sticker on them. Let's deal with corporate endorcements and get off our high horse here.
But back to the topic: A lawsuit is a complete waste of time and energy. But a little civil disobedience towards the province is a marvellous idea. And remembering the total lack of leadership and assistance from Linda Larsen (the MLA) who was positively invisible in all of this should not be forgotten in the next election.
-
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 25209
- Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm
Re: Legal Action after Closure
The districts cannot submit a budget which relies on corporate, public or private donations for operation. You're conflating necessary operating costs with "wants" and "extras". If you begin to rely on donor support for teachers' and administrators' salaries and basic, essential equipment for classroom, you will quickly see an incredible gap between what's available in public schools in affluent districts and in affluent schools within those districts (e.g. much smaller class sizes and far more variety in electives), and those in taxpayer funded schools in impoverished neighbourhoods and impoverished communities.Osoyoos_Familyof4 wrote:...Let's deal with corporate endorcements and get off our high horse here....
With that comes the question: Where would most public school teachers prefer to teach? In a school supported by local industry and homeowner largess, or in one of the ones that still relies on taxpayer funding?
And what happens when the sponsoring industry is sold, or closes its doors, or the corporate sponsor decides to support the local hospital instead? What happens when the homeowners' jobs are gone?
You're opening the barn door for a much, much bigger problem, significantly widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots within the public system.
As to attacking your local MLA, you're suggesting the province should override or interfere with the decisions made by locally elected school trustees, whose sole job it is to prioritize the interests of the district's students. That's no better than supporting the council when they want trustees to put real estate values, etc., ahead of the needs of the district's students.
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Nov 26th, 2013, 11:15 am
Re: Legal Action after Closure
I am attacking our MLA for not saying a word in the legislature about lack of appropriate educational funding...darn right I am!
School districts already take funding for equipment from private interests (this playground brought to you by Buy and Low Foods). Best Buy has also run a program of funding computers to the school districts. And PACS in wealthy communities have always funded equipment and resource upgrades.
Yes, I do think it's a slippery slope, but just because we change the way "we've always done things" doesn't make it inherently wrong. I still think the larger budget of salary ought to be the onus of the province. But government making partnerships with corporation is no skin off my nose. I could care less if there was a corporate logo on everything that moves in the public school if it makes sense.
I think wealthy people will do as they have always done (which is to pay for private). I think religious and philanthropic organizations should do what they have always done (which is to provide an alternative for families whose children just aren't making it for whatever reason in the mainstream).
There are many reasons why a teacher teaches where they teach (public or private). I have a good friend who teaches in a fancy schmancy private school on the Island for slightly less than a public school teacher because he gets awesome travel opportunities with them and can live for free on campus and play golf half his work-day as he instructs their golf academy. He chooses slightly less salary for the perks of the job. I have some friends who can't find a permanent job as a teacher and are willing to teach anywhere for almost any amount of money because that's the way it is right now. I personally am in the private sector because I have an ill child who requires a flexible schedule that I can't get from the public sector.
We should not abandon the responsibility of the government to provide quality education across the board. But we should be open to seeking alternatives to reduce costs of delivering the service. I think abandoning public education will most certainly create a two tiered system which will certainly keep the poor from ever attaining the ability of moving-on-up. I think a two-tiered system will burdon the middle class and will keep them from having a decent quality of life, with significantly less disposable income from which to spend on goods and services to drive the economy. I think if we clearly establish a larger independent school system (for profit) we will see their fees rise...and rise...and rise, because that's what corporations do! They too in time will reduce services to increase their bottom line. Once a system is established it is very difficult to dismantle. Once your children are in a private institution there has to be some very compelling reasons why you would abandon what you thought it was going to be, even if it's killing you financially or otherwise. Children are not products, they don't like change and are resistant to a change in authority. It's inadvisable to yank a child in and out of school because you have a problem, or the system has in some way changed not to your liking. It is much more advantageous to try to fix what is broken within the system in the first place and to minimize disrupton to a child. We cannot begin to underestimate the power of local consistent public education in a community where the educators are constantly in touch with the parents and the parents are welcome and visible on the actual school grounds. I have said it before, it is more often than not the parent who are picking up their children locally, chit-chatting with other parents, making small-talk with the teacher etc. who change the way from wrong to right. Many a problem gets resolved in this manner. Centralizing school services isn't the right answer. Bussing sucks! Looking for the right cost savings in the right way is the way-to-go. And having a government that is committed to making public education a priority is in my opinion also the right way to go.
School districts already take funding for equipment from private interests (this playground brought to you by Buy and Low Foods). Best Buy has also run a program of funding computers to the school districts. And PACS in wealthy communities have always funded equipment and resource upgrades.
Yes, I do think it's a slippery slope, but just because we change the way "we've always done things" doesn't make it inherently wrong. I still think the larger budget of salary ought to be the onus of the province. But government making partnerships with corporation is no skin off my nose. I could care less if there was a corporate logo on everything that moves in the public school if it makes sense.
I think wealthy people will do as they have always done (which is to pay for private). I think religious and philanthropic organizations should do what they have always done (which is to provide an alternative for families whose children just aren't making it for whatever reason in the mainstream).
There are many reasons why a teacher teaches where they teach (public or private). I have a good friend who teaches in a fancy schmancy private school on the Island for slightly less than a public school teacher because he gets awesome travel opportunities with them and can live for free on campus and play golf half his work-day as he instructs their golf academy. He chooses slightly less salary for the perks of the job. I have some friends who can't find a permanent job as a teacher and are willing to teach anywhere for almost any amount of money because that's the way it is right now. I personally am in the private sector because I have an ill child who requires a flexible schedule that I can't get from the public sector.
We should not abandon the responsibility of the government to provide quality education across the board. But we should be open to seeking alternatives to reduce costs of delivering the service. I think abandoning public education will most certainly create a two tiered system which will certainly keep the poor from ever attaining the ability of moving-on-up. I think a two-tiered system will burdon the middle class and will keep them from having a decent quality of life, with significantly less disposable income from which to spend on goods and services to drive the economy. I think if we clearly establish a larger independent school system (for profit) we will see their fees rise...and rise...and rise, because that's what corporations do! They too in time will reduce services to increase their bottom line. Once a system is established it is very difficult to dismantle. Once your children are in a private institution there has to be some very compelling reasons why you would abandon what you thought it was going to be, even if it's killing you financially or otherwise. Children are not products, they don't like change and are resistant to a change in authority. It's inadvisable to yank a child in and out of school because you have a problem, or the system has in some way changed not to your liking. It is much more advantageous to try to fix what is broken within the system in the first place and to minimize disrupton to a child. We cannot begin to underestimate the power of local consistent public education in a community where the educators are constantly in touch with the parents and the parents are welcome and visible on the actual school grounds. I have said it before, it is more often than not the parent who are picking up their children locally, chit-chatting with other parents, making small-talk with the teacher etc. who change the way from wrong to right. Many a problem gets resolved in this manner. Centralizing school services isn't the right answer. Bussing sucks! Looking for the right cost savings in the right way is the way-to-go. And having a government that is committed to making public education a priority is in my opinion also the right way to go.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Nov 26th, 2013, 11:15 am
Re: Legal Action after Closure
Sorry, I meant to ad this point in.
I don't understand why we shouldn't expect administration in both the district office, and the local schools to eek out funding to augment the budget they're given. I do not see a reason why the province isn't getting out of micro-managing the "business" of running schools.
I think the province should be responsible for setting the curriculum standard and issuing financial directives that cover salaries and negotiates contracts. The province should set policy and maintain facility standards and bigger picture ethical standards such as inclusion and mission statements etc.
But I believe too that the province should hire a CEO/Administrator in every district (or smaller districts can share one) who will seek out materials that make sense and will be in the discretionary budgets of the individual schools.
I once worked at a school who had dirt instead of a proper field for sports (very small rural district). And then I got in my in-box a freekin T-Shirt I didn't want or ask for and a shiny new pen that had the name of the school stamped on it. I almost crapped-my-pants I was so damn mad. And yes, I did say something about it to the principal. Another time, I worked for a school that organized a "team-building" exercise at some stupid outdoor wilderness camp that likely cost a bloody fortune to the school to deliver that lame seminar about working together on an obstacle course and high wire act (what a crock of *bleep*), again I wanted to pee-my-pants in outrage! You get it...I get it...it's so freeking stupid how we fund this type of nonsense. Teachers aren't authorizing this type of crap, wayward administrators are! Do teachers get paid well? Sure we do. But no better and no worse than people with similar education levels in society. There was a time when I worked in an education department for a large corporation (adult education upgrading). I got paid significantly more than a school teacher. I had better benefits, and better perks too. But there are also many misconceptions about how many hours a school teacher works. Most are at school from 8-4:00ish. Most will work another 1-2 hours at home while they watch the Canucks game. Many will spend 2-4 hours on a Sunday prepping for the upcoming week. All will go back that last week of August, and many will go in before then to get the space to their liking. March break, expect them to be in the classroom a few days, same with winter break. I have spent many a night scouring pinterest for art projects, and hitting the dollar-store to buy something specific I know isn't in my school to do something fun. I am not complaining, it's a pretty sweet gig. But it's not easy, and when you're on...it's the job of an entertainer as well as an educator. Teachers have a bad day, or a completely challenging child (or children) that day - don't get to hide in the cubicle and drink a coffee with their head-down.
I love children. I love education. I respect the system and I abide by the rules. But I want to see nonsense not paid for either. And if taking private money to make it work better is the way...then so-be-it. Responsible governing, and less micro-managing from the top-down. Funding appropriately too from the top.
I don't understand why we shouldn't expect administration in both the district office, and the local schools to eek out funding to augment the budget they're given. I do not see a reason why the province isn't getting out of micro-managing the "business" of running schools.
I think the province should be responsible for setting the curriculum standard and issuing financial directives that cover salaries and negotiates contracts. The province should set policy and maintain facility standards and bigger picture ethical standards such as inclusion and mission statements etc.
But I believe too that the province should hire a CEO/Administrator in every district (or smaller districts can share one) who will seek out materials that make sense and will be in the discretionary budgets of the individual schools.
I once worked at a school who had dirt instead of a proper field for sports (very small rural district). And then I got in my in-box a freekin T-Shirt I didn't want or ask for and a shiny new pen that had the name of the school stamped on it. I almost crapped-my-pants I was so damn mad. And yes, I did say something about it to the principal. Another time, I worked for a school that organized a "team-building" exercise at some stupid outdoor wilderness camp that likely cost a bloody fortune to the school to deliver that lame seminar about working together on an obstacle course and high wire act (what a crock of *bleep*), again I wanted to pee-my-pants in outrage! You get it...I get it...it's so freeking stupid how we fund this type of nonsense. Teachers aren't authorizing this type of crap, wayward administrators are! Do teachers get paid well? Sure we do. But no better and no worse than people with similar education levels in society. There was a time when I worked in an education department for a large corporation (adult education upgrading). I got paid significantly more than a school teacher. I had better benefits, and better perks too. But there are also many misconceptions about how many hours a school teacher works. Most are at school from 8-4:00ish. Most will work another 1-2 hours at home while they watch the Canucks game. Many will spend 2-4 hours on a Sunday prepping for the upcoming week. All will go back that last week of August, and many will go in before then to get the space to their liking. March break, expect them to be in the classroom a few days, same with winter break. I have spent many a night scouring pinterest for art projects, and hitting the dollar-store to buy something specific I know isn't in my school to do something fun. I am not complaining, it's a pretty sweet gig. But it's not easy, and when you're on...it's the job of an entertainer as well as an educator. Teachers have a bad day, or a completely challenging child (or children) that day - don't get to hide in the cubicle and drink a coffee with their head-down.
I love children. I love education. I respect the system and I abide by the rules. But I want to see nonsense not paid for either. And if taking private money to make it work better is the way...then so-be-it. Responsible governing, and less micro-managing from the top-down. Funding appropriately too from the top.
-
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 25209
- Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm
Re: Legal Action after Closure
Osoyoos_Familyof4 wrote:I am attacking our MLA for not saying a word in the legislature about lack of appropriate educational funding...darn right I am!
...And having a government that is committed to making public education a priority is in my opinion also the right way to go.
This is your opinion. Many taxpayers believe the funding is appropriate.
Osoyoos_Familyof4 wrote:I love children. I love education. I respect the system and I abide by the rules. But I want to see nonsense not paid for either. And if taking private money to make it work better is the way...then so-be-it. Responsible governing, and less micro-managing from the top-down. Funding appropriately too from the top.
Yes, there is too much waste in the public school system. Some of us have pointed out wasteful practices which cost our students a lot more than the retreat you referred to. (For example, we taxpayers are paying an elementary school teacher significantly more because he has a masters degree, which is not at all necessary for him to do his job well.) We would all like to see less of our resources spent on "nonsense", and more of our resources directed toward our students.
With children in the system and your family income depending on it, I suppose you see things differently than many of us do. It does not follow that we love children (or value education) any less than you do.
The only way the prov. government could ensure your district could maintain your family in the style you'd like, would be to raise taxes significantly and then pay each district considerably more per student across the entire province. I do not think this is something most taxpayers would agree with doing, as to us this would not be responsible governing. There are other needs, including those you suggest we might want to use our resources on in the fentanyl thread.
The alternative you have suggested is to allow the various schools, and the various school boards, in BC's public system to live well beyond their means, should they be able to find corporate or local taxpayer sponsorship.
You say nothing about how the more fortunate schools in your version of a public school system would survive the loss of this unstable funding.
Nor do you address how unfair it would be for other students in the same public system to receive completely different levels of instructional services, based on their parents' and neighbourhoods' more limited fundraising abilities.
Currently, well-managed districts already leverage their assets to help provide for their students. You would advocate for more of this, and you would have the variances impact the entire public education system, instructional services included.
I've long said our current system of locally elected school boards is no longer serving us well, because our electorate cares too little about what really matters. For the most part, too few of us understand what the trustees roles and responsibilities are, and far too few of us care whether or not we elect good people to fill these roles. Nor do we care to support them when they make the tough, unpopular choices required to safeguard our resources and the future of our students' educations at times like these.
But what you are proposing does not look like a workable solution to me.
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 8115
- Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am
Re: Legal Action after Closure
rustled wrote: The districts cannot submit a budget which relies on corporate, public or private donations for operation. You're conflating necessary operating costs with "wants" and "extras". If you begin to rely on donor support for teachers' and administrators' salaries and basic, essential equipment for classroom, you will quickly see an incredible gap between what's available in public schools in affluent districts and in affluent schools within those districts (e.g. much smaller class sizes and far more variety in electives), and those in taxpayer funded schools in impoverished neighbourhoods and impoverished communities.
With that comes the question: Where would most public school teachers prefer to teach? In a school supported by local industry and homeowner largess, or in one of the ones that still relies on taxpayer funding?
And what happens when the sponsoring industry is sold, or closes its doors, or the corporate sponsor decides to support the local hospital instead? What happens when the homeowners' jobs are gone?
You're opening the barn door for a much, much bigger problem, significantly widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots within the public system.
As to attacking your local MLA, you're suggesting the province should override or interfere with the decisions made by locally elected school trustees, whose sole job it is to prioritize the interests of the district's students. That's no better than supporting the council when they want trustees to put real estate values, etc., ahead of the needs of the district's students.
Well said and bang on. Osofam4's notion that local taxpayer money (like area D Westbench) should be considered is the true slippery slope in destroying the foundation of the public education system of equal funding for each student. Besides that, there was really nothing for the school boards to consider except a temporary stay of execution as the funding would be subject to local taxpayer affirmation via vote. And given the public opinion polls to date, it seems quite clear that approval of extra taxation to support under utilized school buildings is something that would not garner the required support. People quite frankly are not as gullible as some would hope and they clearly understand that operating and staffing two schools that are half empty makes no sense whatsoever.
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.
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
-
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 3913
- Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm
Re: Legal Action after Closure
twobits wrote:
Well said and bang on. Osofam4's notion that local taxpayer money (like area D Westbench) should be considered is the true slippery slope in destroying the foundation of the public education system of equal funding for each student. Besides that, there was really nothing for the school boards to consider except a temporary stay of execution as the funding would be subject to local taxpayer affirmation via vote. And given the public opinion polls to date, it seems quite clear that approval of extra taxation to support under utilized school buildings is something that would not garner the required support. People quite frankly are not as gullible as some would hope and they clearly understand that operating and staffing two schools that are half empty makes no sense whatsoever.
You are incorrect, twobits. Westbench is area F, not D.
Area F = Rural Summerland, Red Wing and West Bench Area
-
- Übergod
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: Jul 19th, 2009, 7:04 pm
Re: Legal Action after Closure
.
We have an excellent public school system with many excellent teachers and facilities. The current funding seems to be very adequate, but there are a few self-serving interests in the system who sometimes put their wants before the better good of the whole.
- The School Board, that administers a mere seven schools, could possibly be combined into the nearby Board, which also has less schools to administer than before. Our better highways and communications make this feasible.
- Teachers who are currently paid for unnessisary qualifications, could be gradually replaced by more, adequately qualified, but excellent young teachers who would be happy to work for generous Bachelor degree wages. (Masters may be okay for high school sciences)
- Close unused sections of schools, and close whole schools only as a very last option, as this affects many.
- There may be other efficiencies, which a Board that puts the whole public interest first, would find and act upon. (Trustees generally go along with what the Board promotes)
.
It could be self-serving school interests that jeopardize the Public system and the government might let it happen. For those who don't see this, research of the new Global Economy could help put this into perspective.
.
Modest sacrifice by some staff, may help prolong an excellent, well paying, public system.
We have an excellent public school system with many excellent teachers and facilities. The current funding seems to be very adequate, but there are a few self-serving interests in the system who sometimes put their wants before the better good of the whole.
- The School Board, that administers a mere seven schools, could possibly be combined into the nearby Board, which also has less schools to administer than before. Our better highways and communications make this feasible.
- Teachers who are currently paid for unnessisary qualifications, could be gradually replaced by more, adequately qualified, but excellent young teachers who would be happy to work for generous Bachelor degree wages. (Masters may be okay for high school sciences)
- Close unused sections of schools, and close whole schools only as a very last option, as this affects many.
- There may be other efficiencies, which a Board that puts the whole public interest first, would find and act upon. (Trustees generally go along with what the Board promotes)
.
It could be self-serving school interests that jeopardize the Public system and the government might let it happen. For those who don't see this, research of the new Global Economy could help put this into perspective.
.
Modest sacrifice by some staff, may help prolong an excellent, well paying, public system.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 8115
- Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am
Re: Legal Action after Closure
XT225 wrote:
You are incorrect, twobits. Westbench is area F, not D.
Area F = Rural Summerland, Red Wing and West Bench Area
Whoops, my bad. But did it change the point XT?
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.
The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
-
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 3913
- Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm
Re: Legal Action after Closure
twobits wrote:
Whoops, my bad. But did it change the point XT?
Point noted, twobits; I just couldn't let you off the hook that easily, though..lol.
- Symbonite
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 4098
- Joined: Feb 16th, 2005, 9:30 am
Re: Legal action after closure
Osoyoos will lose this cort action and if I was a tax payer in Osoyoos then I would be mad that they are throwing money in the wind. If parents want a school public or private then they should pony up the money not the people without children of school age.
the school board is there to make sure tax payers don't pay more.
the school board is there to make sure tax payers don't pay more.
**Disclaimer: The above statement is in my OPINION only.
-
- Admiral HMS Castanet
- Posts: 25209
- Joined: Dec 26th, 2010, 12:47 pm
Re: Legal action after closure
Symbonite wrote:...the school board is there to make sure tax payers don't pay more.
Respectfully, Symbonite, the school board is there to make sure the money provided by the taxpayer (via higher levels of government) is being used as responsibly as possible. They often lobby the provincial government for more money, but they're the only ones whose sole interest it is to ensure our money's being used to best meet the needs of students.
As the editorial in the Penticton Western put it:
The school board needs to continue to plan for the long-term interests of all students, current and future, not just the immediate desires of one neighbourhood or another.
Trout Creek and West Bench are every bit as upset about having to bus their elementary age children as Osoyoos is about busing their high school students, and they're just as upset about real estate values, but thank goodness the other locally elected governments aren't trying to use these communities' emotional upset for political gain.
The situation is only marginally different in Osoyoos, where they feel the actions of the district board are punitive toward a single community. One wonders, if there were a separate school board solely for Osoyoos, what would that board be doing to address the issue of declining enrolment?
There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr.