To follow, two articles from the Leader Post today. The first is by Rod Luhning, Chairman of the PVSD. The second is by David Gleim.
It would seem from what Luhning has to say, that the decisions are made and the writing is on the wall - the schools will close, despite everything we have said.
An orderly, objective, and respectful process
The possibility of dozens of school closures has touched a nerve in rural Saskatchewan. Today, the chairman of one of the province's school boards and the spokesman for a parents group offer their views.
Rod Luhning
Special to The Leader-Post
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Boards of education across Saskatchewan are reviewing schools to determine the best way to continue to deliver quality learning opportunities to declining populations of students. Communities, mostly in rural areas, are similarly engaged in processes to advocate on behalf of their local schools.
In an effort to honour and respect the emotions community members may have under such circumstances, boards have largely avoided challenging statements or getting into unhelpful debates about side issues. Still, it's important that the public gains a better understanding of what we're doing and why.
The Prairie Valley School Division is reviewing the education opportunities at 11 of its 46 schools, a process that could result in grade discontinuance or closure. There are about 550 students in the 11 schools, out of a total student population of about 8,000. Enrolment ranges from 11 (for a Kindergarten to Grade 5 school) to 101 (for a K to 12 school) and is, in most instances, projected to decline.
Prairie Valley is an entirely rural school division. That obviously affects how we deliver our services, but it shouldn't affect how well we deliver them or how well prepared our students are for future education and career opportunities.
While small class sizes may be desirable to a degree, at some point the disadvantages of small peer group size, severe multi-grading and reduced student support time begin to outweigh the advantages. At the other end of the spectrum, we need to consider large class sizes, the limits they impose on learning and how we may be affecting those students' opportunities in our efforts to support smaller schools.
How far should a board -- and, for that matter, a community -- go to preserve bricks and mortar at the potential expense of children's futures? We've been told we need to keep the children and their needs front and centre. Boards agree.
In the past, we've supported providing additional teachers to our smallest schools, giving them more per student than we provide in other schools. If these schools were staffed strictly according to formula, it's possible the quality of education would suffer -- something boards are not willing to accept. But can we continue to provide that level of extra support and still ensure we meet demands elsewhere in the division?
Inevitably, people look for someone or something to "blame" for the review, even though the simple explanation is that fewer students enter our system every year. Declining enrolments are emptying classrooms -- and not incidentally, reducing government funding.
Some blame a "bloated" administration. In fact, the level of administration is essentially the same pre- and post-amalgamation. And more of those people are providing direct services to students or teachers in the schools.
Some blame amalgamation, but amalgamation did not cause the reviews, nor even hasten them. A moratorium during amalgamation put many reviews on hold and the unusually high number of schools currently being reviewed is largely a hold-over from that moratorium.
Amalgamation helped to level the tax burden and encourage more equitable education opportunities for all students. Prior to amalgamation, Saskatchewan taxpayers paid wildly varying rates of education taxes. Small divisions with large assessments relative to student numbers were able to charge a lower tax rate and still spend as much or more on their students. Conversely, divisions with larger student populations and comparatively less assessment per student had to charge a higher tax rate to provide the same or reduced opportunities to students. It was a great deal for some people - and a not-so-great deal for others.
Education, like health care, is publicly funded in Saskatchewan. However, a common misconception is that a municipality somehow "buys" the right to a school with the tax it collects on behalf of the school division. That's not how it works.
In much the same way that everyone has an equal right to access health services without regard to their income (and income tax paid), all students have an equal right to educational opportunities without regard to their parents' or communities' ability to pay. Boards are charged with and committed to ensuring that happens.
The review process is not easy and it's not something boards undertake lightly or eagerly. We are education advocates, we believe passionately in the benefits of a quality education -- and it can be difficult to reconcile that passion on the one hand with the necessity of reviewing and potentially closing schools on the other.
However, it's a process provided for and guided by legislation.
It is orderly, objective and strives to be respectful and fair to all involved. "Fair" does not mean that everyone will necessarily be happy with the outcomes. Fair does mean that communities and individuals have a voice that is heard and that all information is considered. And it means that decisions will be made in the best interests of all students, without jeopardizing the needs of others.
- Luhning is chair of the Prairie Valley Board of Education.
Funding formula unfair to rural schools
The possibility of dozens of school closures has touched a nerve in rural Saskatchewan. Today, the chairman of one of the province's school boards and the spokesman for a parents group offer their views.
David Gleim
Special to The Leader-Post
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Let's clear up a major misconception. Statements proclaiming small school communities are not paying their way is totally false! Most of the schools under review actually collect much more in taxes than it costs to run and operate their school. If all the rural schools were combined and had access to all the tax revenue they generate, they could operate without a dime from the government. Many schools actually have a surplus, ranging from $500,000 to almost $2 million.
Urban schools in Saskatchewan receive an average of $3,503 per student as compared to an average of $1,979 in the eight southern rural school divisions. The provincial average is $3,487. Urban schools, of course, also have the advantage of more students and scales of economies to be more efficient.
If the rural average matched the urban average, the eight school divisions would receive an additional $76 million. If the urban average was dropped to the rural average, Saskatoon and Regina would lose over $49 million! Do the urban school divisions want to walk a mile in the rural divisions' shoes?
The issue is not what the urban schools receive, but what the rural divisions do not receive!
The eight southern rural school divisions no longer benefit from the Foundation Operating Grant (FOG) funding formula.
Since the provincial student population started to decline, the FOG has failed to be fair for rural school divisions. It was designed when the rural/urban student populations were very close in size and there was an annual increase in student numbers. The system was never designed to operate with a declining student population.
In the last three years, the cities have lost 2,687 students and gained $39,986,502 in the K-12 operating grant. The eight southern rural school divisions lost 3,359 students and also lost $12,141,190. What does this mean? The two major cities gained $610 per student; the rural schools lost $241 per student for a total spread of $851 biased towards urban school divisions.
The majority of schools that will be closed in May are paying their own way -- some of them many times over! Some rural school divisions have large deficits to contend with because of minuscule support from the K-12 operating grant. Not only will ratepayers lose their schools, they will also pay more taxes with an increase in the mill rate.
This is not news to people in rural areas. This is not news to people in Saskatchewan Learning or the provincial government. This is not about quality of learning for rural students, as many would like to make out. The fact is the government doesn't have the will to make changes in the FOG formula. In the last two budgets, the government elaborates on all the wealth that is generated in the rural sector to make Saskatchewan a "have" province.
If the Boughen Report had been implemented, the ratio for K-12 education today would be at least 60/40 (province/local taxes)
Today, K-12 kids in rural Saskatchewan are being exploited by political ineptitude! If K-12 education were a priority, we wouldn't be having this debate today.
Where are the reports that show universities, colleges, trade schools, corporations and small business are complaining that rural students do not have the education to meet their requirements? What rationale is there in stating the rural students are not getting a quality education? Are the parents saying it? No. Are students saying it? No. Are the movers and shakers in Saskatchewan. Learning, government and some school trustees saying it? Yes. They are diverting the discussion away from the real problem, the way the FOG system is failing rural school divisions. If this continues, 100-200 more schools could be closed in the next few years. Is this what Saskatchewan wants?
The FOG issue is the root of the problem. Communities are wondering if they can survive without a school. The business sector is looking at whether rural Saskatchewan is a good place to be right now.
All our cities and all of our towns and villages deserve their own school. We are a "have" province with tremendous potential to become one of the best "have" provinces in Canada. The government just has to fix the problem -- for it is its problem to fix!
If K-12 students in rural Saskatchewan had a vote in the next election this issue would be a priority. But -- with or without an election -- it really is quite sad that K-12 education in rural Saskatchewan is paying, and paying, and paying the price for a wrong not righted while their schools are put on the chopping block. All because of the abysmal amount of money our provincial government puts into funding K-12 education for smaller schools!
- Gleim is spokesperson for the advocacy group Save Our Schools.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Leader Post Story on the Rally
Save Our Schools movement rallies outside legislature
Karen Brownlee
Leader-Post
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
CREDIT: Bryan Schlosser, Leader-Post
About 200 parents and children, mostly from rural Saskatchewan, gathered at the Saskatchewan Legislature for a "Save Our Schools" rally on Tuesday.
Not one school can be allowed to close until the provincial government changes how education is funded in Saskatchewan or else the entire province is at risk, said the spokesperson of Save our Schools, a grassroots group that organized a rally outside the Legislature on Tuesday.
“We need a fair, equitable and sustainable plan (for K to 12 education),” said David Gleim to the hundreds gathered at the steps of the Legislature calling for a new moratorium on school closures.
“It may be difficult, but not impossible. After all, we’re from Saskatchewan, where nothing is impossible.
“If we fail to do this, we fail rural Saskatchewan but most importantly Saskatchewan fails. The province will suffer from these school closures.” Up to 52 schools are being reviewed by school boards across the province following a 2 1/2 year voluntary moratorium brought in by the provincial government while school divisions where amalgamated. The education system can not continue to evolve if it is stalled by another moratorium, said Learning Minister Deb Higgins.
“We need to move ahead and make sure that the school boards have the opportunity to make the decisions that they feel are the best for their division,” said Higgins who believes the larger than average number of schools under review has lead to the rural tension.
“I would question whether holding it off -- some suggestions have been as long as five years -- are you just compiling the problem?” The foundation operating grant (F.O.G.) the province uses to disperse money to school divisions is the problem because it is biased towards cities, said Gleim.
While enrollment has declined across the province, funding to urban divisions has increased but Gleim said rural divisions have not been as fortunate.
“We’re here today (from) all over Saskatchewan to say to the government you need to resolve the imbalance,” said Gleim.
“The survival of many communities lies in the balance due to the powerful control of how the F.O.G. system is handled out of Saskatchewan Learning ...
Communities are going to lose their schools in the F.O.G.” Higgins said her government has not chosen winners and losers with its funding. While enrollment has declined across the province over the last 10 years, the provincial government has increased its funding by $200 million.
She said rural divisions are seeing less money because of population changes.
“Our population has moved and our demographics have changed and that’s what we need to address to make sure that the services are there for students,” said Higgins.
Times have changed. With oil and gas as well as the biofuel industries growing in rural areas and fueling our economy, those at the rally said rural Saskatchewan can not afford to lose schools that can attract residents to further grow the province.
Rural areas need time to revitalize, said Renaud Bissonnette, vice-president of towns for SUMA, whose school in Willow Bunch is under review.
“A friend of mine from Alberta once told me, ŒThe cities are the engines and (the rural areas) are the fuel,’ said “Now it is time for the government to start thinking this way. If you don’t have any fuel, you won’t have any cities.” While Saskatchewan Party education critic Rod Gantefour supports changing how education is funded in Saskatchewan, he isn’t certain how his party would pay for 60 per cent of education and taxpayers 40 per cent should it form government.
“It will have to a priority for us to work in that direction,” said Gantefour.
“We know and people know we can’t do it over night because it’s taken this government 15 years to work in the other direction.” Some of those attending felt defeated at the end of day after getting insufficient answers from the provincial government.
“We were hoping to hear that they'll give more time. We wanted to hear that rural Saskatchewan matters,” said Jed Williams, a resident of Imperial who immigrated from Australia because of the opportunity he saw in rural Saskatchewan.
“We’re a minority. What do we do?” said Jodie Griffin of Crane Valley.
“I’ll guarantee you that they’ll go forward with what they’re doing and the schools will be closed and the province once again will be dead in the water.
Karen Brownlee
Leader-Post
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
CREDIT: Bryan Schlosser, Leader-Post
About 200 parents and children, mostly from rural Saskatchewan, gathered at the Saskatchewan Legislature for a "Save Our Schools" rally on Tuesday.
Not one school can be allowed to close until the provincial government changes how education is funded in Saskatchewan or else the entire province is at risk, said the spokesperson of Save our Schools, a grassroots group that organized a rally outside the Legislature on Tuesday.
“We need a fair, equitable and sustainable plan (for K to 12 education),” said David Gleim to the hundreds gathered at the steps of the Legislature calling for a new moratorium on school closures.
“It may be difficult, but not impossible. After all, we’re from Saskatchewan, where nothing is impossible.
“If we fail to do this, we fail rural Saskatchewan but most importantly Saskatchewan fails. The province will suffer from these school closures.” Up to 52 schools are being reviewed by school boards across the province following a 2 1/2 year voluntary moratorium brought in by the provincial government while school divisions where amalgamated. The education system can not continue to evolve if it is stalled by another moratorium, said Learning Minister Deb Higgins.
“We need to move ahead and make sure that the school boards have the opportunity to make the decisions that they feel are the best for their division,” said Higgins who believes the larger than average number of schools under review has lead to the rural tension.
“I would question whether holding it off -- some suggestions have been as long as five years -- are you just compiling the problem?” The foundation operating grant (F.O.G.) the province uses to disperse money to school divisions is the problem because it is biased towards cities, said Gleim.
While enrollment has declined across the province, funding to urban divisions has increased but Gleim said rural divisions have not been as fortunate.
“We’re here today (from) all over Saskatchewan to say to the government you need to resolve the imbalance,” said Gleim.
“The survival of many communities lies in the balance due to the powerful control of how the F.O.G. system is handled out of Saskatchewan Learning ...
Communities are going to lose their schools in the F.O.G.” Higgins said her government has not chosen winners and losers with its funding. While enrollment has declined across the province over the last 10 years, the provincial government has increased its funding by $200 million.
She said rural divisions are seeing less money because of population changes.
“Our population has moved and our demographics have changed and that’s what we need to address to make sure that the services are there for students,” said Higgins.
Times have changed. With oil and gas as well as the biofuel industries growing in rural areas and fueling our economy, those at the rally said rural Saskatchewan can not afford to lose schools that can attract residents to further grow the province.
Rural areas need time to revitalize, said Renaud Bissonnette, vice-president of towns for SUMA, whose school in Willow Bunch is under review.
“A friend of mine from Alberta once told me, ŒThe cities are the engines and (the rural areas) are the fuel,’ said “Now it is time for the government to start thinking this way. If you don’t have any fuel, you won’t have any cities.” While Saskatchewan Party education critic Rod Gantefour supports changing how education is funded in Saskatchewan, he isn’t certain how his party would pay for 60 per cent of education and taxpayers 40 per cent should it form government.
“It will have to a priority for us to work in that direction,” said Gantefour.
“We know and people know we can’t do it over night because it’s taken this government 15 years to work in the other direction.” Some of those attending felt defeated at the end of day after getting insufficient answers from the provincial government.
“We were hoping to hear that they'll give more time. We wanted to hear that rural Saskatchewan matters,” said Jed Williams, a resident of Imperial who immigrated from Australia because of the opportunity he saw in rural Saskatchewan.
“We’re a minority. What do we do?” said Jodie Griffin of Crane Valley.
“I’ll guarantee you that they’ll go forward with what they’re doing and the schools will be closed and the province once again will be dead in the water.
Sask Party News Release
Saskatchewan Party Says NDP Mismanaging School Closure Issue
Gantefoer Says NDP Hastiness Part of the Problem
Tuesday - March 27, 2007
REGINA-Saskatchewan Party Learning critic, Rod Gantefoer today said the NDP government is too busy rushing to close schools rather than find solutions and listen to the communities and people affected.
“Today, we have people from Save Our Schools rallying at the Legislature wanting to know why this NDP government is not answering their questions on closures,” Gantefoer said. “It’s obvious education is not a priority for Calvert’s NDP government.”
Gantefoer addressed the group on the steps of the Legislature saying the NDP has failed rural Saskatchewan and does not understand the full impact a school closure has on a community.
During Tuesday’s Question Period, Gantefoer asked the Minister of Learning why the process for closing schools is so expedient. Gantefoer says all options must be considered before a school is closed.
“We need to take into account such things like making schools a multi-use community facility and studying the true viability of a school to the community. Most of the time, schools are much more then a place to educate kids during the day,” Gantefoer said.
Gantefoer cited the 2001 ‘Role of the School’ report. The report calls on schools to adopt a “community school” philosophy that encourages families, neighbours, businesses, churches and other organizations to become involved in school events and make use of the building.
“This NDP government is acting so quickly, they are not even following their own report,” Gantefoer said.
Gantefoer also condemned the NDP government for not understanding that many community councils have only just started up, and have not yet had a chance to voice their concerns.
“What’s the point of having community councils if this NDP government won’t listen to them, or closes the school before they get up and running,” Gantefoer said.
-30-
For more information: Saskatchewan Party Caucus, 787-4300.
Gantefoer Says NDP Hastiness Part of the Problem
Tuesday - March 27, 2007
REGINA-Saskatchewan Party Learning critic, Rod Gantefoer today said the NDP government is too busy rushing to close schools rather than find solutions and listen to the communities and people affected.
“Today, we have people from Save Our Schools rallying at the Legislature wanting to know why this NDP government is not answering their questions on closures,” Gantefoer said. “It’s obvious education is not a priority for Calvert’s NDP government.”
Gantefoer addressed the group on the steps of the Legislature saying the NDP has failed rural Saskatchewan and does not understand the full impact a school closure has on a community.
During Tuesday’s Question Period, Gantefoer asked the Minister of Learning why the process for closing schools is so expedient. Gantefoer says all options must be considered before a school is closed.
“We need to take into account such things like making schools a multi-use community facility and studying the true viability of a school to the community. Most of the time, schools are much more then a place to educate kids during the day,” Gantefoer said.
Gantefoer cited the 2001 ‘Role of the School’ report. The report calls on schools to adopt a “community school” philosophy that encourages families, neighbours, businesses, churches and other organizations to become involved in school events and make use of the building.
“This NDP government is acting so quickly, they are not even following their own report,” Gantefoer said.
Gantefoer also condemned the NDP government for not understanding that many community councils have only just started up, and have not yet had a chance to voice their concerns.
“What’s the point of having community councils if this NDP government won’t listen to them, or closes the school before they get up and running,” Gantefoer said.
-30-
For more information: Saskatchewan Party Caucus, 787-4300.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Last posting - at least for a while
I think that we can be reasonably pleased with the turn-out at the rally today, considering the miserable weather, but I wish more people had taken the time to come out to support us. However, the coverage was very good on both CVT and Global television news this evening. I did not see the CBC local.
I guess we have done all we can, for the time being. We now have to wait until our respective school divisions announce their decisions about the individual schools which are under review.
I was not impressed by the Minister's response to our concerns. It is interesting to note that she categorically denied that there is a "list" of further schools to be ear-marked for closure. If, as I strongly suspect will be the case, our appeals and protests have fallen on deaf ears, I think we must make sure, when the provincial election occurs sometime this year, that the Saskatchewan Party makes this issue an important part of their election platform.
I do not plan on posting any more messages on this blog for a while. There is little left to say until we know what is going to happen, but I will not delete it yet, as some may wish to look back at the various information and comments.
However, everyone might continue to think about what we could do next in the worst case scenario.
Christine.
I guess we have done all we can, for the time being. We now have to wait until our respective school divisions announce their decisions about the individual schools which are under review.
I was not impressed by the Minister's response to our concerns. It is interesting to note that she categorically denied that there is a "list" of further schools to be ear-marked for closure. If, as I strongly suspect will be the case, our appeals and protests have fallen on deaf ears, I think we must make sure, when the provincial election occurs sometime this year, that the Saskatchewan Party makes this issue an important part of their election platform.
I do not plan on posting any more messages on this blog for a while. There is little left to say until we know what is going to happen, but I will not delete it yet, as some may wish to look back at the various information and comments.
However, everyone might continue to think about what we could do next in the worst case scenario.
Christine.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
More about that new money
Chad says:
I see you put a comment from David Gleim about the comment from Dan Preston on your blog. I would like to have it clarified that this was directly from Andrew Thompson today at a meeting in Moose Jaw.
Also:
In response to David’s comment about the $1.2 & 1.8 Million, it’s because they are trying to make it look worse to the public. They hired a communications person in January (Prairie South did) specifically for spinning things to sound good. The $1.8 million 'loss' is actually from 2006-07 to 2007-08 fiscal years. This decrease has nothing at all to do with the budget. The per pupil grant has to do with the PRE budget 2006-07 compared to the POST budget 2006-07.
The per pupil grant INCREASE was from Andrew Thompsons lips himself today. I don't care what the boards try to say to the public, I don't believe a word they say any more, especially after what they said to me yesterday, and the proven lies they have said to the public. (See my media release re: amortizing buses)
Thank you very much.
Chad
I see you put a comment from David Gleim about the comment from Dan Preston on your blog. I would like to have it clarified that this was directly from Andrew Thompson today at a meeting in Moose Jaw.
Also:
In response to David’s comment about the $1.2 & 1.8 Million, it’s because they are trying to make it look worse to the public. They hired a communications person in January (Prairie South did) specifically for spinning things to sound good. The $1.8 million 'loss' is actually from 2006-07 to 2007-08 fiscal years. This decrease has nothing at all to do with the budget. The per pupil grant has to do with the PRE budget 2006-07 compared to the POST budget 2006-07.
The per pupil grant INCREASE was from Andrew Thompsons lips himself today. I don't care what the boards try to say to the public, I don't believe a word they say any more, especially after what they said to me yesterday, and the proven lies they have said to the public. (See my media release re: amortizing buses)
Thank you very much.
Chad
Making comments
Please - if you wish to post a comment on this blog, do not hide behind an alias.
To "balance not bias" - all I can say is, typical government smoke and mirrors.
To "balance not bias" - all I can say is, typical government smoke and mirrors.
New Money?
This information received from Dan Preston today - followed by a comment from David Gleim:
Just a little information for everyone to know. We talked to
Minister Higgins today along with Finance Minister Thompson and they said the increase to the School Divisions in Saskatchewan was $646.00 per pupil.
There are 7300 students in the PSSD so that totals $4,715,800.00 extra available
money the School Division received that was held back from grants due to decline in enrolements.
So the School Division should have no excuse now to
close any of their schools.
Comment:
If this is so, then why are Chinook and PSSD claiming they are $1.2 & $1.8 million respectively more in debt now due to the Budget?
David
Just a little information for everyone to know. We talked to
Minister Higgins today along with Finance Minister Thompson and they said the increase to the School Divisions in Saskatchewan was $646.00 per pupil.
There are 7300 students in the PSSD so that totals $4,715,800.00 extra available
money the School Division received that was held back from grants due to decline in enrolements.
So the School Division should have no excuse now to
close any of their schools.
Comment:
If this is so, then why are Chinook and PSSD claiming they are $1.2 & $1.8 million respectively more in debt now due to the Budget?
David
Rally News
There is also new information on: www.soslobby.ca
Regarding the rally! After the main speeches a speaker from each community will have a brief period to express how the school closures are affecting their children, their parents and their community specifically. We will try to fit in as many communities as possible. The time allotted per speaker is approximately two minutes. We would hate to see you travel so far and not have your community's voice heard.
SOS would like the speaker to please keep in mind that there will be children present so the comments MUST be appropriate for all attending the Rally. Language must be appropriate for ALL EARS. Speeches must be approved through SOS.
To have a time slated with us to speak, please email your name and contact information along with a copy of your speech to
dawnreich@sasktel.net
Thank you for your support and God Bless,
Dawn Reich
SOS Communications
Regarding the rally! After the main speeches a speaker from each community will have a brief period to express how the school closures are affecting their children, their parents and their community specifically. We will try to fit in as many communities as possible. The time allotted per speaker is approximately two minutes. We would hate to see you travel so far and not have your community's voice heard.
SOS would like the speaker to please keep in mind that there will be children present so the comments MUST be appropriate for all attending the Rally. Language must be appropriate for ALL EARS. Speeches must be approved through SOS.
To have a time slated with us to speak, please email your name and contact information along with a copy of your speech to
dawnreich@sasktel.net
Thank you for your support and God Bless,
Dawn Reich
SOS Communications
Saturday, March 24, 2007
A Deafening Silence
For the last couple of months we have, collectively and individually, made our opinions known regarding the threat of school closures. We have attended public meetings; sent delegations to board meetings; aired our views in articles and letters to newspapers; and we have talked to several reporters from the media - but there has been absolutely no official and public response from school boards or from the Department of Learning to any of our concerns. For instance:
- We have consistently questioned the wisdom of the creation of the mega-school divisions, and of the theory that bigger is better.
- We have explained in great detail all the consequences to our communities of school closures.
- We have frequently referred to reports that there is a list of a total of 160 schools which the Department has targeted for closure.
- We have exposed the financial advantage to school boards of busing students long distances instead of keeping schools open.
- We have explained the many social and educational advantages enjoyed by children who attend school in their own communities.
- We have drawn media attention to the ever-increasing number of administrative staff in the school divisions.
- We have reminded everyone, including the media, of those comments from the Deputy Minister regarding the closure of 20 schools per year.
- There was wide reporting of the SARM resolution calling on the Minister to place a moratorium on school closures for five years.
Yet - there has been no public response by the school boards to our concerns; no denials from the department of our accusations; no promise to put a stop to these reviews.
Why this deafening silence? Is it that we are of so little importance to these people that they are treating us with the contempt they think we deserve? Or is it simply that they have no defence against these obvious truths?
- We have consistently questioned the wisdom of the creation of the mega-school divisions, and of the theory that bigger is better.
- We have explained in great detail all the consequences to our communities of school closures.
- We have frequently referred to reports that there is a list of a total of 160 schools which the Department has targeted for closure.
- We have exposed the financial advantage to school boards of busing students long distances instead of keeping schools open.
- We have explained the many social and educational advantages enjoyed by children who attend school in their own communities.
- We have drawn media attention to the ever-increasing number of administrative staff in the school divisions.
- We have reminded everyone, including the media, of those comments from the Deputy Minister regarding the closure of 20 schools per year.
- There was wide reporting of the SARM resolution calling on the Minister to place a moratorium on school closures for five years.
Yet - there has been no public response by the school boards to our concerns; no denials from the department of our accusations; no promise to put a stop to these reviews.
Why this deafening silence? Is it that we are of so little importance to these people that they are treating us with the contempt they think we deserve? Or is it simply that they have no defence against these obvious truths?
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Some good ideas from Chad Novak
MEDIA RELEASE
MARCH 20, 2007
In light of the current round of school closure considerations, province wide, here are some cost saving ideas that will be presented by Chad A. Novak, CMA to the Prairie South School Board on March 24, 2007, that should seriously be considered in order to save all provincial schools from closure:
1) End the practice of rehiring retired teachers on a contract basis. Savings of $2.8 Million per year.
2) Look at other financing options for capital expenditures (Lease, Loan, etc.). Savings of up to $5.4 Million in current year.
3) Offer early retirement to teachers in communities that can afford it, to a maximum of 80 teaching/aid staff. Savings of up to $5.6 Million per year.
Summary of Operating Fund for Prairie South School Division:
Current Fund Balance After Accounting for 2006-07 Shortfall: $2.0 Million
Projected Fund Balance After Above Savings (by 2010-11): $43.9 Million
Further long term savings can be achieved by:
4) Offer further early retirement incentives on an ongoing basis over next 10 years, and offer those positions to brand new teachers to keep our young people within Saskatchewan, and more importantly, in rural Saskatchewan. Savings to be dependent on number of positions affected, but potential exists of $5-10 Million per year due to salary difference alone (not factoring in benefits).
5) Review central administrative positions for redundancy, and combine duties over three or more school divisions to share costs of common positions. Potential savings of $2-5 Million per year, or more depending on result of review.
Other Interesting Facts:
- By closing the five rural schools under review in the Prairie South School Division, the division stands to receive an extra $2.8 Million in transportation funding due to the calculation of the current formula.
- Based on the current formula of $185/km, children could theoretically be bussed for hundreds of kilometres and the School Divisions still receive $185 for every km driven.
- We must discourage School Divisions from bussing our children past a reasonable distance. This can be achieved immediately by cutting funding past a certain reasonable distance, to be determined.
Where to Go From Here:
- Immediate Moratorium on School Closures.
- Independent detailed review to achieve savings such as outlined above, and continual annual independent review to ensure maximum efficiencies.
- Review of funding formula to determine reasonable equalization factor and adjustment to transportation funding to end incentive to bus children further.
Potential Benefits:
- Keep young people in Saskatchewan, working where they are being educated and where they want to stay.
- By keeping rural schools open and finding savings elsewhere, we are keeping the rural communities open and welcome for people moving back to Saskatchewan.
- By achieving cost savings in School Divisions, the potential exists to reduce education property taxes on a local level.
- It is vital that we have an infrastructure setup to attract new businesses and people to rural Saskatchewan, as there is huge potential in these areas for young families to make a future. Let’s build our communities, by not only keeping rural schools open but by building and/or reopening more rural schools and showing that Saskatchewan is innovative and has forward thinking. This will entice more people to move to rural Saskatchewan to get away from the negative aspects of larger urban centres. The potential snowball effect is huge, in that local businesses will need to be setup to accommodate the influx of people, such as restaurants, gas stations, medical practices, and on and on. There is truth in the statement “Build It and They Will Come”.
If you wish to contact me regarding the above, please email novak.c@sasktel.net or call (306) 691-5638 and leave a message. It should be noted that I will be in Regina on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 for the Provincial Rally at the Legislative Building. For further information on the above, visit www.saveourprairiesouls.com .
MARCH 20, 2007
In light of the current round of school closure considerations, province wide, here are some cost saving ideas that will be presented by Chad A. Novak, CMA to the Prairie South School Board on March 24, 2007, that should seriously be considered in order to save all provincial schools from closure:
1) End the practice of rehiring retired teachers on a contract basis. Savings of $2.8 Million per year.
2) Look at other financing options for capital expenditures (Lease, Loan, etc.). Savings of up to $5.4 Million in current year.
3) Offer early retirement to teachers in communities that can afford it, to a maximum of 80 teaching/aid staff. Savings of up to $5.6 Million per year.
Summary of Operating Fund for Prairie South School Division:
Current Fund Balance After Accounting for 2006-07 Shortfall: $2.0 Million
Projected Fund Balance After Above Savings (by 2010-11): $43.9 Million
Further long term savings can be achieved by:
4) Offer further early retirement incentives on an ongoing basis over next 10 years, and offer those positions to brand new teachers to keep our young people within Saskatchewan, and more importantly, in rural Saskatchewan. Savings to be dependent on number of positions affected, but potential exists of $5-10 Million per year due to salary difference alone (not factoring in benefits).
5) Review central administrative positions for redundancy, and combine duties over three or more school divisions to share costs of common positions. Potential savings of $2-5 Million per year, or more depending on result of review.
Other Interesting Facts:
- By closing the five rural schools under review in the Prairie South School Division, the division stands to receive an extra $2.8 Million in transportation funding due to the calculation of the current formula.
- Based on the current formula of $185/km, children could theoretically be bussed for hundreds of kilometres and the School Divisions still receive $185 for every km driven.
- We must discourage School Divisions from bussing our children past a reasonable distance. This can be achieved immediately by cutting funding past a certain reasonable distance, to be determined.
Where to Go From Here:
- Immediate Moratorium on School Closures.
- Independent detailed review to achieve savings such as outlined above, and continual annual independent review to ensure maximum efficiencies.
- Review of funding formula to determine reasonable equalization factor and adjustment to transportation funding to end incentive to bus children further.
Potential Benefits:
- Keep young people in Saskatchewan, working where they are being educated and where they want to stay.
- By keeping rural schools open and finding savings elsewhere, we are keeping the rural communities open and welcome for people moving back to Saskatchewan.
- By achieving cost savings in School Divisions, the potential exists to reduce education property taxes on a local level.
- It is vital that we have an infrastructure setup to attract new businesses and people to rural Saskatchewan, as there is huge potential in these areas for young families to make a future. Let’s build our communities, by not only keeping rural schools open but by building and/or reopening more rural schools and showing that Saskatchewan is innovative and has forward thinking. This will entice more people to move to rural Saskatchewan to get away from the negative aspects of larger urban centres. The potential snowball effect is huge, in that local businesses will need to be setup to accommodate the influx of people, such as restaurants, gas stations, medical practices, and on and on. There is truth in the statement “Build It and They Will Come”.
If you wish to contact me regarding the above, please email novak.c@sasktel.net or call (306) 691-5638 and leave a message. It should be noted that I will be in Regina on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 for the Provincial Rally at the Legislative Building. For further information on the above, visit www.saveourprairiesouls.com .
Monday, March 19, 2007
My column in today's Leader Post
This is my column in today's paper. I do not particularly like the headline they have chosen, but that's not my choice. Following my column is another article by Kare Brownlee, also in today's paper:
Urban-rural divide grows
Christine Whitaker
Special to The Leader-Post
Monday, March 19, 2007
On March 9, Agriculture Minister Mark Wartman commented on new data from Statistics Canada. These indicate that Saskatchewan's unemployment rate dropped to four per cent in February and that 20,600 more people were employed than in the same month last year.
Beaming with satisfaction as he faced the television cameras, Wartman spoke in glowing terms of our vibrant economy and of the "Saskatchewan Advantage".
People are returning, he said, for our quality of life and because Saskatchewan is the best place to live and raise a family.
What he failed to mention is that this only applies to the major urban centres, and not to rural communities.
On the same day, the Leader Post carried three stories on the realities or rural life.
One reported that the wait times had declined for surgery and other procedures for patients in Regina and Saskatoon, but that in rural areas the number of people waiting for surgery has increased over the last year.
A second article outlined the facts about rural poverty presented to the Senate committee currently travelling around the province. They heard from farm families who expressed frustration at the lack of employment opportunities for their young people who wished to stay in the rural area, and with the financial struggles of trying to make a living on the land.
The third article concerned the problems of funding for rural schools. There are currently 52 schools in the province facing possible closure, 50 of which are rural, and it is rumoured that Saskatchewan Learning has a list of another 110 rural schools recommended for closure in the near future.
Sometimes it seems that every department of government considers rural people to be second-class citizens.
We have to drive, often for an hour or more, to access essential services, and yet our secondary highways have been allowed to crumble into dust.
Crown corporations charge us more for utilities. We pay more for basic telephone service than do city dwellers, plus a distance surcharge for every half-mile between our homes and the switching station; the basic monthly charge for electricity, before we ever turn on a light, is 67.5 per cent more than the charge to a city home; the difference for the natural gas service is 12.5 per cent.
During the summer months, when driving to the cottage or a park, politicians and bureaucrats should leave the major highways and take a few detours down rural roads.
They will see little churches standing alone in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by gravestones bearing the names of families who once lived in the community.
There are old one-roomed school houses, boarded up and forlorn, and there are still two- and three-storey farm houses, built to last and large enough for a family, now sadly abandoned.
There are villages and small towns with impressive town halls, theatres and even opera houses.
These are the remnants of the hopes and dreams of those who founded this province and built communities to be there for future generations.
But the dreams were shattered by depression and drought; by savage winters and poor grain prices. Rural decline has continued inexorably to the present with the disappearance of elevators, post offices and, more recently, medical facilities and schools.
On the official road map of 1963 are dozens of towns and villages that are not on today's map, such as Breeze, Farrerdale, Madrid, Tullis, Ratcliffe and many more. Most Saskatchewan people have never even heard of those places, much less know where they were.
If the current proposed round of school closures is allowed to proceed, there will very soon be dozens more towns and villages erased from the map.
Any family considering returning from Alberta should think twice. By the time they have the moving van packed, their hometown may have disappeared.
Is this the Saskatchewan Advantage of which our government is so proud, and which will bring people back home?
- Christine Whitaker is an Edgeley freelance writer.
Provincial funding rewards bussing students
Karen Brownlee
Leader-Post
Sunday, March 18, 2007
School boards will be financially rewarded by the provincial government if they close facilities they are reviewing and bus those students, says a Moose Jaw father fighting the possibility his children’s school may be closed by Prairie South School Board.
Chad Novak used his skills as a certified management accountant to review the budget of Prairie South School Division after he began questioning the legitimacy of his children’s school, cole Ross, being reviewed for closure. He held a meeting on Saturday at A.E. Peacock Collegiate to explain what he has found.
One item was that for each student who is bussed, a school division receives $185 dollars plus an additional $185 per kilometre per child from the provincial government.
For Prairie South School Division, Novak said that would mean an extra $2.8 million from the provincial government should the board close all six schools its reviewing.
A moratorium on school closures is needed, said Novak, so funding and spending issues can be dealt with appropriately.
“A review of the funding formula, that’s the most important part,” said Novak who also wants board spending reviewed by an independent source to keep them accountable.
“We can hold them accountable at election times, but I know from my respect, realistically I’ve just been electing them because of who they are,” said Novak.
“We really haven’t sat back and said ‘Are these guys doing the best they could in managing our money?’
“The next time we have a chance to say that is in 2009 and that’s too long. By then, schools may be closed.”
Prairie South School Board Chair Gord Stewart has said that Novak’s call for an independent review of board spending is unnecessary because division budgets are audited. He also points out that school reviews are not just about money, but to also consider the quality of the education being delivered.
About 50 people from Novak’s area as well as some from South East Cornerstone and Prairie Valley school divisions attended the meeting. Novak hoped for more, but said it’s a beginning.
“A lot of people are feeling hopeless now. They don’t know where they can go,” said Novak.
One of his next steps is to attend a rally being held outside the Legislature on March 27. Save Our Schools, a group of concerned citizens in the 52 communities whose schools are being reviewed for closure, have organized the event.
Urban-rural divide grows
Christine Whitaker
Special to The Leader-Post
Monday, March 19, 2007
On March 9, Agriculture Minister Mark Wartman commented on new data from Statistics Canada. These indicate that Saskatchewan's unemployment rate dropped to four per cent in February and that 20,600 more people were employed than in the same month last year.
Beaming with satisfaction as he faced the television cameras, Wartman spoke in glowing terms of our vibrant economy and of the "Saskatchewan Advantage".
People are returning, he said, for our quality of life and because Saskatchewan is the best place to live and raise a family.
What he failed to mention is that this only applies to the major urban centres, and not to rural communities.
On the same day, the Leader Post carried three stories on the realities or rural life.
One reported that the wait times had declined for surgery and other procedures for patients in Regina and Saskatoon, but that in rural areas the number of people waiting for surgery has increased over the last year.
A second article outlined the facts about rural poverty presented to the Senate committee currently travelling around the province. They heard from farm families who expressed frustration at the lack of employment opportunities for their young people who wished to stay in the rural area, and with the financial struggles of trying to make a living on the land.
The third article concerned the problems of funding for rural schools. There are currently 52 schools in the province facing possible closure, 50 of which are rural, and it is rumoured that Saskatchewan Learning has a list of another 110 rural schools recommended for closure in the near future.
Sometimes it seems that every department of government considers rural people to be second-class citizens.
We have to drive, often for an hour or more, to access essential services, and yet our secondary highways have been allowed to crumble into dust.
Crown corporations charge us more for utilities. We pay more for basic telephone service than do city dwellers, plus a distance surcharge for every half-mile between our homes and the switching station; the basic monthly charge for electricity, before we ever turn on a light, is 67.5 per cent more than the charge to a city home; the difference for the natural gas service is 12.5 per cent.
During the summer months, when driving to the cottage or a park, politicians and bureaucrats should leave the major highways and take a few detours down rural roads.
They will see little churches standing alone in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by gravestones bearing the names of families who once lived in the community.
There are old one-roomed school houses, boarded up and forlorn, and there are still two- and three-storey farm houses, built to last and large enough for a family, now sadly abandoned.
There are villages and small towns with impressive town halls, theatres and even opera houses.
These are the remnants of the hopes and dreams of those who founded this province and built communities to be there for future generations.
But the dreams were shattered by depression and drought; by savage winters and poor grain prices. Rural decline has continued inexorably to the present with the disappearance of elevators, post offices and, more recently, medical facilities and schools.
On the official road map of 1963 are dozens of towns and villages that are not on today's map, such as Breeze, Farrerdale, Madrid, Tullis, Ratcliffe and many more. Most Saskatchewan people have never even heard of those places, much less know where they were.
If the current proposed round of school closures is allowed to proceed, there will very soon be dozens more towns and villages erased from the map.
Any family considering returning from Alberta should think twice. By the time they have the moving van packed, their hometown may have disappeared.
Is this the Saskatchewan Advantage of which our government is so proud, and which will bring people back home?
- Christine Whitaker is an Edgeley freelance writer.
Provincial funding rewards bussing students
Karen Brownlee
Leader-Post
Sunday, March 18, 2007
School boards will be financially rewarded by the provincial government if they close facilities they are reviewing and bus those students, says a Moose Jaw father fighting the possibility his children’s school may be closed by Prairie South School Board.
Chad Novak used his skills as a certified management accountant to review the budget of Prairie South School Division after he began questioning the legitimacy of his children’s school, cole Ross, being reviewed for closure. He held a meeting on Saturday at A.E. Peacock Collegiate to explain what he has found.
One item was that for each student who is bussed, a school division receives $185 dollars plus an additional $185 per kilometre per child from the provincial government.
For Prairie South School Division, Novak said that would mean an extra $2.8 million from the provincial government should the board close all six schools its reviewing.
A moratorium on school closures is needed, said Novak, so funding and spending issues can be dealt with appropriately.
“A review of the funding formula, that’s the most important part,” said Novak who also wants board spending reviewed by an independent source to keep them accountable.
“We can hold them accountable at election times, but I know from my respect, realistically I’ve just been electing them because of who they are,” said Novak.
“We really haven’t sat back and said ‘Are these guys doing the best they could in managing our money?’
“The next time we have a chance to say that is in 2009 and that’s too long. By then, schools may be closed.”
Prairie South School Board Chair Gord Stewart has said that Novak’s call for an independent review of board spending is unnecessary because division budgets are audited. He also points out that school reviews are not just about money, but to also consider the quality of the education being delivered.
About 50 people from Novak’s area as well as some from South East Cornerstone and Prairie Valley school divisions attended the meeting. Novak hoped for more, but said it’s a beginning.
“A lot of people are feeling hopeless now. They don’t know where they can go,” said Novak.
One of his next steps is to attend a rally being held outside the Legislature on March 27. Save Our Schools, a group of concerned citizens in the 52 communities whose schools are being reviewed for closure, have organized the event.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Another letter to the newspapers
Warren McNary has sent this out to the papers:
Some people are still under the impression that the school review process and impending closures are a good thing. If in fact it is a good thing, others will adopt the model. Imagine then the following scenario.
Feb 21, 2012 Provincial Review Committee Presentation
The purpose of this meeting is to share the findings of our recent review, and announce our intentions with regard to the results.
As you are aware, due to rising costs and declining revenues, it became necessary to review the viability of all provinces. This was done by drawing up a classification plan and establishing benchmarks by which we can determine when a province is no longer viable to remain operating. As has been discussed, this has been an objective review, and the confidence in our data is very high.
We first want to thank you for your efforts in presenting to us your arguments and reasons why you feel that your province should remain operating, but unfortunately we could not use any of your recommendations. We are not able to let emotions stand in the way of sound fiscal management decisions. Each province must stand on it’s own merit.
Before we proceed we would also like to clarify that we understand that Saskatchewan has been able to maintain a balanced budget through provincial taxation, even without the equalization payments which you so often have asked for, but you must realize that we must look at the country as a whole, and the money must be shared with those areas which do not have the vast amount of natural resources and gullible taxpayers that you enjoy. We have large numbers of people living in urban sprawl where it is not possible to create enough revenue through natural resources or taxation to sustain themselves, and so through amalgamation we will be able to treat everyone fairly.
According to our classification plan, your province scored well in geography. However, it scored exceptionally low in areas of space utilization, facility maintenance, transportation, PTR ratio, and peer group size. We realize that these are essentially all as a result of low enrolment, but due to the steady drop in enrolment numbers we feel that we need to take decisive action before it gets any worse.
We will take a look at each of these criteria separately.
Geography: Saskatchewan has lots of this, but at present we need to focus our spending on areas of the country that have much more, such as Nunavit.
Space utilization: Large areas of the province are under utilized, especially since many people have left rural areas and small towns in the past five years. It appears impossible to either fill these areas under the present provincial policies, or to remove them.
Facility maintenance: There has been a general lack of facility maintenance in regards to highways, rail service, policing, hospitals, post offices, rural service centers, schools, and elevators at the local level for so long that they are nonexistent in most cases.
Transportation: Transportation through, around or over Saskatchewan has long been a problem for the rest of Canada. Costs to move people and goods between Alberta and Ontario would greatly be reduced if we could shorten the distance across Saskatchewan. Amalgamation will eliminate it completely.
PTR (Politician to Taxpayer Ratio): Saskatchewan has one of the highest PTRs in the country, far above the average. We realize that you favour this arrangement, but what would it cost to run the country if all of Canada insisted on the same PTR as you enjoy?
Peer Group Size: It is unfair to the residents of your province to think of them as perhaps the only one in their town, or the only one in a curling bonspeil. It must be hard for them to be both cast and audience in a community play. We feel that many of your young people suffer as a result of being on a local ball team of only one or two players. Rural residents live in areas where there is only one family with young children for miles, due to the school closure program of the Zero’s (07, 08, 09). We feel that putting these children into crowds of 3 to 7 to watch a hockey game is detrimental to their development. Amalgamation will move these residents to more populated areas where they can attend Flames or Oiler games with thousands. There they will attend larger schools where they can learn about gangs, stabbings, mugging, and the young offenders act.
Enrolment: We realize you have made extensive efforts to reverse the trend of dropping enrollment, but we all must admit that the idea of higher taxes and fewer services has only caused enrolment to decline further, except in the area of geriatrics, where large numbers of expatriate residents are returning for cheaper nursing home care.
Administration costs will be reduced through amalgamation. Your province, with a population that’s less than our identified enrollment viable cities, does not qualify to have it’s own administration. Your two largest centres do not qualify as geographically centered towns, nor towns of necessity, and we do not feel that your argument of the distance to the next enrolment viable or geographically centered cities is strong enough to have them reclassified. Therefore, we plan to proceed with closure of the province and amalgamation with the larger viable provinces.
We are sorry, but under the present legislation, there is no appeal
We understand that this will take some adjustment, but we know that you are more resilient than you believe, and will stick to your provincial motto, “It could have been worse!” And after all, as you’ve always said: “change is good.” Thank you.
Some people are still under the impression that the school review process and impending closures are a good thing. If in fact it is a good thing, others will adopt the model. Imagine then the following scenario.
Feb 21, 2012 Provincial Review Committee Presentation
The purpose of this meeting is to share the findings of our recent review, and announce our intentions with regard to the results.
As you are aware, due to rising costs and declining revenues, it became necessary to review the viability of all provinces. This was done by drawing up a classification plan and establishing benchmarks by which we can determine when a province is no longer viable to remain operating. As has been discussed, this has been an objective review, and the confidence in our data is very high.
We first want to thank you for your efforts in presenting to us your arguments and reasons why you feel that your province should remain operating, but unfortunately we could not use any of your recommendations. We are not able to let emotions stand in the way of sound fiscal management decisions. Each province must stand on it’s own merit.
Before we proceed we would also like to clarify that we understand that Saskatchewan has been able to maintain a balanced budget through provincial taxation, even without the equalization payments which you so often have asked for, but you must realize that we must look at the country as a whole, and the money must be shared with those areas which do not have the vast amount of natural resources and gullible taxpayers that you enjoy. We have large numbers of people living in urban sprawl where it is not possible to create enough revenue through natural resources or taxation to sustain themselves, and so through amalgamation we will be able to treat everyone fairly.
According to our classification plan, your province scored well in geography. However, it scored exceptionally low in areas of space utilization, facility maintenance, transportation, PTR ratio, and peer group size. We realize that these are essentially all as a result of low enrolment, but due to the steady drop in enrolment numbers we feel that we need to take decisive action before it gets any worse.
We will take a look at each of these criteria separately.
Geography: Saskatchewan has lots of this, but at present we need to focus our spending on areas of the country that have much more, such as Nunavit.
Space utilization: Large areas of the province are under utilized, especially since many people have left rural areas and small towns in the past five years. It appears impossible to either fill these areas under the present provincial policies, or to remove them.
Facility maintenance: There has been a general lack of facility maintenance in regards to highways, rail service, policing, hospitals, post offices, rural service centers, schools, and elevators at the local level for so long that they are nonexistent in most cases.
Transportation: Transportation through, around or over Saskatchewan has long been a problem for the rest of Canada. Costs to move people and goods between Alberta and Ontario would greatly be reduced if we could shorten the distance across Saskatchewan. Amalgamation will eliminate it completely.
PTR (Politician to Taxpayer Ratio): Saskatchewan has one of the highest PTRs in the country, far above the average. We realize that you favour this arrangement, but what would it cost to run the country if all of Canada insisted on the same PTR as you enjoy?
Peer Group Size: It is unfair to the residents of your province to think of them as perhaps the only one in their town, or the only one in a curling bonspeil. It must be hard for them to be both cast and audience in a community play. We feel that many of your young people suffer as a result of being on a local ball team of only one or two players. Rural residents live in areas where there is only one family with young children for miles, due to the school closure program of the Zero’s (07, 08, 09). We feel that putting these children into crowds of 3 to 7 to watch a hockey game is detrimental to their development. Amalgamation will move these residents to more populated areas where they can attend Flames or Oiler games with thousands. There they will attend larger schools where they can learn about gangs, stabbings, mugging, and the young offenders act.
Enrolment: We realize you have made extensive efforts to reverse the trend of dropping enrollment, but we all must admit that the idea of higher taxes and fewer services has only caused enrolment to decline further, except in the area of geriatrics, where large numbers of expatriate residents are returning for cheaper nursing home care.
Administration costs will be reduced through amalgamation. Your province, with a population that’s less than our identified enrollment viable cities, does not qualify to have it’s own administration. Your two largest centres do not qualify as geographically centered towns, nor towns of necessity, and we do not feel that your argument of the distance to the next enrolment viable or geographically centered cities is strong enough to have them reclassified. Therefore, we plan to proceed with closure of the province and amalgamation with the larger viable provinces.
We are sorry, but under the present legislation, there is no appeal
We understand that this will take some adjustment, but we know that you are more resilient than you believe, and will stick to your provincial motto, “It could have been worse!” And after all, as you’ve always said: “change is good.” Thank you.
Media Coverage
Chad's Moose Jaw meeting was reported on both Global and CTV local evening news on Saturday, and on the radio news this morning (Sunday). The coverage was good and reporters referred to the rally at the end of the month. There were also several reports on Thursday about the SARM resolution.
This issue is well and truly established in the media's range of interest, Now we have to get as many people as possible out to the rally on the 27th. It is important to have a big crowd.
Many people who have become involved in this fight have told me that they have done things they have never done before, such as researching facts, writing letters to the editor and organizing local meetings. All this effort is time consuming, but it is essential to keep up the pressure on the school boards and the government.
The rally is the next step. March 27th in front of the Legislative Building at 12 Noon. Be there at least 10 or 15 minutes ahead of time and bring your neighbours!
This issue is well and truly established in the media's range of interest, Now we have to get as many people as possible out to the rally on the 27th. It is important to have a big crowd.
Many people who have become involved in this fight have told me that they have done things they have never done before, such as researching facts, writing letters to the editor and organizing local meetings. All this effort is time consuming, but it is essential to keep up the pressure on the school boards and the government.
The rally is the next step. March 27th in front of the Legislative Building at 12 Noon. Be there at least 10 or 15 minutes ahead of time and bring your neighbours!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
March 15th
The delegates at the SARM convention voted unanimously for a resolution calling for a five year moratoriuim on all schoool closures. Even this government should be able to figure out some changes to the foundation grant formula and other ways to provide the right kind of funding for rural schools in five years. Good job everyone for talking to your rural councillors.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Brad Wall news release
This is the news release from Brad Wall, after he spoke to SARM delegates Tuesday:
Brad Wall Demands Calvert NDP Show Leadership On School Closures
Wednesday - March 14, 2007
SASKATOON—Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall today called on Premier Lorne Calvert to begin showing leadership on the crucial issue of school closures. Wall said it is time for the NDP government to slow down the rush to close schools without fully exploring issues like bussing distances, schools of opportunity and complimentary uses for school facilities. “Good schools and quality educational services are economic future of Saskatchewan, yet there is no common standards for the information that must be gathered and the alternatives discussed before a school is closed,” Wall said. “We need to make sure communities get all the information they need, explore other options and have sufficient time to reflect and have a meaningful discussion on the implications of these decisions.” Wall made the comments in an address today before the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities annual meeting in Saskatoon. He said important questions need to be fully considered before a final decision is made. “A Saskatchewan Party government would give communities a chance to gather important demographic information like what is the potential for economic development in the area, and what are the expected number of school-aged children in the next five or ten years,” Wall said. “Let’s give time for discussions about complimentary uses for school buildings, whether it be as libraries, seniors centres, town offices or medical offices.” Wall also noted that provincial education funding seems to favour long bus rides versus classrooms as bussing receives higher percentage of provincial funding. Wall said it’s time to build a vision for rural Saskatchewan that is based on something more than a belief in the inevitable decline and depopulation. “In the United States, 18 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas saw more people leave than move in—the Census Bureau is calling it the ‘Green Acres Effect’ as residents flee the city in record numbers for a better quality of life,” Wall said. “Let’s have the vision to tap into that desire in Canada so we can create a vibrant and economically successful rural economy.”
Brad Wall Demands Calvert NDP Show Leadership On School Closures
Wednesday - March 14, 2007
SASKATOON—Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall today called on Premier Lorne Calvert to begin showing leadership on the crucial issue of school closures. Wall said it is time for the NDP government to slow down the rush to close schools without fully exploring issues like bussing distances, schools of opportunity and complimentary uses for school facilities. “Good schools and quality educational services are economic future of Saskatchewan, yet there is no common standards for the information that must be gathered and the alternatives discussed before a school is closed,” Wall said. “We need to make sure communities get all the information they need, explore other options and have sufficient time to reflect and have a meaningful discussion on the implications of these decisions.” Wall made the comments in an address today before the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities annual meeting in Saskatoon. He said important questions need to be fully considered before a final decision is made. “A Saskatchewan Party government would give communities a chance to gather important demographic information like what is the potential for economic development in the area, and what are the expected number of school-aged children in the next five or ten years,” Wall said. “Let’s give time for discussions about complimentary uses for school buildings, whether it be as libraries, seniors centres, town offices or medical offices.” Wall also noted that provincial education funding seems to favour long bus rides versus classrooms as bussing receives higher percentage of provincial funding. Wall said it’s time to build a vision for rural Saskatchewan that is based on something more than a belief in the inevitable decline and depopulation. “In the United States, 18 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas saw more people leave than move in—the Census Bureau is calling it the ‘Green Acres Effect’ as residents flee the city in record numbers for a better quality of life,” Wall said. “Let’s have the vision to tap into that desire in Canada so we can create a vibrant and economically successful rural economy.”
Friday, March 9, 2007
March 9
Dawn's corrected post:
http://sasklearning.gov.sk.ca/branches/ed_finance/funding/pdfs/Section_C_Transportation.pdf
The link shown above is for the 2006-07 Funding Policy Manual – K-12 Operating Grant
In this document you will see how much the school divisions receive in grant money for bussing rural children to school. However, it did not specify the time frame that these funds cover.
I called Sask. Learning this morning and spoke with a lady in the grants department to discuss the bus rate information we found in the funding manual for 2006-07. She informed me that the $185 is indeed the figure and it covers the whole school year. So that makes it $185 per Km/per student/per school year (up to a maximum of 190 days) plus the additional $185 per pupil/per year.
I asked her how many rural students were on the school buses this year and she told me that of the 167,000 students for the entire province there were 36,120 rural students riding the school bus.
Holy cow! Do the math
That's $6,682,200 in flat fees alone. Add the kms to it.
Just for kicks let's say that all the kids have to travel only 5 Km to school and 5 Km back home.
Hardly likely.............That brings a total of $66,822,000 in Km fees for the year.
$73,504,200, total for the year
With some students having to be on the bus at 7:25 a.m., we can assume that this estimate is waaaay on the low side.
The other question I have is where does the rest of the money come from since ,according to the funding manual the "Total provincial funding recognition for rural transportation in 2006-07 is appoximately $59.65M" ?
The other person I spoke with regarding this issue at SK Learning said that the school divisions get the amount show above and the rest comes from the education taxes we pay.
On John Gormley’s program this morning Rod Luhning was asked if the PVSD was aware of any additional funding expected in the future by the government. His answer was “No”
If these are the current costs and the costs are obviously going to be greater for bussing children to school, it is to be assumed that rural Saskatchewan is getting slammed by the government and School Divisions in more than one respect.
Rural communities are going to have their growth stunted because there won’t be any schools.
The children are going to be robbed of just being kids because play time and extra curricular activities just won’t be possible for most due to long bus rides.
Children’s health issues are going to be more prevalent due to less sleep and taking in the fumes and dpm (diesel particle matter) that is often higher inside the bus than outside the bus.
Children’s levels of progress in school are going to drop.
And here’s a good one…
The parents of these poor kids get to pay more in taxes so all the above can take place.
Dawn Reich
Kronau
http://sasklearning.gov.sk.ca/branches/ed_finance/funding/pdfs/Section_C_Transportation.pdf
The link shown above is for the 2006-07 Funding Policy Manual – K-12 Operating Grant
In this document you will see how much the school divisions receive in grant money for bussing rural children to school. However, it did not specify the time frame that these funds cover.
I called Sask. Learning this morning and spoke with a lady in the grants department to discuss the bus rate information we found in the funding manual for 2006-07. She informed me that the $185 is indeed the figure and it covers the whole school year. So that makes it $185 per Km/per student/per school year (up to a maximum of 190 days) plus the additional $185 per pupil/per year.
I asked her how many rural students were on the school buses this year and she told me that of the 167,000 students for the entire province there were 36,120 rural students riding the school bus.
Holy cow! Do the math
That's $6,682,200 in flat fees alone. Add the kms to it.
Just for kicks let's say that all the kids have to travel only 5 Km to school and 5 Km back home.
Hardly likely.............That brings a total of $66,822,000 in Km fees for the year.
$73,504,200, total for the year
With some students having to be on the bus at 7:25 a.m., we can assume that this estimate is waaaay on the low side.
The other question I have is where does the rest of the money come from since ,according to the funding manual the "Total provincial funding recognition for rural transportation in 2006-07 is appoximately $59.65M" ?
The other person I spoke with regarding this issue at SK Learning said that the school divisions get the amount show above and the rest comes from the education taxes we pay.
On John Gormley’s program this morning Rod Luhning was asked if the PVSD was aware of any additional funding expected in the future by the government. His answer was “No”
If these are the current costs and the costs are obviously going to be greater for bussing children to school, it is to be assumed that rural Saskatchewan is getting slammed by the government and School Divisions in more than one respect.
Rural communities are going to have their growth stunted because there won’t be any schools.
The children are going to be robbed of just being kids because play time and extra curricular activities just won’t be possible for most due to long bus rides.
Children’s health issues are going to be more prevalent due to less sleep and taking in the fumes and dpm (diesel particle matter) that is often higher inside the bus than outside the bus.
Children’s levels of progress in school are going to drop.
And here’s a good one…
The parents of these poor kids get to pay more in taxes so all the above can take place.
Dawn Reich
Kronau
March 9
Another article by Karen Brownlee in today's Leader Post:
School board keeping an eye on new funding formula
Karen Brownlee
The Leader-Post
Friday, March 09, 2007
If the provincial government understands how much it costs to educate rural students, the Chinook School Board says it had better show it in the next provincial budget.
While there is a new formula the government wants to try for rural school divisions, a government official said she can't say that Saskatchewan Learning has found the right one yet.
"This year we're trying this on for size and saying, 'OK, how is this going to work?'" said Dr. Helen Horsman, the assistant deputy minister of Saskatchewan Learning.
"As soon as this year's grant comes down ... then (we'll) step back and work with school divisions again to say, 'What kind of fit is this?'
It hopes by adding a remote school factor as well as a geographic factor that school boards like Chinook can begin to set mill rates closer to what urban property owners pay.
"We're hoping that some of the extra funding that is going to come their way is going to help compensate them for some of their costs of running their schools," said Horsman.
"They will have the opportunity instead of raising their mill rates, to keep it consistent or see what they can do with it."
It is also possible the provincial government will continue its education property tax relief program, but that is something Horsman said Saskatchewan Learning will not know until the budget is released.
An average eight-per-cent reduction was given to all property owners beginning in the spring of 2005 when the provincial government provided $110 million over two years.
Chinook's property owners need to know the government wants to do its part to educate their students, said Gary Shaddock, chairman of the board.
"We are going through the process of trying to find efficiencies by looking at school viability," said Shaddock.
"You can only go so far with that until all of a sudden, you don't have any schools left."
Chinook property owners pay much more than Regina's while they are also being told they may have some of their schools closed.
While some facilities may need to be shut down, Shaddock said students can't be travelling unreasonable distances to get an education.
Shaddock is not the first to say the problem with government funding is that it is done on a per-student basis.
Chinook has nearly the same number of schools as Regina Public School Division but less than a third of the students. There are 63 schools and 6,228 students in and around Swift Current in the Chinook School Division.
In the Regina Public School Division, 20,223 students attend the 61 schools it had as of Sept. 30. The figures come from the active list of Saskatchewan schools put together by Saskatchewan Learning.
Even with the special factors that have been put in place in the past, Shaddock said government funding doesn't go far enough to recognize the inherently higher costs of operating schools with fewer students spread across thousands of square kilometres.
School board keeping an eye on new funding formula
Karen Brownlee
The Leader-Post
Friday, March 09, 2007
If the provincial government understands how much it costs to educate rural students, the Chinook School Board says it had better show it in the next provincial budget.
While there is a new formula the government wants to try for rural school divisions, a government official said she can't say that Saskatchewan Learning has found the right one yet.
"This year we're trying this on for size and saying, 'OK, how is this going to work?'" said Dr. Helen Horsman, the assistant deputy minister of Saskatchewan Learning.
"As soon as this year's grant comes down ... then (we'll) step back and work with school divisions again to say, 'What kind of fit is this?'
It hopes by adding a remote school factor as well as a geographic factor that school boards like Chinook can begin to set mill rates closer to what urban property owners pay.
"We're hoping that some of the extra funding that is going to come their way is going to help compensate them for some of their costs of running their schools," said Horsman.
"They will have the opportunity instead of raising their mill rates, to keep it consistent or see what they can do with it."
It is also possible the provincial government will continue its education property tax relief program, but that is something Horsman said Saskatchewan Learning will not know until the budget is released.
An average eight-per-cent reduction was given to all property owners beginning in the spring of 2005 when the provincial government provided $110 million over two years.
Chinook's property owners need to know the government wants to do its part to educate their students, said Gary Shaddock, chairman of the board.
"We are going through the process of trying to find efficiencies by looking at school viability," said Shaddock.
"You can only go so far with that until all of a sudden, you don't have any schools left."
Chinook property owners pay much more than Regina's while they are also being told they may have some of their schools closed.
While some facilities may need to be shut down, Shaddock said students can't be travelling unreasonable distances to get an education.
Shaddock is not the first to say the problem with government funding is that it is done on a per-student basis.
Chinook has nearly the same number of schools as Regina Public School Division but less than a third of the students. There are 63 schools and 6,228 students in and around Swift Current in the Chinook School Division.
In the Regina Public School Division, 20,223 students attend the 61 schools it had as of Sept. 30. The figures come from the active list of Saskatchewan schools put together by Saskatchewan Learning.
Even with the special factors that have been put in place in the past, Shaddock said government funding doesn't go far enough to recognize the inherently higher costs of operating schools with fewer students spread across thousands of square kilometres.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
March 8
Heard on the TV news - the official opposition intends to raise the issue of school reviews/closures in the Leg, I think tomorrow.
It's been a busy day today. Lots of information, and several letters, posted. The following is from Lorelei in Limerick:
An open letter to the board and administration of Prairie South School Division:
I have found myself thinking a lot lately about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s book titled “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child”. Drawn from an African folk saying Clinton examines the range of persons who are active in raising a child.
So who constitutes a ‘villager?’
We do. All who concern ourselves with the well being of children ~ parents, families, friends, neighbors, doctors, teachers, lawmakers, clergy, trustees and the administrators of schools and divisions are villagers.
What might we reasonably expect from the villagers? We have every reason to expect that, since all have sought out, in one way or another, to be involved in the lives of children they will provide for the needs of the child for food, shelter, safety, health, emotional well-being, loving care, guidance in matters of education, faith and a healthy environment. In our country we can also reasonably expect that children will learn through teaching and example how to live and participate in a democratic society.
If you look at yourself you will see that virtually all of us have a roll to play in the raising of the children in our village. Many of us know the children of Limerick School intimately. We are the parents and families of the children of our blood and choice. Others of us know these children as friends and neighbors and many in this category love them as if they were of our families. Some of us know them because we have been given formal and legal responsibility for some aspect of their lives. We are their teachers, doctors, dentists, clergy, caregivers, and school trustees.
Many of us live our daily lives intimately or in close contact with these children. Others live at a distance and see the children in only limited situations. It is interesting to note that among all those who are members of the ‘village’ that are raising these children trustees and senior administration are the ones who have little or no contact with the children who reside in the village. Additionally they are also the ones who know little or nothing about the location or community in which the children physically reside.
So lets provide a little background about the Limerick and surrounding area in which these precious children and the rest of the “villagers” reside.
We know that the trustees and senior administrators who are part of the team in our children’s “village” do not know very much about us or this meeting would not have been scheduled for the middle of winter break. You see summer is a very busy time on ranches and farms and in the industry that serves them. Many families cannot see their way clear to have any sort of family holiday in the summer months. Instead they plan winter holidays for this break. They have gone to the mountains for skiing, to warmer spots for some rest and relaxation together as a family, or to homes of distant families for treasured family visits. If families are absent from this meeting it is not because they lack interest it is because promises have been given, plans have been made and tickets have been paid for. If winter break did not raise a caution flag for you surely the note on most calendars that this is Ash Wednesday should have. In this community we would make every effort to avoid putting major meeting on a day that is of such importance to many in the community. If you knew us or the children of this community you would have known this.
If you are going to be a member of the ‘village’ that raises these children there are other things you should know. Of course in knowing this village it would help if you lived here or in the area. Some of you will have to stretch your knowledge base a little for this.
You have seen the list of businesses and services that are available in and around the village of Limerick.
If you were going to live in this community it might be helpful for you to know that you will need to be sharp to find good accommodation. Houses here usually don’t stay on the market long. In the past six months four new families have moved into Limerick ~ three from out of province (although one of those made their way here via Swift Current) and one from Assiniboia.
If you do find a home in Limerick you will want to look for a volunteer job to do. That is a good way to get to know the community. You might try the service club, the hall board, the rink board, the recreation board, the co-op board or the boards and committees of the local church. You will find them democratically operated and attuned to the expressed opinions of the community. There is also our representation on the library board and the rural and village municipal councils. And of course there is the newly formed school council. Because we have such a strong democratic culture of participation in this community you should not have been surprised at our arrival at the community consultation meeting. Here community consultation means that we can all be there to speak our minds.
If you lived in this community you would learn how we take care of the children. For instance you would know that, when the centennial arena collapsed under snow load, community meetings were held where everyone had an opportunity to voice their opinion and where everyone had a vote in what became the decision to build a new arena (without any outside assistance) with a main goal of providing opportunities for our children to have appropriate winter recreation.
If you lived in the village you would know that our children are comfortable with intergenerational life. They count people of all ages as their friends and mentors and we count them as our friends. You may think that you were advanced in your thinking in having students on the school community council but the church here has had youth elders for years.
If you lived in this community you would know that parents, teachers and families provide a myriad of opportunities for physical, cultural and educational activities for their children. From 4-H through hockey, skiing, ball, oratory, church sponsored activities like winter and summer camping, to visits to museums, galleries and sporting events our children lead varied and active lives. We have a very talented music teacher who provides lessons of quality equal to, or better than, those available to children in much larger centres. Our children play golf, take swim lessons and participate in activities unique to rural communities. Two of our recent graduates did post secondary degrees on full scholarships won through academic ability and their athletic skills in rodeoing.
The Limerick School has a long-standing reputation for its academic achievements. Most of our students attend post-secondary institutions, many on scholarships obtained through academic achievement and athletic ability. Recently you received a brief paper from Ms. Onsescu framed around the benefits of community cohesiveness. Jackie has completed her master’s degree and is working in Australia for a year while she decides the merits of continuing with her PhD.
If you lived in this community you would discover that there is virtually no problem with obesity in our children. With adequate time to be outdoors in the village or on farms where there are activities in abundance our children are fit and healthy. And there is not ‘junk’ food available at every corner.
If you lived in this community you would know that we have very little vandalism because the children are not alienated from the community. They know that they are full, participating members of this geographical community.
If you lived in this community you would know that the children are courteous and friendly with seniors as well as with the parents of their friends. They are not alienated or absent from the community in which they live. All these attributes are indicators of a cohesive community.
If you knew this community you would know that the population includes many young couples with young children. These young ones are welcomed to the community with excitement, baby showers and gifts. Soon the population of our school begins to increase.
If you knew this community you would know that to remove the children from the community would tear the heart from us all, children and adults alike. Our lives will be diminished and we will be bereft.
We are in this enterprise together. We are the ‘village’ that is raising these children. You do not need to do this alone. You can include us in the task. You can consult with us. We are not stupid. We are not uninformed. You said you had a consultation process but you did not intend to really consult with us. You said that we set you up. But you really tried to set us up. You intended to use shock and awe to overwhelm our school community council. You intended to give us only a few days to marshal our resources, do our research and prepare ourselves for the motion to close our school. You did not proceed as if you were a resident of the village that is charged with raising the children.
You have tried in every way possible to isolate yourself from us and us from you. You know that the closure of our school will kill our village. You know that our children will be on the bus too long. You know that as our children are moved further and further from us the role that we will have in the lives of these children will be further and further removed from us. You know that those of us who are part of the ‘village’ that has been raising these children will soon have no role in their schooling or in many other aspects of their lives. And the children will be the poorer for our absence from their lives.
If you don’t you should know that the education, health, emotional and spiritual well-being of these children will be hurt if the move to close this school comes to fruition.
We have heard some of you say that this work is very hard. Have you searched your conscience to see if the reason it is hard is that it should not be done?
It's been a busy day today. Lots of information, and several letters, posted. The following is from Lorelei in Limerick:
An open letter to the board and administration of Prairie South School Division:
I have found myself thinking a lot lately about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s book titled “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child”. Drawn from an African folk saying Clinton examines the range of persons who are active in raising a child.
So who constitutes a ‘villager?’
We do. All who concern ourselves with the well being of children ~ parents, families, friends, neighbors, doctors, teachers, lawmakers, clergy, trustees and the administrators of schools and divisions are villagers.
What might we reasonably expect from the villagers? We have every reason to expect that, since all have sought out, in one way or another, to be involved in the lives of children they will provide for the needs of the child for food, shelter, safety, health, emotional well-being, loving care, guidance in matters of education, faith and a healthy environment. In our country we can also reasonably expect that children will learn through teaching and example how to live and participate in a democratic society.
If you look at yourself you will see that virtually all of us have a roll to play in the raising of the children in our village. Many of us know the children of Limerick School intimately. We are the parents and families of the children of our blood and choice. Others of us know these children as friends and neighbors and many in this category love them as if they were of our families. Some of us know them because we have been given formal and legal responsibility for some aspect of their lives. We are their teachers, doctors, dentists, clergy, caregivers, and school trustees.
Many of us live our daily lives intimately or in close contact with these children. Others live at a distance and see the children in only limited situations. It is interesting to note that among all those who are members of the ‘village’ that are raising these children trustees and senior administration are the ones who have little or no contact with the children who reside in the village. Additionally they are also the ones who know little or nothing about the location or community in which the children physically reside.
So lets provide a little background about the Limerick and surrounding area in which these precious children and the rest of the “villagers” reside.
We know that the trustees and senior administrators who are part of the team in our children’s “village” do not know very much about us or this meeting would not have been scheduled for the middle of winter break. You see summer is a very busy time on ranches and farms and in the industry that serves them. Many families cannot see their way clear to have any sort of family holiday in the summer months. Instead they plan winter holidays for this break. They have gone to the mountains for skiing, to warmer spots for some rest and relaxation together as a family, or to homes of distant families for treasured family visits. If families are absent from this meeting it is not because they lack interest it is because promises have been given, plans have been made and tickets have been paid for. If winter break did not raise a caution flag for you surely the note on most calendars that this is Ash Wednesday should have. In this community we would make every effort to avoid putting major meeting on a day that is of such importance to many in the community. If you knew us or the children of this community you would have known this.
If you are going to be a member of the ‘village’ that raises these children there are other things you should know. Of course in knowing this village it would help if you lived here or in the area. Some of you will have to stretch your knowledge base a little for this.
You have seen the list of businesses and services that are available in and around the village of Limerick.
If you were going to live in this community it might be helpful for you to know that you will need to be sharp to find good accommodation. Houses here usually don’t stay on the market long. In the past six months four new families have moved into Limerick ~ three from out of province (although one of those made their way here via Swift Current) and one from Assiniboia.
If you do find a home in Limerick you will want to look for a volunteer job to do. That is a good way to get to know the community. You might try the service club, the hall board, the rink board, the recreation board, the co-op board or the boards and committees of the local church. You will find them democratically operated and attuned to the expressed opinions of the community. There is also our representation on the library board and the rural and village municipal councils. And of course there is the newly formed school council. Because we have such a strong democratic culture of participation in this community you should not have been surprised at our arrival at the community consultation meeting. Here community consultation means that we can all be there to speak our minds.
If you lived in this community you would learn how we take care of the children. For instance you would know that, when the centennial arena collapsed under snow load, community meetings were held where everyone had an opportunity to voice their opinion and where everyone had a vote in what became the decision to build a new arena (without any outside assistance) with a main goal of providing opportunities for our children to have appropriate winter recreation.
If you lived in the village you would know that our children are comfortable with intergenerational life. They count people of all ages as their friends and mentors and we count them as our friends. You may think that you were advanced in your thinking in having students on the school community council but the church here has had youth elders for years.
If you lived in this community you would know that parents, teachers and families provide a myriad of opportunities for physical, cultural and educational activities for their children. From 4-H through hockey, skiing, ball, oratory, church sponsored activities like winter and summer camping, to visits to museums, galleries and sporting events our children lead varied and active lives. We have a very talented music teacher who provides lessons of quality equal to, or better than, those available to children in much larger centres. Our children play golf, take swim lessons and participate in activities unique to rural communities. Two of our recent graduates did post secondary degrees on full scholarships won through academic ability and their athletic skills in rodeoing.
The Limerick School has a long-standing reputation for its academic achievements. Most of our students attend post-secondary institutions, many on scholarships obtained through academic achievement and athletic ability. Recently you received a brief paper from Ms. Onsescu framed around the benefits of community cohesiveness. Jackie has completed her master’s degree and is working in Australia for a year while she decides the merits of continuing with her PhD.
If you lived in this community you would discover that there is virtually no problem with obesity in our children. With adequate time to be outdoors in the village or on farms where there are activities in abundance our children are fit and healthy. And there is not ‘junk’ food available at every corner.
If you lived in this community you would know that we have very little vandalism because the children are not alienated from the community. They know that they are full, participating members of this geographical community.
If you lived in this community you would know that the children are courteous and friendly with seniors as well as with the parents of their friends. They are not alienated or absent from the community in which they live. All these attributes are indicators of a cohesive community.
If you knew this community you would know that the population includes many young couples with young children. These young ones are welcomed to the community with excitement, baby showers and gifts. Soon the population of our school begins to increase.
If you knew this community you would know that to remove the children from the community would tear the heart from us all, children and adults alike. Our lives will be diminished and we will be bereft.
We are in this enterprise together. We are the ‘village’ that is raising these children. You do not need to do this alone. You can include us in the task. You can consult with us. We are not stupid. We are not uninformed. You said you had a consultation process but you did not intend to really consult with us. You said that we set you up. But you really tried to set us up. You intended to use shock and awe to overwhelm our school community council. You intended to give us only a few days to marshal our resources, do our research and prepare ourselves for the motion to close our school. You did not proceed as if you were a resident of the village that is charged with raising the children.
You have tried in every way possible to isolate yourself from us and us from you. You know that the closure of our school will kill our village. You know that our children will be on the bus too long. You know that as our children are moved further and further from us the role that we will have in the lives of these children will be further and further removed from us. You know that those of us who are part of the ‘village’ that has been raising these children will soon have no role in their schooling or in many other aspects of their lives. And the children will be the poorer for our absence from their lives.
If you don’t you should know that the education, health, emotional and spiritual well-being of these children will be hurt if the move to close this school comes to fruition.
We have heard some of you say that this work is very hard. Have you searched your conscience to see if the reason it is hard is that it should not be done?
Posting a comment
In reply to jenna:
You cannot post on someone else's blog, except in the comment section. You could send me your post on the e-mail, however, and I will post it for you, if you like.
You cannot post on someone else's blog, except in the comment section. You could send me your post on the e-mail, however, and I will post it for you, if you like.
March 8
Two things of interest today;
1. A message I received from Holly Barabash (SE Cornestone SD):
We held a meeting last night in the town of Lampman at the school We had our newly formed School Community Council in attendance and the RM council there as well as the town council and our school board representative. Approx. 75 community members were in attendance. Media was also there. Many good questions were asked and hopefully we informed our members of SARM before they go to the convention. I will send a copy of the article that will be in a couple of papers to you. We supplied everyone with addresses of MLA's, Minister of Learning Etc.
2. An article by Karen Brownlee in today's Leader Post:
Basic costs lack funding
Karen Brownlee
The Leader-Post
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Small schools in rural Saskatchewan aren't getting enough money from the provincial government to cover their basic costs, leaving school boards with few options beyond considering closing a number of facilities, said Ray Boughen.
While Boughen is on the Prairie South School Division board -- which is considering closing six schools -- he also led a commission on financing kindergarten to Grade 12 education. The government considered the recommendations in his 2004 report, but chose not to act on a number of them.
"I think they should have implemented our 12 recommendations and we wouldn't find ourselves in this position," said Boughen. "They chose not to and that's their right. I don't argue that."
Boughen's recommendations would not have saved small schools from coming under review, said Finance Minister Andrew Thomson, who adds the recent lifting of the three-year school closure moratorium makes the situation seem more acute.
"The problems in the system are largely associated with rural depopulation," said Thomson, who points out the amalgamation of school divisions likely spared a number of communities from having their schools reviewed.
The problem Boughen sees is a system that funds education on a per-student basis. He explains all schools have fixed costs, such as electrical bills and maintenance expenses, whether they are in a city or a small town. Schools in rural areas have additional costs, such as staff travel expenses, because of their distance from the next facility.
While the provincial government funds some of the extra costs rural boards have -- for example, almost the full cost of sending rural students by bus is covered by the province -- Boughen said it isn't paying enough to cover the basic costs of operating smaller schools.
"Smaller schools in rural Saskatchewan are a different kind of operation than big schools in urban Saskatchewan simply because the fixed costs are there, but the number of students aren't," said Boughen.
Rural areas receive more than a per-pupil rate to cover their expenses and Thomson said that includes funds for schools in areas where the population is sparse.
Once boards know how much they will receive from the provincial government, they set their mill rate to get enough in property tax dollars to balance their budgets. A number of rural boards struggle to set mill rates near the level of urban boards.
That doesn't mean rural areas aren't paying enough to keep their schools open, which is what David Marit, the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, finds most frustrating.
"With most of the schools that are under review, (the RMs) are probably collecting more in school tax than what it does cost to run that school," said Marit. "The school boards are saying that money goes in to the pool and that's the way it works."
Those in the RM of Stonehenge know this firsthand. Their school in nearby Limerick is being considered for closure by the Prairie South School Division.
According to figures obtained from that division by Limerick's school community council, it costs $537,000 to operate Limerick School. The RM raised at least $552,000 in education taxes in 2005.
1. A message I received from Holly Barabash (SE Cornestone SD):
We held a meeting last night in the town of Lampman at the school We had our newly formed School Community Council in attendance and the RM council there as well as the town council and our school board representative. Approx. 75 community members were in attendance. Media was also there. Many good questions were asked and hopefully we informed our members of SARM before they go to the convention. I will send a copy of the article that will be in a couple of papers to you. We supplied everyone with addresses of MLA's, Minister of Learning Etc.
2. An article by Karen Brownlee in today's Leader Post:
Basic costs lack funding
Karen Brownlee
The Leader-Post
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Small schools in rural Saskatchewan aren't getting enough money from the provincial government to cover their basic costs, leaving school boards with few options beyond considering closing a number of facilities, said Ray Boughen.
While Boughen is on the Prairie South School Division board -- which is considering closing six schools -- he also led a commission on financing kindergarten to Grade 12 education. The government considered the recommendations in his 2004 report, but chose not to act on a number of them.
"I think they should have implemented our 12 recommendations and we wouldn't find ourselves in this position," said Boughen. "They chose not to and that's their right. I don't argue that."
Boughen's recommendations would not have saved small schools from coming under review, said Finance Minister Andrew Thomson, who adds the recent lifting of the three-year school closure moratorium makes the situation seem more acute.
"The problems in the system are largely associated with rural depopulation," said Thomson, who points out the amalgamation of school divisions likely spared a number of communities from having their schools reviewed.
The problem Boughen sees is a system that funds education on a per-student basis. He explains all schools have fixed costs, such as electrical bills and maintenance expenses, whether they are in a city or a small town. Schools in rural areas have additional costs, such as staff travel expenses, because of their distance from the next facility.
While the provincial government funds some of the extra costs rural boards have -- for example, almost the full cost of sending rural students by bus is covered by the province -- Boughen said it isn't paying enough to cover the basic costs of operating smaller schools.
"Smaller schools in rural Saskatchewan are a different kind of operation than big schools in urban Saskatchewan simply because the fixed costs are there, but the number of students aren't," said Boughen.
Rural areas receive more than a per-pupil rate to cover their expenses and Thomson said that includes funds for schools in areas where the population is sparse.
Once boards know how much they will receive from the provincial government, they set their mill rate to get enough in property tax dollars to balance their budgets. A number of rural boards struggle to set mill rates near the level of urban boards.
That doesn't mean rural areas aren't paying enough to keep their schools open, which is what David Marit, the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, finds most frustrating.
"With most of the schools that are under review, (the RMs) are probably collecting more in school tax than what it does cost to run that school," said Marit. "The school boards are saying that money goes in to the pool and that's the way it works."
Those in the RM of Stonehenge know this firsthand. Their school in nearby Limerick is being considered for closure by the Prairie South School Division.
According to figures obtained from that division by Limerick's school community council, it costs $537,000 to operate Limerick School. The RM raised at least $552,000 in education taxes in 2005.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Media
Karen Brownlee of the Regina Leader Post is covering the story of school closures. She would be interested in hearing from anyone who has something to say on this issue. Please call her at: 306-781-5247. If she is away from her desk, please leave your name, phone number and school division and she will call you.
Tuesday, March 6
From Monday's Leader Post. Just what we need - more administration:
Layer of administration called a waste by group
Lana Haight
Saskatchewan News Network
Monday, March 05, 2007
SASKATOON -- The provincial government is wasting $12 million on another layer of administration within the school system, according to a group that represents parents with kids in school.
"It's an interesting use of money when school divisions are saying they don't have enough money," said Sarah Sun, president of the Saskatchewan Association of School Councils.
"How many teachers would that have hired?"
When the provincial government last year condensed 57 of the province's 81 school divisions into 12 larger divisions, it also legislated that each school in the province have a school community council, instead of the parent-teacher associations, home and school associations and other local boards that existed within schools.
Sun supports legislation mandating an advisory committee that includes parents for each school, but she believes the government legislation re-invents the wheel. Prior to school division amalgamation, the Saskatchewan Association of School Councils represented parent groups from 250 schools. The association was founded in 1938 and its members should have been included in the government's plans, says Sun.
She sees the new school community councils as mini-school boards, and along with the new organizational structure comes a budget. The province's boards of education will receive $12 million in 2006-07 to implement and support school community councils, according to the government.
The 2006-07 Saskatchewan Learning Funding Manual says the money will be used "for the designation of a senior divisional administrative person with responsibility to provide advice, support and communication assistance for School Community Councils; principal release time; in school administrative support; and, operating expenses for individual councils ($2,000 per school)."
Sun's organization, which received a government grant of $30,000 this year, had asked for that to be increased to $75,000 next year and for an additional $75,000 to educate and train parents to participate in the new school community councils.
Learning Minister Deb Higgins was not available for comment on Friday.
Layer of administration called a waste by group
Lana Haight
Saskatchewan News Network
Monday, March 05, 2007
SASKATOON -- The provincial government is wasting $12 million on another layer of administration within the school system, according to a group that represents parents with kids in school.
"It's an interesting use of money when school divisions are saying they don't have enough money," said Sarah Sun, president of the Saskatchewan Association of School Councils.
"How many teachers would that have hired?"
When the provincial government last year condensed 57 of the province's 81 school divisions into 12 larger divisions, it also legislated that each school in the province have a school community council, instead of the parent-teacher associations, home and school associations and other local boards that existed within schools.
Sun supports legislation mandating an advisory committee that includes parents for each school, but she believes the government legislation re-invents the wheel. Prior to school division amalgamation, the Saskatchewan Association of School Councils represented parent groups from 250 schools. The association was founded in 1938 and its members should have been included in the government's plans, says Sun.
She sees the new school community councils as mini-school boards, and along with the new organizational structure comes a budget. The province's boards of education will receive $12 million in 2006-07 to implement and support school community councils, according to the government.
The 2006-07 Saskatchewan Learning Funding Manual says the money will be used "for the designation of a senior divisional administrative person with responsibility to provide advice, support and communication assistance for School Community Councils; principal release time; in school administrative support; and, operating expenses for individual councils ($2,000 per school)."
Sun's organization, which received a government grant of $30,000 this year, had asked for that to be increased to $75,000 next year and for an additional $75,000 to educate and train parents to participate in the new school community councils.
Learning Minister Deb Higgins was not available for comment on Friday.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
March 4
1. Several community groups in the PVSD met with the board at the division office yesterday (Saturday). One delegation reports that they were "warmly received" and that board members listened "courteously" to their presentation, but that the board members were non-committal.
2. Monday morning - John Gormley is intending to re-visit the school closure issue on his show.
3. Mrs. Ina Leippi is a long-time member of the Kronau community and wrote the following letter to express her view of the school closures.:
As a grandparent of 6 children, I have many concerns about the possible closure of Saar School.
I don't believe that bigger is better.
Teachers become much better acquainted with students in smaller schools. They become much more aware of any problems; whether it be learning, behaviour,physical, etc.
With internet and computer technology in all the schools, perhaps the classrooms could interact with classrooms of other schools.
Bussing is a big concern. Bussing to Balgonie involves crossing two highways, and driving on a grid road that has heavy semi truck traffic hauling grain to terminals in Balgonie.
Bussing to White City, could also involve this grid road or other roads that could be a problem during winter and rainy weather, depending on how the routes are designed.
Saar School is like an extended family in the community. Children are accepted by each other; they are friends at school as well as outside the school setting. Seniors are honoured and respected by the children: seniors have been invited to the school to teach crafts, give presentations on life when we were young and also on early pioneer life, showing household items, clothes, tools, etc. In return the students have a tea for the ladies of the community club, serving lunch and entertaining the ladies with their varied talents. The students serve breakfast to the community at Christmas time.
Seniors also volunteer to read to the students.
This close relationship would be lost if Saar School closed. These activities are also part of education, it teaches many social skills that are necessary in life.
Closing Saar School would be devastating to the community. The town of Kronau has potential for growth, with the subdivisions located on the south east part of town near the school.
People have purchased lots because we have a school. Closing the school would affect the sale of lots and the growth of our town.
Bussing children to White City or Balgonie could mean children could be on the bus as early as 7:30 or 7:15 a.m. and don't get home until 4:30 p.m. That is a 9 hour day which is totally unacceptable for elementary students, especially grades 1-3.
Extra curricular activities would be affected as the students would be on the bus, leaving little time for Four-H, music lessons or just playing.
They could not take part in extra curricular activities at school either as they would be on the bus going home. Parents would have to pick them up; how would this work if the children's activities ended at 4:30 or 5:00 and parents don't get off work till then, what do the children do for that 20-30 minutes it would take to drive from Regina(where 90% of the parents work) to White City or Balgonie (depending on the traffic in Regina it could take and extra 1/2 hour to get out of Regina making it 50-60 minutes children would have to wait for pick up)
The school board needs to look at the over all affect on the students and community when making their decisions.
Perhaps money could be spent more effectively by looking at the administration costs, perhaps they are too top heavy in that area.
Also, they should lobby the government to spend money in subsidising schools, teachers to keep schools open instead of heavily subsidising the bussing of students.
The government used to talk about revitalizing rural Saskatchewan. We don't hear that phrase anymore. Does that mean the government is trying to shut down rural Saskatchewan? Closing schools would certainly help to do that.
Ina Leippi
2. Monday morning - John Gormley is intending to re-visit the school closure issue on his show.
3. Mrs. Ina Leippi is a long-time member of the Kronau community and wrote the following letter to express her view of the school closures.:
As a grandparent of 6 children, I have many concerns about the possible closure of Saar School.
I don't believe that bigger is better.
Teachers become much better acquainted with students in smaller schools. They become much more aware of any problems; whether it be learning, behaviour,physical, etc.
With internet and computer technology in all the schools, perhaps the classrooms could interact with classrooms of other schools.
Bussing is a big concern. Bussing to Balgonie involves crossing two highways, and driving on a grid road that has heavy semi truck traffic hauling grain to terminals in Balgonie.
Bussing to White City, could also involve this grid road or other roads that could be a problem during winter and rainy weather, depending on how the routes are designed.
Saar School is like an extended family in the community. Children are accepted by each other; they are friends at school as well as outside the school setting. Seniors are honoured and respected by the children: seniors have been invited to the school to teach crafts, give presentations on life when we were young and also on early pioneer life, showing household items, clothes, tools, etc. In return the students have a tea for the ladies of the community club, serving lunch and entertaining the ladies with their varied talents. The students serve breakfast to the community at Christmas time.
Seniors also volunteer to read to the students.
This close relationship would be lost if Saar School closed. These activities are also part of education, it teaches many social skills that are necessary in life.
Closing Saar School would be devastating to the community. The town of Kronau has potential for growth, with the subdivisions located on the south east part of town near the school.
People have purchased lots because we have a school. Closing the school would affect the sale of lots and the growth of our town.
Bussing children to White City or Balgonie could mean children could be on the bus as early as 7:30 or 7:15 a.m. and don't get home until 4:30 p.m. That is a 9 hour day which is totally unacceptable for elementary students, especially grades 1-3.
Extra curricular activities would be affected as the students would be on the bus, leaving little time for Four-H, music lessons or just playing.
They could not take part in extra curricular activities at school either as they would be on the bus going home. Parents would have to pick them up; how would this work if the children's activities ended at 4:30 or 5:00 and parents don't get off work till then, what do the children do for that 20-30 minutes it would take to drive from Regina(where 90% of the parents work) to White City or Balgonie (depending on the traffic in Regina it could take and extra 1/2 hour to get out of Regina making it 50-60 minutes children would have to wait for pick up)
The school board needs to look at the over all affect on the students and community when making their decisions.
Perhaps money could be spent more effectively by looking at the administration costs, perhaps they are too top heavy in that area.
Also, they should lobby the government to spend money in subsidising schools, teachers to keep schools open instead of heavily subsidising the bussing of students.
The government used to talk about revitalizing rural Saskatchewan. We don't hear that phrase anymore. Does that mean the government is trying to shut down rural Saskatchewan? Closing schools would certainly help to do that.
Ina Leippi
Friday, March 2, 2007
March 1
From the Leader Post today:
School's future in jeopardy
Karen Brownlee
Leader-Post
Friday, March 02, 2007
Just over five years ago, the people of Kennedy and Langbank were celebrating the opening of their brand new $3 million school. Now community members are putting the final touches on their presentation to the Prairie Valley School Board to keep the school in their town. On Saturday, they will have 15 to 25 minutes to make their final formal appeal at the division office.
While one would think the recent construction of a new facility would add to the strength of their pitch, Margot Tait wonders if the new building will encourage the board to take it from Kennedy.
"It's a portable school for the most part," said Tait, who is a member of Kennedy's school community council. "(It) could prove a disadvantage for us if they're looking at moving our portables to schools like Vibank's, which is going to need the extra room if some of the schools around that area close."
Some of those communities around Vibank, like Sedley and Francis, are meeting with the board on Saturday as well. In all, nine communities will appear at scheduled times through out that day. McLean will makes its presentation at the next board meeting. It is unclear if or when Odessa is meeting with the board again. Each will likely make very different presentations from the others, said board chair Rod Luhning. "There are different approaches and they're very focussed on the communities that they're coming from," Luhning said, of what he has heard and read so far from the 11 communities whose schools are under review in his division.
Tait believes Kennedy has a strong case and says with the school's 103 students, some community members have wondered why the school is even under review. The developing oil industry and the plans by air seeder manufacturer, Seed Hawk, to expand add to the community's need for a school, said Tait.
Sending a number of Kennedy's students to Kipling would only cost the board money in renovations to expand it because Tait said that school is already filled.
That's what Kronau resident Derek Fletcher hopes the board will also see when it comes to Saar School. Its elementary students would go to White City if the school closed, while the high school students would continue attending Balgonie's school. While Kronau is growing --it has sold six new lots recently and has up to 44 more available -- it is not growing as fast as Emerald Park which currently sends its students to White City. Four hundred lots are available there which could mean a few hundred more kids for White City's school in the future.
© The Leader-Post (Regina) 2007
School's future in jeopardy
Karen Brownlee
Leader-Post
Friday, March 02, 2007
Just over five years ago, the people of Kennedy and Langbank were celebrating the opening of their brand new $3 million school. Now community members are putting the final touches on their presentation to the Prairie Valley School Board to keep the school in their town. On Saturday, they will have 15 to 25 minutes to make their final formal appeal at the division office.
While one would think the recent construction of a new facility would add to the strength of their pitch, Margot Tait wonders if the new building will encourage the board to take it from Kennedy.
"It's a portable school for the most part," said Tait, who is a member of Kennedy's school community council. "(It) could prove a disadvantage for us if they're looking at moving our portables to schools like Vibank's, which is going to need the extra room if some of the schools around that area close."
Some of those communities around Vibank, like Sedley and Francis, are meeting with the board on Saturday as well. In all, nine communities will appear at scheduled times through out that day. McLean will makes its presentation at the next board meeting. It is unclear if or when Odessa is meeting with the board again. Each will likely make very different presentations from the others, said board chair Rod Luhning. "There are different approaches and they're very focussed on the communities that they're coming from," Luhning said, of what he has heard and read so far from the 11 communities whose schools are under review in his division.
Tait believes Kennedy has a strong case and says with the school's 103 students, some community members have wondered why the school is even under review. The developing oil industry and the plans by air seeder manufacturer, Seed Hawk, to expand add to the community's need for a school, said Tait.
Sending a number of Kennedy's students to Kipling would only cost the board money in renovations to expand it because Tait said that school is already filled.
That's what Kronau resident Derek Fletcher hopes the board will also see when it comes to Saar School. Its elementary students would go to White City if the school closed, while the high school students would continue attending Balgonie's school. While Kronau is growing --it has sold six new lots recently and has up to 44 more available -- it is not growing as fast as Emerald Park which currently sends its students to White City. Four hundred lots are available there which could mean a few hundred more kids for White City's school in the future.
© The Leader-Post (Regina) 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
February 28
Does someone know how to arrange the page so that all comments can be seen on a side bar? I have searched the Help link and cannot find how to do that.
February 28
It appears from what people are saying that the idea of holding a big demonstration in Saskatoon outside the SARM convention might be too difficult to organize - it is a long way for people to go, especially as you would have to be there by 9.00 am. However, make sure all the rural councillors you know are prepared to reprimand the Premier and Cabinet on the 14th when they are at the convention.
Another possibility, which may be easier to organize, would be for all the groups to coordinate rallies outside their own school division office - all on the same day at the same time, and to inform the TV stations, newspapers, etc. that this is going to happen. It also would be an effective way of getting media attention.
Even if there is only one school "on the block" in your division, you would likely be able to get folks from other communities in your area to join you. In the divisions where there are 11 or 12 schools under review, it should be easy to get enough concerned people to make a good showing.
Another possibility, which may be easier to organize, would be for all the groups to coordinate rallies outside their own school division office - all on the same day at the same time, and to inform the TV stations, newspapers, etc. that this is going to happen. It also would be an effective way of getting media attention.
Even if there is only one school "on the block" in your division, you would likely be able to get folks from other communities in your area to join you. In the divisions where there are 11 or 12 schools under review, it should be easy to get enough concerned people to make a good showing.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
February 27
If you click on Old Postings, and the three comments right at the end, you will see a comment by a Chartered Accountant which is very interesting indeed.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Letter to the editor
This is a letter sent to newpapers in sask. by Denise Toeckes from Climax. Posted with her permission:
Dear Editor,
Eighteenth century author Jonathon Swift proposed to mend the economy by selling children as food. All across the province, school divisions are “reviewing” schools that, according to their classification systems, may no longer be viable. This review process includes a three-month period of consultation during which the school boards “discuss” the viability of the school with the community.
In the southwest, the Chinook School Board asked for input and feedback on their Classification Plan before the triggering of any review process. They received in excess of sixty presentations, yet admitted making very few changes as a result of this feedback. Hopefully those few changes included the correction of errant data which the Board claimed to be highly accurate. These errors included numbers for actual and projected enrolment, number of teachers, pupil-teacher ratios, numbers of multi-grade classes, number of students on busses, and other data that was based on these incorrect numbers.
What are we to expect regarding the “consultation” process? Sadly, I anticipate the same sloughing off of feedback, information, requests, and recommendations. People in these communities are putting in a lot of work – in my opinion, work that should be the responsibility of the Board. “Legislative process” prevents the Board from portraying any impression that their decision has been predetermined. I guess the fact that our school is “under review for grade discontinuance or closure” isn’t a big enough clue. Very few businesses or households would undertake amalgamations, closures or job transfers without first studying what the economic impact might be; at least not those that prove to be financially successful. Preparing a few financial assessments would not indicate predetermined decisions any more than the triggering of a review process. Still, according to their interpretation of the Education Act, the School Board can do nothing but guesswork. That figures (and I don’t mean figures on a fiscal plan). Shouldn’t the onus be on the party advocating the change?
When it comes right down to it, this legislative process is void of any financial logic. The burden is on the community to come up with scenarios, ask “pertinent” information, request options etc. Sounds nice, but in essence the communities are responsible for preparing a financial scenario for the Board. We must specifically request that cost comparisons and budgets be provided for each possible outcome.
Most are just common sense scenarios. For example, the Chinook School Board lists the salaries of Education Assistants as one of their expected savings through closure. EA’s are often in a school to assist specific students with special needs, so presumably those students will need EA’s in whichever school they attend, and therefore that is a cost of education that follows the student. Likewise, we cannot presume that we will save on janitorial supplies. Pardon me for pointing this out, but kids will use the same amount of toilet paper in their next school as they do currently. Unless of course parents will now be expected to pack toilet paper in with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches; we don’t take much for granted out here in the country. Now of course I’m using obvious examples, but my point is two-fold. First, it costs a certain amount of money to educate a student no matter where. Second, would it be too much to ask that a little common sense be used when guessing how much money school closures might save? Yes, I said “guessing” and “might save.” If there were big amounts of money to be saved, then we would be shown financial records from other school closures and amalgamations to prove it. It sure doesn’t make much sense to me, this inability to actually look at whether the savings resulting from school closures will be at all substantial. Can you imagine if other businesses were under the same legislation? It’s a roadmap to financial ruin.
Even in the event that a community uncovers that savings resulting from closure will not be at all appreciable, the Board is under no obligation to consider the community’s input in their final decision. There is no opportunity for appeal. There is no system that holds the Board accountable when their decision fails to “improve the quality of education and be fiscally responsible.”
“Quality of Education” is continually touted as the other reason for school closures. Ironic, then, that academics were never considered in the evaluation of schools, and that an increase in academic funding to geographic schools seems unlikely. Forget a nice new weight room, our students need textbooks. Another irony is that students in multi-grade classes will simply be moved to another multi-grade class in a different school. The Chinook School Division has a formula for deciding how many teachers a school needs, but the transfer of students from closed schools probably won’t trigger the addition of more staff. This brilliant formula, which no doubt cost a fair dollar to develop, lacks common sense like many other bureaucratic policies. I have a better formula for deciding how many teachers a school should have and I offer it for free: How about one teacher per grade? If you’re closing a school, and one of your reasons is multi-grading, then eliminate multi-grading in the schools of transfer.
Let’s raise the question of fiscal responsibility to ratepayers. In our area, the RMs of Val Marie and Lone Tree generate about 1.7 million dollars in education taxes in the tax base for one K-9, one K-12, and two Hutterite schools. That’s 1.7 million dollars for about 100 students, yet the Board sees a need to close a school to save money. Do you think maybe these ratepayers are shelling out their fair share?! I suspect similar numbers would be reflected in every school division. They say, “You get what you pay for.” Apparently not if you are a farmer. And should anyone be tempted to think (or actually say out loud at a board meeting, ahem) that people live in isolated areas of their own accord and should have to suffer the consequences, remember that when these families first settled in those isolated areas there were probably schools (and hospitals) nearby, and that the largest amount of education tax revenue comes from said ratepayers and the natural resources in their communities. The fact that the Board’s policy addresses the need of some parents to board their children out because they live so far from schools is shameful. Is that the way of the future, a return to residential schools? Hooray for rural revitalization.
Here’s my take on the so-called Education Equity: there’s a big difference between sharing the wealth and stealing the wealth. Unless the government takes some proper responsibility, we are going to lose more of the services for which we already overpay. We know that the School Board cannot operate on a deficit. We know that more money is needed from the province. We know that ours is a unique school division with a diverse population. We know that our Board went to the provincial government…with funding for their new building, not for students, at the top of the agenda. So instead of rushing to close schools – and the Board is set to target urban schools next – lets rally a wee bit harder. Come on, School Board Members! Represent the ratepayers who elect you! Defend the families who remunerate you! Stand up for what is right and refuse to be puppets.
There is a bigger picture here. Education is suffering in our province whether we live on a farm or in the city, and unless we address the problem together, the government will continue sitting proudly on a billion dollar surplus without bothering to scatter any scraps in the way of our children.
Back to A Modest Proposal and Jonathon Swift’s suggestion to improve the financial state of the country by eating the children. Instead of being a financial burden “...they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.” Mr. Premier, the Government of Saskatchewan, and our School Board Members: don’t be like the landlords in this satire who have already devoured most of the parents and have set their hungry eyes on the flesh of the children.
Denise Toeckes
Climax SK
This is a letter sent to newpapers in sask. by Denise Toeckes from Climax. Posted with her permission:
Dear Editor,
Eighteenth century author Jonathon Swift proposed to mend the economy by selling children as food. All across the province, school divisions are “reviewing” schools that, according to their classification systems, may no longer be viable. This review process includes a three-month period of consultation during which the school boards “discuss” the viability of the school with the community.
In the southwest, the Chinook School Board asked for input and feedback on their Classification Plan before the triggering of any review process. They received in excess of sixty presentations, yet admitted making very few changes as a result of this feedback. Hopefully those few changes included the correction of errant data which the Board claimed to be highly accurate. These errors included numbers for actual and projected enrolment, number of teachers, pupil-teacher ratios, numbers of multi-grade classes, number of students on busses, and other data that was based on these incorrect numbers.
What are we to expect regarding the “consultation” process? Sadly, I anticipate the same sloughing off of feedback, information, requests, and recommendations. People in these communities are putting in a lot of work – in my opinion, work that should be the responsibility of the Board. “Legislative process” prevents the Board from portraying any impression that their decision has been predetermined. I guess the fact that our school is “under review for grade discontinuance or closure” isn’t a big enough clue. Very few businesses or households would undertake amalgamations, closures or job transfers without first studying what the economic impact might be; at least not those that prove to be financially successful. Preparing a few financial assessments would not indicate predetermined decisions any more than the triggering of a review process. Still, according to their interpretation of the Education Act, the School Board can do nothing but guesswork. That figures (and I don’t mean figures on a fiscal plan). Shouldn’t the onus be on the party advocating the change?
When it comes right down to it, this legislative process is void of any financial logic. The burden is on the community to come up with scenarios, ask “pertinent” information, request options etc. Sounds nice, but in essence the communities are responsible for preparing a financial scenario for the Board. We must specifically request that cost comparisons and budgets be provided for each possible outcome.
Most are just common sense scenarios. For example, the Chinook School Board lists the salaries of Education Assistants as one of their expected savings through closure. EA’s are often in a school to assist specific students with special needs, so presumably those students will need EA’s in whichever school they attend, and therefore that is a cost of education that follows the student. Likewise, we cannot presume that we will save on janitorial supplies. Pardon me for pointing this out, but kids will use the same amount of toilet paper in their next school as they do currently. Unless of course parents will now be expected to pack toilet paper in with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches; we don’t take much for granted out here in the country. Now of course I’m using obvious examples, but my point is two-fold. First, it costs a certain amount of money to educate a student no matter where. Second, would it be too much to ask that a little common sense be used when guessing how much money school closures might save? Yes, I said “guessing” and “might save.” If there were big amounts of money to be saved, then we would be shown financial records from other school closures and amalgamations to prove it. It sure doesn’t make much sense to me, this inability to actually look at whether the savings resulting from school closures will be at all substantial. Can you imagine if other businesses were under the same legislation? It’s a roadmap to financial ruin.
Even in the event that a community uncovers that savings resulting from closure will not be at all appreciable, the Board is under no obligation to consider the community’s input in their final decision. There is no opportunity for appeal. There is no system that holds the Board accountable when their decision fails to “improve the quality of education and be fiscally responsible.”
“Quality of Education” is continually touted as the other reason for school closures. Ironic, then, that academics were never considered in the evaluation of schools, and that an increase in academic funding to geographic schools seems unlikely. Forget a nice new weight room, our students need textbooks. Another irony is that students in multi-grade classes will simply be moved to another multi-grade class in a different school. The Chinook School Division has a formula for deciding how many teachers a school needs, but the transfer of students from closed schools probably won’t trigger the addition of more staff. This brilliant formula, which no doubt cost a fair dollar to develop, lacks common sense like many other bureaucratic policies. I have a better formula for deciding how many teachers a school should have and I offer it for free: How about one teacher per grade? If you’re closing a school, and one of your reasons is multi-grading, then eliminate multi-grading in the schools of transfer.
Let’s raise the question of fiscal responsibility to ratepayers. In our area, the RMs of Val Marie and Lone Tree generate about 1.7 million dollars in education taxes in the tax base for one K-9, one K-12, and two Hutterite schools. That’s 1.7 million dollars for about 100 students, yet the Board sees a need to close a school to save money. Do you think maybe these ratepayers are shelling out their fair share?! I suspect similar numbers would be reflected in every school division. They say, “You get what you pay for.” Apparently not if you are a farmer. And should anyone be tempted to think (or actually say out loud at a board meeting, ahem) that people live in isolated areas of their own accord and should have to suffer the consequences, remember that when these families first settled in those isolated areas there were probably schools (and hospitals) nearby, and that the largest amount of education tax revenue comes from said ratepayers and the natural resources in their communities. The fact that the Board’s policy addresses the need of some parents to board their children out because they live so far from schools is shameful. Is that the way of the future, a return to residential schools? Hooray for rural revitalization.
Here’s my take on the so-called Education Equity: there’s a big difference between sharing the wealth and stealing the wealth. Unless the government takes some proper responsibility, we are going to lose more of the services for which we already overpay. We know that the School Board cannot operate on a deficit. We know that more money is needed from the province. We know that ours is a unique school division with a diverse population. We know that our Board went to the provincial government…with funding for their new building, not for students, at the top of the agenda. So instead of rushing to close schools – and the Board is set to target urban schools next – lets rally a wee bit harder. Come on, School Board Members! Represent the ratepayers who elect you! Defend the families who remunerate you! Stand up for what is right and refuse to be puppets.
There is a bigger picture here. Education is suffering in our province whether we live on a farm or in the city, and unless we address the problem together, the government will continue sitting proudly on a billion dollar surplus without bothering to scatter any scraps in the way of our children.
Back to A Modest Proposal and Jonathon Swift’s suggestion to improve the financial state of the country by eating the children. Instead of being a financial burden “...they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.” Mr. Premier, the Government of Saskatchewan, and our School Board Members: don’t be like the landlords in this satire who have already devoured most of the parents and have set their hungry eyes on the flesh of the children.
Denise Toeckes
Climax SK
Monday, February 26
Good coverage from John Gormley this morning - two hours' worth. Good comments from those who managed to get through on the lines.
In today's Leader Post on page B8 (the Minus 20 page) there is an excellent article from a grade ten student at Richmound school. She says it all. I am trying to get her permision to post it on this blog.
In today's Leader Post on page B8 (the Minus 20 page) there is an excellent article from a grade ten student at Richmound school. She says it all. I am trying to get her permision to post it on this blog.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Provincial funding for transportation
Someone today directed my attention to the provincial grants to school divisions for busing students. $185 per student and $185 per km. No wonder they want to close schools and use buses instead.
Go to: sasklearning.gov.sk.ca/branches/ed.finance/funding and read it for yourself.
I had a call from someone who wanted to know how to post a comment. Just click on "comments" and then you have to create a user name and a password. That will let you comment on any Google blog.
Go to: sasklearning.gov.sk.ca/branches/ed.finance/funding and read it for yourself.
I had a call from someone who wanted to know how to post a comment. Just click on "comments" and then you have to create a user name and a password. That will let you comment on any Google blog.
Friday, February 23, 2007
This is the letter I sent to Brad Wall yesterday, copied to Rod Gantefoer and Don McMorris:
Dear Brad:
I am sure that you are fully aware that hundreds of rural residents are hopping mad about the fact that they are facing the closure of their schools.
Under two separate e-mail messages, I will send you two columns I wrote for the Leader Post on January 25th and February 20th. I urge you to read them both.
The second of these was published in the paper only two days ago. For the last two days I have received more phone calls than I think the average MLA would receive in that space of time. Rural residents are looking for help in this fight, and are turning to me.
Brad - this is your job. Don's office sent me the news release from Rod Gantefoer and, frankly, it is a "cop-out". Rural Saskatchewan is your voter base. Without us, you will never become the premier of this province - so you need to be much more aggressive on this issue.
The NDP created these monster school divisions which no-one wanted, except perhaps the directors of education, who saw opportunities for empire building. The result has been a horrendous growth in educational administration, which is a serious misuse of education property taxes.
The NDP gutted the health care system. Now they are sitting idly by while the school boards do the same to education in this province.
When all the rural schools are closed and there are no educational facilities left within daily travel distance, I can see a future when, if there are any families left in rural Saskatchewan, their children will be compelled to attend state-run boarding schools.
There has to be a promise from you that your government will provide other options. What would be wrong with allowing communities to opt out of these huge school divisions, and return to a status similar to the former consolidated school districts? (see my comments regarding Wilcox, in my second column).
Or - what about a grant for home -schooling, or a reduction for those parents in their education taxes?
The main problem here, however, is the philosophy of this government that bigger is better. School boards have become so powerful that they no longer pay any heed to the wishes of those who foot the education bill.
You are scheduled to speak to SARM delegates on March 13th. These are all rural people and the strength of your support. This will be a perfect opportunity for you to encourage them in their fight to preserve what is left of rural Saskatchewan.
Sincerely,
Christine Whitaker.
Dear Brad:
I am sure that you are fully aware that hundreds of rural residents are hopping mad about the fact that they are facing the closure of their schools.
Under two separate e-mail messages, I will send you two columns I wrote for the Leader Post on January 25th and February 20th. I urge you to read them both.
The second of these was published in the paper only two days ago. For the last two days I have received more phone calls than I think the average MLA would receive in that space of time. Rural residents are looking for help in this fight, and are turning to me.
Brad - this is your job. Don's office sent me the news release from Rod Gantefoer and, frankly, it is a "cop-out". Rural Saskatchewan is your voter base. Without us, you will never become the premier of this province - so you need to be much more aggressive on this issue.
The NDP created these monster school divisions which no-one wanted, except perhaps the directors of education, who saw opportunities for empire building. The result has been a horrendous growth in educational administration, which is a serious misuse of education property taxes.
The NDP gutted the health care system. Now they are sitting idly by while the school boards do the same to education in this province.
When all the rural schools are closed and there are no educational facilities left within daily travel distance, I can see a future when, if there are any families left in rural Saskatchewan, their children will be compelled to attend state-run boarding schools.
There has to be a promise from you that your government will provide other options. What would be wrong with allowing communities to opt out of these huge school divisions, and return to a status similar to the former consolidated school districts? (see my comments regarding Wilcox, in my second column).
Or - what about a grant for home -schooling, or a reduction for those parents in their education taxes?
The main problem here, however, is the philosophy of this government that bigger is better. School boards have become so powerful that they no longer pay any heed to the wishes of those who foot the education bill.
You are scheduled to speak to SARM delegates on March 13th. These are all rural people and the strength of your support. This will be a perfect opportunity for you to encourage them in their fight to preserve what is left of rural Saskatchewan.
Sincerely,
Christine Whitaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)