Schools were closed because enrollments have dropped like a stone in the last decade. The politics about which one to close shouldn’t be a taboo subject, but they did drag their feet as long as possible.

The reality is that you simply cannot operate all schools at half capacity or less for any sustained period of time.

some of the past school closures make little sense given the geography of Prince George. If that issue rises again thought needs to be given to the needs of the families and transporting children to schools.

Dig the groovy threads the bearded one is displaying.
Flashback?
metalman.

Let’s get real folks! Tina Cousins’ only concern regarding school closures is directly related to any potential job loss for BCTF members and the corresponding loss of dues to the BCTF!

I’m sure that both her and Jim Iker would have no issue whatsoever with schools being operated at half classes or less. Just imagine how small class sizes would be then. She couldn’t care less about the economics of such a situation and the subsequent cost to taxpayers.

But that’s just my opinion, of which I am entitled!!

Funny how a story about a trustees forum turns into another opportunity for Cousins to talk. Were there no unbiased attendees to interview?

I’m voting for the guy in the dress. (Yeah, I know, it’s probably called something other then a dress).

I too have to echo the sentiment that asks why the daily pablum from the union hack?

Minion: “some of the past school closures make little sense given the geography of Prince George. ”

Schools were closed based on capacity as well, which many people didn’t take into account. Nobody wanted to see a school closed in their neighborhood, but the decisions had to be made.

The trend of declining enrollments is a trend that doesn’t seem to be turning around any time soon.

That being said, they managed to approve a new school in Giscome which has 20 students. I would like to know how they justified that decision.

The decision to re-build Giscome Elementary was based at a Ministry level with the request for a replacement school being put forward by our District many years previous. I will not debate this very past issue, but had you shown the interest in 2009-20013 you would understand that this was,in fact, a very cost effective way to provide education to students in this School District. Our Ministry does make provisions for distance, remoteness and transportation for it’s rural students, and our community found the partners and the means to make this happen in a very cost effective way. This was a discussion (actually a very lengthy negotiation) that was monumental and important for all involved and rural students as a whole, however it is something that had you been there while it was going on, you would understand.
Rural students and all students in this district count and deserve the best education we can provide them in their communities. Please JB, do your homework, take the time and then get out and vote. Denise MacDonald

Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 @ 9:12 AM by JohnnyBelt

That being said, they managed to approve a new school in Giscome which has 20 students. I would like to know how they justified that decision.

——-

Backroom politics would be my guess. But they’ll concoct some bafflegab to try and convince us otherwise.

Sorry Denise, but “you had to be there to understand” isn’t good enough. $2.3 Million for the building + operating and staffing costs for 20 students does not appear to be efficient use of education/tax dollars. What are the projections for the school/student population going forward? I sure would hate to see this school closed again a few years down the road because there aren’t enough students.

And don’t worry, I will be voting.

JB, unfortunately due to the very complex issues that were dealt with, there is not enough space to explain it to you. However, the idea that rural schools are a drain on our district is a myth when those schools are in efficiently used buildings (which this is) During the DSC process (I have not run the numbers since 2011) it was shown that Giscome elementary, after staffing, maintenance and building costs was actually bringing a substantial ($109,000 in 2010)surplus for the district “pot”. Our District also made it very clear that students travelling almost three hours (yes, there are students that travel 1.5 hours to Giscome)was untenable for a young child. After looking at many options and alternatives this was the best choice for our District and our students. Our projections are to go up to 38 (as are all elementary schools)by 2022. If you believe that 3 hours is an acceptable amount of time for students to travel, then following economy of scale, we only need 4 schools in this province and that would be an elementary and secondary in Kamloops and the lower mainland, as bulk seat buying on planes is cheaper than staffing and buildings. Sorry, students are not for warehousing, schools belong in our communities and rural students and schools count. I and my community have spent 5.5 years working with many levels of government on this issue, and understand that we will never please all the people, so I will not continue this debate, as believe me, I can go on about the importance of rural education and if you feel a need to continue this conversation, please find me on facebook and I would be pleased to do just that. Rural Education Matters.

canada: “If you believe that 3 hours is an acceptable amount of time for students to travel”

I don’t. That’s why I chose to live in an urban setting, close to schools and other amenities. We will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Thank you JB, I too will agree to disagree and I certainly respect your right to choice and that is one of the things that make this country a great place to be. And spread the word to get out and VOTE ON NOVEMBER 15TH. Have a great day.

There are different factors at play when discussing school closures. One of the factors that seldom gets highlighted is the WEAK city planning process. Why does city hall continue to allow new residential developments on the edges of Prince George when there is LOTS of land available for infill and tear-down construction near existing schools, fire halls, sewer and water systems, etc. The City’s population has been stuck at 80,000 for more than 30 years and the enrollments in the K – 12 system has been declining for more the 15 years. Yet we still have new developments carving new subdivisions out of the forests.

Every new neighborhood on the edge of town will start clamoring for a new elementary while existing schools are being closed. This makes NO sense whatsoever. The School Board and existing neighborhoods(tax payers) has a significant stake every time a new sub-division is proposed and approved.

So, who is the guy in the robe?