Province Wants School Districts To Do The Dirty Work

Thursday, October 01, 2009 03:46 AM

It is almost certain that given the plight of the School Districts around the province that the government will step in at some point and pony up some more money.

It is the Govrnment which has created a major hurdle for School District 57 to overcome.

1 a $200,000 first year carbon tax, payable to a new crown agency.

2. Harmonized Sales tax calculated at $914,000

3 Medical services plan increases $84,000

The tally is $1,200,000 of new money that the Board must find, while all the while facing a shortfall of $2.3 million and no announcement that the government will kick in any money to pay for the first year of the all day Kindergarten program which will require more money in year two as the balance of the kindergarten crowd reach class.

Now if the province follows true to colour it will announce some funding of some sort to the School Districts, problem with that is every time you collect some tax money and then dish it out with the other hand it costs you money to do just that. There is an overhead and it doesn’t come cheap.

More over however is what the Province really wants. Does the Province want School District 57 to be the whipping boy by announcing the closure of more schools? Do they also want the District to increase class sizes to match the Provincial mark? Of course they do. The Province just doesn’t want to tip its hand just yet. It wants the School Districts to eat up their surpluses (if they have one) and then get on with the job of closing schools , at which point the Province will jump in like Johnny Apple Seed and sprinkle some new found money . Closing a school only saves about $200,000 dollars plus bus costs, so while it isn’t significant the province can say it was a start in bringing education costs into line.

The province doesn’t want to tackle the real problem and that is that increasingly society is calling upon the teacher and schools to take over the role as parents. The Liberals aren’t about to lay that little chestnut out on their own, so it will be School Districts who will get the dirty job.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, October 01, 2009 03:46 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Andyfreeze on October 1 2009 7:31 AM

Bang on Ben!

Posted by: MiddleGround on October 1 2009 7:37 AM

I disagree Ben.

The province, I'm sure, would love the School District to keep it's surplusses. Those surplusses should be used to maintain the schools in the district. Schools like Giscome and Hixon. What we are seeing now from our local SD is missmanagement at it's finest.

The number of students in our area dropped again this year.

Those numbers have been dropping for years.

Our trustees are playing politics with our children, instead of doing their job.

We don't have the students to support the schools we have. Why do we need to Junior High's when there is room for all of those students at PGSS, CHSS, and Duchess?

As pointed out by the School Distric's head union person, why does our SD have more administration then comparable School Districts?

The answer is that our current Trustee's aren't willing to do what is needed to be done. They would much rather point fingers, kick and scream.

Being a Trustee is a thankless job with almost no pay. Only eight people ran for the seven positions in the last election. It's just unfortunate that our current board has shown almost NO interest in trying to cut ANY costs. Instead they are burning through their reserves and yelling at the province.

Maybe the solution is for the Minister to fire the board. Or is that what our board is waiting for so they can pound their chests and yell even more?

Posted by: cheeta on October 1 2009 7:58 AM

I can see points on both sides. I agree with some of what Ben has said and also some of what Middleground has said.
If class sizes in PG are smaller than provincial mark, doesn't that mean we have higer costs here..... is that justified?
I came from a small town, in the late 60's and early 70's there were up to 150 children in the school. Things change and the numbers dwindled - down to 3 or 4 students. It's pretty hard to justify keeping a school open for 3 or 4 students even if it is 50 kms from the next nearest school. It had to close sad as it is, it is what had to happen.
If this school district costs are higher in this district than others, then it should be looked to see if these costs are justified and perhaps we do need to cut.

Posted by: socredible on October 1 2009 8:17 AM

You're absolutely right, Ben. The teachers and schools ARE increasingly being asked to take on the role of parents as most parents are now finding it increasingly difficult to do on TWO incomes what ONE used to be able to do.

The fundamental problem here, and in so many other areas of our whole society, is there is simply not enough "money". It is a problem that can NOT be solved by "re-distribution" of what is already insufficient, the "money" that's already in existence.

For what is insufficient, in its totality, is not "wealth" ~ we have an over-abundance of natural and human resources, with a rising potential for both with each new advancement of science~ but a shortage of the "tickets" needed to claim that "wealth" and put it to good use. "Money" itself.

We won't solve that by "robbing Peter to pay Paul", no matter how popular that might be with Paul. For that will only lead to a perpetuation of the decline we're already witnessing. Nor can we do it by "working harder", or longer, or making "more" of all the various commodities of which we've already created an undistributed, and undistributable, glut.

We need a new way of addressing the basic issue that causes the problem in the first place.

To realize that so long as overall "incomes" are inadequate to fully liquidate the overall "costs of production" of all the goods and services needed and desired, and completely physically possible to provide, we are going to descend further and further into overall DEBT in "money" to try and make up the difference.

It can NOT ever be made up this way, and efforts to limit the effects of our previous efforts will recurrantly increase what we are witnessing in our schools right now, and the increasing abdication of parental responsibility for reasons of continued 'financial' necessity.

Posted by: MrPG on October 1 2009 8:23 AM

I completely agree with Middleground, sorry Ben. The SD has needed to make tough choices and so far hasn't done so. Enrollment is dropping everywhere in the district, why do we need so much administration and half empty schools? To the trustees, I say make the necessary cuts and live within the situation the the SD faces.

Posted by: heidi1555 on October 1 2009 8:38 AM

Well really I'd like to hear from the teachers and see how many kids out of how many in the class they figure they are parenting? Truly and honestly now.

Kids learn at their own pace and understand certain techniques better than others.

By the way I love teachers. I admire and respect them. It's true (from what I've seen by being on the school grounds) that more and more kids are rude and disrespectful compared to previous years so is this what you mean by parenting? Having to teach these kids some manners when it should be mom and dads job at home to do this? Guilty parenting could be to blame. Buying toys instead of time.

Posted by: Flash on October 1 2009 11:40 AM

Just a quick point or two-this school district has closed about 15 schools this decade-I think they have made some tough decisions.

The funding problems right now involve the government promising money and then taking it away. Then the government raises costs for the district. I know the board here hasn't been perfect, but they have tried. But every time the board adjusts to the new government demands, the government changes its demands.

While there are things the school board can do (lots of administrators, this BCESIS thing), I think we have to take note that the board could balance its budget if the ground rules would just stop changing all the time.

Posted by: gus on October 1 2009 12:16 PM

Observation 1 - I was under the impression that the MoE was not in agreement with the addition to CH Secondary and that the SD went ahead with that addition using "surplus" funds. If that is true, was this a wise move for the district's operations?

Observation 2 - I agree with Ben that the schools have more contact hours per child up to graduation from HS. Is this a wise move for society?

Observation 3 - Are walking distances to schools, especially elementary schools, still important? If so, what are the effects of that on school closures?

Observation 4 - If the province wants something, then the province should clearly spell that out in a directive to all school boards. If the province is not going to provide relief for increased costs under the direct control of the province, then they should say so.

Observation 5 - The logistics of operating schools, working one`s way up the ladder from teacher to school administration to district administration to district Board to Ministry staff, to cabinet minister responsible, to government is a nightmare.

A method needs to be found to make that path much more transparent and much shorter and much more equitable for each district. There is too much time and money being wasted in the system to fight the battles everyone on both sides feel need to be fought.

Posted by: karrman on October 1 2009 2:58 PM

You are right on Ben.
Thanks to the huge waste of money on the Olympics, our taxes go up and education and health care suffer.

Posted by: Flash MacTavish on October 1 2009 3:43 PM

This might be a stupid question, but why the hell do school boards pay taxes? Seems to me that is like taking the change out of one pocket and putting it in another.