City Hall is TOP HEAVY as well! It is time for all levels of government to trim the huge thick piece of FAT.

I agree it's time to cut some admin positions and maybe some board positions as well.

I have been wondering with all the education funding problems, who in their right mind would add another burden to our school but implementing the Smart Start Program (for 3-4 year olds) and then boost kindergarten to full five day program. You can start these education programs as early as you want to but when they hit the high school and there is nothing left to offer due to all the cut backs what good have you done?

Trying to figure out our daughters high school courses this year was the biggest joke I have ever seen - the high school had nothing to offer and I mean nothing! Can't take art - full, no mechanics class, wood work - full, cooking - full, the list goes on and we were informed that she'll just have to take a spare (doesn't matter if she needed the credits). She is taking three classes through the college, that was our option.

I also think this Smart Start Program and all day kindergarten takes away family time and also the time that is used to teach our chidren values. I really noticed a difference in our childrens personality when we started sending them to school at age 5 for half days of kindergarten and not all of it was good. Also some kids are just not emotionally ready for full days of kindergarten. I am sure some parents who pay babysitting fees think this is great, but I know I don't want teachers starting to raise my grand children at age 5 and if you think about the time parents spend with their children verses the time they spend at school, that is pretty much what's happening.

This is our last year of dealing with the school systems as our youngest will be graduating and heading for college. There is not any words that can discribe how happy I am about this! I feel after putting four kids through the BC education system that it is becoming nothing but a sad joke. I feel that our last two children didn't get the education that they deserved or that my tax dollars should have gone to support. The couses that should have been offered were removed a long time ago (music for one), and that some of the teachers who are just plain burnt out or in all due respect have no teaching skills and an extremely sad high rate of failures in their class room (and that has been going on for many years), these are problems that need to be viewed and dealt with.

Also maybe our whole high school stucture needs to be reviewed! Maybe we should start focusing on courses that will help our children get started in a career! The CTC program is a great way of doing just that, sadly we were very mis-informed about that program and had a child who could have highly benifited from it. Maybe that is where more of our high school education dollars should start to be going to as what they are presently learing in their is doing absolultly nothing for the majority of the students futures (most kids do not use history or algerbra in thier chosen careers).

All I can say to those who have kids entering the school system is I hope things impove for your childrens sake. It would have been nice if the government could have taken the money they had to host the Olympics and put it towards education and health care - but I guess that doesn't look as good on the BC Promotions packages.

any teacher or other member of the public who has spent more than 5 minutes in the district office knows that deep admin cuts could certainly be made. there are hundreds of non-essential staff working there, and i don't mean secretaries and maintainence (sometimes the most essential employees!). cut deep here, several million dollars. people complain that teachers make too much (an absolute joke, since most new teachers make around 45000 a year for a 60 hour work week). many of these administrators are pulling in well over 100000 dollars a year, wages a teacher on the front lines will never see even after 30 years on the job. cutting one administrator could keep one rural school open. worth it?

Smaller (fewer schools), smaller District administration is needed.

The pan is to close 14 schools. Ok fine, how many total schools are operating before any of these closures.

Let's say there are 50 schools, and 14 are closing. That means a reduction of 28%.
Ok then, terminate 28% of the administration.

Or

Close 14 % of the schools and terminate 14% of administration.
That should be worth a few million.

Why should our children pay for the follies of the inept governing board?

All levels of government are top heavy.
I hear that the provincial government is laying off a lot of people soon, how much do you want to bet that most of them will be middle management level and lower?
From this layperson's perspective, thinning the administrative ranks of S.D. 57 sounds like a good idea.
metalman.

Problem is, the same people who decide who is going to be cut and who isn't are the same ones making the high salaries.

Does anyone have any specific proposals for where the administration could be cut? Which positions are unnecessary or could be merged?

french immersion and aboriginal choice should get the heave-ho.

No, they should not. There needs to be culturally relevant academic resources that are supported on par with any other school in the region.

Where should administration be cut?
All duplicated roles.
All departments across the board should have an equal reduction as the ratio of closed schools. 10% reduction in schools, 10% plus 1 (possibly more) reduction in all departments of administration.
10 secretaries, 1 gets pink slip.
10 maintenance workers, 1 gets a pink slip.
In order of seniority from the least.
A reduction of the school board governing trustees by the same ratio.
A reduction of the trustee support system by that same ratio.

This is not rocket science. Close a school, then you must right size staffing levels in administration by the amount of resources that school needed. Don't bother with the cock and bull about economies of scale. We are in dire financial straights, and unless we take drastic action it will continue. It has been surmised for years that the school board is administration heavy. Now is the opportunity to right size those support services.

I think that School District 57 along with Prince George City Hall have the same mentality regarding spending. School Distric 57 has not mentioned any layoffs and lets face it if they want to close 14 schools there has to be positions terminated, but no mention. People have mentioned that the administration is top heavy. City hall likes to hire expensive personal, in these tough time no mention of any terminations. Our hard earned tax dollars at work. In the article and the statement made by teacher Glen Thielmann he is absolutely correct. I checked out the Kamloops This Week and there were several arcticles regarding their school closures. They lauched a massive public-consultation process in September, meeting with students, parents, interest groups to determine the best way forward, and in the 5 months held 30 meetings. In another article they stated about job losses including teachers, prep teachers, principles, secretaries and custodians. The only place more cost savings can take place is cutting staff they said. As a result they were able to save the rural schools. No mention of this in School District 57. In another arcticle the Trustees declined a pay raise for the second year as a result of possible school closures. Apparently the scool board is only 2 years old, that is for the currents Trustees. New blood. Maybe that is what should happen in School District 57, new blood, new ideas, out with the old and in with the new, just a thought.

Maybe the school board should ask every paper shuffler who works in admin. to justify their job by writing down, in pen, on one side of a piece of foolscap double spaced what their job entails in one day. Be then critical and cut. Going out and getting coffee and donuts for the staff will not be considered a job necessity.

Should SD57 admin be cut? Absolutely.

It won't address the problem of fewer kids in the system, but at least the staffing levels should reflect the dramatically decreased enrollment in the district.

While I'm not opposed to cutting administration, many of the proposals here seem simplistic. It often doesn't work just to cut by X% across the board. For example, if you've got 10 people doing clerical work the amount of which is a linear function of the number of students and enrollment drops by 10%, you can sensibly eliminate one position. But suppose that you've got one secretary per school and that the work includes functioning as a receptionist. In this case, even if the enrollment in each of ten schools declines by 10%, you can't eliminate one of the ten secretaries because that will leave one school without a receptionist. The same may be true of principals. To some extent, a principal's work involves working with individual students and so is dependent on enrollment, but even if enrollment drops, you probably don't want to leave a school without a principal.

Cutting administration will require figuring out which positions, if any, are really unnecessary, and which functions can be merged so that fewer people can do the work. It won't work in general just to get X% of each type of position if enrollment drops X%.