School District Preliminary Budget Cuts 73 Jobs and $6.2 Million Dollars

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 09:50 AM

Prince George, B.C.- School District 57’s budget for the 2010-11 year has been developed and the preliminary budget will see 73 people lose their jobs in order to produce $6.2 million dollars in savings.

The preliminary budget has been developed to deal with the budget shortfall.

The job losses will come in the following areas:

25 jobs lost because of school closures. The closures will result in a budget reduction of $1.9 million
24 jobs lost because of a reduction in school organization allocations. The reduction in school allocations will result in higher district class averages and will impact support for students in teaching assistants, counselling and school administration. This resulted in savings of $2 million dollars
24 jobs lost through reduction in administration, specifically, 14 job losses in school and district administrators, 8 maintenance trades people and 2 exempt /management personnel. The reduction in this area have resulted in $2.2 million in savings.

The preliminary budget will be presented at the next regular meeting of the Board of Education, set for June 1^st.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 09:50 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: faxman on May 19 2010 10:47 AM

Those are some nice paying jobs that are being lost. ~$85,000 on average.

Posted by: Loki on May 19 2010 11:41 AM

save jobs or save the school system.
I did not see a trustee or upper management being cut.

Posted by: faxman on May 19 2010 12:33 PM

Trustees are elected; cutting them is not so easy. Besides, they don't get paid that much.

Posted by: PaysHisOwnWay on May 19 2010 12:36 PM

That is a good start.

Posted by: He spoke on May 19 2010 1:04 PM

Faxman, 85,000 on the average, also means the total costs, inclusive of pension plan contributions, cpp, ei, wcb, vehicles, etc. So the actual wage is probably closer to about $55,000.00

Posted by: He spoke on May 19 2010 1:13 PM

The harsh sides of this is, it has disrupted the lives of 73 family. My condolances to these families.

Posted by: Smooth on May 19 2010 4:22 PM

"I did not see a trustee or upper management being cut."

What do you think a district administrator is?

Posted by: gamblor on May 19 2010 8:51 PM

notice that axing administrators saves over twice as much as closing schools.

Posted by: Runner46 on May 19 2010 9:19 PM

sure, great idea. cut off the head! that will really help the situation.

Posted by: gus on May 20 2010 7:09 AM

Can they not keep this announcement a bit simpler for all to understand in a more meaningful way?

Thus: "As a result of consolidating operations into fewer schools we will see savings throughour the system through employing:

?? fewer teachers
?? fewer teaching assistants
?? fewer counsellors
?? fewer custodial staff
?? fewer administrative staff in schools
?? fewer administrative staff in the district office"

In addition, it would be nice to see the reductions in each position category as a percentage of the total positions in that category.

Then it would also be nice to see the ratio of those positions to the total student population prior to and post cuts to give us a measure of increased "efficiency".

As well, it would be interesting to see what additional one time cost and ongoing cost there will be as a result of layoffs.

Then, what is likely to happen to the disposition of the schools; any revenue expected from that?

Finally, will there be any additional costs to altering the schools to accommodate an increased number of students in existing schools?

Posted by: gus on May 20 2010 7:11 AM

BTW, who is in charge of communications at the SD? Do thay have a $100,000+ person as well?

Posted by: gus on May 20 2010 7:21 AM

We actually do not know from the article above that the $6.2 million is a gross saving of payroll or a net saving of payroll. Is this an ongoing saving? Have one time layoff costs been included or excluded in that figure?

Even that the figure is pure payroll is conjecture.

Posted by: yellow shovel on May 20 2010 8:49 AM

gee gus...whats with all the tough questions? Ya think they would really try to cloud the tax payers mind with pure spin? Its amazing how these guys can spin stuff round n round.....but the end result is always the same brand of crap....I guess thats why they're in such high demand these days and get the big bucks! Good posts Gus!