The Regina Public School Board announced this morning they are backing away from planned school closures after seeing at least a dozen letters to the editor of the Regina Leader Post and a couple angry meetings.
Let's review. The school board undertook a full audit of of the system. They realized that some schools were going to cost almost as much to repair as they would to replace. They also found that some of those schools were seeing declining enrollment. They held a public consultation to talk about whether some schools should be closed.
In the end they recommended closures and consolidating students into larger schools. They argue the closures will help reduce class sizes, improve services and educational opportunities, and make the system more sustainable. The recommendations were greeted with scorn from NIMBYs.
"They can't close MY school. I don't have a car."
"They can't close MY school. My property value might go down."
They caved. Like a house of cards. And we're all going to be paying more in school taxes as a result. Of course, the NIMBYs haven't calculated exactly how much more we'll be paying.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Regina: The NIMBYs win
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CTF You Tube Channel
Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box
9 comments:
With the cost of everything going up annually. Why is it expected that the cost of education would not ?
Why is that they are looking at class sizes of 30+, when that is not conducive to a good education and has less 1 on 1 time ?
Raise my taxes, keep the schools open and none of them are in my area. Reduce the class sizes to no more then 20 kids and insure all kids are well educated.
The fact is that well educated and trained individuals attract more business and investment then any tax structure ever could or does.
One should not complain about high taxes and in the same breath complain that there are not enough suitable employees for their business to hire. You can't have one with out the other.
Fair comment Chad, but that isn't really the point of the post. Keeping the old schools open isn't going to meet the goal of small class sizes. This is a business decision. The schools were to be closed because of 1) DECLINING enrollment 2) Increasing infrastructure costs.
As for declining enrolments, there are schools in the report that can no longer support a kindergarten program because there aren't enough kids. Some of the schools have only split grade classes because they can't justify a stand alone class. Combining the kids in larger schools will allow fewer split grade classes and smaller class sizes.
Some of these schools are like old beaters. I have owned an old beater car. You keep putting money into them to keep them going and everything is good -- becuase it's a cheap car. Problem is that the day inevitably comes when it is no longer justifiable to put more money in. In the long term it willcost less to replace it, of just stop driving and car pool.
This isn't a tax/anti-tax argument. This is a debate around sustainability and cost effectiveness. I urge you to read the report.
We aren't saying the report wasn't without flaw. We think it is strange that such dramatic changes were deemed necessary so quickly, and would have preferred gradual phasing.
Taxes can and do go up every year. That's fine. But there are smart ways to spend money.
Keeping unsustainable schools open will not achieve the goal of smaller class sizes. It will make it harder to achieve. We will be spending millions on upgrading the old schools now. And in some cases they aren't even using some of the school. That is wasteful.
The school closures would have provided opportunities for more quality education.
I read the report and it was based on class sizes of 30 or more. If that is reduced to 25 , there won't be enough schools. The RPSB has not raised taxes since 2002 but has cut 50 teaching positions and wanted to close 11 schools.
The whole renewal process was driven by a no tax increase agenda. The plan was not based on giving the students the best oppurtunity, it was based on saving tax payers money.
Can the system be streamlined ? Yes, of course and step 1 should be the amalgamation of the 2 school boards, that alone would save enough money to cut taxes, but special interests groups will not allow this to happen. My point is that less students per class makes for a better educational experience and the RPSB never considered it.
Other options would be more trade programs in school, less bussing with smaller community schools, etc.
The education system needs some reform but the so-called renewal process was nothing more then program cuts.
As stated previously, a better educated population will lead to greater prosperity far beyond anything a low tax regime could ever provide.
Actually, no. Nowhere in the report do they mention a 30 student standard.
Chad, you need to stop getting your talking points from John Conway.
If the cost of everything is going up, why has there been no corresponding increase in the efficiency of delivering educational material? Why is it that teachers can still only teach 25 kids at a time when they have access to far better resource materials than ever before? My first guess is because market forces have been isolated from the process for so long, the inevitable stagnation has set in.
Any business person worth a nickel will not set up shop in a high-tax environment (see SK gas and oil activity). They will exhaust any other reasonable opportunities first. Educated workers are nice, but if you don't get to keep any of your profits what's the point?
More smaller schools means more support staff, higher maintenance costs, and significant outlays to keep some of the more rundown schools habitable. There would have to be some pretty hefty busing savings to offset that. Also, lots of smaller schools are much more vulnerable to demographic swings in neighborhoods (aging area, kids moving away, what to do with the facility?).
Divide the estimated population by number of classes needed David. Then you will see the standard.
Shawn, higher education = higher average income= more consumption = more profits.
Read most surveys and tax structure does not get into the top 5 of investment criteria.
I'm surprised at the CTF's position on this. I think it's dangerous to make sweeping statements about school closures being good for education & the taxpayer. Every situation is different of course, but here are some things to consider:
1. Small, older schools often have their mortgages paid off. Similarly they usually have teaching principals. These are money savers.
2. The number of kids in each grade that move to the larger school are often an awkward number which increase the host class's size enough to make it large, but not large enough to split and make two. This makes for an overworked teacher, and students who receive less attention. Furthermore, if there is enough kids to split into more classes then this requires renovations or the installation of expensive portables, which if you recall, it seems silly to move kids out of a mortgage free building in order to rack up a renovation bill.
3. The teachers in the closing school are always on contract and often on permanent contract. They do not lose their jobs, they just move. There is no savings here.
4. If the school district is rural then bussing costs increase as the students are required to commute a greater distance. Again, costs go up, not down.
My experience with this is in rural school boards and sometimes when the numbers are crunched honestly it is found that there is no savings, or very little. I suppose an urban district like Regina might be different, but I'm not so sure. How deeply did you look into this? Did you just use the newspaper & the school board's website for information? Or did you actually sit down with the numbers and formulas to see if the school closures would actually be that effective of a money saver?
On more than one occasion in my area, the "savings" when examined closely is merely a product of a school board's attempt to spin the numbers in order to sway the public towards their agenda -- especially in the case of costing as much to repair as replace. The definition of necessary, when it comes to repairs, can get cloudy. The toilet paper roll in the staff bathroom has a nick in it...better get a new one. And when these issues are revealed, the school board "caves" as you say...only they don't confess in the newspaper.
It seems to me a large part of the CTF's membership come from rural parts of Canada. School closure stabs right in the heart of the problem of urbanization.
I would have expected the CTF, whom I've often admired for investigating the truth of these kinds of matters, would have done more than take the school board at its word. Maybe you have, if so you haven't reported it in this post. You've been too busy insulting the NIMBY's...whom I suspect are the taxpayers.
I am a member of the CTF and I want to add my support to the discussion on the side of exercising caution when deciding to close schools. My community has dealt with attempts to close our school on many occasions - most recently this past school year. Every time the school board has tried to prove better cost effectiveness and better education for the children and every time they have failed to prove either of those points. Leslie did a good job of identifying some of the hidden financial situations that make a small school more efficient than people might at first realize. I would like to comment on the educational aspect.
People tend to have a great fear of split grade classes to the extent that it is often believed that children will always suffer in a split class and a single grade class will always be better. I can tell you from personal experience that this is absolutely not true. Our community has had triple split elementary school classes since I was in them as a child and all four of my children have had them as well. We have consistently found that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If anyone is interested they should check out Granum School where they choose to triple-split their classes, not by necessity but rather because of the educational benefits.
If educational success can be measured by results when a student leaves a given school then our very small triple-split school can definately be considered a success. Year after year students excel in academics, sports, and, most importantly, citizenship when they carry on to the large, regionalized junior high. I think Gordon Neufeld, psychologist and author of "Hold on to Your Kids" has some carefully thought out ideas which may explain why this is the case - the main one being that a small community school (especially with split-grade classes) helps avoid the negative effects of peer orientation.
I'm all for government efficiency - I wouldn't be a member of CTF if I wasn't. However, I believe true efficiency is often clouded by the "spin" and that sacrificing true educational benefits will not, in the long run, provide real financial savings.
We could stop all the fighting and politics over school closures if we had one school board. Everytime the RPSB closes schools the Catholic board welcomes the displaced students.It's a tax grab and that's all. I had a lot of Catholic friends growing up. There is no difference between us. Most of them went to church because they were forced to. We could have one school board with an option to take religious studies.The Public Board has 2 associate schools that are "christian Corriculum" whatever that is. Plus it has a Muslim school. We would all be better off with one education first.........religion second school board welcoming all faiths including Catholic.We have been devided for too long.
Post a Comment