Tonight January 20, 2014 our Committee will be presenting a paper to the School Board at a meeting in Amherst. Please read our Communitys discussion paper. This is a result of several months of discussion, including input from the Community at large: Review Process Discussion Paper Analysis and Response from River John January 20, 2014: In River John, we are pleased to see the release of the above Paper for local response. Before addressing the Topics and their Discussion Questions, however, we would like to be clear about our approach to this important subject. We are very aware that the Chignecto Central Regional School Board (CCRSB), like its equivalents across Nova Scotia, is mandated strictly to adhere to the Education Act. Its primary role is to deliver the public school curriculum to our students and to keep their safety in mind, while adhering to a budget and keeping matters like social justice and continual change in view. For the most part, and appreciating the limitations placed on the efforts of staff and elected representatives, we feel the CCRSB does what it was created to do. Our comments below, therefore, should not be interpreted as being confrontational. Rather, we want them to convey a clear call for an improved review process that includes a broader view of the consequences of closing a school – especially in rural Nova Scotia. Other matters like availability, accuracy and completeness of input data, etc. will be addressed individually below. Topic 1 – Long Range Planning Currently, our participation in long-range planning is practically negated by the fact that we have no voice in the process other than our elected Board representative. If we could supplement our representative’s input at the planning table with specific local knowledge; complete statistical/financial information and through other specialists, we feel the entire review process would improve. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. Who should be involved in a school board’s planning process to meet the long-range educational needs of students? Why? We believe any school board’s planning process should involve more local and government stakeholders in the well-being of every community facing the possibility of school closure and that ample time and information be provided to them upon request. 2. Should individual schools undergo a review process even if a regional or family of schools review has been undertaken? If a community agrees with the outcome of a regional or family of schools review and plan, we do not see any need for further staff time to review an individual school other than to determine the relative quality, duration and legacy of its educational outcomes. 3. Should individual school decisions be made during a regional review? It seems that individual school decisions figure into the creation of a regional review, but this question needs to be applied on a case-by-case basis to the satisfaction of all participants. Topic 2 – Clear, Consistent Indicators to Identify Schools for Review Generally, River John feels frustrated by the overall direction the CCRSB has taken to quantify the rationale for school closure. Measuring cost against square-area-per-student stems from the 1920s and seems to be the main (and rather clumsy) way to rank buildings slated for potential closure. One commentator likened this measure as being akin to a meat-axe…not very refined at all. We fully understand and agree with the Paper’s assertion of demographic trends across our portion of the province, but do not agree with simply taking historical decline and using it to plan for the future. Like the mutual fund industry often asserts, you cannot always rely on the past to predict the future – there is the reality of competitive reaction and unanticipated local developments that need to be considered. What the current approach does not take into account at all is the subject matter that meets with most passionate local resistance: the true cost of busing students to other schools; cost to municipalities to destroy/remediate the site of a closed school building and the immediate and long-term economic effect on the life of the community as new families stop coming and others move elsewhere to be closer to a surviving school. Prof. Paul Bennett, in his recent book, The Last Stand: Schools, Communities and the Future of Rural Nova Scotia, Fernwood Publishing: 2013, p. 27, writes about the quality of education offered by small schools being better than that of larger ones. He quotes Michael Corbett and Dennis Mulcahy’s, shared expression in Education on a Human Scale: Small Rural Schools in a Modern Context,(2006) that, “School consolidation has often been achieved by over-riding public opinion on the basis of claims about the educational and financial benefits of larger schools. These alleged benefits are not supported by any significant evidence, and the more researchers have looked at the question of school size, the more clear it becomes that small schools are actually superior.” As one River John resident exclaimed, “Don’t close it! CLONE it!” Another missing factor in this discussion area is the effect of parents’ choice of what school they will select for their children. In River John, we know of several families who send their children to other schools simply because of the uncertain future of RJCS. This alone, we calculate, affects as many as 10 children. Finally, we are aware of a major ‘game-changer’ in the next two years that has the potential of bringing significant new employment opportunities to our small village. To close our school based on history alone risks ignoring developments like this. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. What criteria should be used in the identification of schools for review? Operating and capital cost – after every effort has been made to minimize them; square area (footprint); carbon footprint; the need for fundraising for extracurricular and other activities; the amount and quality of community volunteerism; number of students at present and forecast 3, 5 and 10 years ahead – based on better source data; anticipated salary and other efficiencies flowing from improved technology, etc. in the classroom and the success rate at regional/provincial science, reading and other inter-school competitions. 2. What criteria are the most important? Because it is possible for a cost-effective school to deliver its curriculum poorly, we believe easily-measured costs and statistics should not be the only (or main), criteria. We feel this issue requires further study to include quality of educational outcomes compared school to school. Topic 3 – Better Supporting Information The residents of River John are among the many who cannot base informed decisions on aggregated information and do not take kindly to any assertion that financial and other data lies beyond our comprehension. All requests for cost breakdown must be answered quickly and accurately so as to support all stakeholders’ inputs to the final decision. Staff must not be able to delay any request for any reason. We feel the financial information presented in the Impact Assessment was summarized and interpreted in a manner that helped – and even predicted -- the simple cost-perstudent measure used to initiate review. Utility costs, for example, are aggregated and not described against expected (i.e., budgeted) or historical amounts to identify trends requiring correction. Any documentation we have seen takes every cost into account. But only those costs that would change with closure are material. For instance, the total cost of operating the school does not break out the 85% that constitutes salaries. Because we know our students will be taught by a paid teacher somewhere and that FTEs will therefore not be saved by shutting down RJCS, salaries cannot be part of the cost-saving formula. They will remain no matter where the students go. Next, there is also no evidence that energy saving has been taken seriously to mitigate operating costs in the long term. With temperature controls in New Glasgow, RJCS’ windows have for years been opened to release excess heat during the winter. Alter-native sources such as geothermal and solar heating do not seem to have been investigated. Finally, no consideration seems to have been given to the HOGG Formula allocation that would no longer be available to general revenues upon the closure of RJCS. In summary, we believe it possible that RJCS may actually be in better financial shape than advertised if only relevant cost items owing to closure are calculated. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. Do you have concerns about the information or sources of information provided in school review reports? Yes. The original Impact Assessment Report we answered in February 2013 contained significant calculation errors that staff seemed unwilling to answer satisfactorily. 2. What would assure you that the information is reliable? We would like to see a much larger, detailed report of costs and statistics before aggregation so as to form our own conclusions based on the same original data available to staff. Without getting bogged down in specific ‘data points’ and distracted from the overall view, we believe more detail is always preferable to less. 3. Should the province provide the information required for school review process reports (for example, population and enrolment numbers and projections?) Yes, subject to community inclusion of local developments and initiatives before anything is published. Topic 4 – More Flexibility While it is our desire to fit as best we can into the province-wide financial planning timetable, we consider this topic to be an important one for community-based work to be done well and reflect the collective will of the local population. Historically, the public hearing process allowed only a few days in which to analyze and prepare our response. In the case of this response to a Paper that was released on Tuesday November 26th, we have been offered two dates – January 9 and January 20 from which to choose to present our position; so as to allow time for a report in aggregate to the DOE in February. Christmas alone pressurized our ability to meet, discuss and get community feedback before presenting our position. Furthermore, we feel pressurized by the loss of time since the end of June 2013. From that date which began a two-year planning window we entered the summer while the Board took six weeks’ vacation. Then, as schools opened in September, a provincial election was called for early October. By the time the new government was elected and installed into new portfolios, there was only a brief time for communication and work before everyone rose for Christmas. In short, we have lost six months of a two-year planning and discussion window that we hope may be either restored, lengthened or otherwise adjusted. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. Would a more flexible process result in better outcomes? Yes, we feel more flexibility in choosing both the direction we want and the timing of presentation will provide better outcomes. Topic 5 – Decision-Making Authority River John’s people are content to leave decision-making research power in the hands of the CCRSB, but recommend the final decision to close a school be taken by the Minister. Our elected board representative, we believe, has our best interests at heart and advances them frequently and well. We are, however, confused with decision-making that can pit the mandate of one provincial department against others; the availability and timeliness of useful information and the narrow operating focus imposed on the school board. These matters, we believe, belong in the provincial legislature for resolution Furthermore, the closure of RJCS will almost certainly result in the decimation of River John and deny any possibility of it being a lively, attractive place for young families to come, work and live. We believe this will be both negative and permanent. We would therefore like to see the responsibilities of the school board expand to include mandatory collaboration with other provincial ministries such as Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations; Economic and Rural Development and Tourism; and Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal on matters of mutual concern resulting from potential closure of a school. This would allow a broader conversation to engage all regional stakeholders in addition to the core mandate of delivering the public school curriculum before the Department of Education takes action to close any rural school. Finally, we encourage all board members to continue to work for the betterment of education outcomes across the province. On that score, we are content indeed. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. Should school boards continue to make the decision about school closure? If not, who should make the decision? No, we believe the CCRSB should conduct research in collaboration with all local and provincial stakeholders and recommend conclusions for the Minister to decide. Topic 6 – Innovative Roles for Schools The people of River John are very happy to support some of the work of Prof. Paul Bennett and the Nova Scotia Small Schools Initiative. Among his ideas, he discusses ‘place-based education’ as a desirable model upon which to enlarge the role of schools in small communities and has written about it at some length in recent months. We recognize this idea as requiring proactive planning in the medium to long term, however, and not necessarily a near-term response to the possibility of school closure. Specifically referring to creating a Community Hub in the River John Consolidated School, because we were frustrated by the Board’s refusal to do any work – ostensibly at the request of the former Minister - we do not know what would constitute an acceptable submission. No guideline; no clear financial target; no comment about the possibility of even limited financial subsidy nor the likelihood of negotiating any was ever offered by the CCRSB. Under these conditions, a carefully-built plan could have been summarily dismissed without explanation or defense by Board staff. There is significant history in our community relating to the shipbuilding industry and of forestry, fishing and farming. While some of these economic activities have disappeared over time, there is nonetheless much to learn today from the past. In our case, we think the school building could be used as a continuing education centre much along the lines of the Royal Cape Breton Gaelic College; preserving an historical heritage while taking some of its lessons and applying them in our modern, technological world. Other potential uses include social service delivery and some degree of commercial activity in the film/TV production industry. We will look to government and other potential partners to participate in the school-use opportunity. There is a small group of community ‘boosters’, in the pattern of a Chamber of Commerce or Board of Trade whose job it is to promote River John as a wonderful place to come and live while working in IT or other consulting work not requiring city infrastructure. With high-speed Internet and cellphone coverage; plentiful and inexpensive real estate; and three churches, River John is a beautiful place to raise your young family – but is almost totally unknown. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. Is it appropriate for school programming to be offered in a non-traditional school facility? Yes, but the facility we have will serve us well once it is fully repaired, weather-proofed and rendered safer for all users. 2. What models might replace the traditional school building operated by a school board? We have no recommendations in this direction. Topic 7 – Responsibility for a Former School Site We understand the Municipality of the County of Pictou retains title to the building and property regardless of its use by the CCRSB as a school. Further, if the school were to close, the Municipality would have to decide whether to operate or tear it down. While the above is current practice, we have had some discussion as a village about taking title for $1; doing our own repairs and maintenance and asking the school board to pay commercial rent for its portion of use. Nothing further has yet developed, but the people of River John would be interested in pursuing this idea at some future time. In the case of the River John Consolidated School, we are concerned that the CCRSB has treated the building as a declining/wasting asset and has not taken seriously the need to maintain its structural integrity so as to assure its usefulness in the long term. The roof is in serious need of replacement and the playground has needed new pavement for much of the last decade. Furthermore, temperature control centralized in New Glasgow forces teachers to open windows on warmer winter days when the classroom becomes too hot to bear. Other days, the temperature difference between New Glasgow and River John forces the opposite to occur as everyone tries to find a sweater. Inquiry as recent as December 2013 of the CCRSB Operations Department met with indifference on these important, safety-related matters. We feel that to try and offer for commercial use (or vacate) a broken, useless building made so by inadequate application of capital replacement and repair is a serious shortcoming that the school board needs to address before the Municipality must care about post-closure use. We feel further work is required of the school board to mitigate the cost burden accruing to the Municipality of the County of Pictou if a final closure decision is reached. Perhaps the UNSM resolution of 2012 will provide a framework for the best outcome here. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. Should the costs of disposing of a property influence a school review? No. Every vacant school building will cost someone something to repurpose – either directly or in our taxes. Our goal is to keep it open by building the community it serves and maintain very high education outcomes when measured against the other schools in this area. 2. What steps can be taken to ensure that local interests are considered when a school board decides whether to close a school? We believe this question has been answered in the discussion points throughout this Paper and have nothing more to add here. Conclusion The people of River John are pleased to take part in this important conversation and plan to see it through to a mutually agreeable conclusion that sees the school building remain open for generations to come. Through community-building and remaining focused on operating costs in the production of excellent classroom outcomes, we want to remove the possibility of school closure in River John forever. Respectfully submitted, Gregory R. Dickson, Chair - River John Community Association
Posted on: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 20:13:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015