Letter to the editor

This is a letter sent to newpapers in sask. by Denise Toeckes from Climax. Posted with her permission:

Dear Editor,

Eighteenth century author Jonathon Swift proposed to mend the economy by selling children as food. All across the province, school divisions are “reviewing” schools that, according to their classification systems, may no longer be viable. This review process includes a three-month period of consultation during which the school boards “discuss” the viability of the school with the community.

In the southwest, the Chinook School Board asked for input and feedback on their Classification Plan before the triggering of any review process. They received in excess of sixty presentations, yet admitted making very few changes as a result of this feedback. Hopefully those few changes included the correction of errant data which the Board claimed to be highly accurate. These errors included numbers for actual and projected enrolment, number of teachers, pupil-teacher ratios, numbers of multi-grade classes, number of students on busses, and other data that was based on these incorrect numbers.

What are we to expect regarding the “consultation” process? Sadly, I anticipate the same sloughing off of feedback, information, requests, and recommendations. People in these communities are putting in a lot of work – in my opinion, work that should be the responsibility of the Board. “Legislative process” prevents the Board from portraying any impression that their decision has been predetermined. I guess the fact that our school is “under review for grade discontinuance or closure” isn’t a big enough clue. Very few businesses or households would undertake amalgamations, closures or job transfers without first studying what the economic impact might be; at least not those that prove to be financially successful. Preparing a few financial assessments would not indicate predetermined decisions any more than the triggering of a review process. Still, according to their interpretation of the Education Act, the School Board can do nothing but guesswork. That figures (and I don’t mean figures on a fiscal plan). Shouldn’t the onus be on the party advocating the change?

When it comes right down to it, this legislative process is void of any financial logic. The burden is on the community to come up with scenarios, ask “pertinent” information, request options etc. Sounds nice, but in essence the communities are responsible for preparing a financial scenario for the Board. We must specifically request that cost comparisons and budgets be provided for each possible outcome.

Most are just common sense scenarios. For example, the Chinook School Board lists the salaries of Education Assistants as one of their expected savings through closure. EA’s are often in a school to assist specific students with special needs, so presumably those students will need EA’s in whichever school they attend, and therefore that is a cost of education that follows the student. Likewise, we cannot presume that we will save on janitorial supplies. Pardon me for pointing this out, but kids will use the same amount of toilet paper in their next school as they do currently. Unless of course parents will now be expected to pack toilet paper in with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches; we don’t take much for granted out here in the country. Now of course I’m using obvious examples, but my point is two-fold. First, it costs a certain amount of money to educate a student no matter where. Second, would it be too much to ask that a little common sense be used when guessing how much money school closures might save? Yes, I said “guessing” and “might save.” If there were big amounts of money to be saved, then we would be shown financial records from other school closures and amalgamations to prove it. It sure doesn’t make much sense to me, this inability to actually look at whether the savings resulting from school closures will be at all substantial. Can you imagine if other businesses were under the same legislation? It’s a roadmap to financial ruin.

Even in the event that a community uncovers that savings resulting from closure will not be at all appreciable, the Board is under no obligation to consider the community’s input in their final decision. There is no opportunity for appeal. There is no system that holds the Board accountable when their decision fails to “improve the quality of education and be fiscally responsible.”

“Quality of Education” is continually touted as the other reason for school closures. Ironic, then, that academics were never considered in the evaluation of schools, and that an increase in academic funding to geographic schools seems unlikely. Forget a nice new weight room, our students need textbooks. Another irony is that students in multi-grade classes will simply be moved to another multi-grade class in a different school. The Chinook School Division has a formula for deciding how many teachers a school needs, but the transfer of students from closed schools probably won’t trigger the addition of more staff. This brilliant formula, which no doubt cost a fair dollar to develop, lacks common sense like many other bureaucratic policies. I have a better formula for deciding how many teachers a school should have and I offer it for free: How about one teacher per grade? If you’re closing a school, and one of your reasons is multi-grading, then eliminate multi-grading in the schools of transfer.

Let’s raise the question of fiscal responsibility to ratepayers. In our area, the RMs of Val Marie and Lone Tree generate about 1.7 million dollars in education taxes in the tax base for one K-9, one K-12, and two Hutterite schools. That’s 1.7 million dollars for about 100 students, yet the Board sees a need to close a school to save money. Do you think maybe these ratepayers are shelling out their fair share?! I suspect similar numbers would be reflected in every school division. They say, “You get what you pay for.” Apparently not if you are a farmer. And should anyone be tempted to think (or actually say out loud at a board meeting, ahem) that people live in isolated areas of their own accord and should have to suffer the consequences, remember that when these families first settled in those isolated areas there were probably schools (and hospitals) nearby, and that the largest amount of education tax revenue comes from said ratepayers and the natural resources in their communities. The fact that the Board’s policy addresses the need of some parents to board their children out because they live so far from schools is shameful. Is that the way of the future, a return to residential schools? Hooray for rural revitalization.

Here’s my take on the so-called Education Equity: there’s a big difference between sharing the wealth and stealing the wealth. Unless the government takes some proper responsibility, we are going to lose more of the services for which we already overpay. We know that the School Board cannot operate on a deficit. We know that more money is needed from the province. We know that ours is a unique school division with a diverse population. We know that our Board went to the provincial government…with funding for their new building, not for students, at the top of the agenda. So instead of rushing to close schools – and the Board is set to target urban schools next – lets rally a wee bit harder. Come on, School Board Members! Represent the ratepayers who elect you! Defend the families who remunerate you! Stand up for what is right and refuse to be puppets.

There is a bigger picture here. Education is suffering in our province whether we live on a farm or in the city, and unless we address the problem together, the government will continue sitting proudly on a billion dollar surplus without bothering to scatter any scraps in the way of our children.
Back to A Modest Proposal and Jonathon Swift’s suggestion to improve the financial state of the country by eating the children. Instead of being a financial burden “...they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.” Mr. Premier, the Government of Saskatchewan, and our School Board Members: don’t be like the landlords in this satire who have already devoured most of the parents and have set their hungry eyes on the flesh of the children.

Denise Toeckes
Climax SK