Two articles from the Leader post, April 12th

To follow, two articles from the Leader Post today. The first is by Rod Luhning, Chairman of the PVSD. The second is by David Gleim.

It would seem from what Luhning has to say, that the decisions are made and the writing is on the wall - the schools will close, despite everything we have said.

An orderly, objective, and respectful process
The possibility of dozens of school closures has touched a nerve in rural Saskatchewan. Today, the chairman of one of the province's school boards and the spokesman for a parents group offer their views.

Rod Luhning
Special to The Leader-Post


Thursday, April 12, 2007


Boards of education across Saskatchewan are reviewing schools to determine the best way to continue to deliver quality learning opportunities to declining populations of students. Communities, mostly in rural areas, are similarly engaged in processes to advocate on behalf of their local schools.

In an effort to honour and respect the emotions community members may have under such circumstances, boards have largely avoided challenging statements or getting into unhelpful debates about side issues. Still, it's important that the public gains a better understanding of what we're doing and why.

The Prairie Valley School Division is reviewing the education opportunities at 11 of its 46 schools, a process that could result in grade discontinuance or closure. There are about 550 students in the 11 schools, out of a total student population of about 8,000. Enrolment ranges from 11 (for a Kindergarten to Grade 5 school) to 101 (for a K to 12 school) and is, in most instances, projected to decline.

Prairie Valley is an entirely rural school division. That obviously affects how we deliver our services, but it shouldn't affect how well we deliver them or how well prepared our students are for future education and career opportunities.

While small class sizes may be desirable to a degree, at some point the disadvantages of small peer group size, severe multi-grading and reduced student support time begin to outweigh the advantages. At the other end of the spectrum, we need to consider large class sizes, the limits they impose on learning and how we may be affecting those students' opportunities in our efforts to support smaller schools.

How far should a board -- and, for that matter, a community -- go to preserve bricks and mortar at the potential expense of children's futures? We've been told we need to keep the children and their needs front and centre. Boards agree.

In the past, we've supported providing additional teachers to our smallest schools, giving them more per student than we provide in other schools. If these schools were staffed strictly according to formula, it's possible the quality of education would suffer -- something boards are not willing to accept. But can we continue to provide that level of extra support and still ensure we meet demands elsewhere in the division?

Inevitably, people look for someone or something to "blame" for the review, even though the simple explanation is that fewer students enter our system every year. Declining enrolments are emptying classrooms -- and not incidentally, reducing government funding.

Some blame a "bloated" administration. In fact, the level of administration is essentially the same pre- and post-amalgamation. And more of those people are providing direct services to students or teachers in the schools.

Some blame amalgamation, but amalgamation did not cause the reviews, nor even hasten them. A moratorium during amalgamation put many reviews on hold and the unusually high number of schools currently being reviewed is largely a hold-over from that moratorium.

Amalgamation helped to level the tax burden and encourage more equitable education opportunities for all students. Prior to amalgamation, Saskatchewan taxpayers paid wildly varying rates of education taxes. Small divisions with large assessments relative to student numbers were able to charge a lower tax rate and still spend as much or more on their students. Conversely, divisions with larger student populations and comparatively less assessment per student had to charge a higher tax rate to provide the same or reduced opportunities to students. It was a great deal for some people - and a not-so-great deal for others.

Education, like health care, is publicly funded in Saskatchewan. However, a common misconception is that a municipality somehow "buys" the right to a school with the tax it collects on behalf of the school division. That's not how it works.

In much the same way that everyone has an equal right to access health services without regard to their income (and income tax paid), all students have an equal right to educational opportunities without regard to their parents' or communities' ability to pay. Boards are charged with and committed to ensuring that happens.

The review process is not easy and it's not something boards undertake lightly or eagerly. We are education advocates, we believe passionately in the benefits of a quality education -- and it can be difficult to reconcile that passion on the one hand with the necessity of reviewing and potentially closing schools on the other.

However, it's a process provided for and guided by legislation.

It is orderly, objective and strives to be respectful and fair to all involved. "Fair" does not mean that everyone will necessarily be happy with the outcomes. Fair does mean that communities and individuals have a voice that is heard and that all information is considered. And it means that decisions will be made in the best interests of all students, without jeopardizing the needs of others.

- Luhning is chair of the Prairie Valley Board of Education.

Funding formula unfair to rural schools
The possibility of dozens of school closures has touched a nerve in rural Saskatchewan. Today, the chairman of one of the province's school boards and the spokesman for a parents group offer their views.

David Gleim
Special to The Leader-Post


Thursday, April 12, 2007


Let's clear up a major misconception. Statements proclaiming small school communities are not paying their way is totally false! Most of the schools under review actually collect much more in taxes than it costs to run and operate their school. If all the rural schools were combined and had access to all the tax revenue they generate, they could operate without a dime from the government. Many schools actually have a surplus, ranging from $500,000 to almost $2 million.

Urban schools in Saskatchewan receive an average of $3,503 per student as compared to an average of $1,979 in the eight southern rural school divisions. The provincial average is $3,487. Urban schools, of course, also have the advantage of more students and scales of economies to be more efficient.

If the rural average matched the urban average, the eight school divisions would receive an additional $76 million. If the urban average was dropped to the rural average, Saskatoon and Regina would lose over $49 million! Do the urban school divisions want to walk a mile in the rural divisions' shoes?

The issue is not what the urban schools receive, but what the rural divisions do not receive!

The eight southern rural school divisions no longer benefit from the Foundation Operating Grant (FOG) funding formula.

Since the provincial student population started to decline, the FOG has failed to be fair for rural school divisions. It was designed when the rural/urban student populations were very close in size and there was an annual increase in student numbers. The system was never designed to operate with a declining student population.

In the last three years, the cities have lost 2,687 students and gained $39,986,502 in the K-12 operating grant. The eight southern rural school divisions lost 3,359 students and also lost $12,141,190. What does this mean? The two major cities gained $610 per student; the rural schools lost $241 per student for a total spread of $851 biased towards urban school divisions.

The majority of schools that will be closed in May are paying their own way -- some of them many times over! Some rural school divisions have large deficits to contend with because of minuscule support from the K-12 operating grant. Not only will ratepayers lose their schools, they will also pay more taxes with an increase in the mill rate.

This is not news to people in rural areas. This is not news to people in Saskatchewan Learning or the provincial government. This is not about quality of learning for rural students, as many would like to make out. The fact is the government doesn't have the will to make changes in the FOG formula. In the last two budgets, the government elaborates on all the wealth that is generated in the rural sector to make Saskatchewan a "have" province.

If the Boughen Report had been implemented, the ratio for K-12 education today would be at least 60/40 (province/local taxes)

Today, K-12 kids in rural Saskatchewan are being exploited by political ineptitude! If K-12 education were a priority, we wouldn't be having this debate today.

Where are the reports that show universities, colleges, trade schools, corporations and small business are complaining that rural students do not have the education to meet their requirements? What rationale is there in stating the rural students are not getting a quality education? Are the parents saying it? No. Are students saying it? No. Are the movers and shakers in Saskatchewan. Learning, government and some school trustees saying it? Yes. They are diverting the discussion away from the real problem, the way the FOG system is failing rural school divisions. If this continues, 100-200 more schools could be closed in the next few years. Is this what Saskatchewan wants?

The FOG issue is the root of the problem. Communities are wondering if they can survive without a school. The business sector is looking at whether rural Saskatchewan is a good place to be right now.

All our cities and all of our towns and villages deserve their own school. We are a "have" province with tremendous potential to become one of the best "have" provinces in Canada. The government just has to fix the problem -- for it is its problem to fix!

If K-12 students in rural Saskatchewan had a vote in the next election this issue would be a priority. But -- with or without an election -- it really is quite sad that K-12 education in rural Saskatchewan is paying, and paying, and paying the price for a wrong not righted while their schools are put on the chopping block. All because of the abysmal amount of money our provincial government puts into funding K-12 education for smaller schools!

- Gleim is spokesperson for the advocacy group Save Our Schools.