Share

Tweet

At the Feb. 15 working committee of the Strait Regional School Board (SRSB) the board passed a draft report to the department of education regarding the educational business plan priorities for 2012-13. The department expects all provincial school boards to provide a draft outline regarding predicted board expenditures in the next fiscal year by March 9.
The board was also presented study committee clarifications for two schools being considered for potential closure, Rev. H. J. MacDonald School in Heatherton and West Richmond Education Centre in Evanston. These clarifications were the result of reviewing the school study committee responses to impact assessment reports made by the board last fall.
School superintendent Jack Beaton said in his introduction to the board “in fairness to the study committees they presented their point of view and sometimes it’s a misinterpretation…that they (the board) would be taking the time to go over some of the points needing clarification so there would be a broader understanding of issues.”
Board member Richelle MacLaughlin asked the board if the scheduled meeting on Feb. 22 would be providing them the time to review and ask questions of the school study committee reports presented to the board on Feb. 8.
“Will the information be re-represented for clarification at that time as it would only be fair?” she asked.
Beaton said it was important to clarify with the board now and if anyone wants to ask questions on the 22 “that would be the thing to do.”
North Inverness board member Anne Peters asked why the presentation was being made at the working committee meeting and not in a public forum.
Beaton noted working committee meetings being open to the public and that it was “unfortunate” some school study committee members weren’t present to hear the clarifications.
He added that it was a public document and that the 22nd would be a chance to provide additional feedback from that night’s presentation.
Board member Frank Machnik echoed some of board member Peter’s concerns regarding how the information was being presented and the lack of school study committee members present. Machnik also noted that these clarifications were not part of the department of education’s school review process policy to which Beaton agreed they were not.
“There are no secrets here; what we are trying to do is help the board understand the issues to help them make a decision, these are public documents,” Beaton said.
In regards to the Heatherton school study committee report, Wednesday night’s clarifications were focused on items around research, programming, human resources, finances, facilities and bussing issues.
One major point focused on the study committee report said the board violated a special education policy by discouraging parents of a special needs student from enrolling their child at the school. The clarification said that special needs students often have transition plans in place and that SRSB staff follows policies when it comes to special needs students entering Grade primary.
The study committee report also implied that SRSB staff was the primary source of declining enrollment instead of “documented demographic trends” noted in the clarification presentation.
“We have generally declining population across the province, documented through outmigration and smaller families,” Monica Williams, programs and student services director, said, adding that in Antigonish County schools enrollment declined by 1,041 students between 2000 and 2010.
She added that transfers of students are not “staff directed but parent initiated” and that staff works towards what is in the best interest of the students.
In reference to the Rev. H. J. MacDonald school study committee report, noting that accessibility to extra-curricular school programs could be an issue for students transferring to the receiving schools Williams clarified this concern.
She noted that potential receiving schools hold most of their extra-curricular activities during lunch breaks with intra-mural programs open to all students and that programs are expanded upon should more students choose to participate.
A human resources issue around teaching staff and cost savings with a potential teaching staff reduction should students be transferred to a receiving school was also addressed.
Sherman England, the board’s human resources director said the school study committee report stated that the board’s financial statements “were suspect” regarding savings on 2.2 full time equivalent (FTE) teaching positions should this occur.
England said according to board calculations for the coming year 3.3 less FTE teaching positions would be required based on 2012-13 enrollment numbers with the receiving schools.
Willie Cormier, finance director, provided some clarifications regarding the cost of operations and maintenance. He said because of a software issue with the department operation and maintenance costs didn’t include wages in the board’s impact assessment report for 2010-11 figures. He also noted they also were removed for the year before to ensure consistency.
Cormier said contrary to the school study committee report, changes in Antigonish County property assessments won’t have an effect on funding the board receives. He said that the province determines funding and subtracts municipals funds from the total to determine the province’s share.
He also added that the board cut 17.9 percent for a total of 31.5 non-teaching positions along with 14 less teaching positions because of declining enrollment.
The board also cut its travel budget by 20 percent though management and board governance costs rose, 15 and 32 percent respectively, a figure determined by the province.
MacLaughlin noted during Cormier’s presentation that data and funding formulas for the school study committee varied from what the board presented that night.
She said it was up to the board to do a better job when supplying requested information and perhaps this was a lesson for the board to make the process clearer in the future.
Cormier was confident about the review process being clear.
“One of them (study committee member) is a business professor who has done most of the speaking on the issues and the other teaches in the nursing department at St. F. X., I think they are very well positioned to make a proper analysis of the information if they choose to,” Cormier said in reference to the Heatherton school study committee.
Beaton noted that MacLaughlin was using an interesting way to turn the blame back on board staff. He added that the school study committee brought up the issue of municipal education tax and that the board’s impact assessment report didn’t address it.
“At no point was I laying blame, for all of us this process has been extremely frustrating and a learning curve…the province needs to step in and help out with a crappy process that will help us along, this is not fair to students, family and staff,” MacLaughlin said.
Terry Doyle, operations director, noted that contrary to the school study committee report the Rev. H. J. MacDonald School was inspected in 2008 and any reference to the building’s condition was after completion of renovations.
He added it’s not the board practice to have groups use an independent consultant for their own audits as was requested from the school study committee from Heatherton.
He said that the committee reported that the existing gym was a junior high school sized gym where, in fact, the gym is 3,621 sq. ft. opposed to 5,284 sq. ft. which is now the standard size for P-6 schools.
In regards to bussing, the travel time varied according to what specific communities students were being bussed from. Doyle noted that the travel times he gave were more “meaningful” than those presented (by the study committee).