To the Editor,
Re: Parents pick budget priorities, Feb. 19.
The decision to review the 10-year facilities plan was a misguided one, however, if this is what is required to open this school board’s eyes, then so be it.
School closures and consolidations are a fact of life. To deny that fact is tantamount to putting one’s head in the sand. In order for this district to be on the Ministry of Education’s radar for capital projects, we must submit a facilities plan that clearly demonstrates we are addressing excess capacity issues as well as the ability to financially contribute to projects. More importantly we need to demonstrate we are a district with focus and a commitment to working together with vision and in collaboration with all stakeholders. Otherwise we will simply be relegated to the back of the line.
The idea that we should spend all our savings now in hopes that things will miraculously change down the road is simply ludicrous. Any plan must also consider the students of the future, otherwise it is a foolhardy one.
Barb HumphervilleNanaimo
To the Editor,
Re: Parents pick budget priorities, Feb. 19.
I was at the Dover Bay session of public consultation for the school board. It was overwhelmingly clear that people wanted to keep the existing facilities plan. What I heard at my own table was that school closures are a sad fact and needed to maintain a good public education in SD68.
It was also clear by the participants’ choices, that a new school is needed, further accepting the previous plan that addressed aging facilities.
Many in the crowd were concerned by the flagrant bias evident in the choices they were given to prioritize. Most could only list two priorities that were least likely to be used to keep schools in Cedar open (as most of our board members have expressed as their own priority.)
It will be interesting to see how the next meeting at John Barsby goes and what those members of the public have to contribute.
Bill BardNanaimo
