To the Editor,
Re: School closures recommended, Nov. 26.
I do not understand how spending any of our district monies or ministry monies on building a wing on to the Frank J. Ney site and closing Rutherford is going to benefit our children, teachers or school district on the whole.
Does it not make sense to spend the money to upgrade or ‘enhance’ the facility of Rutherford elementary and adjust the catchment boundaries for Rutherford elementary?
Frank J. Ney has enough development surrounding it now and in the coming months and years to support its own enrolment.
The north end needs Rutherford School solely based on current enrolment and future enrolment in the coming months and years.
How does closing schools and spending money to re-open closed schools relate to ‘enhanced’ facilities? How does this action save money?
Cedar does not have the development the north end is seeing. And yet somehow it was motioned to open a whole high school even at an estimated 48 per cent capacity. Does this not seem absurd?
How is any of this justified?
Erin VolenNanaimo
To the Editor,
Re: We need to stand up for schools, Letters, Dec. 1.
The reason for school closures is that people today are not having children like previous generations. Why keep a school open when it does not have a full student occupancy and still pay taxpayer dollars for the operation expenses? Close the school and put the students into another school that can operate on a full occupancy.
Saying that there will be a rebound in student numbers in the future is like living in the twilight zone. That day will never come. Face facts and reality.
Joe SawchukDuncan
