LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Saturday,
June 7, 2008
LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba
CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Erna Braun (Rossmere)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James)
ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6
Members of the Committee present:
Hon. Mr. Bjornson, Hon. Mses. McGifford, Oswald, Hon. Mr. Rondeau
Ms. Braun, Messrs. Cullen, Hawranik, Jha, Ms. Korzeniowski, Mr. Schuler, Mrs. Stefanson
Substitutions:
Mr. Reid for Mr. Jha at 12:58 p.m.
Hon. Ms. Irvin-Ross for Mr. Reid at 4:34 p.m.
APPEARING:
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff, MLA for Interlake
Mr. Larry Maguire, MLA for Arthur-Virden
Mr. Daryl Reid, MLA for Transcona
Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights
Mrs. Leanne Rowat, MLA for Minnedosa
Hon. Stan Struthers, MLA for Dauphin-Roblin
WITNESSES:
Bill 28–The Strengthening Local Schools Act (Public Schools Act Amended)
Ms. Victoria Schindle, Argyle Community Action Group
Mr. Jack Grandmont, Argyle Community Action Group
Ms. Joan Clement, Park West School Division
Ms. Jennifer Berry, Fisher Branch Parent Advisory Council
Ms. Teresa Johnson, Ashern-Moosehorn Parent Advisory Council
Ms. Beth Geisel, Mountain View School Division
Mr. Craig Whyte, Kenton Community School
Ms. Debby Lee, Private Citizen
Mr. Jim Murray, Brandon School Division
Ms. Margaret Anderson, Private Citizen
Mr. Bruce Alexander, Manitoba Association of School Trustees;
Mr. Lawrence Lussier, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents
Mr. Bruce Alexander, St. James-Assiniboia School Division
Mr. Craig Stahlke, Pembina Trails School Division
Ms. Shannon Forest, Private Citizen
Mr. Bob Fraser, River East Transcona School Division
Ms. Anna-Marie Westervelt, Private Citizen
Ms. Cheryl Zelenitsky, Evergreen School Division
Ms. Debbie McMechan, Pierson Advisory Council
Mr. Tom Parker, Louis Riel School Division
Mr. Colin Craig, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Ms. Leanne Carlson, Private Citizen
Ms. Karen Carey, Sunrise School Division
Mr. Gordon Shead, Frontier School Division
Ms. Gladys Hayward Williams, Private Citizen
Ms. Jan McIntyre, Prairie Spirit School Division
Ms. Colleen Claggett Woods, Prairie Rose School Division
Mr. Randy Aitken, Private Citizen
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Bill 2–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Trans Fats and Nutrition)
Mr. Jim Goetz, Food and Consumer Products of Canada
Bill 28–The Strengthening Local Schools Act (Public Schools Act Amended)
Ms. Pat Isaak, Manitoba Teachers' Society
Mr. Murray Skeavington, Flin Flon School Division
Mr. Kelvin Dyck, Garden Valley School Division
Ms. Wendy Bloomfield, Seine River School Division
Ms. Linda Buchanan, Kelsey School Division Board of Trustees
Ms. Denise Dewar, Strathclair Community School Advisory Council for School Leadership
MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
Bill 2–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Trans Fats and Nutrition)
Bill 10–The Legislative Library Act
Bill 15–The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act
Bill 24–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Cyber-Bullying and Use of Electronic Devices)
Bill 28–The Strengthening Local Schools Act (Public Schools Act Amended)
Bill 30–The Crown Lands Amendment Act
* * *
Madam Chairperson: Good morning. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.
Your first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I'd like to nominate Ms. Korzeniowski.
Madam Chairperson: Ms. Korzeniowski has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Ms. Korzeniowski is elected Vice-Chairperson. Thank you.
This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 2, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Trans Fats and Nutrition); Bill 10, The Legislative Library Act; Bill 15, The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act; Bill 24, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Cyber-Bullying and Use of Electronic Devices); Bill 28, The Strengthening Local Schools Act (Public Schools Act Amended); Bill 30, The Crown Lands Amendment Act.
We have a number of presenters registered to speak this morning. Please refer to your presenters' list.
Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider.
First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation today, please register with staff at the entrance of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need assistance with photocopying, please speak with our staff.
As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.
Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Pat Isaak, president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, on Bill 28; Murray Skeavington, chair, Flin Flon School Division, on Bill 28; Kelvin Dyck, chair, Garden Valley School Division, on Bill 28; Wendy Bloomfield, Seine River School Division, on Bill 28; Linda Buchanan, chair, Kelsey School Division board of trustees, on Bill 28; Denise Dewar, Strathclair Community School Advisory Council for School Leadership, on Bill 28; Jim Goetz, vice-president, Provincial Affairs, Food and Consumer Products of Canada.
Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed]
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): For clarification, the food council was not for Bill 28, though. That would have been for Bill 2.
Madam Chairperson: On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have out-of-town presenters in attendance, marked with an asterisk on the list.
With these considerations in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear presentations?
Ms. Oswald: As is most often our practice, I'd recommend that we hear the out-of-town presenters first.
Madam Chairperson: Hear out-of-town presenters first–do we agree? [Agreed] Thank you.
Just to confirm, is that out-of-town presenters in numerical order of the bills? [Agreed] Thank you.
As previously agreed to by the House, the committee will sit until midnight.
Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I will first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on and off.
Thank you for your patience, and we will now proceed to public presentations.
On Bill 2, we have Michelle Wasylyshien, Sussex Strategy Group. Michelle Wasylyshien, Sussex Strategy Group? She will be moved to the bottom of the list.
Bill 28–The Strengthening Local Schools Act (Public Schools Act Amended)
Madam Chairperson: On Bill 28, we have Victoria Schindle, Argyle Community Action Group. Do you have materials for distribution?
Ms. Victoria Schindle (Argyle Community Action Group): Yes, we do.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation.
Ms. Schindle: Just a quick introduction, I'm Victoria Schindle. This is Jack Grandmont, and this is Esther Havedings.
Our committee, the Argyle Community Action Group, is a group of parents and community members whose purpose is to promote our community and to ensure that our local school remains viable and continues to be the dynamic place for learning that it is today.
Brant Argyle School occupies a heritage building that is vital to our neighbourhood's character and rural community life. It provides a healthy, rural, cultural environment for our children and provides acceptable bus-ride times.
Honourable Chairperson, honourable ministers and members, we would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development for giving us the opportunity to comment on Bill 28, The Strengthening Local Schools Act.
The act is progressive and is in the best interests of our children and their education. We believe in the intent of this bill, to support and strengthen our local community schools and to provide an opportunity to develop alternative ideas as cost-saving measures. We strongly support Bill 28.
Bill 28 encourages a collaborative process and encourages school divisions to re-evaluate their decision-making methods. Community members and parents will be a part of the decision-making process regarding the future of their schools.
Expanding the definition of community schools is important. Neglecting socio-economic factors, studies show that children in smaller community schools are more academically successful, have higher graduation rates and are more likely to participate in extra-curricular activities and advanced-level courses than children in larger schools.
* (10:10)
Brant Argyle School is an asset to our community. It is the centre of our community and the reason why many of us have chosen to live there. If the school were to close, the area would quickly die. People would move their families and businesses to a town with an education facility of their choice. Healthy communities are important for student success.
Any decisions a school board considers regarding the future of the school should be made with the full involvement of an informed local community. It should be based on a broad range of criteria including assessing the value the school has to the student, the community, the economy and the school division. A good example is modelled by the Ontario Ministry of Education, pupil accommodation review guidelines. I have included references on the back of your presentation.
Bill 28 can pave the way for real and honest collaboration between school boards, community and parents. Bill 28 has been reviewed extensively by our group as well as researchers across Canada by our invitation who specialize in small local community schools and school closure research. We've got detailed recommendations for the bill located in appendix A.
Bill 28 should be very specific and precise. Phrases such as sufficient input, lengthy consideration, adequate opportunity, reasonable efforts, appropriate community purposes, should be replaced with clear, specific quantities and conditions. There should be reference to specific regulations, policies or guidelines that define these quantities and conditions. The wording and the intent of the bill must be clear to strengthen its interpretation and to create an objective, effective document.
The reference to busing in Bill 28 is one of the bill's strongest points. For too long, our children have been considered as not being affected by ride times as they have been pushed ever longer by divisions who consider the capital depreciation on the bus as more important than the precious time our children lose every day riding that bus. How many adults in this room spend a total of three hours driving to work every day?
Many extensively researched papers in the bibliography discuss how longer bus ride times reduce study time, make students tired because of less sleep, reduce opportunities for extra-curricular activities and reduce physical activity. As well, staying closer to home in terms of energy and environmental design makes ecological sense.
Bill 28 gives the divisions five years to bring the bus ride times down to one hour. This phase-in time should be reconsidered. In several divisions, the existing routes are being amalgamated and buses are being replaced by bigger ones. The divisions could continue this trend for four-and-a-half years. Then, when the final pressure is on to conform, they will request grandfather status because they have been operating that way for too long.
The rule must be clear. Bus-ride time should not exceed 60 minutes. Twenty months is considered an appropriate time to go through comparable rigorous process of school review and should be more than adequate for the divisions to conform to reducing bus ride times to 60 minutes. A shorter phase-in time will create more motivation for families to want to stay in their communities and increase the chance of families wanting to move into these communities.
Bill 28 should describe the types of involvement a community will engage in regarding the closure process. Their involvement should be truly joint or collaborative. This bill should integrate an appeals process. When decisions as important as school reviews are being made, the groups involved need to be confident all factors have been truly considered. The ability to bring a concern before an appeal board or arbitrator ensures that all parties involved are working for a common goal. An appeals process provides opportunities for genuine public participation.
The system would greatly benefit by having an advocate to represent all the community schools and have more direct access and communication with the Minister of Education. That person should not be a government appointee or part of the division structure such as a superintendent, a trustee or a teacher, but be elected by parent advisory councils and community groups and be directly responsible to them.
The school divisions have MAST to advise and represent them. It is only fair that an advocate is created to represent our schools' interests. An advocate could be incorporated into the community school partnership initiative. This might be an excellent opportunity now that community schools are being redefined. School divisions need fresh forward thinking trustees and administrators with the potential and ability to embrace the concept of strengthening local community schools.
The length of terms for any combination of positions held on the school board should not exceed eight years. Presently, some trustees within our local school division have held positions for 20 years. This would ensure that there are always trustees coming on the boards, receptive to the new, innovative ideas.
Reduce opportunities for conflict of interest by limiting or eliminating trustee nominees with a teaching or school administration background. How will it be possible to bring in change when a teacher who is a trustee votes on a motion that could limit their own pension or employment? With 85 percent of our division budget spent on salaries, it is inevitable that some changes would occur in staffing.
Trustees and school boards need to be more accountable and transparent with the division's finances, with a willingness to share information rather than direct the public to FIPPA. Superintendents are going to have to take a hard look within their own offices and find ways to make best use of teaching staff and school facilities.
The bill needs to be strong and clear. Our recommendations are as follows:
No. 1, collaboration. In all of this, there needs to be meaningful participation and full involvement from informed parents, community, and stakeholders. Include an appeals process.
No. 2, interpretation. Your critics know this bill is here to stay, but they're saying it all depends on the wording. The text must be carefully reviewed. The intent must be very clear. Please review our suggestions to the bill in appendix A.
Travel times. Bus ride times particularly impact rural students. A limit of 60 minutes or less is necessary for the well-being of the child, the local school, and the community. Reduce the phase-in time to 20 months.
No. 4, community School Initiative. The definition in section 196(1)(a), (b), and (c) should be expanded to also include (d), the only school in the community. A category of schools must be created as defined in 196(1), community schools or schools of necessity or equity schools, for example, that provide special resources for schools where the funding formula will not work. The definition process and criteria for community schools must be developed together with this bill.
No. 5, sustainability. This is a culture adjustment for most school divisions. Bill 28 will result in many changes to the system. The moratorium is a temporary measure to give everyone time to rethink philosophically how to support small, local community schools for sustainability. Work collaboratively, and move away from closures as a sole cost-saving measure.
If left unsupported, school divisions and their boards, with their deep-rooted beliefs, will be unwilling participants. Clear direction and support must be provided to divisions by the Province. Regulations and guidelines may need to be developed to accompany the new legislation. Providing assistance to our school divisions will help reduce the possibility of resistance and circumventing the system, and increase the chances of success regarding our children's education and the role of this legislation.
A clear start with the legislation will create positive publicity, will bring school boards on side and will encourage a collaborative process between parents, community members, school divisions, and the Province to discover alternative cost-saving measures, other than closing schools. We applaud your courage to make positive change.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
We have questions.
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Thank you very much, Ms. Schindle, for your presentation. I appreciate the research and the thought that went into this presentation.
Certainly, it was a privilege to visit the school five years ago prior to my appointment as minister. There was a community celebration, and it really spoke to the fact that the school is about community and community is about the school at that particular celebration, so I thank you for your comments and your suggestions on Bill 28.
* (10:20)
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Thank you very much, Victoria, and to the other parents for showing up this morning. I'm sure there are one or two other things you'd rather be doing this morning than presenting to committee. It's very important to come out and let all of us know what your thoughts are, and a very well researched presentation. We appreciate that.
Your last paragraph–I'll just quote from it: Provide assistance to our school divisions will help reduce the possibility of resistance and circumventing the system.
Do you think that we as a Legislature should be looking at a new policy where we look at supporting smaller schools? If, from everything I hear, and I take it we'll be hearing a lot of school divisions coming forward saying, this ends at being a budget matter; it's tough to keep open these schools.
You talk about assistance. What kind of assistance do you think we need to keep smaller schools open? How would that, then, be not part of the equation when it comes to making a decision on whether a school closes or stays open?
Ms. Schindle: I think that's part of the purpose with this bill–to be able to get together and discuss what might happen. In all the research, we tried to come up with some recommendations, but we didn't dive into the actual details of how this can happen. This has taken probably hundreds of hours to put together.
I think what everyone would be interested in, in terms of community, parents and school divisions, would be to work together, maybe with the minister in advance, to find out what can be done or how it can be done or how it can be accommodated. I really don't have an answer to that.
Floor Comment: Can I speak?
Madam Chairperson: May we have your name, please?
Floor Comment: Jack Grandmont.
Madam Chairperson: Could you spell your last name, please.
Floor Comment: It's G-r-a-n-d-m-o-n-t. Is it appropriate–
Madam Chairperson: I'm sorry. We need leave of the committee, if the committee agrees to allow you to say a few words.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mines): I would ask for leave that he speak and this be used as part of the question time.
Madam Chairperson: Is it leave of the committee to allow Mr. Grandmont to speak and use part of the question period? [Agreed]
Mr. Jack Grandmont (Argyle Community Action Group): Mr. Schuler, I was just thinking you wanted–maybe, a practical example might be with busing, where divisions now are rescheduling the size of buses to accommodate different runs. Some of the assistance could be in planning better routes or even in probably downsizing bus sizes because, to keep our smaller schools going, no doubt, instead of needing a 78-passenger bus, maybe divisions will be shifting down to 40-passenger buses, where assistance would be required.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation.
I would now call upon Joan Clement, Park West School Division. Do you have material for distribution?
Ms. Joan Clement (Park West School Division): Yes.
Madam Chairperson: You may begin.
Ms. Clement: Thank you very much for the opportunity to make the presentation. I make it on behalf of the board of trustees and administrators of Park West School Division. We're wishing to express our concerns about Bill 28 and the impact that the moratorium has had and that the bill will have on its implementation.
Park West is a large geographical division, located up against the Saskatchewan border under Riding Mountain National Park and has, within its boundaries, five river valleys and four First Nations communities. I mention this because it has an impact on the busing recommendations portion of Bill 28.
As you may be aware, Park West has been looking at long-range planning for our division for the past three and a half years, in light of our declining student demographics. It would appear that, over the next period of years, we will be graduating 150 grade 12 students, while we have an average of less than 100 entering kindergarten into our school system. In six to eight years, this will leave us with our current school structure of 14 schools and approximately 1,200 students; thus, we need to plan ahead.
In this process, we have involved our publics through focus groups, 10 community meetings, and a follow-up focus group meeting. While the public did not agree with any of the board's suggestions, all recognized that status quo was not an option, and it appears that Bill 28 would maintain status quo.
Three years ago, we moved to put Kenton School, K to 8 with 22 students, under review and started discussion with the community. Last June, because we were challenged that parts of the board policy were perceived not to be carried out to the exactness of that policy, we moved to extend the decision until June of this year only to be caught by the moratorium on school closure. The school review committee has requested the school remain open K to 5 with 15 students and two teachers, and they would operate a child-care centre in the other portion of the school. This decision had to be made in the midst of the Bill 28 moratorium and, on one hand, created euphoria in the public as they saw the board's hands tied, and frustration on the part of the board as we struggled to be fair to all students and communities within our division. Currently, the board has granted permission for day care and will staff the K to 5 school as per the divisional divisor with 1.25 staff.
In both of the previous mentioned issues, Bill 28 and the moratorium has caused us much consternation. The department was very aware of the work we were doing in restructuring. We have had discussions with both the minister and the deputy, as well as Public Schools Finance Board in terms of ensuring that education dollars were going into programs for students and not into bricks and mortar.
Park West followed the tax incentive grant and has not raised taxes to meet program needs. We have been reducing our surplus to 4 percent, and both of these measures have left the division with less flexibility in terms of programs and staffing. The moratorium followed the setting of our budget, thus limiting the opportunity to look at different staffing options.
We are impacted by the busing recommendations. Park West and the former Birdtail and Pelly Trail divisions have had 7:30 a.m. pickup for almost 40 years. Why, now, does one hour become a magic number? While there are only 7 percent of our students who are on the bus for longer than one hour, 18 bus routes in our division are affected. In a division with five river valleys, areas where there are no roads and where school of choice is in place, all impact on our ability to create new bus routes.
Community use of schools is not a big issue for us as all of our schools are widely used by all groups in communities in our division. We are very supportive of day care in our school. In fact, in 1986 PSFB added day care to Major Pratt School along with a renovation that happened at that time. We also support day care and nursery schools in several other schools as well. We also house ACC Parkland Campus in Major Pratt School. While community use of schools enhances options for these children, parents and others within our community, they create no revenue for the division and, certainly, with the exception of ACC, do not increase the viability of the school or increase program offerings to students. Joint use of school facilities will provide little chance of cost recovery and will make the facility consolidation almost impossible. As well, should repairs or maintenance be required, the division will need to bear those costs.
So, as we look at Bill 28, it poses a number of questions for our board. What does consolidation of buildings mean in a rural division? Does this mean that both buildings must be in the same town, or is consolidation possible when the school facilities are located in towns that are a short distance apart and where part of the students already attend high school?
What is community? Is it the community closest to where you live or where you get your mail? Is it where parents work? Is it where kids play hockey or go to Air Cadets or 4-H?
How long will the moratorium last? Will the regulations be written prior to the moratorium ending and, if not, does this bill really prevent any division, or the minister, in fact, from closing a school? What if the majority of parents want the school closed? What then?
* (10:30)
When is it no longer feasible to keep the school open because of declining enrolment? As mentioned, Kenton this year is K to 8 with 22 students. Next year the parents requested to go to a K to 5 school with 15 students and a community day care. Can we expect a small staff to provide all that is expected of today's education system for those students, and how do we attract staff to a school of this size in the future?
Does the minister have some threshold student numbers or grade levels per teacher that would make a school's programming unsuitable? In our community meetings we have been challenged to provide a definition of a viable school. How do we measure when it is not feasible to keep a school open because of declining numbers as stated in the act?
Why is retroactivity built into the bill, and why is there a choice of January 2008? When the school review is determined to be necessary, motions must be made, appropriate discussions with parents and community must take place and motions of closure must happen in June. So why reach back to January of 2008? Are staffing divisors within the authority of the board? We have used the small-schools funding, sparsity, and low socioeconomic grants to enable us to have devisors of 15:1 PTR for small schools and ranging to 19:1 for larger schools. We have provided data to show that our board has topped that up each year to maintain high-quality programming as possible for our smallest, least viable school. If this school did not receive additional divisional dollars, it would be less well off in both human and teaching resources.
Why was 60 minutes chosen as a maximum time for a student to ride a bus? Park West has been able to maintain four low-enrolment K to 8 schools in certain communities with steadily declining numbers of school-age children due to aging of population and declining farm units, while providing greater depth and breadth of programming for grade 9 to 12 by busing these students to a larger centre. In order to do this, our bus times must allow for the transportation of K to 8 students to the smaller elementary school, while still providing time for high-school students to be bused to the larger centre for their programs. Will the requirements of Bill 28 mean that we must run separate bus routes for elementary and high school students, and how would the public view us sending two buses into one yard? As well, we currently provide inter-campus busing between two high schools. Will that be counted as part of our one-hour transportation to the school?
Transportation paid to the parent. Currently, if we cannot provide busing to a family, we pay the grant paid by the department of $375 per child to the family in lieu of transportation. Most parents prefer busing even though it means an earlier pick-up rather than receiving the in lieu. What will be considered as appropriate compensation for travel, and will these be fully funded? Secondly, could the board determine that it would be better to pay in lieu rather than to provide bus service?
Madam Chairperson: One minute.
Ms. Clement: Should we be concerned that we are maintaining under-utilized buildings at the expense of students? The Stantec study of Park West's school facilities jointly funded by MECY and Park West shows that 6.7 million in today's dollars are required over the next eight years to continue to meet the educational needs. Why should we spend all of these dollars on buildings that would be less than 50 percent utilized for educational programming? Do we believe that joint facility use can justify this low utilization factor?
We are concerned about the kinds of programs that we can offer to our students and that they have limited choices already. I guess, as we look at this bill, we are really concerned in terms of what we're able to offer and that would be fair to all of the students within our division. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
We have questions.
Mr. Schuler: Yes, thank you very much for taking the time. I think everybody who comes out today should be thanked for coming here. It's a beautiful Saturday. I'm sure there are lots of things people would rather be doing. I'm one of those, but this is important business. We have to be here and discuss this legislation.
I asked one of the other presenters, and I'm going to ask you as well. If funding was not an issue, if the Province were funding smaller schools, would that give you more options on what you could or couldn't do?
You mention in your last page here: stabilize funding for small declining enrollment schools. Do you have some kind of funding model that you would like to see? Is there, like, do you have a number? Do you have, like, something that the committee could actually then think about?
Ms. Clement: Well, actually, in our case–I'm sorry,
Madam Chairperson: Ms. Clement, I'm sorry I need to call your name first.
Ms. Clement: In our case, I think that funding is not the issue so much as we're concerned about having so many buildings and trying to make sure that we have appropriate programming and that we're able to continue to get the specialized staff that we require to offer programming.
So funding is one part of the issue. Certainly, to maintain a very small school, funding is an issue, but I guess our bigger question, as we look at the whole issue, when we've got 14 schools and 1,200 students, and 500 of those students are in one school, how do we then attract staff and have appropriate course offerings to students within our division? So funding is just one issue. Trying to look at how we provide appropriate programming is a bigger issue for our division.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Clement, for your presentation.
I will now call on Jennifer Berry, Fisher Branch Parent Advisory Council. Do you have materials for distribution?
Ms. Jennifer Berry (Fisher Branch Parent Advisory Council): Yes, we do.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you. You may proceed.
Ms. Berry: Thank you.
Madam Chairperson, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to present our parent advisory committee views regarding Bill 28, The Strengthening Local Schools Act.
My name is Jennifer Berry, I'm from the community of Fisher Branch and I'm representing our parent advisory council. This is Janice Podaima, Lisa Mazur, and Heidi Grohelski [phonetic], all part of our parent advisory council, and this is Lexi Podaima, as well, in the pink.
We are here representing our parent advisory council, community members, their schoolchildren and other local taxpayers as well. We are citizens of the Lakeshore School Division. We are truly reflecting the views of the vast majority of interested citizens in our community.
In a short period of time, we were able to obtain support of almost 200 people objecting to the closure of our early years school. This bill deals with the process of closing schools in our province, and we want to add our full support to this legislation as well as make recommendations for amendments to deal with our situation. We are here to explain why the current guidelines are not adequate and what can happen when our local school board representatives do not take seriously some of what we consider to be reasonable advice about exploring options to keep our schools open.
This bill is about process and we fully support the emphasis on consensus, transparency, community school program and priority for our early years schools. We wish to indicate that Lakeshore School Division did set up a process of consultation regarding the proposed closure of our school. This process of public consultation has left a bad taste in most people's mouths who attended those meetings. We contend the process was there to convince our community that their decision was the correct one. Any suggestions made to examine alternative uses for vacant space were, to our knowledge, not followed up. Also, questions about financial wisdom of this closure were not responded to. We certainly felt that we were being railroaded. Our interpretation of this process was, trust us, we know what is good for you.
Lakeshore School Division's reasoning for Fisher Branch Early Years School being slated for closure is due to a small amount of extra vacant space being available in the Fisher Branch Collegiate. Keep in mind that this extra space is not adequate to house the early years students. Hundreds of thousands of provincial dollars will be required to complete these renovations just to save the division a very small fraction of the operating costs.
* (10:40)
We wish to point out to the committee that the current government provided nearly $1 million in upgrades to the Fisher Branch Early Years School less than a decade ago. We believe that had local taxpayers funded these upgrades directly, our trustees would have had to hide from their neighbours because of the outrage this proposed closure would have created.
Our school is in the centre of our community. Why would anyone think that our community would not make every effort to make full use of this facility? Our community does not have a public library. Why was that suggestion not been explored? We ask members of this committee to consider what the real estate value of a closed school building is.
To add insult to injury, the division cancelled a public meeting about our school closure without advising our parent advisory council and community members. We were advised that we would be given an opportunity to report on our views of the process.
At the same time, the division was holding a two-day retreat at Misty Lake Lodge to advise staff on their realigned responsibilities in the amalgamation process and also to discuss new physical accommodations. It has come to our attention that the costs of this retreat were substantial.
Why would our division, which has continuously stressed financial hardship, proceed with this retreat, at the same time telling us that, due to communication opposition, the meeting is being postponed?
Additionally, we want to advise this committee that statements made by our superintendent, Ms. Hildebrandt, to the Department of Education and others that our community is behind this amalgamation are inaccurate.
We have questioned the wisdom of this decision from day one and believe that there are options and opportunities that have not been explored by our division. By exploring these options, we feel that we could build our community to be stronger and attract our youth to stay in the community. Divisions should listen to their stakeholders and explore all opportunities, before closing a school and wasting provincial tax dollars.
The landscape of our rural economy is changing. With these changes, all governing bodies need to adjust their responsibility to their communities and the province. They all need to focus more on building communities and utilizing all available resources. In the past, it was not required that divisions explore other opportunities outside their mandate, in order to keep these buildings open, to help keep their expenses down.
The Province is now providing this opportunity by having all governing bodies be more accountable for and to their communities. The opportunities will allow them to be more creative and move to offset some of the operating costs generated by the added value in these buildings. It is time for the division to think outside the box.
We are recommending that there be an amendment to Bill 28, that being the Exception, 41(1.4) be removed, so that the new process, which the minister is recommending in the bill, also be made available to Fisher Branch Early Years School.
By eliminating the exception of the school board vote taken before January 1, 2008, you will include the Fisher Branch and Ashern Early Years schools in this moratorium. The schools are open; the students and staff are all in place and no money has been spent on renovations to this point.
It appears that our division's focus on autonomy has overshadowed what is most important–our children's education. An amended Bill 28 puts our children first.
Thank you for allowing our parent advisory committee to speak on Bill 28.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Berry.
Are there questions?
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Jennifer, and for the others who've come out. It's always nice to see children in the Legislature. Great to see your daughter here.
If I can just quote a sentence out of your presentation: Any suggestions made to examine alternative uses for vacant space were, to our knowledge, not followed up on. You gave us one example and that was the library. Could you give us some other examples that were used that weren't followed up on?
There was another presenter that talked about replacement costs, that kind of thing. You mentioned, also, thinking outside of the box. We would love to hear at committee what were some of your suggestions, out of the box, that would help to keep the school open. I think we'd really appreciate it.
Ms. Berry: Well, we had many suggestions. I mean, the entire community, any stakeholder, had suggestions. They ranged from closing down the centre location of the main division office and utilizing some additional space in one of the high schools that wasn't being utilized. It would cut down costs. You know, it would just make fiscal sense, especially if we're in such a hard position financially.
We also made many recommendations about approaching Red River College, offering vocational courses, anything to attract our youth to stay, trades courses, mini-university programs. Our children are leaving the communities to further their education after grade 12. It would be excellent to offer something to keep these students at home so they can develop their roots in the community and offer alternatives in the community, as well.
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Thank you, Jennifer, for a very good presentation and for your tireless advocacy on this issue, among others, with the parent advisory committee.
I originally came from Fisher Branch myself and I know how important this school is to the community. I was speaking with a retired teacher just a week or so ago and he made a very relevant point to me how recess and noon hours, every day, you can go out into your yard and you can hear the children laughing and playing and so forth. He said what a void that would leave within the community if that were no longer there, if that were just silence instead.
I really took that to heart and I have to say that all the calls that I've had to my office in this regard have all been definitive in their support to keeping this facility open. Over the months, I have not had one phone call from the opposite camp, so I have to tell you, I am with you in this regard.
I'm a little disconcerted when you commented on the Lakeshore School Division and the public consultation process. I know that when our administration or our staff were in discussions with the administration, they were led to believe that there had been a reversal from the parent advisory committees, and it was on that basis, I think, that the draft was finalized. I would just like you to reiterate that, once again, your feelings on the consultative process and whether you felt you were listened to, your views were taken into consideration and acted upon. If you would, please.
Ms. Berry: Well, we found it very surprising and interesting to read in newspaper publications that the parent advisory council and the community members were on board. We were taken aback. We have not been for this from day one. As some of you may know, Fisher Branch Early Years School is in the heart of our community. There's a beautiful green space. We do not want to see this building closed. Our numbers are staying static. You know, it's not like we have 15 students in our school. We're up to, I believe, 92 and this is a K-to-4 school.
The division has not been very co-operative with us in the fact that there have been meetings slated. There were discussions or consultations, if you may call them that, where we were talked to and not allowed to speak or ask questions at a meeting. It's been a very awkward process. We feel that these guidelines that are currently in place are not adequate, and that's why we're here for Bill 28.
* (10:50)
They made a motion last June to close the school even after all the community members were against the amalgamation or closure. We were told, you know, you have no other choice; this is what we're going to do. The parent advisory council became part of a planning committee for the restructuring of the new school or the existing high school, and we were there for the best interests of our children. We were not there because we embraced the concept with open arms, we were there to keep them in check and make sure that all the i's were dotted, t's were crossed and that our children were taken care of.
Madam Chairperson: One last question.
Mr. Bjornson: Actually, a comment, to just thank you for your presentation and your recommendation. Thank you for your time.
Ms. Berry: Thank you, we hope you've–
Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
Ms. Berry: Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: I would now like to call on Teresa Johnson, Ashern-Moosehorn Parent Advisory Council.
Good morning. Do you have materials to distribute?
Ms. Teresa Johnson (Ashern-Moosehorn Parent Advisory Council): Yes, we do.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you. You may proceed.
Ms. Johnson: Thank you.
Good morning, honourable members. I'd like to begin by thanking you for allowing me to speak with you today. My name is Teresa Johnson. I'm the mother of five children, two attending middle years, one in high school, and I have two pre-schoolers at home.
I've been asked to be the spokesperson on behalf of a group of concerned parents and community members from Ashern, Moosehorn and surrounding areas. We are part of a coalition that includes Fisher Branch, and we have joined together in an effort to save our early years schools in both our communities.
Honourable members, Bill 28 came like a breath of fresh air into our communities and gave us hope that our schools would be saved. We see Bill 28 as an opportunity to stop the forced closures of two wonderful and very necessary early years schools. We commend this government for bringing forward such a bill. There is no parental and community support to close the Ashern Early Years School. To date, we have no confidence in the school division's proposed renovation plan of the high school which minimizes parental concerns about education.
The safety and well-being of the elementary children is not a top priority in the proposed renovation plan and neither is the negative impact on the education of the children on all levels due to overcrowding. The high school was not designed with this type of renovation in mind. We believe the Lakeshore School Division has acted in haste. The school board decided on June 2007 that the Ashern Early Years would close based on projected declining enrolment. At this point in time, I would like to stress that the school enrolment at the Ashern Early Years has not declined as the school board predicted. Yet, the school is still slated for closure. Current enrolment sits at approximately 85 students. The school division refuses to enter into further discussion, and as parents, we have lost confidence in their ability to make decisions that are in the best interests of our children.
In Ashern, a forced closure of the early years school would mean that in 2009 the kindergarten to grade 4 students would be moved to the Ashern High School. When this happens, the elementary-aged children lose their library. The middle and high school aged children would be forced to share gymnasium space with the little children. We would have to put a curtain down the centre of an already small gym to allow two phys ed classes to run simultaneously, surely leading to intolerable distractions and serious safety concerns, keeping in mind the new mandate for grades 11 and 12 physical education.
The playground will be shared, but there is no space to do this safely. The noise of the high school where older children would be studying will increase substantially. We would be reduced from two fully functional science labs to one. Again, we would be reduced from two fully functional computer labs to one. There won't be enough age-appropriate washroom space. There is an increased chance of bullying amongst the older and younger children, the early years children being exposed to inappropriate behaviours. There simply isn't enough physical space to prevent the commingling of students in kindergarten to grade 12–is both inappropriate and unacceptable.
The decision to close down the school was made despite the fact it has been well maintained and, in recent years, received upgrading, including air conditioning, new flooring, recently painted, new playground equipment. Our town has a brand-new day-care system that is currently full and has a waiting list, youngsters who will be entering the school system in the very near future.
Ashern Early Years School is a community school that plays an important role for our community. It brings our children together for learning, but also is a family-based building where numerous community events take place. We have an important breakfast program that feeds children from low-income homes, as well as the F.I.T.S. pre-school program.
Ashern Early Years School has movie night where we bring the new release movies and play them in the gymnasium for kids who don't have the opportunity to travel to a theatre. The school is also used for highland dance, taekwondo, soccer, yoga and for the community health events. There is potential to expand in these activities even further.
If you moved to Ashern and enrolled your children in this school, you would be immediately impressed by the warmth and welcoming feeling that greets you when you walk through the door. The school's mission statement is a healthy, safe and friendly community school. Students, parents and staff are committed to working co-operatively to instil respect and the joy of lifelong learning. Ashern Early Years School supports individual growth, as well as group achievement, because we believe our children are our present and our future. The school slogan: Small School–Big Learning. That's a fact.
Bill 28 is a wonderful bill that protects the educational future of our children in our community. It is positive, proactive and shows foresight on the part of the minister and is essential to enhance rural communities. However, the January 1, 2008 exception date mentioned in the bill means that it will condemn the students in Ashern and Fisher Branch to exactly what your bill is supposed to protect them from.
We respectfully request that you consider amending Bill 28 so that the two schools not included–Ashern and Fisher Branch Early Years schools–be protected under the bill.
This coalition would like to express, once again, that we want to see our schools continue to operate as they have in the past–ensuring that all our children will continue to receive a high-quality education in a safe and secure, wholesome, age-appropriate environment.
In conclusion, we believe an amended Bill 28 will give our schools a second chance. We welcome the opportunity to show Minister Bjornson and your government what a wonderful, viable, community based school we have. We thank you for Bill 28; our community thanks you; our children thank you. Please include us in Bill 28. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
Are there questions?
Mr. Schuler: Yes, thank you very much, Teresa, and thank you to the other parents who came out today. We appreciate your comments.
Teresa, I have one question for you. In any of your discussions with the board, did you talk about any kind of possible alternative uses if you keep the school open, what other things you could be doing in the school to keep the school viable? Did you, as parents, come forward with different suggestions? We would love to hear what those are.
Ms. Johnson: When the school board came to our communities about two years ago to start discussion on this, their approach was one school would be closed. Will it be Moosehorn, or will it be Ashern? It made the two communities at odds. It was not an open dialogue in terms of what can we do. Let's do everything we can to keep our little school open.
* (11:00)
Some of the suggestions were, let's make a four-day week for the children. Can we consolidate having another community-based school coming into our school? But the school board had in their mandate that they were going to close a school. Would it be Moosehorn? Would it be Ashern? It brought the entire dialogue into an odds, two communities against each other. It wasn't until–even though we all stayed on board with the school board to make sure that the children renovating plan would continue, that was not an option for the school division. The school division had decided, we were going to close this school. You tell us which one it's going to be.
Mr. Nevakshonoff: Thank you, Teresa, once again, for your efforts and the efforts of your parent advisory committee in this regard.
As I said to the previous presenter, when you're in a political position, often you're a weather vane in the sense that you get feedback from the community, and as is the case in Fisher Branch, it is, too, in Ashern that my office has received many, many calls from concerned citizens in the Ashern area, calling on us to try and prevent the closure of this school. I have received no calls in favour of that, I have to say, so, in that regard, I would say that the community, from my perception anyway, seems united in keeping this facility open.
Again, when it came to consultations between the department and the division administration regarding consultation with the community and the fact that the parent advisory committees and community members had done a reversal and were now in favour of the closure, would you reiterate your feelings in that regard because that was rather fundamental in the final drafting of this legislation, please.
Ms. Johnson: I just want to stress that our communities were never in agreement with closures of any type. We were led to believe that also the provincial government was on board with the school division to close our schools. We were told that there was a time line that the provincial government wanted our school closed, and that if we didn't participate in the communication with the school division, we felt that our children would have no voice. So we did stay on board to do what was best for our kids, but we were led to believe that the Province was on board with the school division in wanting one of those schools closed.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you.
Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for your presentation.
I would now like to call on Bill Clark, reeve of Rural Municipality of Miniota. Bill Clark, reeve, R.M. of Miniota? Bill Clark will be moved to the bottom of the list.
I would now like to call on Bev Martens who–Beth Martens, who will be speaking on behalf of Mountain View School Division for Floyd Martens, chairperson.
Ms. Beth Geisel (Mountain View School Division): First of all, I'm Beth Geisel, Erna, as you probably know.
I have 20 copies, but the 20th copy is the one I'm reading from.
Madam Chairperson: You may begin, Beth.
Ms. Geisel: Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Minister, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today to share our concerns with respect to Bill 28, The Strengthening Local Schools Act.
Mountain View School Division is concerned that this bill restricts our ability and the ability of school divisions across this province to move forward with systematic changes required as a result of changing demographics and needs within our division.
Since the amalgamation of school divisions in July of 2002, our school division–consisting of seven communities where we have schools, Ochre River, Dauphin, Winnipegosis, Ethelbert, Gilbert Plains, Grandview and Roblin–has been involved in an extensive, long-term planning process that has been thorough, consultative and exhaustive. We have and are continuing to engage our communities as we take steps toward improving our educational system. Our investment of time and resources to the process has been significant. However, with the introduction of this bill, these efforts are potentially being undermined.
The review process that we are currently involved in began with an extensive facility study prepared by our administration in 2003. This report provided detailed information related to the age, condition, size and capacity of all buildings, as well as information related to student population and the corresponding staff complement. The report identified surplus space and any anticipated current or future capital requirements to existing facilities. This initial step was important as it established base-line information for our newly amalgamated board of trustees and provide an inventory of resources for us to plan for the future.
The next step in our planning process was the development of a long-term planning document. The purpose of this document was to establish measurable parameters that could be reviewed regularly to assess when the board may need to review more closely the effectiveness of a particular school. Nine parameters were identified that the board would need to consider prior to placing a school on review. A school would not automatically be placed on review if it did not meet the established benchmark for a particular parameter, rather, it would require the division to investigate more closely the remaining parameters to assess the future viability of that particular school.
In the spring of 2006, Mountain View School Division released its Pathways to Success document outlining many significant issues and possible reconfiguration scenarios inviting in-depth consultation with our Mountain View community. Beginning in October of 2006 and continuing through the fall of 2007, the board conducted two rounds of community consultations and a divisional round table to discuss this document prior to identifying and addressing any necessary recommendations.
A report was released in December of 2007 identifying the board's response to issues raised during the consultation process focussing on some of the common issues raised. Our communities wanted the division to investigate the expanded use of technology to provide necessary programming in our smaller high schools. Our board directed administration to pursue this recommendation, and the result would be harmonized timetables for our high schools by September of 2008 and the development of six new video conference centres in our high schools over the next two years to facilitate the sharing of programming.
The second issue dealt with transportation of students and how our system of transportation could be improved to reduce ride times to less than 60 minutes and to efficiently transport students within the division for programs not offered at their catchment area school. In response to these concerns, the board of trustees has directed administration to initiate an extensive review of our transportation system. A review committee has been established with representation from administrators, bus drivers and the general public with a report coming to the board in October.
Our consultation process continues in the Roblin and Dauphin communities as we attempt to address issues specific to those communities. A report intended to frame future consultation with the Dauphin community is being prepared for circulation next week. However, the introduction of this legislation has caused us to qualify our report as we see it raising some uncertainty of what will or will not be possible should it pass in its current form.
More than anything, this legislation has raised a number of questions for us about our role as school boards. We want to address for you the areas we seek clarity in and the areas we are concerned about as we read this legislation.
* (11:10)
To begin with, the moratorium on school closure outlines scenarios where schools could still be closed providing certain conditions are met. While we are not sure if the two first conditions–41(1.3) (a) and (b)–both need to be met, or if each one could separately trigger the minister allowing a school to close, the legislation does not give any time lines or clarity on what would satisfy the minister that the right conditions have been met. This concerns us, considering part of our building community consensus may require some consolidation of facilities in order to better serve our students.
This also raises the issue of consensus. What constitutes consensus? The legislation identifies the consensus of both parents and residents. What if there is a noticeable difference between parents of children within the school and the community at large? The minister seems to be the one who would have to mediate to determine if consensus has been achieved. Could this be done in a timely manner or would it require extensive work, work that perhaps the school board has already undertaken, in order to satisfy the minister.
Our second concern is in regard to the ministerial regulating of transportation for students. While we are very supportive of reasonable transportation times to and from school for students, the legislation speaks of the minister stepping in to establish compensation rates if they are not met. This proposal seems to be usurping the authority of school boards to meet the transportation needs of students. Further, while reduced transportation times for students is optimal, there are situations where students reside in locations that are a long way from the nearest school, and without significant changes to routes and additional resources to add to bus fleets, the optimal time would be difficult to achieve. Given where people reside, it could mean that divisions could choose not to transport students and give compensation instead because of the impact that picking them up would have on bus ride times for the other students on a given route. However, this potentially raises additional concerns if people were unable to transport their own children.
Our third and last concern has to do with the designation of community schools provided for in the proposed legislation. While we support the establishment of community schools, we have concerns and questions regarding the proposed legislation. What would be the criteria or definition of a community school? How would the resources be allocated for community schools that require extra support to ensure they remain open? Would these resources go directly to the school board to administer, or would they go to the school or community to address these additional expenditures similar to some schools in other provinces? How would those funds be tracked, and would we be establishing a system where some school communities would be funded under FRAME and others under separate designations? We see the potential for communities to opt for the system that best meets their funding needs and not necessarily the educational needs of students.
While we agree that schools make up a vital part of community, legislation which creates a greater link between communities and the minister's department, as opposed to a system requiring dialogue between the local elected school board and the communities it serves, undermines and diminishes the role of school boards. If that is the intent of the legislation, then we see it has the potential to serve that purpose.
Our board and division have undertaken significant involvement of our communities to discuss and address the future of our schools. Together we have taken steps to address difficult issues as a result of years of declining populations with little change to the facilities that serve our students.
As elected school boards, we have an obligation to our communities, our ratepayers and our parents, but, first and foremost, our obligation is to our students. It is a responsibility we take seriously. However, doing what is right for students may not always be seen as being in the best interests of communities, ratepayers or even the parents we serve.
We are hopeful that the Law Amendments review committee will recognize the impact that this legislation will have on an already strained public education system. School boards need to have the ability to make the necessary changes to maintain or improve the overall effectiveness of our division and to adapt our systems to create more successful learners. The current stresses on education funding demands that we address inefficiency so that resources can be located where required.
It is with these concerns in mind that we would ask the government to reconsider the passage of Bill 28 in its current form.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Geisel.
We have questions.
Mr. Bjornson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Geisel.
I appreciate in the presentation the recognition of the efforts of the board to reduce the travel times to 60 minutes. Certainly, we recognize that the legislation is asking boards to make their best efforts to do so. We also recognize that, in some cases, regardless of what you do, there are students that will live more than an hour away from the school. That's part of the realities of living in some of the more isolated areas and communities that people choose to live in. In fact, I was at Peonan Point School yesterday for a graduation where the students travelled in the fall and spring by boat and in the winter by snowmobile to get to school. We recognize that in some of these areas there are different transportation realities.
I just had a question. When you talked about the transportation rates for students, does your division currently compensate parents on a per pupil grant or a kilometre grant or is there another formula that your division might currently use for compensation for parents who transport their students?
Ms. Geisel: We currently transport all our students, so, to be honest with you, if we have an established rate, we're not using it and I'm not aware of it.
Madam Chairperson: Further, Mr. Bjornson?
Mr. Bjornson: Would that rate be, that is established but currently not used, is that per pupil or per kilometre?
Ms. Geisel: I'm sorry, Mr. Bjornson. I'm not aware of what it is.
Mr. Schuler: Beth, sorry, I wasn't here for the beginning of your presentation.
I did, however, want to quote something out of your presentation: ". . . first and foremost our obligation is to the students." Could you kind of give us, very briefly, your feelings on–we've heard it now from other presenters–there seems to be this difficulty with programs and staffing, that it's not just the funding issue which is–one of the things I've been asking, if you had more money, would that make it easier to keep the school open? There seems to be a theme here about programs and staffing. How do you deal with those two issues to get appropriate staffing and provide the kind of program that you'd like for the children?
Ms. Geisel: Thank you for your question.
Money doesn't always answer all the questions, as one of the previous presenters indicated from Park West, Ms. Clement, that just as big an issue for us is finding the appropriate staffing and the appropriate people to fill those positions because staffing is becoming more and more of an issue in our small schools.
One of the ways that we tried to address the staffing issue to create quality and viable programming to our high school students, as I indicated in our presentation, was to set up video conferencing. We have yet to see how well that will work for high school students because video conferencing may only work for a certain type of student. It is not a viable option for a kindergarten child. It's not viable for a grade 5 child to set up video conferencing. It's important to have children in school with children. Does money fix all of the problem? Not all of it. There are other issues besides just money.
Madam Chairperson: Further, Mr. Schuler.
Mr. Schuler: I just want to say thank you for coming out on a beautiful Saturday and presenting and giving us your view and your board's thoughts.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Geisel.
Ms. Geisel: Thank you. Do you want the 20th copy? Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: The next person I have is Ed Lelond, private citizen. I will call on Ed Lelond, private citizen. Ed Lelond will be moved to the bottom of the list.
I will now call on Shonda Ashcroft, Birtle and District Community Development Corporation. I will call on Shonda Ashcroft. Shonda Ashcroft will be moved to the bottom of the list.
I will now call on Craig Whyte, Kenton Community School. Do you have materials for distribution? Thank you. You may begin your presentation.
* (11:20)
Mr. Craig Whyte (Kenton Community School): Just as soon as my knees stop knocking.
Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 28.
First, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Craig Whyte from Kenton, naturally. I've been actively involved in the Kenton community for over 35 years. My wife and I have three children, all of whom attended Kenton School. During those years, I was involved with the Kenton School Parent Advisory Council and served as chair for several of those years.
I would like to begin our presentation by stating that our community supports Bill 28. Manitoba is the last province to introduce this type of legislation, and we realize the implications of the bill are vastly different as you move from a large urban setting, down the line until you get to the real small schools like Kenton.
We do not pretend to know how it affects these larger centres, but we know that it's very helpful for our community. We are not naive enough to think that it is a saviour for communities like Kenton. It is, at best, a lifeline and a step in the right direction.
In our presentation we talk about the implications for our school. As you move through the province, the name may change but the situation remains the same. So, in a way, when we say Kenton, we speak for many small schools. The name may be different, but the numbers and the problems are similar.
For example, rural depopulation, we live it. I've operated a business in Kenton for over 35 years and I've seen a constantly expanding trading area as farms have gotten large and competition has dwindled due to lack of customers. My eldest child was the first baby on our street in 30 years, so we know what rural depopulation is.
You have a choice, shrivel up and blow away like dust in the constant prairie winds or fight. We choose to fight. In the last 10 years there's been well over $1.25 million in commercial investment in a community with no government jobs other than a post office. We have three housing starts and a housing subdivision starting this year. It's not much for some places, but big time stuff in Kenton. This doesn't sound like another dying farm community to me.
With the introduction of Bill 28, many school boards feel this is another government intrusion into their territory. Thus, we beg to ask the question. Do we still need school boards? Are they relevant? In most cases we would have to say yes, but they must listen to the ratepayers and the parents of their division.
Park West is the result of an amalgamation of Bird Tail River and Pelly Trail, which took place in 2002, and has struggled ever since to move past old division boundaries. Since the amalgamation, because of our size, we've been treated like the ugly stepsister. New textbooks, we don't get them. New school software, not for Kenton. The front of our school still says Bird Tail River even though it ceased to exist six years ago.
Bill 28 would hopefully eliminate or alter the review process. Ah, yes, the review process. We certainly have first-hand experience with that beast. When our school was placed under review in June of 2006, one of our parents asked, is there any hope for our school? The Park West CAO replied, no, your school will close in June of 2008 and, hopefully, in June of 2007. When asked about an appeal process, he replied, you appeal to us. So much for that process. Our review process has looked, at times, more like a Monty Python skit than a process to determine whether this school still functions properly.
Back to Bill 28. When presented on April 28, the bill talks of keeping little kids at home and cutting bus times. It speaks of alternative uses for buildings, such as day cares and libraries to make better use of facilities. We may have to file for copyright infringement, because on March 19 our presentation to the Park West board proposed, K to 5 with the introduction of a day care to make better use of the space. In a way, a school for little people.
Another area of concern in our presentation was time spent by little children on buses. If our school were to close, some of our children may spend the same amount of time on a bus during their school day as it took us to drive to Winnipeg, three hours. This is not exactly conducive to a good learning environment.
There would seem to be an area in Bill 28 that may be problematic for small schools. This would be staffing. We can have all the legislation in the world in place, but it does not stop school divisions from doing an end run to close schools. Staffing them to formula and starve them to death. The board doesn't have to close the school. The parents vote with their feet, mission accomplished. Another one bites the dust.
Oh, yes, the dreaded staff divisor. In our school for 2008-2009, we're budgeted for 1.25 teachers for 16 children. This allotment includes admin, resource and teaching time. Where is the quality of education in this scenario, and what about the human rights of our children? But there's your end run.
There has to be a realization that, if there is a will to keep small schools alive, this needs to be addressed. I recently had a lengthy discussion with a gentleman who chaired a neighbouring school division for 11 years and was also vice-chair of the Public Schools Finance Board. This is someone who knows of what he speaks. His feeling was that when schools fall below the 30 to 40 benchmark the divisor needs to disappear and they should be staffed to a level that is workable for quality education. In a school like ours this top-up of half to three-quarters of a teacher, and with a $17‑million Park West budget, amounts to a measly 0.2 percent.
Back to Kenton, we have a facility that's in very good shape physically and is not expensive to operate. It would be quite easy to introduce learning through technology. We have an urgent need for a day care. We have a need for a library. We have a desire to keep our small children at home in their early years rather than shipping them off on a bus to another community.
Is it a crime to fight to save small schools by providing things for our children that other communities enjoy simply based on numbers and a few dollars? There has to be a realization that bigger is not necessarily better. The one point I will guarantee is that bigger will simply accelerate rural depopulation.
Once again, I need to reiterate when I say Kenton. You can substitute one of many small schools in its place. These schools are all special and need to be treated as such. There needs to be a mechanism either through consultation with the school divisions or direct funding whereby these schools get the needed staffing. As I stated previously, they usually don't need much. Usually one-half to one teacher and this is not a huge investment in our rural lifestyle.
In the final analysis, it's about the kids. The money saved in closing a school like Kenton is insignificant, but what is the cost of putting a five-year-old kindergarten student on a bus for two to three hours per day? What is the cost to the parents and community? We propose the time has come to think outside the box. Small schools and small communities can survive and thrive. They are capable of doing many things to make the community successful, but we need you to step up to make this bill work properly.
As we stated previously, it may be direction for the board or direct funding earmarked for these schools. We are not asking for handouts. We're asking you to say yes to small communities, small schools and our most precious resource, our small children.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
We have questions.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Thanks very much, Craig, for coming and making your presentation today.
As well, I appreciate the outcomes that have taken place since I saw you last, I believe. Can you outline for us–I know you've outlined the teachers' situation that you're looking at for the coming year. Is there anything else in that area that would enhance the school in Kenton in regard to the K to 5? I understand it will be there, plus I understand the day care will be allowed to use the space in the school.
Mr. Whyte: The only thing we really need–
Madam Chairperson: Excuse me, I need to call your name first.
Mr. Whyte: Sorry. I'm new at this. The only thing we really need is to be funded properly because the day care–there are already people lining up to get in. We've got a stable student body that want to have a small school. We think it's a very interesting–call it a pilot, for lack of a better term. Rural population isn't going to go away and what we've seen, if anything, we're hoping it's bottomed out and stabilized. It may slightly increase. We've noticed the activity in our community and–there are cornerstones to your school, or to your community. One of them is the school, one is the business, the church, et cetera, and you need them all and they all function together but we need the funding.
* (11:30)
I realize what the boards are saying, too. This is where somewhere there has to be some type of mechanism put in place. It was Dick Heppe that I talked to about this. He has a lot of school board experience. He said, once you get into that 30 to 40 range, divisors have to disappear. You have to fund it for what works. I'm not saying you put four–in our case, half teachers. Not a huge amount. That's what'll make it work.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Whyte, for your presentation.
Mr. Whyte: Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Larry Oakden, private citizen. Larry Oakden. Larry Oakden will be moved to the bottom of the list.
I would like to call on Debby Lee, private citizen. Do you have materials for distribution?
Ms. Debby Lee (Private Citizen): No. I was in Winnipeg yesterday when I found out about this and they're back in Strathclair. That's why I'm dressed like this as well.
Madam Chairperson: Ms. Lee, you may commence.
Ms. Lee: Good day, members of the panel, Honourable Minister.
The communities of Strathclair and Newdale applaud you. We have read in the papers and have heard on the radio some of the negative feedback you have taken over this bill and the moratorium on school closures. We support Bill 28. The school boards need to listen to the public's concern and then steer administration in the appropriate directions. The public is fully aware of the financial demands by the division.
My name is Debby Lee. I'm here as a parent, concerned community citizen and a recently resigned trustee of Park West School Division. As I said, my copies for the panel are, unfortunately, back in Strathclair. I can e‑mail them, if you wish, on Monday.
My understanding is that this is a temporary moratorium. It will, at least, allow the communities that attend the Strathclair Community School, a K-12 facility with 187 students, where no space is left unused, with time to decide on a course of action.
Currently, in our division, some early years learning assistant resources have been limited to us because of low enrolment. The course that I am most concerned about is Reading Recovery, that we have a qualified teacher on our staff. The program has been stopped.
Question one: Is it allowable for school-parent advisory groups to raise money to pay for the program privately? It seems criminal to stop a child's progress in reading when a community is willing to raise the funds to assist this problem.
Question two: The Public Schools Finance Board has limited funds to cover much-needed repair costs or new projects on improving school use. If a community is willing to assist in the cost of repairing a building–I'll give an example: A gym wall that, for 15 years, has moved every time the big high school boys run into it–are they allowed to do so?
Question three: If a school, because of declining enrolment, or if the division has chosen to raise the divisor of teacher-student ratio, half of their teaching staff numbers reduced, can school communities raise funds to pay privately for an additional teaching staff to assist in the curriculum?
Question four: Currently, some children attending the Strathclair Community School are riding the bus for 70 minutes one way. Since there are no closer facilities, how will this time limit of 60 minutes affect them? Will the time spent riding in a school bus become a written-in-stone rule after the moratorium is over?
All these situations affect whether a parent may continue to send their child to a particular school. These situations can be greatly influenced by a school board who is either willing to keep a school open, or trying to enhance its demise.
Park West has already done this with their proposal of going down from two high schools to six high schools. Some see it as a done deal.
School boards can cause uncertainty in a school's survival. Much like the Survivor TV program, whose torch will next be extinguished? Thank you for your time.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you.
We have questions.
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much for coming today, and I'm glad you happened to be in the city when you found out about the committee. I can assure you, we don't look at what you wear. We actually listen to what you say and appreciate that very much.
We would be very interested in knowing from you–and you gave completely new ideas and some things for us to think about–about what community involvement should be or could be. Any other ideas of what could possibly be placed into school to make it viable? Have you, as a community, sort of talked about that? We certainly would love to hear any ideas. Thanks for coming.
Ms. Lee: One of the things that actually a member of our R.M.–and we have three R.M.s that affect our community school plus the First Nations–had said, there's an intercampus busing program right now that occurs between Strathclair and Shoal Lake schools so they in effect sort of share a joint campus. Some courses are taught in one, some the other–just you have greater class numbers.
There has been a concern that the intercampus should be stopped because of costs. Our R.M. has offered to put money toward that cost. I don't know whether that will affect their decision or not.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee: Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: I will now call on Jim Murray, Brandon School Division. Do you have materials to distribute?
You may start at your convenience.
Mr. Jim Murray (Brandon School Division): Thank you. Good morning, honourable members of this committee and Mr. Minister.
On behalf of the board of trustees of the Brandon School Division, I thank the committee for the opportunity to make our presentation on Bill 28. The Public Schools Act sets forth the powers and responsibilities of school boards. Our board approaches its decision making with a clear view of its primary obligations and responsibilities, namely, to provide our students with the best possible education; to prepare our students to be contributing members of society; to be as fair as reasonably possible to our employees and to afford them the best possible security and working conditions in their employment within our financial resources; and to ensure local taxpayers and the community receive the best possible value for their investment in the education system.
In fulfilling these responsibilities, the division is guided by an overriding theme of support to students and fairness to all.
The division provides educational and supportive services to approximately 7,000 students in 22 schools, three of which are in the rural area surrounding the city of Brandon. The division's current budget totals $59.3 million. There are over 1,000 employees, with a total payroll and employee benefit cost of $49.8 million. It is the division's primary responsibility to allocate human resources throughout its facilities in the most effective and efficient manner to meet the varied needs of the young people in our schools as best possible within its financial resources.
It is within the context of the foregoing that our board makes this presentation. There are aspects of Bill 28 that are of concern to our board. Our board believes that the legislative changes proposed by The Strengthening Local Schools Act will not benefit school divisions or students in small schools nor would we consider it as The Strengthening Local Schools Act. We hope the committee will recognize the validity of our concerns.
School closings. Our board is aware of the vital role schools play in any community and are aware of the effect a school closure has on a community. Our division fully involves the school and local community in any review of continuation of a school's operation. There are several factors that ultimately determine the viability of continuing a school's operation: declining public enrolment across Manitoba; the ability to provide resources to meet the educational needs of compulsory, optional and extracurricular programs made available to students; the ongoing operating and capital costs of maintaining school buildings.
* (11:40)
Our board fully supports after-school usage and the use of surplus space in our school buildings by community groups. However, it is necessary these groups such as day cares, senior groups or other non-profit organizations contribute the appropriate share of the building operation and maintenance costs as school divisions require that all funds received from the provincial government and local taxpayers be allocated for educational purposes.
An item not referenced in Bill 28 is the provision of additional funding from the Public Schools Finance Board to maintain school buildings in operation as a result of a moratorium on school closures. This is of particular note by our division, as our latest school closure was, to a large extent, a result of the Public Schools Finance Board's refusal to fund required upgrades and renovations to the building. How is this matter being financially supported by the provincial government under Bill 28?
From past experience in our school division, an enrolment of 200-plus students is required as a critical number to adequately provide the necessary programming. For in-city schools, the ability to consolidate classes to provide a critical mass is required and is interpreted as to what consolidation, stated in Bill 28, is intended to allow. This is more difficult to address in rural communities where there is only one school. Presently, our division provides approximately 4.4 teaching positions over the eligible ratio calculation at a cost of $309,000 to address enrolment issues. If the moratorium on school closures is enacted, additional provincial funding must be provided to fully support this initiative in order that school boards can continue to provide their current resources for programs and services for all students in the division.
It is the position of our board that the local board of trustees should retain the ability and authority to determine school closures, being the elected body most closely affected by the decision. Boards take these school reviews very seriously and fully involve the parents and communities in the decision-making process. Currently there are guidelines in place to fully involve the community in school closure review, and there is a 20-month requirement giving notice of a school closure. Our board feels this to be reasonable and acceptable in consideration of this matter.
In conclusion at this point, our board is disappointed that the consultation process requested by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees at their annual convention regarding the school closures review process was not undertaken prior to introduction of Bill 28. This is a very important matter to school divisions and local communities requiring local consultation and discussions. It was our understanding that the provincial government and/or Manitoba Education were going to provide public consultation in consideration of school-closure guidelines and legislation before it was submitted to the provincial Legislature. As a result, it is uncertain as to the basis the provincial government is considering related to Bill 28.
As to transportation times, our division supports Bill 28 in relation to having a school board use its best efforts to ensure a pupil's one-way travel time to his or her designated school is not longer than one hour and giving boards a five-year period to comply with this directive. Our board presently has a policy requiring our best attempts to having one-way travel time be a maximum of one hour. Again, to meet the proposed timelines, as legislated, may require school divisions to increase the number of routes and acquire more school buses. If divisions are required to incur these costs, additional provincial support is also required so the division will not need to diminish spending on educational programs and services.
The Brandon School Division has a major issue regarding transportation of students and its relationship to school closures. Currently, there are divisions entering neighbouring divisions to transport students under school-of-choice legislation when, in fact, they are not eligible for transportation under this legislation. This action is further endangering the viability of small rural schools and must be stopped. With the introduction of Bill 28 and the Province's concern with the closure of small schools, this matter needs to be addressed by the provincial government.
Our recommendations, then: That Bill 28 not be enacted and school divisions continue to maintain the autonomy regarding school closures after formal review involving parents and the local community.
If Bill 28 does receive government approval: That the regulations referenced in section 41(1.5) be expedited and the school closure moratorium be discontinued; that the provincial government and/or Manitoba Education provide full additional financial support for small school operations and capital maintenance improvements for community, non-divisional use of school facilities, for additional school bus purchases and operations; that divisions not be allowed to enter a neighbouring division to provide school-of-choice bus transportation unless mutually agreed to by each board of trustees; that schools be allowed to close within 12 months' notice if there is consensus among the parents and residents of the area served by the school.
In conclusion, the division's board of trustees has the responsibility to use its resources to provide the best possible education to all of its students. Small schools and school closures are a serious consideration in this regard, specifically in meeting the expectations of the provincial government and Manitoba Education in reference to the limitation of the accumulated surplus a division can maintain and divisions being strongly encouraged to hold the line on local school division property taxes.
Mr. Minister, I would like to say that its been a pleasure to be here today, but it hasn't. Our appearance here was unnecessary, as this piece of legislation should never have been brought forward. Bill 28 will not strengthen local schools. It will do the opposite. It will cost students educational opportunities. It will prove costly to taxpayers in the province of Manitoba and it will weaken the ability of school divisions to provide adequate services and programs.
This bill disrespects trustees in this province and disregards the trust placed in us by our local electorate, and there is very little that we see in this bill that could be confused for democracy or the democratic process. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Murray, for your presentation.
We have questions.
Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Jim, for coming in this morning. I appreciate your presentation to committee, and, on page 3, I mean, this is the kind of thing that I think the committee has some concern with.
I'll quote out of your presentation: "a result of the Public Schools Finance Board's refusal to fund required upgrades and renovations to the building." We've had other presenters come forward and say, well, actually it's not just a funding issue, it's also staff and programming, and I think what we are starting to see is a pattern develop that, yes, staffing is an issue, you know, proper programming is an issue but there's also the other component and that is funding for small scho