Bluewater District School Board (BWDSB) still has no new budget.

Education

(continued)

Bluewater District School Board (BWDSB) still has no new budget.

The Board of Trustees refused to approve the budget as submitted at its meeting Tuesday, June 2nd in Chesley.

The preliminary budget set out the percentages where funds are supposedly to be allocated. As might be expected the largest piece of the pie, 84 per cent, goes toward salaries and benefits with the following breakdown for other areas: transportation 7.44%, plant supplies/contracts 4.88%, debt - classroom computers 1.09%, debt-administration 0.37% and finally discretionary spending 1 .79%.

Because new collective agreements have been negotiated through 2012, the salaries and benefits portion is fixed however, administration staff was asked by the Trustees at the last meeting to bring forward a list of areas where potential reductions could be made.

Among those suggested are: a reduction in mileage reimbursement from .42 cents to .41; a potential reduction in supply teachers; reducing the deficit payment from $1.0 million to $.5 million; a reduction in funding for staff development; school budgets reduction equal to the textbooks grant reduction; a reduction in math/literacy contact teachers; removable of some portable class facilities; plant operations reduction; reduction in supplies/services in non-school areas; one tech centre; ICT cutbacks; reduction in printing costs including the removal of individual printers except for department needs for specialty printing. Despite all the proposed areas, there would still be a deficit of $-657,954 according to the figures presented.

Several Trustees however, were not happy with the proposed list nor the way the money is being spent.

Trustee John Chapman of Hanover said that he was not prepared to approve the budget. "I am not anywhere near approving this budget. This was run off at 2:26 p.m. yesterday [Monday] and we need to work from this? I am committed to processing and previewing the budget. We've talked about the spending between elementary and secondary systems and taking people out of the elementary. I am concerned about further erosion in the elementary system and I am having trouble with that."

He went on to say that he wanted to know how the decisions the Trustees make will impact the system, staff, school and students, now and in the future. "I do not want any September surprises. I need this information and I just can't cope with all this "stuff" [referring to the financial package handout]. I need to see specifics spelled out and how each impacts the system. "It's very easy to robotically approve $185 million but there are 2000 employees and all the students to consider. Sure we could wrap this up and approve the budget but I need to see more in the areas that are impacting directly on students. I want to see the application of the consultative process we've been talking about and how it impacts education and our kids. Please do not bring the financial 'stuff' to us with only 24 hours notice ... it is very frustrating."

Trustee and Vice-Chair of the Board, Jan Johnstone from Kincardine & Huron-Kinloss also had some very definite views on the budget. "I would like to know how many people do not have a full-time contract, and it could be across all different areas such as consultants, people who are not covered under collective agreements, etc. We have people doing all kinds of things and we can't afford these people. I want to protect the staff we have and give the students the services they need and deserve. There are all kinds of people who are costing us a lot of money. I agree with John [Chapman] and Ross [King]. I want to see a complete list of consultants."

Johnstone also added that she, too, did not want to see dollars taken from areas that impact students directly. "...where I am going as Trustee is that some things are really important to students, such as Science Fairs. They make school part of what it is and it's for students that I am going to be here representing them. Why don't we take money from areas such as professional development for teachers that don't impact the kids."

Johnston also questioned the monies received from the government. "Let me get this straight," she said. "We are to achieve a certain standard and the government gives us the dollars to achieve that standard. Then, why, are we consistently going over what we are given? We cannot afford to keep this up."

Jan Johnstone then asked again if those Math/Literacy teachers are funded by grants. Ross King also asked what would happen to the positions if those teachers were removed. "Maybe," said Johnstone, "we need to look at some people we are paying and say we don't need them."

(next column)

04/06/2009 09:37 PM

 One of the questions raised was that of the contact teachers for math/literacy in the schools. Marnie Coke, Superintendent of Elementary Education, explained there is a contact teacher in every elementary school. "We suggest taking one of those positions out and creating a lead teacher in each of the four new areas."

Director, Mary Ann Alton, felt that she thought it very important for the Trustees to think about that in elementary schools. The Secondary Student Success program has made a huge difference. A lead person makes a huge difference for a principal. If we lose one of our leadership positions, very quickly a lot of our investment we had made will dissipate."

In addition, the proposed cuts to the IT departments raised many questions and concerns. IT Department Manager, Michael Morgan, said that the board currently follows a five-year 'refresh' to the system. "The standard is actually three years," he said. "If you are looking at moving to a six of seven year policy, our repair costs would go up dramatically. When I came into the position, our repairs costs were over $300,000 and now we are under $190,000. It's not only the repairs costs we have to look at," he went on, "thre would also be considerable down-times involved and over the long term that will continue to escalate our deficit."

The trend today, Morgan explained is to greater access to higher bandwidth for teachers and
students. "My crystal ball," he pointed out, "is saying that we [Bluewater] are actually going in reverse. The Ministry is after us to archive all communications between schools and the communities, etc. Well, storage alone takes three days to back up. When we moved here [the new administration building], we put in a great data centre but we still have to have the back-up system at OSCVI in Owen Sound."

At the end of the day, Trustee Ross King expressed that he definitely did not want to see a Tech Centre removed. "If I had to choose between the Tech Centre that directly affects students or a contact teacher, I would choose the Tech Centre."

"I agree with that," said Chapman.

"Perhaps, we could look at alternatives," said Alana Murray, Superintendent of Secondary Education. "We might consider reducing the two-year program to one and going from four centres to three."

"We need a really good handle on Tech Centres and we should come back with a detailed report," added Alton.

"Well, I would have to know exactly what it looks like. We have been down this road before with the gifted program (T.R.A.I.L.)," stressed Johnstone. "We were told there would be alternatives in place and then we find out the program has been cut, almost."

The budget is to be brought back to the June 16 meeting of the board.

"Between now and June 16th," said Chapman, "I would like to see a more comprehensive and better laid-out format for the budget. I also feel we need our Union and Federation partners to be at that meeting. I would like their involvement and question that they might have and how things will roll out and impact the system. I think it's part of the consultative process and is a reflection of true partnership and transparency."

"I think it's a little late in the year for that," said Trustee Margaret Gaviller.

New Trustee, Paul Wehrle, said that at least the Board was getting to a more manageable figure. "I would just throw out a couple of things," he offered. "There is definitely a crunch on. Can we really afford 4,000 new computers this year or can we defer them for a year. Are there other things that we could possibly defer also? Sometimes, there are some things that are simply not affordable immediately."

"I suggest we have another budget meeting prior to the budget approval meeting," suggested King. "Our senior staff will filter to us information in a timely fashion and our Union and Federation partners should be involved at that meeting."

Chair, Jennifer, Yenssen, suggested instead having an extended meeting on June 16th. "We would have to have a special meeting anyway after that to approve [the budget]."

"Well, it wouldn't be the first time that a Board has had to meet in July," said Trustee John Chapman
for world news, books, sports, movies ...