Halifax District Parent Teacher Association

Statements:
1. 57,000 students represented by a single school board is unreasonable, unmanageable and defeats the department's mandate to build stronger parent/community partnerships.

2. The white paper supports quality education for all students in Nova Scotia and we support this view. To deliver such an important principle it is essential boards are efficient, effective, and function in a simple, clear, and concise fashion. The critical mass of 12,000 allows for this process to occur. The number of 57,000 students as an acceptable ceiling for critical mass prevents the objectives of the white paper from being achieved. It has been proven across the country that large boards are mistakes and often are downsized to manageable numbers.

3. We recommend that the department of education give the metro boards the same opportunity the department had to develop its position and that is.........TIME.........time to meet and discuss a third option. It is clear you have a deadline, however, there is no logical reason the concept of the white paper could not continue and allow the three boards to meet and propose a third option.

4. In reality, the public education system has been, and continues to be, limited by decreased funding over the last five years. The boards have been having to do with less. Forcing amalgamation at such a time will not improve the system, but will create additional burdens and confusion within an already stressed system.

5. The white paper, as it pertains to the three metro boards, presents an overwhelming threat to the unique programs that have taken years to develop. If amalgamation, as proposed now, is put into action then you are preventing any board across the province from experiencing the same opportunities the metro boards have developed. It is essential all boards be given the resources and support to achieve excellence. You do not accomplish this by aiming for the lowest common denominator.

   WHAT A SAD DAY FOR EDUCATION IN NOVA SCOTIA TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST OF STANDARDS!

6. Problems have been identified in many of the smaller, rural areas of the province, recognizing that they are too small to sustain an acceptable level of service to the students on their own through no fault of their own. These areas are recognized as prime candidates for amalgamation and should be addressed as a priority. Therefore, we fail to see the logic in targeting Metro as one of the first amalgamations to occur, after establishing the Acadian Francophone board for legal reasons (which incidentally can be done without the other amalgamation). In Antigonish you alluded to the fact that there would be substantial savings by amalgamating the three boards in this area (e.g. one C.E.O. and administrative staff instead of three would equate to 3,000 computers for the province, or an additional teacher in every other school in the province.... as if you really thought that one of the current administrations could actually handle the needs of over 57,000 students).

   Is the money being saved a priority? (Yes or No)?

   If Yes, then will the "savings" from declining levels of education for Metro students stay within the proposed new board, or will it be distributed among other boards in the province?

   If No (money is not the priority), then how can you justify compromising the future of Metro students , who have unique requirements that most rural boards do not have (ESL, Inner City initiatives, etc.), merely for the sake of change? You stated that "if someone tells me we're doing alright; leave us alone, I'll tell them that your neighbour isn't...". Assuming that you are not totally ignorant of the unique educational issues in Metro, it is most disappointing to hear you intentionally deceive the public in various forums across the province, by promising a better quality of education for their areas by "sharing the wealth" of Metro savings when you know, in fact, there are no savings to be realized.

7. Given the time frame set by government for boards to propose a THIRD OPTION it is clear OPTION THREE is a RED HERRING designed for government to appear to be FAIR ,REASONABLE AND DEMOCRATIC. If, indeed, government wants public input the deadline must be extended. How can any body, EVEN GOVERNMENT, expect groups to attain wide consensus while developing a 'NEW BOARD STRUCTURE ' IN LESS THAN 7 WEEKS?---------------

   The question begs to be asked:

   IF THE PUBLIC IS EXPECTED TO CREATE A DIVERSE AND EXCITING NEW EDUCATION STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO FULFILL THE NEEDS FACING NOVA SCOTIA'S EDUCATION SYSTEM THEN WHY DID IT TAKE GOVERNMENT A YEAR TO DEVELOP THIS DOCUMENT?

   WHY? BECAUSE IT DOES TAKE TIME!!!!

                       TIME to gather data;
                       TIME to consult students;
                       TIME to consult parents;
   	            TIME to consult teachers;
                       TIME to become team players;
                   and TIME to aim for the same star.
   

GIVE US THE SAME COURTESY AND RESPECT YOU REQUIRED. BE FAIR, BE REASONABLE, BE DEMOCRATIC..........GIVE US TIME !!!!!!