Calgary schools

[GGG]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If some of the issues are:

• more schools needed (costs money)
• more teachers needed for those new schools (costs money)
• support staff for the new schools (costs money)

How do you suggest those issues get resolved without more money.

More schools aren't needed.

The location of the current schools is not ideal and requires the bussing of children to schools with space in them.

More teachers could easily be added and I would definately support that. One thing I think the CBE could do significantly better is reducing their overhead. I don't have the stat handy but half of their staff aren't teachers and compared to the Catholic board it was a really high ratio of support to teachers. They need to do a better job in this area.

A teacher probably costs somewhere around 120k per year so adding 1000 more teachers which is about a 3% increase would only cost 120 million and would likely reduce class size by about 1 student a class at a cost of about $30 a per citizen or $100 per family. I think keeping capital costs down by using existing resources and bussing and increasing teacher numbers is a good solution.

[puckedoff]

It seems that a part of the class size issue here (and from what I had read on the BC teacher's strike) is due to kids with special needs etc requiring more of the teacher's attention and time.
In my school years the kids with special needs had their own classroom, why is this no longer the approach?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The very best plan here would have been to not rebuild the school and move the kids to the other underutilized schools in the area. Total cost ~0, or maybe the cost of adding a few portables.

But we can't let things like efficiency and logic get in the way of pandering to wealthy neighbourhoods and politics now can we.

Property values in the area would have decreased without the school leading to reduced property tax revenue.

So, no, the total cost would not have been ~$0.

That's not to say that rebuilding wasn't still more expensive (I don't know which would have been more), but this flaw which underpins your sensationalist rhetoric deserves noting.

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The very best plan here would have been to not rebuild the school and move the kids to the other underutilized schools in the area. Total cost ~0, or maybe the cost of adding a few portables.

But we can't let things like efficiency and logic get in the way of pandering to wealthy neighbourhoods and politics now can we.

...Except that insurance proceeds of over $10 million can only be collected if the school is rebuilt. But don't let things like facts and reality get in the way of your bitterness.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

...Except that insurance proceeds of over $10 million can only be collected if the school is rebuilt. But don't let things like facts and reality get in the way of your bitterness.

Are you sure about that? There is a cash settlement option in the case that you don't rebuild or replace...

I'm not saying that they should've rebuilt or not because I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that insurance would be a deciding factor.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

...Except that insurance proceeds of over $10 million can only be collected if the school is rebuilt. But don't let things like facts and reality get in the way of your bitterness.

Insurance almost always has a cash value option. Unless you have details of this specific claim/policy you could link?

Also, to those who said the students were relocated and it was more expensive than it should have been, I have two questions.
1) Why couldn't that be the permanent solution?
2) If the CBE bungled that project, why isn't it likely they're bungling this decision as well?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Property values in the area would have decreased without the school leading to reduced property tax revenue.

So, no, the total cost would not have been ~$0.

That's not to say that rebuilding wasn't still more expensive (I don't know which would have been more), but this flaw which underpins your sensationalist rhetoric deserves noting.

Actually, the existing tax burden would have just been very slightly redistributed. The mill rate is set to divide the total required taxes among the total property assessments. So a change in assessments doesn't change the amount of tax collected.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Well I guess that depends on what your opinions are about the greater good and how much responsibility we all share in having a prosperous society. Should I subsidize seniors if I'm not one myself? Should I pay into that new interchange if I don't drive? Should my taxes support a community rink if I don't play hockey? Chances are at some point in your life you benefit more than you put in, and vice versa. At one point when you were in school, someone was subsidizing your education too, just like are subsidizing the next generation now.



What if it was an across the board increase to fund education (not a set rate, but percentage based)? Calgary, compared to a lot of other cities in Canada and the USA, has really low property taxes...and lower taxes tend to mean lower levels of service. Would people support higher taxes if it meant that we'd have a better education system and a better educated society? An educated population tends to be a great investment for a country, as in the end produce more tax income than those with lower education levels.

You were proposing isolating one community and have them make more taxes than yourself. That's where I have a problem, taxes should be the same throughout the whole city. I have no problem paying taxes to go to things I don't use. Just don't expect me to pay higher taxes just because I live in a certain community.

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Insurance almost always has a cash value option. Unless you have details of this specific claim/policy you could link?

Also, to those who said the students were relocated and it was more expensive than it should have been, I have two questions.
1) Why couldn't that be the permanent solution?
2) If the CBE bungled that project, why isn't it likely they're bungling this decision as well?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...856/story.html

"The CBE’s report to trustees says any insurance settlement can only be used to replace the Elbow Park facility."

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Fire

As long as people without children can opt out.

I don't plan on ever having kids and I think opting out of paying my fair share on schools is ridiculous. What kind of country do you want to have? Those little hellions are going to be running the show one day!

[taco.vidal]

Inclusiveness!

Originally Posted by puckedoff

It seems that a part of the class size issue here (and from what I had read on the BC teacher's strike) is due to kids with special needs etc requiring more of the teacher's attention and time.
In my school years the kids with special needs had their own classroom, why is this no longer the approach?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

It seems that a part of the class size issue here (and from what I had read on the BC teacher's strike) is due to kids with special needs etc requiring more of the teacher's attention and time.
In my school years the kids with special needs had their own classroom, why is this no longer the approach?

I don't remember how special needs students were handled when I was in elementary but in Junior High we had two classes of special needs students. We had a range of inclusion for this students into the regular classrooms. In some subject areas some of the students were incorporated into the regular programs while other students remained in their special needs program. I believe it was all handled on a case by case basis.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...856/story.html

"The CBE’s report to trustees says any insurance settlement can only be used to replace the Elbow Park facility."

That article also seems to call that into question though in the very next paragraph. It could be one of those things where you would need to see the actual contract.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...856/story.html

"The CBE’s report to trustees says any insurance settlement can only be used to replace the Elbow Park facility."

From the same article:

John Deausy, chairman of the Urban Schools Insurance Consortium that covers CBE properties and those of 13 other Alberta school districts, says their policy wording allows boards to use any proceeds to renovate, rebuild at the existing site or to construct a facility on another property

.

So they could use the money to add capacity at other schools in the area to accomodate the displaced children, and/or build somewhere else such as following their "most needed" list from their capital plan.

I don't have a dog in this fight, since I don't live in this neighbourhood and my neighbourhood has a school, but this seems like a pretty big waste of money to me, and inefficiency annoys me as a taxpayer.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Actually, the existing tax burden would have just been very slightly redistributed. The mill rate is set to divide the total required taxes among the total property assessments. So a change in assessments doesn't change the amount of tax collected.

As an aside, very interesting. That makes sense.

[Calgary14]

Prentice announced some more new schools today.....but no details on what communities are getting them....anyone know what communities will get them?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ince-1.2792837

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

Prentice announced some more new schools today.....but no details on what communities are getting them....anyone know what communities will get them?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ince-1.2792837

I don't know off hand, but the CBE does have a list of communities that they have prioritized so theoretically it would follow that (for the CBE portion anyway).

[Calgary14]

It looks like CTV has a detailed Calgary listing

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/premier-an...ools-1.2045557

[stampsx2]

I think it's time the federal government starts looking at provincial and municipal population trends instead of allocating money based on today's population.

[Peanut]

I don't understand what people expect when they move into a community that doesn't have any schools. Who cares if your neighborhood is "expensive" or not? I don't think the CBE prioritizes the school construction budget based on average house price in a neighborhood (or at least, I hope they don't).

On the other hand, I think the CBE could tweak their approach somehow to better match reality. There are a bunch of underutilized schools (in my opinion) because of the life cycle of neighborhoods. People move in, have families, kids grow and move out, and people often still live in their houses for a long period of time until they decide to downsize or become snowbirds or move to assisted living or whatever. Or die, even.

So the geographical need for schools is kind of transient with the population base. I'm not sure the best way to address it but constructing more portable schools somehow, or smaller less expensive schools that portables could be added onto to meet demand in the peak attendance years would seem to make some sense.

Admittedly I haven't thought about it too much. I made sure when I bought my house that there was a public school decently ranked, within walking distance, and not in danger of needing a lottery system.