Add new comment

I feel I should add a comment about the fairness of this proposal since it may come up.  Here is the issue: a subsidy of $150K per year, however costly it may be for West Bench residents, barely puts a dent in the total amount of money SD67 would like to save.  As such, a West Bench subsidy does not solve the overall problem, it merely shifts the position of West Bench Elementary down the list of closure targets by a slot or two.  Other schools--I am thinking Carmi, which I attended for eight years--will thus shift up a slot.

If SD67 accepts a rural grant from West Bench but then decides to close Carmi Elementary, we will certainly face the accusation that the West Bench bought its way off the list.  Given differences in the assessed property values between the Carmi and West Bench catchments, such accusations may ring true to some.

My own view is that Carmi school parents simply do not face the same costs as West Bench parents if their school closes. So regardless of what they are able to pay to keep their school open, they should be willing to pay less than West Bench parents.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Registered users of this site do not have to do this.