The great T.R. Leger and the old SDG school board would never have approved, suggests former trustee

The Editor:

Why is there such urgency in the 29 school closures in the Upper Canada District School Board (UCDSB) “Building for the Future”?

In the board’s 10-year “Capital Plan Highlights” covering 2016, there is no mention of major school closures in the east or any in Glengarry; in fact, million-dollar improvements are slated for Maxville, S.J. McLeod and Seaway. Thus, with those long-term plans, why must we close all those schools “tomorrow”?

What if we were still in an era when the provincial government valued school trustees, and not just the present three [representative trustees from SDG], but community was considered so vital that 18 trustees were elected to serve the children in education in public schools in SDG?

Do you then think that two-thirds of them — as did recently — would have voted to close Maxville, GDHS, Char-Lan, S.J. McLeod, North Stormont, R-O, Seaway and so on?

What if with present circumstances, this was the issue for the [former] SDG Board of Education? Do you really think that in the era of either great director Leger or Dilamarter that such an earth-shaking proposal would have reached the communities with such a heavy-handed, participation-limited process?

Why could a CEO [prosper] with a scheme which stated, “To stay in business we must close 33 percent of this company?”

What if UCDSB trustees voted not to uproot English education in Glengarry and not close 29 schools?

The Wynne government would not approve any new construction while excess student space exists in the UCDSB. So what?

Why send our students to other school boards, to private schooling or home schooling?

Art Buckland



Scroll down to share this article. Scroll down to search Scroll down to comment.