Super school to be super-analysed

Where are these trends you speak of areaman ?

Where is the justification to spend $43m on a school in real and practical terms, on paper for all to see ?

What is the projected enrollments for the next 10 years in that area ?

Put some substance into your words and I might start listening to them.

At the moment, all you’re doing is blowing the same hot air as the idiots who came up with this cockamai idea in the first place.

It’s this simple; If this data exists, show me it. Better still, show the people who live in the area concerned in a pamphlet or booklet. Now I’m aware that you probably don’t work anywhere near the area responsible for producing this material, but I think you get the hint. I want what you’re saying substantiated.

I’d say they would have taken trends into account which is why they want to build a $43m school to replace it rather than just close it down (which is what the current enrollments would seem to suggest is the best way forward).

Thumper, yes I did what I’m saying is that there were only going to be 150 students BEFORE any announcement of closure was made, so there would be even less now people have started moving out but it wasn’t tenable at any point.

I think more research has been done into the effect of the school on the area concerned on this website than in Ms Gallagher’s office, so I’m not holding my breath.

Areaman, what’s wrong with an 8 year planning cycle ? too hard ? too expensive ? too long ?

Beats a poorly made snap decision any day my old adversary, and if they had the alleged forethought that they are meant to be using to make their esteemed decisions on, it wouldn’t be too hard to find the associated documentation would it ?

It would actually be welcomed if 8 years ago they said they were looking into the closure, had done the studies, found out that it was improperly placed, identified a solution, tested that, and were implementing it to make a savings that was backed up by documentation and hard facts, and for the good of the community. But they haven’t have they ?

They have applied the logic and forethought of a couple of MLA’s getting together with a bottle of red wine thinking up ways of saving money to spend on unnecessary lawsuits and irrelevant statues.

That really has been the essence of my argument throughout these and related threads on school closures, and I still haven’t heard anything to the contrary.

Except that they were going to have max 150 students next year even before the closing announcement, and that’s just not enough for a 7-10 school.

Hear Hear Thumper

Perhaps they could take a leaf from their own book and initiate an 8 year planning cycle ? Then there would be plenty of time to discuss and plan and fart around and scratch asses etc etc.

During that time, you’d also be able to see the fluctuation in school numbers, and be able to make an informed decision on the matter.