425 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

What are the ever growing needs of the students? I think education needs a total revamp. Adding more space is one overhaul that’s not required in my opinion.

[Dr.Strangelove]

Here is a Page from the District Website full of information about the Vic High Project. It answers most questions at this time.

 

https://www.sd61.bc....for-the-future/

 

There is even a link at the bottom of the page where you can view every school in the district, it's value, and enrollment projection etc.. The value assessments are 3 years old, but still gives a good idea of what each school is worth.

Edited by Dr.Strangelove, 27 March 2018 - 06:59 AM.

[jonny]

Actually my bad the new building will house 1000 students whereas the rebuild will house 850. According to the TC story. 150 students for the cost over run we will see on the new building is likely not worth it. 

 

They could easily retrofit / earthquake proof the existing building, and put up a secondary building to house the 5 or so classrooms needed for the additional 150 students.

 

But no, we've been force fed these three options. We're being led down the garden path. 

Edited by jonny, 27 March 2018 - 07:35 AM.

[jonny]

This really is bizarro territory. 

 

Every day on this forum we read commentary on how that proposed building is too short, or this proposal is too plain, or that one has too much red brick, or that one over there has too much spandrel coverage. People on this very forum have complained on end about how buildings like the Patient Care Tower at the Jubilee are too boring and too conservative. Do we even need to get started on the bridge and how we were force fed the replacement option, promised all sorts of amazing architecture and given a thoroughly mediocre finished product?

 

Now we have SD 61 proposing that they tear down an interesting looking, legitimate heritage building (as opposed to a lot of the faux heritage we supposedly must retain - such as the Turner building) and your first reaction is to rubber stamp the demolition of one of our top heritage buildings?

[Mike K.]

The guttural reaction is to avoid another insanely expensive boondoggle. We simply can't afford it. And to anyone who is upset over this, maybe this will make you champion responsible civic expenditures next time you see a questionable project rise to the surface.

 

All that being said, if the province and the feds step up this is all a moot point. But if the don't who's on the hook, and for how much? SD62 put only $2 million towards the $23 million Royal Bay expansion.

 

So are we to believe that SD61's projection that refurbishing and upgrading the Vic High building to the tune of $110 million will only cost the district a couple of mil, with the rest made up by the province and/or the feds?

[Jackerbie]

All that being said, if the province and the feds step up this is all a moot point. But if the don't who's on the hook, and for how much? SD62 put only $2 million towards the $23 million Royal Bay expansion.

 

It's not District of Sooke on the hook for Royal Bay, that's for sure. The Province is contributing $23 million for that upgrade, and a further $23 million for SD62 to acquire land for new schools. The NDP budget includes $2 billion for school upgrades to be allocated over the next three years.

 

If there is a boondoggle it'll be on the Province, not on City of Victoria. CoV has a certain pool to spend the next couple years and millions of dollars on, what with the bridge done and all 

[jonny]

Education in BC, and most if not all of Canada, is funded at a provincial level, not at a local city or county level like in the United States (this happens to be the main driver why Canadian property taxes are usually much lower than American property taxes).

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe this project, whichever way they go, has any chance of becoming another City of Victoria boondoggle. The City of Victoria has almost nothing to do with SD 61. SD 61, like every other SD in BC, is funded by the province. 

 

SD 61's audited financial statements are all publicly available, for those who are interested. The school district's revenue sources are all listed in detail. I see nothing in there to do with the City of Victoria, Saanich or the CRD. 

 

https://www.sd61.bc....ial-statements/

[Mike K.]

Take a look at the municipal tax split for the City of Victoria. For a home assessed at $800,000 (show me a SFD that isn't, lol), the school district portion equals to just a hair below $1,100 per annum.

 

A commercial property valued at $800,000 pays 4x that amount, or just under $4,000 per annum.

[Cassidy]

Anybody who really thinks that Vic High is going to be torn down needs to give their head a serious shake.

 

It's not going to be torn down ... not now or in the near future - (likely not ever).

 

***BREAKING*** ... internet forums don't set policy or contribute to complex decisions (thank God!).

[Jackerbie]

Take a look at the municipal tax split for the City of Victoria. For a home assessed at $800,000 (show me a SFD that isn't, lol), the school district portion equals to just a hair below $1,100 per annum.

 

A commercial property valued at $800,000 pays 4x that amount, or just under $4,000 per annum.

 

The money is collected by the City on behalf of the Province, CoV doesn't retain any of that $1,100. The money has to come from somewhere, what we're saying is that school funding comes from Provincial coffers, not municipal. It's still your taxes either way.

[jonny]

Take a look at the municipal tax split for the City of Victoria. For a home assessed at $800,000 (show me a SFD that isn't, lol), the school district portion equals to just a hair below $1,100 per annum.

 

A commercial property valued at $800,000 pays 4x that amount, or just under $4,000 per annum.

 

The Province sets that rate, not the City. That money flows through to the province. I wish they wouldn't do it that way since the municipalities have zero responsibility for school funding; nevertheless, it's what they do. 

 

I see Jackerbie beat me to it...

[Midnightly]

What are the ever growing needs of the students? I think education needs a total revamp. Adding more space is one overhaul that’s not required in my opinion.

 

 

i do agree education needs a bit of a revamp, but they have been doing that over the last few years, the needs of student have been shifting, it's not all sitting in desks and copying things off the board and listening to teachers talk, there are new classes they didn't have 15 years ago, tech has been huge in the last 10 years, having rooms for specific needs.. having rooms designed for the arts, sciences, sports, teaching hands on skills.. and just the physical growing population there needs to be enough classrooms to reasonably house the students without having to put classes in the library, and the teachers lounge

[Mike K.]

Yes, I didn't mean to insinuate that the City absorbs that revenue and then disburses is to SD61.

 

I just wanted to show how much each household directly pays in to the local school system. The cost is huge. My fear is with a major undertaking like Vic High's refurbishment the province may assess SD61 households with a higher rate, as each district is assessed based on the volume of students it serves. What's to stop the province from adjusting the local rate? Parents already pay additional fees.

[Rob Randall]

The last five pages of long-time friends angrily denouncing each other has been brought to you by:

 

CAMBRIDGE

ANALYTICA

[aastra]

 

The last five pages of long-time friends angrily denouncing each other has been brought to you by:

 

No worries, virtual friendships don't virtually fall apart so easily. And anyway, despite the fact that Mike K. is so full of crap on this one he's practically overflowing onto the inlaid marble floor in VV's executive washroom, I'd never stoop to denouncing him on a public forum. I'd save it for private messages.

[Mike K.]

Those private messages are something else, let me tell you.

[LJ]

Why do we need classrooms at all now? Couldn't you log onto the server and the teacher teaches the virtual class. You could log on from anywhere, attendance could be taken, you could interact with the teacher and other students. Heck one teacher could teach hundreds of kids at a time. If you require more assistance you could go to a chat room where you could interact one on one with a TA. The social aspect of it is non existent just like the kids are nowadays, interacting via social media.

[VicHockeyFan]

I agree to a certain extent.

[lanforod]

Why do we need classrooms at all now? Couldn't you log onto the server and the teacher teaches the virtual class. You could log on from anywhere, attendance could be taken, you could interact with the teacher and other students. Heck one teacher could teach hundreds of kids at a time. If you require more assistance you could go to a chat room where you could interact one on one with a TA. The social aspect of it is non existent just like the kids are nowadays, interacting via social media.

 

Could be heading in that direction, sure. Watch Ready Player One this weekend for a glimpse into a world like that.

[Mattjvd]

Why do we need classrooms at all now? Couldn't you log onto the server and the teacher teaches the virtual class. You could log on from anywhere, attendance could be taken, you could interact with the teacher and other students. Heck one teacher could teach hundreds of kids at a time. If you require more assistance you could go to a chat room where you could interact one on one with a TA. The social aspect of it is non existent just like the kids are nowadays, interacting via social media.

So the kids are supervised by trained adults in a structured environment from ages 5 to 18. Lets the parents go to work.