My n^th-hand semi-reliable source (read it in Rolling Stone!) says said nudge-nudge wink-wink loose-lipped rumour resolves to a renewed plot on the sinking of our community school ...

"not immediately but within the next couple of years"

Why? Scuttle-butt 'round the Lodge here says "because enrollment for fall slips a hare's breath short of 150" (the figure being floated is 146) -- now, how they divine this precision with such authority when, historically, many kids don't register until much closer to the school year start is, well, kind of kabbalistically mysterious, and experience says the missing 4 magic number is about the same as the normal quantum fluctuation of students migrating in and out during any given school year ...

So get ready folks. Set your rhetoric blasters on stun.

Another tidbit to toss in the pot, at that SCC meeting I attended there back over the Samhain issue the same 'figure facts' of waning attendance was floated and endorsed by the school's officials ... and immediately challenged by the day-care people because their statistics, which is our measure of tomorrow's student body, says quite the opposite: a bumper crop is already visible on the horizon, two maybe 3 years hence.

Looks like The Schools Wars of 2003 all over again, only, I thought we signed a treaty on that ...

Here's my personal theory: Last round we all heard how this school was so darned expensive to run, quite apart from any reality based issues such as the largely idle special features rooms such as the disused shop and ironically named Family Studies room (used to house old burnt out computers last I saw it), it was explained back then how Amabel-Sauble was the only modern school in the region, and hence it was the only school required to live up to modern rules about student density, air quality and a host of other 'enlightenments'. Thus, yes, compared to the crumbling Hepworth and Wiarton sardine-cans, Sauble was expensive. Luxurious even, though only relatively.

Flash ahead now to 2007, Wiarton now sporting a massive new combined all-grades school, likewise modernly charged with meeting the expensive specifications of Enlightened Learning, and that probably means the bills are quite dear. So ... and this is just my guess ... some dissociated burocrat accountant somewhere starts thinking, "If we only had one of these costly 'modern' schools ..." and up and fires up yet Another Excel Spreadsheet to cold-cashedly decide the fate of a community's generation.

I was one of those "the sky is falling" people. It was a hard battle, if I may call it as such. At least, we were given the opportunity to contribute to the review, which led to the decision of keeping the School. This time round, however, if Mr Currie is going to anounce school closure, I fear there may not be turning back. It's true that we cannot act upon rumour. I hope the SCC personnel will attempt to ask for clarification before the said date.

Thank you garym for pointing out the difference in cost between running an old school and a modern one. Since it is the government's idea to bring the codes up-to-date when building a new school, their expectation on cost of running a school should be brought up-to-date as well. If the decision on getting rid of a school is merely based on stand-alone, instead of comparitive, figures, Our newest school, Bruce Peninsula Shores, will face the same plight 5, 6 years from now, unless... the intent is to "rob Peter to pay Paul".

Okay, let's say Dean Currie IS going to announce closure on March 30th, and we, "the sky is falling" people fail to overrule the decision. There will be only Bruce Peninsula Shores and Hepworth Central left in our group of schools. One very modern school and an ancient one. Eventually, Hepworth Central will have to be brough up to standard. What will happen then? A huge expense. If I were Mr Currie, it would make more sense to me to keep Amable Sauble, which is already up to standard.

I am not him. I still take the stand I did 4 years ago, that each community should have its own school.

Sauble Beach community is growing. There are more young family here now than 12 years ago when Amabel-Sauble was built. Here's my personal experience: when Nolan was Riordain's age, I did not meet any parents with children the same age. Already, I know 4 kids of the same age as Riordain. Amable -Sauble Child Care Centre "has never been busier before with children that age. These kids will be starting school in fall 2009, but there may not be a school for them to go to.

What will the school board do with the building when it is not a school anymore? Just let it sit there and rot? And then, build another one when there is a cry out of need of a school here a few years down the road. Then close it down again 10 years later because projected enrollment for the following year is too low. History repeating itself over and over again? When will they ever learn?

Apparently, when the school was built, School Board and the Town signed a "service agreement", which expires in 2 years. Looks like our school may be save for that length of time.

Does anyone know about such agreement, and what it is about? If the 2 parties involve do not negotiate a new agreement, what will happen?