Logic must prevail.
At the same time, human nature being what it is, intense issues prompt intense emotions.
Sometimes, then, it's easy for those with a contrary view, to accuse the dissenters of being too emotionally attached to understand the logic.
So when Eastern School District outlined its recommendations for school closures earlier this month, it was easy to take the broad view and suggest the recommendation made sense.
Larger school, more resources, more opportunities to get involved in extracurricular activities, and so on, was the logical conclusion from those without any great attachment to the schools slated for closure.
We've been listening to the Open Line shows, and the commentators who live far from the rural reality are quick to point out, logically, that "you can't keep every school open in every nook and crannie" in this province.
They also point out, quite logically, that consolidation makes sense if it means better opportunities for children and communities.
Sometimes that's true.
Sometimes, though, it's not.
And sometimes, those who are emotionally attached to the issue can offer better perspective.
Through the past week the citizens of the Trinity Bay North area - Port Union, Catalina and Melrose - have been busy organizing protests, meetings and a letter-writing campaign.
And through the emotion that naturally comes with the idea of a local school closing, there is a fair bit of common sense.
Many of their arguments are presented in the stories we've posted on our website and in this week's edition, and in the letters published this week and in the comments section of the on-line stories.
There's a massive amount of material to read.
So allow us to simplify and offer up some of the logic that's been offered up by those who are close to the story.
Let's make this clear, first. This is not an argument solely centered on the prospect of bussing children a longer distance to another school.
In fact, that has hardly been mentioned as a point in any of their letters or comments and it's certainly not a main part of their arguments.
The main points around their logic are as follows:
° Catalina Elementary is just a little over 20 years old, whereas Matthew Elementary is 40 years old.
° Catalina Elementary students have scored well on Criterion Reference Tests (CTR), placing at the top in most of the subject areas; evidence of a quality education.
° Catalina Elementary has better amenities than Matthew Elementary - from microwaves to allow children to have hot lunches, to an outdoor soccer field and a playground.
These are simple points, but relevant to the argument to keep the school open.
Beyond the logic, there are the questions.
If the board decides to follow through on its recommendations, what will be the cost of upgrading Matthew Elementary to, among other things, install an air quality control system, provide a playground area, and offer up a cafeteria or a means for students to have warm lunches?
How will the classes be configured at Matthew Elementary if the students from Catalina Elementary are moved there?
Will there be a need to expand the parking lot at Matthew to accommodate possibly more traffic?
And what other options are possible if the board is intent on consolidation in light of declining enrollments?
Would it be possible to close down Matthew Elementary and turn Discovery Collegiate into an all-grade school to serve all students in that area?
If the aim of Eastern School District is to ensure a quality education, in a quality environment, for primary and elementary children, why not consider closing the older building (Matthew) and bussing children from the Bonavista area to Catalina?
The cost of bussing, either way, would be about the same, would it not?
The problem, right now, with the debate over school closures is that it's all one-sided.
Local communities are providing the facts, based on their own knowledge of their school and its history.
What's absent in this discussion are other, important, facts; things like a cost-benefit analysis that would shed more light on the logic behind the school board thinking; engineers' assessments of the school buildings in which the board is proposing to put more students; and details on the board's plans, if any, for reconfiguration or renovations to accommodate extra students.
We don't know if the board's recommendations are logical from a financial or logistical viewpoint because the details are missing from the recommendations.
What we do know, at this point, is that the parents of Catalina Elementary have gotten a head start on their arguments and the more they speak and write, the harder it is to find anything illogical in what they have to say.
No Wilma, I am not suggesting that at all. I will try and explain this again… What I am saying is that if there is a budget that has to be distributed across the province, and a school is being under-utilized, it is costing the province more money than it should be. This is because there ends up being less money to distribute to schools who need it (because these schools are over-crowded and the teacher-student ratio is way too high) in order to keep under-utilized schools open. So, what happens is, it ends up costing more money per student to run a smaller populated school than it does a larger populated school (factors they consider are building maintenance, heating, electricity, staff costs, upgrades, supplies, etc and they break this down on a per student cost). This is what I am trying to explain which makes it UNEQUAL for the other students who end up experiencing larger class sizes.