Perhaps oddly, there were a few positive outcomes of the otherwise stressful and contentious consultation process. Interview participants were specifically asked about the strengthening or weakening of community bonds.
In Zorra, two interview participants noted that it brought together the community. As ZC1 saw it:
Because of the review, it has created a very strong community. … It allowed the three schools in Zorra Township to work together and not be pitted against each other.
ZC1 also explained that the school board sought to drive a wedge in the community by suggesting if A.J. Baker closed, other schools might get more students
or a new gym – this was the blackmail. [The division] dissipated, it was gone, that wasn’t there … that was a huge piece to being able to present strongly to the Board and be more united.
Along with bringing the community together, ZC1 also explained how other programs became more widely shared:
A broader awareness of the people beyond your own community … The amalgamation did not go well here … so trying to bring a large geographical region into a community is not easy and I do think the ARC review did help to get over a little bit of a hump on that because there’s now more sharing on things … the Farm Safety Education thing … had been in only one of the schools, and last year it came to another school, and the next year it will be at another school … a sharing of popular events or educations. I don’t know if that would have happened without the ARC review.
There’s always been a rivalry between Kintore and Thamesford and it’s a bit healthier now. At the end [of the review process] they [Thamesford] were very supportive of keeping AJ Baker open. There came to be a better understanding and mutual respect between the communities.
ZC2 provides a bit of a theory as to why, and explains a concrete benefit:
[The review] brought the Kintore community together … nothing brings you together like an exterior threat. We now have the Zorra Local School Committee and its mandate is to inform council about our schools in a municipal context.
However, the trustee interviewed, TT, argues the community needs to be strong before the review:
Need to have the community bonds prior to the review to build the capacity. By the time the trustees are making the decision to study an area, it’s too late. You need to be proactive.
Despite the bitter dispute, losing their school, and feeling punished by the school board, interview participants from NOTL nonetheless felt their community was strengthened by the process. As NA1 observed:
[I was] really blown away by the quality and commitment of people who came together and came out and spend time and committed to try and keep the school open. People who didn’t know each other … a really amazing group of people came together. … Lots of positives came out that in terms of community, but it didn’t save the school.
However, school reviews are not at all entirely positive processes. NA1 explains: In the case of the high school [previous ARC], there was some negativity and discord … some infighting of the community. By the time they got to Parliament Oak, the last elementary school, the people who chose to get involved were newcomers. Everyone else had scattered and run.
A concrete positive outcome from the review in NOTL was the opening of the privately run Royal Oak community school. While the school fills a gap in the community, it does have a downside. NA2:
Royal Oak is a great thing. Didn’t want to be a private school but how else are they going to fund it? It is a beautiful thing, but it did fracture the community even more. Now you have children [going to different schools]. 4.11.1 POSITIVE OUTCOMES –SUMMARY
While a school review is upsetting and stressful for a community that wishes to keep its school, it can have the consequence of bringing a community closer. This should not in any way be taken to suggest that school review is good for a community – just that it is an unintended consequence. The trustee’s sentiment is worth repeating: there need to be strong community bonds in place prior to the review to organize and present a united voice to the school board.
4.11.2 POSITIVE OUTCOMES –RELATIONSHIP TO THE LITERATURE
“Collaborative planning” as defined and theorized by Patsy Healy concerns the
processes by which segments of the public participate in policy development (Healey, 1997). To be clear, this form of planning is about the collaborate effort to affect the final decision, and this was clearly the case in Zorra. A collaborative planning analysis of the process in Zorra would focus on the specific means of communication between the community and the school board.
This would follow Habermas’ theory of “universal pragmatics” which is the universal conditions for communication and understanding (Habermas, 1979). Since Habermas’ argument is that all social actions are about seeking a common understanding, the Zorra case seems to fit insofar as the final decision was the result of a shared understanding of the situation (i.e. the school is important and proper enrolment projections conclude the school should remain open). However, these theories of consultation do not account for the fact that the trustees were initially of the opinion that the school should close and used the “blackmail” of more students or a new gym, and that the community had to “make it awkward” for trustees to vote for closure. The trustees were not open to understanding or seeking a collaborative decision, but were rather forced into one.
In NOTL, however, the collaborative planning and universal pragmatics theories fail quite early in the analysis. While the interview participants did experience community solidarity and strength, it was in spite of hostility from the school board, as well as the board’s manipulation of facts and their candid unwillingness to be open to opinions different than their own.