The Bolesławiec local government’s treatment of the town’s primary schools proves that they are an unwanted child to it. Unfortunately, the municipalities will take over these schools, and on 1 January 1996 this will become a fact.
Even in this year’s budget, the amount allocated to primary schools (0.45% of the total budget and 3% of expenditure on education in the town) was at least modest compared with their needs. The defense of this position was demagogic, invoking the education authority’s obligation to finance schools, because it is we who send our children to these schools, not the education authority, and it is our children who are affected by various restrictions and deficiencies that inevitably affect the standard of teaching.
Unfortunately, the budget resolution is being implemented in this form, which is unfavorable to the schools. However, when it became clear that a substantial budget surplus was emerging (8% of the original budget), an opportunity arose to satisfy at least the most urgent basic needs of the primary schools. Information in the October issue of “Głos Bolesławca” indicates that this would involve approximately 15 thousand new złoty, which, compared with a surplus of 1,087 thousand new złoty, is a negligible amount. Yet the plan is to allocate only 5 thousand new złoty to the schools for the work of interest clubs. By contrast, it is considered more important to allocate 110 thousand for the construction of garages, 20 thousand for a parking lot, and 100 thousand for administration (including office supplies).
This consistent restraint in providing additional funding for Bolesławiec schools is incomprehensible. It is clearly apparent that the local authorities want to take them over, as it were, in a zero state—that is, without any prior expenditure of their own. This is nevertheless a dangerous policy. These schools have long struggled with financial shortages and, leaving other matters aside, their physical assets are deteriorating. Neglecting them will lead to greater expenditure in the future. Nor can one be certain of one’s financial capacity in the years ahead and fail to use for these purposes money that becomes available beyond the budget.
It appears that the City Board has its own policy regarding primary schools, one that it is not very forthcoming about. It is so secret that, in matters concerning the reorganization of primary education that it discusses with the education authority, it does not even inform the City Council Committee responsible for education, culture and sport. Its justification for bypassing this committee—lack of time and some problems within the committee—also reeks of demagogy.
Perhaps we will nevertheless receive a clear explanation of the reasons for the local government’s treatment of the schools in this way rather than another? Let us hope that these explanations will match the responsibilities toward primary schools awaiting it from the beginning of the new year.