Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

3 comment(s)

Here are some facts about the cost of post-secondary education from someone who attended university from 2000 to 2006.

After completing an undergraduate degree at St.Thomas University and a Bachelor's Degree at UNB (two-year program), I am now left with an outstanding balance of $60,694.86 on my student loan debt.

The established repayment that has been assigned for my loan is $777.45 a month for 10 years. The interest rate currently stands at 7.75 per cent on this outstanding balance.

Now, if I take advantage of the repayment flexibility that is currently offered, I can extend my loan to 15 years. By doing such, the repayment calculator indicates that the total amount payable is $136,436.37, which means that the total interest payable is $75,741.51.

I am grateful that I am able to be on interest relief due to a currently low salary.

During interest relief status, the government will pay $4,640.04 a year on my behalf for up to five years.

Regardless, the total interest payable of $75,741.51 over the course of 15 years is obscene. Yes, the interest can be claimed on my income tax, but that amount is more than the original cost of attending university and is money that could be better spent, either by investing it or saving for retirement, which would grow a greater return for my future either way.

As a student loan carrier from the trenches, I believe it's time the provincial government considers eliminating the interest charged on student loans altogether.

This would enable student loan carriers to not have to repay more than it costs us to attend university, would provide greater flexibility to manage our hard earned dollars, and would provide immediate and long term relief.

In other words, the revenue that is generated from the interest collected on our student loans is not something that keeps the provincial budgets balanced but could and should be, considered a great investment.

Mark Barbour

Fredericton

Situation is inexcusable

A previous letter noted the education department's requirement of teacher assistants to report to work when school is closed due to poor weather conditions.

Teacher assistants are in place to assist classroom teachers and support students with many different academic, physical and emotional challenges.

The writer's point was the neglect of safety concern for TAs. However, they are forced to report to work during a storm, put in their hours or lose that day's pay.

This is absurd because, after arriving, there is nothing job-related for them to do.

Teachers have been told to "gather" work for TAs to do on storm days. However, no one can predict when or if a school will be closed due to a storm. Why should TAs go to a school and do work for the higher paid teachers when the teachers are paid to stay home?

It has even been suggested that TAs could clean rooms and refrigerators.

These are duties that the higher paid custodians admirably perform. Bus drivers are also paid more than TAs and do not lose pay because of storm closures.

There have been numerous memos sent out this winter to "remind" TAs that they are expected to report to work.

This suggests that the education department feels TAs need constant reminders. Their union has been of no assistance.

TAs are only paid for 26.25 hours per week and to lose a day's pay is difficult for most and is simply not an option. This situation has put a lot of stress on TAs, especially this winter.

This includes not sleeping most of the night of a storm because of the uncertainty of a closure and worrying about whether or not to make the drive.

And for what - to go to an empty school and look for something to do for five hours?

Just think, what if all senior positions were permitted to stay home on storm days but all other employees were forced to report to work or lose pay!

Teacher assistants are a very dedicated and vital contributor to the educational development of those in need.

They should be regarded with the same respect and dignity as others in the education profession.

The education department should take immediate action to correct this inexcusable situation.

Judy Wilson

Douglas, N.B.

Seeing the error of their ways

How is early French immersion being eliminated without the advice of anyone trained to make such a recommendation?

It appears that Mr. Lamrock is making this decision independently because all of the expert opinions I have read support the early French immersion model.

I do not think it takes an expert to see that more years of French language exposure will lead to increased French proficiency.

I wish that the Minister of Education would admit that the main purpose of eliminating early French immersion is to rid the province of so called "streaming."

There is no admission criteria for French immersion; therefore everyone has equal access to the program.

I don't think our children should have to suffer to solve this problem.

If there are problems in the English classrooms, teachers should be given adequate support to deal with them.

Hopefully, Mr. Graham and the Liberal government will see the error of their ways, and reverse their decision to eliminate early French immersion.

Nicole Irving

Fredericton

Minister is too short-sighted

I cannot believe the Education Minister in New Brunswick has so little appreciation of the province's unique bilingual status that he pulls the plug on early French immersion.

Our daughter in Fredericton went through immersion (Nova Scotia) from Grade 1 and emerged fully fluent in both languages and now works in jobs where both are needed and appreciated.

Our older daughter had to leave immersion in junior high when we moved to an area without that benefit but she retained her French (it's easy to learn when you're six-years-old).

Our son chose to stop French immersion in high school but now, as an English teacher in Japan and Korea, has a rare facility to pick up Asian languages easily.

Kelly Lamrock is simply too short-sighted to understand that French immersion from the earliest grades is the simplest, most effective way to facilitate second (or third) language skills.

It seems that New Brunswick English youth will now be at a huge disadvantage when seeking good jobs in government or in much of the private sector.

John Nowlan & Sandra Nowlan

Halifax, N.S.

Traffic problem solutions

After speaking to a city councilor about morning traffic back up from the north of the city to the south (a suggestion about having an extra lane from 7 a.m. to about 8:30 a.m. - reversible lanes), I wrote a letter to the traffic engineer and copied it to the mayor and councillors.

I received a letter back from the traffic engineer that the city is updating its traffic study done in (2000).

The consultant will be asked to identify existing traffic issues and present options.

I was told because of all the development on the northside over the past years, focus will certainly be traffic on the Westmorland Street Bridge.

My suggestion, which was one of two, would be asked of the consultant.

I hope this is acted on soon as the problem has been there a long time.

People should bring this up during the municipal election in May to those running for council.

The ramp being built on the bridge will not solve the above issue, even though it is needed.

Another idea I mentioned was a parking lot on the northside for people to park and ride.

I was told, it would be looked at in the strategic plan for transit services.

It would solve the above issue, along with increasing revenue for bus system, along with shortage of parking downtown.

I believe another bridge is not the answer.

The cost of building one and upkeep would be too costly.

Brent MacPherson

Fredericton