While the B.C. Liberals are bragging about “record high” school funding, the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation is calling it a “shell game, smoke and mirrors, and bad political spin.”
In a March 15 news release, the B.C. government announced education funding will see an increase for the tenth straight year:
As announced in Budget 2010, B.C. school districts will receive $4.663 billion in operating grants next year, a $112-million increase over this year. Average per-pupil funding is also expected to increase by an estimated $105 from $8,196 this year to $8,301 in 2010-11 - a record high.
The increase to operating funding includes $54 million to fully fund the teachers' wage settlement and $58 million to fully fund the implementation of full day Kindergarten. The per-pupil funding amount has increased by an estimated $2,039 since 2000-01.
In addition to the increase in operating funding next year, $110 million in annual facilities grant funding will be made available to school districts between now and March 31, 2011. School districts will also share $51 million in CommunityLINK funding to support the province's most vulnerable students.
The government news release also supplied a link to data on province-wide enrolment and funding.
The BCTF, however, responded on March 16 with outgoing president Margaret Lanzinger’s criticism of Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid’s announcement as “a blatant attempt to mislead British Columbians”:
“Shell game, smoke and mirrors, and bad political spin are the words that come to mind when looking at the latest funding announcement for school boards. The new funding promised in the latest budget is only real on paper. The majority of school boards will see no real increase. In many cases, the promised funding for full-day Kindergarten and wage increases will actually make shortfalls worse.”
Lanzinger said 33 of 60 school boards will receive exactly the same funding as last year, and many of those school districts will have to find the money for all-day Kindergarten and salary increases in those unchanged budgets. Said Lanzinger:
“The minister’s math just doesn’t add up. There are unavoidable fixed costs for school boards that the government is not funding. And, by downloading new costs like full-day Kindergarten and salary increases, the government is actually forcing boards to make cuts. The minister of education is making it worse by misleading British Columbians about the real numbers.”
To explain the misleading math, Lanzinger suggests looking at Prince George where parents, teachers, and students are facing several school closures. Last year’s grant from the provincial government was $119.3 million. In 2010–11, the grant will be the same $119.3 million. However, the government says Prince George is getting “new funding” of $1.3 million for salary increases and $1.7 million for full-day Kindergarten.
The BCTF release included links to district-by-district grant allocations and to breakdowns of costs for full-day Kindergarten and salary increases.
Crawford Kilian is a contributing editor of The Tyee.
10
Login or register to post comments
W Laurier
2 years ago
Shell Game Indeed
Indeed, some districts will receive less funding. This is because their enrollment is down. Funding is, and always has been, based on the number of students. More students=more funding and vice versa.
Frank
2 years ago
Wilf
You're bad at math, its what makes you bad at policy.
crankypants
2 years ago
Observation
Why is it that whenever a group of people state that the government has cut funding ia a particular area, the government states they have increased said funding? Both sides state their case and the poor old taxpayer is left wondering who is zooming who. Both sides can't be right.
Personally, I think that the method of funding education on a per capita basis creates a red herring. There are fixed costs that go into operating a school whether it is 50% occupied or 90% occupied.
I don't know how the funding was arrived at when I went to school, but I do remember that each student had a textbook for each class he or she took, no sharing of such, and in elementary school we were supplied with the scribblers we would need for the entire year. Today many schools have insufficient textbooks for their students and if memory serves me correct, when my kids attended elementary school they got nothing in the way of scribblers etc.
The one thing that I do know is that this never ending dance is getting extremely boring and the sooner the various parties resolve their differences, the sooner we can move on to other issues. Those of us that foot the bill deserve nothing less.
HappyJ
2 years ago
Wilfred
The problem with the idea of per pupil funding is that even if 10 students leave a school, it may not decrease the fixed costs to that school. A loss of 10 students = a loss of $83000. However, this loss of students doesn't decrease the heating costs of the school or the number of teachers required in the school or the cost to clean the school etc.
Frank
2 years ago
Happy
Exactly.
Fixed costs are fixed costs, the school can't contract and expand to fit the budget.
Nor will a teacher take less money because he or she is teaching 26 kids instead of 28.
Also, there is a cost to making rural kids sit on a bus for hours a day because of a local school closing. But that cost doesn't show up on the government books, although it will in increased drop-out rates as that kid will no longer have access to the same level of activities around the school such as sports because of the necessity of taking the long bus trips.
Ramona777
2 years ago
Bus Rides Not New
I went to school three decades ago in four provinces. In fact, in one calendar year I went to four different schools in three provinces. During those decades I:
a) Rode a bus for 35 minutes one way;
b) Endured terrible teachers, including nuns who rapped your fingers with rulers;
c) Attended a class of 30 kids from three grades.
I could go on.
I managed to graduate, in fact at the top of my class. All of the extras (music, drama, trips to Europe) didn't exist, but I went on to university.
My point is: we expect far too much. Let's get back to the basics ---
We need an overhauling of the education system, not necessarily more money.
HappyJ
2 years ago
Ramona777
Sounds like you had a tough life. Did you walk uphill to and from the bus stop in 10 feet of snow? Just kidding, but seriously, things have changed in 30 years and just because it was okay for you then, doesn't mean it is okay now. 30 years ago we didn't recycle and smoking was accepted as normal. Not so much now. It's been proven over and over that smaller class sizes give us more intelligent kids who can contribute more positively to society. Also, in larger classes its the struggling students who fall through the cracks. If we can afford 6 billion for the olympics, surely we can find some money to make help our children be more successful in life.
Frank
2 years ago
Ramona
Happy is right, when you have large class sizes it doesn't mean every kid fails, it just means that the kids needing more time don't get it and they're the ones that fall through the cracks.
And I realize I'm anonymous so there's no reason to take what I say as anything more than a lie, but for 3 grades I had to ride on a school bus for roughly 3 hours a day (1.5 hours each way) and that meant I couldn't take part in after school activities such as soccer, basketball, clubs, etc for those 3 grades because I couldn't miss the bus.
Then again, when I went to school my area had a dropout rate of over 50% which they blamed on dumb kids of course. Guess they wouldn't want to think the busing might have been a bit of a factor.
I don't know what the situation is now in the Wells area but I recall when it was discussed closing that school and kids would have to ride the bus for two hours each way. That's just wrong, rural areas shouldn't lose their local schools.
Ramona777
2 years ago
Frank & Happy J
I agree with you both -- yes, if there's millions for the Olympics, there should be enough to run effective schools.
We could get some savings by stopping provincial funding of private schools, a personal choice. I can't afford First Class on a plane but no one pays extra so I can.
When I say get back to basics, maybe kids with special needs (dare I say the "S" word) should be segregated.
Maybe boys and girls should be separated.
We should also fire the bad teachers and not let seniority be a determining factor as to who is hired. My two kids have put up with several and they haven't graduated yet.
As for my tough life Frank, I could share some horror stories about alcoholism, abuse, etc. but this isn't the place. I did have to walk one mile to school by myself in a major Canadian city as a six-year-old. Now wouldn't that just shock the pants off some (wrongly) fretful parents today.
Frank
2 years ago
Ramona
"As for my tough life Frank"
I think you'll find it was Happy you should have directed your post at.