Why BC Schools Are Always Short of Money
Study finds $135 million shortfall in funding, traces the source.
Columbia Institute's Charley Beresford. Photo by Sarah Race.
For years B.C.'s Liberal government has been bragging about the huge amounts of money it's pumped into the system. Premier Campbell has vowed to make this the best-educated province in Canada.
Yet the schools seem insatiable. No matter how much they get, it's never enough -- even though enrolments are dropping. School boards are always facing "budget challenges," closing schools and cutting programs. Parents, baffled by the contradiction, blame the usual suspects: incompetent trustees, lazy administrators, greedy teachers, and fat in the budget.
A new report exonerates those suspects, documenting consistent underfunding of B.C. schools since 2002, when the new Liberal government changed the way it pays for education.
Info from 45 school districts
"When More is Less" was produced by the Centre for Civic Governance at Columbia Institute, a B.C. think tank. The chief author is Charley Beresford, CEO of the CCG and former chair of the Greater Victoria school board. She and her research team contacted all 59 B.C. school districts and got information from 45 of them.
"When More is Less" cites studies that show growing fixed costs have more than erased any increased funding since the mid-1990s. One study argued that to return school funding in 2004 to the level of 1990, Victoria would have had to add $300 million to its education budget.
At this end of the decade, schools also face sharply higher spending for items like school-bus gasoline and fuel to heat buildings. As well, the Liberals have imposed costly new mandates for early learning, district literacy standards, the British Columbia enterprise Student Information Service, not to mention the carbon tax.
Boards have had to spend for all these items while legally forbidden from running a deficit. Some manage to do so, but the report found 32 out of 45 boards have run into trouble. To make ends meet, they've had either to cut programs and services, or to spend what they'd saved from previous years.
The report says: "Reductions in services to students with special needs, school closures and a variety of other cuts are just some of the ways the education system has been impacted. Moreover, there are troubling signs of inequity."
Fueling that inequity is the importing of international students. As in the 1990s, Asian students still come to B.C. for a good education, and we charge them the full cost. For Lower Mainland districts, those students are cash cows, but other districts can't attract them.
"Though education funding has increased nominally," the report says, "it has failed to keep pace with rising costs. To maintain British Columbia's global position as a leading education system, a review of the funding formula matched by a provincial commitment to adequate and stable funding is required."
True shortfall pegged at $135 million
The report puts the current shortfall for schools' operating budgets at $132 million, and says that's a "conservative" estimate: "The $132 million figure does not include additional cost pressures such as inflation or earlier labour settlements not covered by the province. If we could add those costs in as well, the shortfall would be much greater."
How did we get here?
As recently as 1980, school boards had their own taxing powers. If the province's funding wasn't enough, trustees could jack up the mill rate on local businesses and homeowners to get the money for needed local programs. If taxpayers didn't like it, they could fire the trustees in the next election.
In 1981-82, the Bill Bennett Socreds changed that formula by removing the power of trustees to tax commercial-industrial property. From then on, trustees could raise extra money from their residential taxpayers only.
The result was a step closer to achieving education funding equality in British Columbia, even though wealthier districts still had plenty of taxable residential property and could therefore run excellent programs beyond the means of rural districts.
At the cost of local autonomy, B.C. school boards eventually presided over districts that offered generally equal programs and levels of service. The money came from Victoria, whether the Socreds or the New Democrats were in power. Poor districts with special-needs students could support those students as well as districts like Vancouver and West Vancouver.
BC Liberals changed funding formula
In 2001, the Campbell Liberals changed the terms of education funding at all levels. In the public schools, as "When More is Less" makes clear, the formula now provided money mostly by counting students and allocating a set number of dollars per student in each district, rather than based on varying needs.
A demographic shift put boards in a bind. Enrolments, as the report says, had been declining since the late 1990s. Under the new Liberal formula, this meant less money over all.
"While it might be logical to assume that districts are able to reduce costs in proportion to the number of students enrolled," the report says, "the reality is that they can't."
Suppose you live in a mortgaged house with two children. One kid moves out, but your mortgage stays the same. Heat and light bills don't change much. Property taxes depend on the local housing market, not on the number of people under your roof.
So it is with schools.
As Charley Beresford says in the conclusion of the report: "Although total operating funding has increased, once a closer look is taken at the individual districts, it is clear that these increases do not cover the costs of education. The implication that more funding has meant more services for students does not bear out. In this case, 'more' is less."
"To maintain British Columbia's global position as a leading education system, a review of the funding formula matched by a provincial commitment to adequate and stable funding is required."
Related Tyee stories:
- How Province Erased $22 Million in School Funds
While finance minister brags of 'record' increase. - As BC's School Enrolment Drops
Why the dive, and the need for smart thinking. - Making Schools 'Carbon Neutral'
School officials scramble to meet BC emissions goal.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
RickW
11-02-2009
Just what IS education, anyway?
Is it reading, writing, and 'rithmetic? If it is more than this, then just how much more? These are questions no one wants to touch -- just as in healthcare, no one wants to put limits on the amount of care one is entitled to.
And which government has ever cared much about education anyway? It seems they would sooner fund "bridges to nowhere" because the result can be seen, even if the function does not live up to the promises.
Education is much more ephemeral, and the government which institutes a particular program, cannot retain the bragging rights when the earliest results are a decade or two away. That is why there is such a "push" for FSA testing; it means nothing, but it is a result that can be grasped, in an attempt to make quality quantitative.
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=2aa85d4f-5f59-4d95-ac63-be0f15c9319a
Name
11-02-2009
Finally...
Pleased to see someone finally made the effort to explain in a formal analysis why we're seeing less and less at the front lines, despite the Minister's constant mantra that "we're spending more on education than ever." Let's hope it resolves a lot of tiresome debate.
Another factor that significantly pumped up costs since 2002 was a generous salary increase for the teachers (who agreed to no increase in their previous contract in exchange for provisions that the BC Liberals later ripped up anyway).
Then there are things like rising incidence rates of special needs and learning disabilities - i.e. students who cost more to teach. Most categories have actually increased in number in the past decade, despite the overall dip in enrolment (which is really a dip, not the precipitous decline the Province portrays it to be). Districts have also had to compensate for program funding for vulnerable students that MCFD cut in 2002-04.
Technology has also eaten up huge chunks of budget dollars. 15 years ago, how many kids had computers at school? Now they require one computer per student to do the new online Provincial FSA tests. (FSA tests themselves are another example - new costs of at least several million dollars a year downloaded by the Ministry on local districts.
Then there are soaring textbook costs. I found out at a recent PAC meeting that 6 new Physics textbooks cost our school almost $1,000!!! And that the kids are using 20-year old textbooks for some classes! Surely the Ministry could look at a bulk purchasing scheme to bring this down?
And finally, what the Province also doesn't mention is that a good chunk of the increase in recent years went to private schools.
These things have all added up.
RickW, you raise some great points. Education is so fundamentally important to our economic and social stability that it should be a no-brainer for anyone who's not a politician and simply looking for shiny baubles to wave at voters for the next election.
And yes, absolutely, it has to be about more than the 3 Rs. Our world has become extraordinarily complex and it becomes more so with each generation. If we expect our kids to maintain and build on what we've created, they will need to be a lot better prepared than we were when we left high school if they are to hit the ground running.
As it is, we all seem to be constantly bickering because we've each come to completely opposite conclusions on an issue based on an incomplete understanding of the underlying complexities or because we've been duped by "spin". The education funding debate is exactly one such issue.
If our education system doesn't put a far heavier emphasis on critical thinking, logic, separating fact from opinion, bias, etc, then concepts like "truth" and "facts" as our parents and understood them will become relics of the past.
RickW
11-02-2009
Amazing ain't it.....
....that the threat the BC Libs have offered up in defense of their deficit budget, would be cuts to education, healthcare, and social services otherwise.
Now why is it that the cuts would happen here, and not (say) to the postponment of the 2010 games in view of the serious state of affairs in the world. Or to the Port Mann bridge? Or to any number of billion dollar "hard" expenditures?
It only serves to confirm how lightly governments hold the essentials of any civilized society.
morechatter
11-02-2009
Along with Cash Strapped Student?
Education is everything.
Education is a human right.
It is a catalyst for human development.
It improves one’s quality of life.
It is vital for economic development
and political stability and democracy.
Education also makes it possible for people to be responsible and informed citizens, and to have a voice in politics and society, which is essential for sustaining democracy. It also provides people with the knowledge and awareness needed to promote tolerance and understanding among st people.
But not in BC as Campbell's into Cheap labor however I don't see how thats an advantage as business also looks for qualified people to make them rich and pay the taxes as Coporations don't pay their fare share. And so far all Campbell has been able to get a grasp on is Cheap leaving many screwed when it comes to making a living in the future. Unless you into one of Campbell's six dollar jobs.
RickW
11-02-2009
morechatter
The origins of our education system came out of the Industrial Revolution, where the (former) peasants had to be able to read to follow simple instruction. You'd think that industry would have underwritten the original 3-R's as a cost of doing business. But it was the government who added this as yet another subsidy to business.
You'd think that one of GC's business buddies would whisper in his ear that public education is a great subsidy for business because it makes the immediate bottom line look better. AND makes the government look good, providing for the voters....er....citizens.
Crawford
11-02-2009
It could be worse...
The LA Times reports tonight (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget12-2009feb12,0,5918831.story ) that Governor Schwarzenegger has worked out a deal for saving California from financial disaster. But it's going to cost the state's schools and community colleges almost $8 billion, while state colleges and universities will lose $890 million.
DPL
11-02-2009
Charley knows her stuff and
Charley knows her stuff and can back up what she says. Way to go Charley.
DJT
11-02-2009
Boy, I wonder when I'll read
Boy, I wonder when I'll read about this in the Sun and Province (stifle laugh here).
Quote: "Does anyone else think that one poster monopolizing a board is tiresome"?
Absolutely amazing that it isn't LS. Refreshing, actually.
RickW
12-02-2009
sirjohn, eh?
Much thanks for revealing the near-toxic atmosphere present in schools nowadays, SJA! It's too bad that parents don't know how to keep their kids healthy, knowing the liklihood of spreading disease and illness in the confinment of the school and grounds. And, it's good that teachers have worked sick days into their perks package, they being the ultimate recipients of whatever the kids bring to school with them, courtesy of the ignorance of parents.
Or perhaps I am being too hard on the parents. If they "did the right thing", that would mean one of them staying home with the ailing youngster, and with the average BC family living as they do so close to the edge of bankruptcy, and given the troubles in today's marketplace, they couldn't afford that kind of time off.
And just how (you may ask) has the average BC family found itself in such a precarious balance? It's consumerism of course -- the thing that makes the world go round. Government and business NEED us to spend, not save.
So little Johnny and little Jane are just going to have to "tough it out" on the school grounds, for the sake of the economy.
And teachers are going to continue needing those sick days.............for the sake of the economy.
PatrickMcEvoyHalston
12-02-2009
If what you're most
If what you're most concerned about is getting smart, creative kids, you might want to direct them to school themselves by going to itunes u. It's all lectures, unfortunately--which are never as truly educative as the back and forth. (But many Harvard undergrad classes are just large lectures too, though--some significant education takes place in inadequate settings.) Anyway, not just putting money into the old system, but finding different ways to think of education, should be on the agenda. If the next few years look like just more and more spending cuts to education, maybe just say to hell with it, and get your kids hooked on itunes U. Berkeley's there!, so too MIT!--they want to reach you, not wait 'til you reach them! Plus, though it's slow in motion, true, it's part of a beginning trend to challenge the for-to-long unchallengeable surrection of the instituional degree as Saint, as assured transport to respectability and the middle class.
Maybe check out Ehrenreich's damning (but also very fun) article on higher education: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/the-higher-education-scam_b_47287.html
rangergord
12-02-2009
Schools are closing
This article seems to be right on the money. Schools are being closed in SD #59 because the fixed costs are higher than the per pupil funding formula. I like alternative education but its not for everyone.
Skywalker
12-02-2009
quarry bay and RickW
Excellent posts. A board appointed by the liberals writes off a bill to Vanoc because Vanoc appointed by the liberals can not pay or doesn't want to reveal the true cost. The taxpayer picks up the cost without knowing that it is an Olympic surcharge. All this just so the liberals can claim the Olympics did not have a deficit. Devious and dishonest in the extreme.
Then education is short of money because teachers get sick being exposed to kids whose parents both work and schools are "daycare" providers. Maybe Sirjohna we should try having teachers teach from inside a bubble.
dolphin
12-02-2009
BCeSIS
Point of clarification. I think the author was referring to BCeSIS, which stands for BC electronic Student Information System (not BC enterprise Student Information Service). It's the student database program used for demographics, marks, discipline records, attendance, etc. It has its pros and cons, but it has been a huge cost and time issue for every district in the province.
North of Hope
12-02-2009
BCeSIS
It should be noted that BCeSIS was developed outside BC because Campbell doesn't develop stuff like ferries or computer programs in BC. It would help our economy if he did do some such developing here.
zalm
12-02-2009
But....but....
I was going to say to North of Hope "right on!" as we have Chancery Software right here in North Van that develops software exactly like that.
And then I checked the website - purchased by a California consortium long ago.
Sigh. I guess this doesn't qualify as a made-in-Canada solution any more.
RickW
13-02-2009
About the Fraser Institute
and FSA's.
http://www.bclocalnews.com:80/bc_north/interior-news/news/39381579.html
At first I thought the FI was pursuing some kind of right-wing commodification of our education system, by advocating FSA's and rating schools as to their "efficacy".
It turns out I was wrong. The REAL purpose of the FI is to rate schools in order to show up the discrepeancies in public funding! The FI is in point of fact, doing a great public service by drawing citizens' attention to this very serious matter. The FI can only be doing this in order to help government redirect funding to where it is needed most -- otherwise there would be no point to either the FSAs or rating schools. One might say (contrary to initial assumptions) that the FI is a strong advocate of spreading the wealth, rather than concentrating it.
I have no doubt the government, which takes FI reports and findings seriously, will immediately re-examine it spending criteria regarding public education. And perhaps while at it, government can re-examine it's spending policies on healthcare as well..........
Thank you, Fraser Institute! We all owe you a big one for this selfless public service!
Name
13-02-2009
Makes total sense to me, RickW
Why are we putting tax dollars into private schools at the top of the list instead of into supporting "low perfoming" public schools serving poor communities so that they can improve scores.
sirjohna
14-02-2009
'Much thanks for revealing
'Much thanks for revealing the near-toxic atmosphere present in schools nowadays,'
is that a serious comment rickw? have you ever seen the numbers regarding teacher's sick days. they outnumber all professions, and the budgets of the school districts keep growing b/c of the need to pay out millions each year in sub costs. approximately 190 days a year with kids in the classrooms, 9 weeks in the summer, 2 weeks at xmas, a week at spring break, plus numerous so-called 'professional development' days, and teachers can't stay healthy enough to go to work regularly. give me a break man!
tcahill
16-02-2009
Difficulties Abound
In the gulf islands, the School Board (SD64) implemented a 4-day school week in an attempt to balance the budget. This was very controversial. There was a lot of opposition to this move, which, it was claimed, would only save about $20K per year. We are now into our fourth year.
A difficulty we (here in the gulf islands) have not focused upon is that declining enrollments are unlikely to turn around in any meaningful planning horizon.
Meanwhile, we have three elementary schools (On Salt Spring Island) to serve a school population that continues to drop. At the same time, we have an acute shortage of commercial/industrial space. None of the schools are full, and every year it is a challenge to have enough students of the same age to fill each grade.
An obvious remedy here would be to consolidate the elementary schools, as other school districts have done. Close one, and rent out the structure to some mix of continuing education (a growing demographic) and commerce. There is great demand for the space.
Doing this would greatly reduce fixed and variable costs, and free up funds, and generate new revenue, for greatly enriched programming. We don't need to even consider the Real-Estate value of these under-utilized properties, because it would be short-sighted to sell them. Renting spare facilities out would leave them available for future population increases, if ever....
I can only speak for the Gulf Islands. It is very true that the current funding formula is placing great stress on our educational system, by not taking into account both fixed and inflationary costs. The pay-per-student formula does need to be adjusted upward or otherwise reformed, but that is not the whole story.