Does anyone know who initiated this fiasco & what their motives were - referring here to the challenge of fee-paying as a violation of the School Act?

While I know many parent are disgruntled by the seemingly neverending cash outlay I don't think the ramifications of a totally no-fee education system were thoroughly thought out. I suspect a mad scramble will now begin for many educators. I have heard of a woodwork teacher who is scrounging wood cast-offs from wherever he can get them so that he won't have to work with ... let's see ... air!

I hate to think of what the schools will look like in a few years time - no band, no woodwork, no cooking, no art, no fieldtrips. Can anyone say declining graduation rates? Many of these courses were the only things holding some kids in school. Forget the Fraser Institute's reports on schools, this will eventually do more damage to the public education system than they could ever do.

We (despite what some might say) have one of the best educational systems in the world and also one of the cheapest. Most parents in other countries would laugh if you "complained" that you had to pay $47 in school fees, the cost of renting a band instrument and another $20 or so for a couple of field trips (what I had to cough up for a grade 7 student last year).

I don't think the comparison here between extra-billing in health and education is relevant. I don't "need" my child to play an instrument, sew an apron or go to Science World for the day ... he will get an education without these extras, but it won't be as enjoyable or enriching an experience. They are "wants" not needs, and I would hope that most parents would be willing to pay that little bit extra for them. Most medical treatments are "needs" and not "wants" - there lies the difference.

Unfortunately, I know of some parents who will be holding the school to the no-fee policy (not for financial hardship reasons either). Their child will be showing up to band practice with the expectation that an instrument will be provided for free and the music teacher "had better just deal with it and teach them to play something"! What a delightful society we are becoming :)

While the Delta school board was having a taxpayer paid circle jerk and hot tub weekend in Harrison, I had to buy a textbook for my son because there isn't enough books for students!

I complained and the schoolboard threatened to send social services against me wit aligations of child abuse. A very quick witted principal stepped in and averted a nasty court fight.

The problem I think is that Schoolboard's are no longer accountable to the voters and are squandering tax money earmarked for students on themselves! Now with extra fees banned, the poor wittle school board types can't go on taxpayer paid mini holidays!

Aw!

Perhaps the universality enshrined in the School Act needs to be re-examined?

Common-sense suggests that if there really isn't enough money in budgets to fund these programs, then the fees should be charged on a sliding scale. I'd gladly pay a bit more for my child to be in the band, if it allowed the child of a single parent with limited income to be in there as well.

This ruling has been in effect in Victoria schools for some time - John Young, a Greater Victoria School Board trustee, filed the suit against the government seeking a province-wide ban on school fees after winning an earlier challenge that forced the Victoria board to halt the practice in 1997.

The wheels haven't fallen off public education in the Nation's capital since 1997. I think the rest of the province will manage just fine.

So relax and enjoy the fact that taxpayer funded education may actually be a little more equitable now than it used to be.

raingirl:

It was a parent in the Victoria school district, whom was or still is a lawyer, they looked into the 'law' regarding collection of fees and filed a complaint with ministry, followed by a correct filing with the Provincial Supreme Court (whom has the authority over this issue).

The school district that the child of this parent was in IMMEDIATELY STOPPED all fee collections (this was about 6-8 years ago now?).

The trend spread, in 2-4 years there were similar challenges going thru the court system.

The first challenge was arbitrated, and did not go into the Supreme Court, then the same parent was contacted by many other parents from all over the province and a 'quasi-' class-action suit was filed with many parents acting as the aggrieved parties from most (I am not certain of how many) of the School Districts in the Province, with a high %age from Vancouver District.

The Provincial court has now ruled and the Government has not challenged the ruling. The 30 days for challenge are now over, so the school districts are in the power squeeze now, since the ruling does not apply to the past collection and a 'fine' may apply if they are ruled in contravention of the order in the future.

I note that the Victoria district that this whole issue started in has not collected fees at all from the time of the first complaint. To date that same school district is still doing sports and music programs, I am unaware if there has been a decrease in available spots or if the quality has suffered.

I suspect that the PAC of that district has 'quietly' taken over the needed funding actions to maintain the system.

Perhaps this 'direct-involvement' PAC model is the way to do these 'non-core' programs?

Better would be for the parents, that are fed up with the constant begging of the overstaffed (and if Grumpy is right, well travelled and entertained) non-teaching elements of the school system, to remove their children from that system (and demand their tax money back from the system!) and teach them via other means.

Can you imagine a day without music? No. So, Jeez, I ask you: why must perversity rule?!

Why is Music is still considered a frill, an extra, something not quite worthy of being included in a good basic education?

Music -- well taught -- could, in fact, be the stand-alone core subject of an excellent education.

I suppose, in a one-size-fits-all education, the core subjects should begin with Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Music. But when you really think about it ... it could all be done within a well-taught Music education.

Just think: no more whining about having nothing to do after school ... about having no fun ... about needing a new pool hall or something.

wrong murdock:

As I pointed out above, the initiative was led by John Young (who is in his 80s now I think) a school trustee in District 61.

I don't think it's hurt Music education in Victoria at all, Mary. Every single district in this province could trim more than enough from their administrative budget to cover these costs. And it's about time they did.

And he's not a lawyer. Here's a little bio of the guy:

Does that answer your question raingirl?

all this will do is limit opportunities for the underprivileged kids. nice work john young.

Quote by raingirl: "I hate to think of what the schools will look like in a few years time- no band, no cooking, no art, no fieldtrips. Can anyone say declining graduation rates?"

And declining enrollment rates, too. Do you not think there was a reason the provincial government didn't appeal the court's decision? It plays right into their hands- the folks who can afford to pay the fees may simply move their kids into the private system. Consequently, funding to the public system will be cut further and on it goes. The government is simply doing to education what they are doing to the health care system, and they can conveniently lay the blame at the feet of those "uppity" parents who had the audacity to oppose extra fees.

Instead of subsidizing "private" education with my tax dollars (which the government does- like the "private" ferry system), the parents of kids in the private system should pay the whole shot. Transfer those subsidies to the public system. Of course, I suppose that wouldn't jive with the government's goal which is probably to (ultimately) privatize the whole system.

why should they appeal the decision? they're going to change the school act and shut down 'crusaders' like john young. good on 'em.

G ... maybe I wasn't clear. Usually whenever the cost of education comes up for discussion, music very quickly lands on the butcher's block (see Dallas above). It's so backward.

There's another perennial topic -- The Aims of Education -- which arouses similar platitudes about $$s and sense. Oh, and school board budgets, always wrong, aren't they?

Bugs me, is all.

As for John Young, he was a beacon of light for teachers in training ... right on up to superintendents of school districts. We owe him tremendous thanks for his forward-thinking on behalf of students.

Let's face it; conspiracy theories are fun. Not helpful or even very accurate generally, but fun. The one that keeps rising to my mind in these cases goes like this: It's all just part of the grand scheme to make the public education system unattractive to parents. Keep picking away at the image of public education until it becomes common understanding that public schools are for people who can't afford anything better. Then sit back and watch as the parents (and kids) flock to the newly mandated private schools with nonunion staff and a healthy dividend to the shareholder.

Of course the Supreme Court had no ulterior motive regarding public education (they just interpret the law) but this ruling seems to be playing into the hands of those who might benefit from an increase in private education and the minds of paranoiac, conspiracy fans.

When you charge fees, you make class and income an issue for children, where it shouldn't be. In my childhood, kids in my family didn't go on any fieldtrips. They stayed at home. We didn't join clubs because my parents couldn't afford to pay for a special shirt our outfit.
Other kids snickered about us being poor (which we were), but it didn't need to have been an issue. Surely you folks can see that the issue is not, we need the money, but that the cost of collecting the money is to humiliate children whose parents can't afford to pay. Cheers to John Young.

'When you charge fees, you make class and income an issue for children,'. wrong. kids that can afford the field trip fees or the course fees are covered quietly by the school. ask any principal and he'll confirm. that's why this entire campaign by the pony-tailed crusader is a farce.

correction, of course. 'kids that can't afford the fees'.

just ended. 4-2 canada. congratulations to our junior boys! what a gutsy performance by those young lads. and what an amazing coaching job by craig hartsburgh and his staff.

BS Elliot - If you knew anyone in the Victoria district - as I do - you'd know the sky didn't fall when this decision came down in 1997. And it won't fall in the rest of the province now. Just put a few more administration salaries back into the school programs where they belong and there will be no problem and the poor kids won't have to get their parents to crawl for special consideration the way it happened before 1997.

I agree with your sports sentiments. Just don't get into political commentary and nobody will be offended.

No student fees, no tuitions. Allow access to everyone -- but demand excellence from both students and teachers as "payment".

BC Mary here is the address to an essay titled "The Aims of Education" by Alfred North Whitehead. It often comes to mind in discussions like these.

http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philosophy/sophia/topics/phiedu/Whitehead.htm

bloodnok: Re: your comment about conspiracy theories being fun, though generally not helpful or accurate:

Unfortunately, given the track record of this government and their sneakiness and lack of openness and accountability, the "theory" that they may try to privatize education is based on their past performance and is thus realistic, not neurotic.

The only reason that folks come up with "theories" when it comes to this government is that they are things that they can see them doing, based on past performance and the fact that nobody (at least that I know) trusts them as far as they can throw them.

To not entertain the possibility of these things happening (perhaps as we speak) is to stick one's head in the sand. I realize you know this as you were being sarcastic in a sense, but I wanted to add my two cents worth.

Sorry that address doesn't connect but this one does.

http://www.ditext.com/whitehead/aims.html

North: OMG, Alfred North Whitehead ... ! Luckily, the page "Could not be found" because I don't think I can bear to hear that argument again.

Always seemed to polarize around two kinds of people, both of whom can be seen right on this thread.

Option #1: graduates who are thoughtful, widely-read people, able to continue learning for the rest of their lives,

or:

Option #2: graduates who are schedule-driven, narrowly trained, ready for the factory gate, with opinions sealed.

Surely we know the answers by now!

Why do they refer to administrators as educators? Most of them never stand in front of a classrooma and many that did try to were so poor at it that they fled to administration as quickly as they could.

As for fees ...just put a few more Coke and Pepsi machines in the schools. That should solve the cash shortfall.

GWest: Thanks for the background information with respect to John Young & the court challenge. However, I'm still a little unclear on the motive behind it ... was it initiated because he & the parent group were actually seeing many students who were unable to participate in programs which required fees ... or were they just against the whole idea of any education fees? I find the latter concept unlikely if Young was, as per his bio, involved in private school administration, as an anti-fee private school is somewhat of an oxymoron.

The second part I'm unclear on is how Victoria has managed to provide the same level of music/sports/etc. without any fees since 1997? Is it just that PAC fundraising has been geared up (as per Murdock's post) or have they actually found additional money from the board itself (as per GWest's post). If it has just shifted to the PAC then it really is just a bit of a shell game. The parents who paid to rent their child's tuba will now simply fundraise for that same tuba. Raising enough money to provide instruments to several high school bands would be an enormous undertaking. PACs are already funding an ever increasing portion of the so-called extras (computers, sports equipment, music trips, camps) and having these "extras" dependent on PAC funds still reinforces the 2-tiered system as anyone can see that Point Grey PACs bring in a lot more money than Eastside Van. PACs.

Finally, I've got to agree with Elliot re:

I've seen this happen many times in the last 10 years or so & quite often the principal doesn’t even wait for the family to ask. Most teachers/principals have a very good idea of who may be in need of assistance. I know the situation was different in the past - I'm thinking the 60's and 70's here. If you weren't willing/able to pay then you generally did not go/sign up. I know that there was at least one high school course that I chose not to take because I knew that the costs would be prohibitive for myself & my family. It didn't affect my getting a decent education however. I'm not sure it is entirely a bad thing for people to pause & decide whether or not they can afford some of the education extras for their child (choosing oak over pine in woodwork, ski lessons, etc.). I just don't think the small fees, and in a global scheme they are a pittance, that we have been paying up to this point are entirely out of line.

writes raingirl

From the above article.

Are you seriously saying that $86 MILLION dollars collected in one years is a pittance?!?

The entire system is dysfunctional and the need to collect fees 'over and above' those already taken in income, and property taxes is insane!

Should this move be one to break the back of the system then I approve.

raingirl
It was initiated by John Young himself - where did you get the idea there was an action group of parents involved? There wasn't. He simply had the law on his side and the courts agreed.

In his extensive experience as a teacher Young was aware of the kinds of discrimination - both active and passive - that resulted from the fact that many programs involved additional fees and that there were many (in some inner city schools very many) students who could not afford certain desired programs and or field trips and the like;(or because some parents could not afford certain costs their kids just never had a chance to share in these learning opportunities).

In Victoria some money has come from administrative savings and other funds have come from fund raising. However, I believe that because the fund-raising is of a program-wide nature it provides all the funds for a given activity and does not discriminate on a monetary basis as was the case before.

Elliot is completely wrong about his understanding of what actually happens in schools - poor kids were always left out and they aren't now. You shouldn't expect too much from a critic whose most pithy criticism involves a judgment about the length of a third party's hair, after all.

Furthermore, there is now more balance between schools within the district and some local businesses have stepped up with matching funds for such things as grad programs so no-one is left out of that either.

I have to say that murdock isn't far from right in his observations. There is more than enough administrative slack in the system to make certain every student gets all the necessary extras without passing the cap.

The province should also stop funding private schools and re-direct all those budgeted items into public education. On that I know murdock won't concur.

Education should be one area where it doesn't matter how much your Das makes or where you live and John Young is trying to see that we make some small steps toward that ideal.

You might actually find this a good way to understand what this is all about:
http://schoolfees.ca/law/young_affidavit.htm

WRONG again G West.

If the funding is supposed to be 'public' then in the 'public' system it belongs!

Were such an action taken then I also say that the BCTF gets 0 input and the 'ministry' gets to say exactly nothing about what goes on inside the 'private' systems.

Since both groups want a say then the funding will flow...

Mr Young did not take his actions unilaterally to start with, nor in expanding the 'legal' challenges.

I was certain that this group was a law society sponsored one with almost all lawyers as members, certainly as the directors...my misunderstanding, but then this just proves I do not have an eidetic memory, nor the time to delve into such research.

you're getting more boring every day g. and you're wrong. they are covered in the way that raingirl explained. period. this whole issue is a farce. john young wants attention and he's getting it, but he's hurting the system. no matter. soon the school act will be changed and he can start another useless campaign. whatever...

So, I did the math and things didn’t seem to add up. Approximately 570,000 public school students in BC and $86,000,000 in extra fees – works out to about $150 per student per year. Now, I’ve had 2 kids in public school here for coming up to 10 years and I’ve never had to pay anything remotely close to that – and no, I’m not in Victoria. Even if I add in the times when we had particularly field trip happy teachers I doubt if the cost ever exceeded $50 and at the lower end of the scale it was often under $10.

I realize that high school elective courses generally come with higher fees but somebody else in BC must be paying my share of that $150! Things were a little clearer after I read a bit of the John Young vs. Ministry of Education affidavit and associated documents. Some of it is here:

http://schoolfees.ca/law/young_affidavit.htm

Seems that some people are paying $1200/course for their children to attend specialty sports training programs in public high schools (Claremont Sport Institute in Saanich for example), upwards of $250 to enroll in professional chef & hairdressing programs (North Van.), upwards of $400 for special outdoor education PE programs including kayaking, West Coast Trail hikes, rock climbing excursions, etc. (multiple districts), and untold amounts to send language students across the country and the world (not just Quebec, but France, China, Ecuador ….). Even though these are “Elective” and not “Required” courses they will be subject to the no-fee policy if they remain as part of the official curriculum. So, while my children’s $10 planners and $2 ice skating fees do seem a pittance to me, I must commiserate with those poor parents who have had to shell out thousands so that their teen can experience world-class rowing in high school. Sarcasm greatly intended!

I thought I would add an exert here from Young’s affidavit …

Well it bothers me deeply that this whole no-fee policy may result in the destruction of decent music, shop, and arts programs, because of a small group of individuals who believe that their child is entitled to kayak, travel, play the violin and receive sport’s training at no cost. Sounds like a spoiled child screaming “if I can’t have the best toy then you can’t have anything!”

If parents just simply make the decision to not even consider the extras or to incur the embarrassment of asking because they feel they can't afford the extras the kids get left out.

You obviously never knew or have forgotten the stigma of being poor. Your lack of empathy for someone who actually does something instead of just talking about it (respecting John Young) is appalling. And you don’t know what you’re talking about – it’s apparently a long time since you left middle school. You do nothing but slag teachers and their organizations on one hand and then suggest they can administer charity effectively and sympathetically – better get your messages clear El. You sound conflicted – not just like a broken record..

Good game last night eh? I’m beginning to think this new coach is a big improvement over Crawford.

I'm sorry raingirl, you obviously haven't gotten the message. None of those dire consequences has happened in SD # 61 since 1997. The sky has not fallen and the programs you think are so important - as does John Young - are doing just fine in the nation's capital.

Claremont is not in SD # 61 - it is in SD # 63. The Government should stop funding private schools – now – and put those funds back into public education where they belong. I don’t deny the masters of the universe the right to support such institutions but I don’t want taxpayers paying for it while poor kids in the rest of the province do without – or are threatened with doing without. Private sports programs shouldn’t be using public facilities for such things as the nonsense at Claremont, in my view.

Writes G West (meaning Victoria)!

Does this mean that you are a closet BC separation supporter?

Does this mean that you just had a 'freudian slip' regarding BC as merely a province and not a 'nation'?

LOL!

Just a slip, freudian or not - who knows?
Thanks for the correction.
I meant 'provincial' capital.

Happy new year my friend.

As a former B.C. teacher, I applaud the ruling. As suggested by Percy (and perhaps others) above, the issue of collecting fees from students had to do with the humiliation of families and elementary school children for me. Yes, the school was able and willing to cover fees of a minor nature, but in light of how obvious it was which families/kids did and did not pay fees many kids simply chose not to attend events which cost money. They stayed home.

At the high school level, as an example, my grade 11 son was required to purchase a graphing calculator ($110) and a non-reusable workbook ($20) for a Math class. A little investigation showed that what those who could not afford these REQUIRED materials did, was a) take the "non-academic" Math course or b)borrow a calculator at the school which could not be taken home for homework purposes. Considering the minimum of one hour's homework per night with this course, this must have presented challenges.

Mr. Young's intent, as he has articulated in past, was to encourage the proper funding of public education. If materials are required for the completion of a course, they should be supplied. If the money is unavailable, then please explain to the public why woodwork, art, music, or some other aspect of learning is not affordable and/or important.

As someone suggested above, requiring a Math student to purchase the calculator or the music student to buy the guitar is a bit like requiring a patient to bring their own gauze and antibiotics, isn't it?

If it's important, pay for it. And... we (the public) get to fight the endless battle for what we consider to be important when the pendulum swings one way or the other in their framing (and reframing every 4-5 years) of what is and is not essential in public education.

.
O'Leary: thanks for the quiet endorsement of fairness in education. God, how we struggle over these precious years of kids' lives called Education.

Must our classrooms be constantly subjected to those demeaning questions: does it pay? Are we getting our money's worth?

In all seriousness, we ask ourselves: can we afford to have well-educated, thoughtful young graduates? And we, for Chrissakes, debate that question. How could we do that to our kids and our hopes!

Pathetically, we ask one another if maybe it's best that we grind kids down, put them on schedules, reacting to buzzers, to shape them up, preparing them to so be good worker-bees, comfortable within those factories which look so much like classrooms.

Why, as O'Leary says, is this "an endless battle for what we think is important"? I mean, we know what's important for our kids, don't we?

O'Leary Italian hospital do just that, they require patients to bring their own supplies, soap, face cloths, towels and some medications as one Canadian family found out after an auto accident over there. So it does happen in some places. But the funding problem lies with the Provincial Government and lack of school funding period. Tax breaks for the "top earners" is more important than the 95% of the other taxpayers especially schools and hospitals. It is interesting that a hospital can close wards, floors and lay of front line workers while adding to the management staff and it is the same with the schools. At one time Principals taught half time and the VP if he was lucky got two periods a week for school duties but not now. Principals and VPs are more than likely to be found at the local board offices with a designated teacher holding the fort at the school. The City of Vancouver sends millions in excess school taxes to the Provincial Government which they cream off. If the total tax dollars collected in Vancouver stayed here the VSB would have a huge surplus which in turn would mean a LOWERING of the tax burden for Vancouver ratepayer. Legalized legislated thievery of taxdollars to cover tax shortages up country because of lack of funding.

G West:

That still didn’t answer the question of how it is that SD #61 has been able to continue to provide these programs. Since I don’t know anyone with teens in SD #61 I simply went to the District website and looked up a few high school course selection guides. If you are interested, take a look at the 2006/2007 one here from Oak Bay High School (I chose them simply because they are a larger school in a slightly wealthier locale and therefore more likely to offer a wide selection of electives as well as the standard curriculum – I’m not specifically singling them out).

http://www.oakbay.sd61.bc.ca/course/OBCourse0607.pdf

Let’s see … we have Photography 12: “students will be asked to supply their own film and paper or purchase a package from the department ($30).”
… Senior Concert Band 11/12: “students supply their own or rented instruments. Private lessons are strongly recommended.”
… Orchestral Strings 9: “students normally supply their own instruments; a limited number are available for rent from the school.”
… Trades: “students may be asked to cover the cost of the additional materials needed to complete these special take home projects.”
… Foods 10/11/12: “students will be provided the opportunity to receive Foodsafe certification as part of this course ($25).”
… Physical Education 11/12: “students wishing to participate in optional activities and field trips have a cost of approximately $100 in total.”
… Math 9 and above: “… as a minimum requirement students should have a scientific calculator … students in senior level courses will find a graphing calculator useful … a limited number of graphing calculators are available for those unable to provide their own.”
… Band Field Trips: Cuba, Hawaii, lots of parent fundraising but also a request for “The final Maui payment is Due Jan.11/07. Please make the cheque payable to Oak Bay Sec. School. The amount required is $925.00.”

… I could list additional fees for everything from art to metalwork to foods courses. But my mistake, these apparently aren’t really fees. In reality, the situation in Victoria is no different than that of any other district. They have simply gotten around the no-fee issue with semantics; instead of saying Foods 12 has a fee, you say “if you wish to participate in an enriched foods program you will be asked to supply your own food or cover an additional supplies cost”. Either way, if you don’t have the money … you still don’t have the money. Things are apparently "just fine"; in fact they haven’t changed at all since 1997 in the province’s capital.

O’Leary:

I don’t disagree that his intent appears to have been proper education funding (which I myself would also love to see re-instituted, accompanied by a reduction in payments to most private schools) but I seriously wonder how an individual so deeply involved in education could not have seen how his challenge would be used (by the present Government, boards, some parents) to try and dismantle that same public education system.

The problem is that personal accountability seems to be declining while the variety of available courses increases exponentially (along with the materials they require). While I would hope most people would agree that basic art & music supplies would be readily available and hopefully, even free, I think it is excessive to ask that some things, like violins, oak furniture projects, 3 day kayak trips, and professional chef courses, be available to all at absolutely no cost. I think this goes towards society’s prevailing sense of entitlement … not everyone will always get exactly what they want, especially if they can’t afford it. So, I don’t really have a problem with saying sorry, you can take advanced metal design, but if you want to work with anything other than some tin you’ll have to cough it up yourself. Frankly, I think many of these highly specialized electives should not be part of the public education system at all … which would ensure that there is in fact clay in the art rooms and calculators in the math rooms … and I guess that also places me in the thick of the “endless battle for what we think is important” in public education.

I will hold my breath and hope that Elliot is right … that changes to the school act will be forthcoming and the fee issue will once again become a non-issue.

Raingirl: As I already explained, District 61 has used a variety of fundraising methods to defray the costs for these programs - along with some commercial and other community volunteer sponsorships.

SO what you'd like is for the system to go back to the way it was I guess and poor kids either do without programs or be treated as the second class people you seem to think they are?

Nice way to treat children in a society which pays lip service to equality of opportunity.

You and Elliot make a great pair. As I mentioned earlier, if the Government was not so concerned with the 'sense of entitlement' of the folks who 'chose' to turn their backs on public school education and send their children to private school. Those funds need to go back into public education where they belong.

On the other hand, I don't have any problem with removing from public schools many of the specialized programs you also seem to think ought not be part of the public system. Music and Drama, of course, should always be an integral part of public education.

Excerpt from a Murray Dobbin report:

22.6% of Cuba's GDP is assigned to health and education.

Cuba is the only country in the world that enjoys sustainable development, according to the World Wildlife Fund's (WWF) The Living Planet Report 2006.

In addition, despite unrelenting U.S. enmity, Cuba registered a 12.5% increase in its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the last 12 months, the highest such indicator in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2006, according to a Dec. 22 disclosure by Economy and Planning Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez. The average GDP growth for the region was 5.3%.
Â*
In 2007, according to year-end figures supplied by the Havana government, Cuba will assign 22.6% of its GDP for public health and education, a figure that is four times the standard of the Latin American nations for those sectors. Spending for health, education, culture, sports, security and social assistance represent 69% of the 2007 budget.
Â*
Sustainable development, the WWF's 44-page report points out in its section on Human Development and Ecological Footprints, is a commitment to improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.
===================================

Troll Alert: Attacking the messenger ... evading the message ... GO.
Â*

As an active parent in my own children's school....

I personally applauded John Young's move, not intially, but the more I looked at the issue I see he was bang on.

First thing one has to realize is the autonomy each School District has.
Yes, they are each under the jurisdiction of the BC Ministry of Education and empowered by the BC School Act....BUT so what???

There is no real " Provincial School District Police " ....which will audit legislated compliance etc.for each school district .
However, some school districts may do a better OR worse job than others given their own internal policies etc.

In addition, EACH school within EACH school district is often run at the discretion of the individual school's administration...again a lesser chain of accountability.

Mr Young's resume' is quite impressive. Obviously he sees that school fees are not in compliance with the school act and were likely getting out -of- hand.

What has probably happened is that over time this originally started small, slid under the radar screen and then became accepted practice(ie increased fees). Then it hits the dreaded slippery slope and then we enter into new tangents of "squeeze the parents" in greater nickel and dime fashion.

Now we have hit a wall with greater expectations and then what??? Everyone screams the sky is falling.

I know of one case where a specialized course was offered, it's high cost reduced the number of students that could enroll , and when I asked an Asst. Superintendent about "where the money comes from to fund this anomaly " they said other classes receive less funding so this other one can be funded. Rob Peter to pay Paul.

I think the entire process needs to be re-evaluated.

Re; PAC's....PAC's cannot and should not be counted on the provide funding for programs other than perhaps some minor contribution. Our own PAC funds field trips to the tune of $10 per student, teachers discretion as to the trip....that amounts to approx. $4000 in funding by our PAC. At times the students still need to pay MORE depending on the cost of field trips.

In my view and based on much experience, the Public Education system in BC is not an underfunded entity, its full of fat, those that continually deny it are full of sh!t and hot air, and the entire public school system simply needs to review and re-assess where its true priorities and focusses lie...or should lie..and quit lying to us.

In my view, The Ministry of Education and school districts can easily set aside a per student funding for these so called extra initiatives and not raise taxes...The only problem is that these fees differ given the variety of courses offered, so that details' "devil" needs to be worked out.

John Young apparently wants to create a level- playing field...good on him...and he caught many with their pants down. We need more like him, and there are many other similar issues that need similar Pro-active advocate passion.

The I.Q. factor is a good cluster-bomb to toss into the interminable debates about The Aims of Education.

I believe it takes a lot more than an IQ test to measure the breadth and depth of a human being and yet the IQ test still drives certain educational programs. The following study provides a sampling of one IQ process. Note the start-line: "A report, published Monday ..." Yeah, and which Monday of which year would that be?
.....................................................................................

Subject: Presidential Intelligence

AÂ*reportÂ* published Monday, by the Lovenstein Institute of
Scranton, Pennsylvania,Â*detailed its findings of a four month study of the Intelligence quotient ofÂ* President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has publishedÂ* its research to the educational Community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" Report.

There have been twelveÂ* presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush,Â* who were rated based on scholarly Achievements:
Â*
1. Writings that theyÂ* produced without aid of staff.

2. Their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological Factors, which were then scored using theÂ* Swanson/Crain System Of intelligence ranking.

The study determined theÂ* following IQs of each president as Accurate to within five percentage points.Â* In order by presidential term:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D]Â* 142,
Harry S Truman [D] 132,
Dwight David Eisenhower [R] 122
JohnÂ* Fitzgerald Kennedy [D] 174,
Lyndon Baines Johnson [D] 126,
Richard MilhousÂ* Nixon [R] 155,
Gerald R. Ford [R] 121,
James Earle Carter [D]Â* 175,
Ronald Wilson Reagan [R] 105
George Herbert Walker Bush [R]Â* 98,
William Jefferson Clinton [D] 182,
George Walker Bush [R] 91

InÂ* order of IQ rating:

182 . . William Jefferson Clinton [D]
175 . .Â* James Earle Carter [D]
174 . . John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D]
155 . . RichardÂ* Milhous Nixon [R]
147 . . Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D]
132 . . Harry S TÂ* R uman [D]
126 . . Lyndon Baines Johnson [D]
122 . . Dwight DavidÂ* Eisenhower [R]
121 . . Gerald R. Ford [R]
105 . . Ronald Wilson ReaganÂ* [R]
098 . . George Herbert Walker Bush [R]
091 . . George Walker BushÂ* [R]

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. PresidentÂ* George W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ ofÂ* 91.

The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an
Average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, atÂ* 182.

President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the
Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.

AmongÂ* comments made concerning the specific testing of President G.W Bush,Â*his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the EnglishÂ* language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary [6,500Â* wordsÂ* for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for
Other presidents],Â* his lack of scholarly achievements other than a Basic MBA, and an absence ofÂ* any body of work which could be studied on an Intellectual basisÂ*
Â*
TheÂ* complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at theseÂ* ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidenceÂ*analysis.

[url]http://lovenstein.org/Â*[/url]

Just another excellent set of reasons to not let your children into the hands of government agents called 'teachers'.

Murdock:

I appreciate your skepticism/cynicism, but those of us who went through the "old" B.C. Public System probably look back with fond memories and that we were well -served . However, after graduating from the system years ago and THEN having one's own children access the system years later has certainly been an eye-opener.

I think that if one removed all the politics and inconsequential nonsense, we would have a pretty good Public System again. Much of the problem is the BCTF militancy at the leadership levels and the Gov't capitulation to it.

Who IS in charge? ....it's time that was made abundantly clear and THE true stakeholder's interests(children) as the TOP #1 Priority.

Private Schools always have had and always will have a role to play,(most are also not elitist regardless of what their critics often claim), and maybe even morseo as times move forward. Public schools are experiencing declining enrollment, and apparently most Private Schools have line -ups. Simply = Choice AND Popular demand.

Wed,Jan 10 7-9pm, John Oliver Secondary DPAC/VSB sponsored School Fees session.
Chinese and Korean (and possibly Punjabi) interpreters will be assisting with the group discussions in table groups.

The purpose of this meeting is
a) to share information;
b) to identify key issues and
c) explore possible solutions.

We encourage you to come out to hopefully have some of your questions answered.

J. Doctor
Vancouver District Parent Advisory Council

I have no problem with private schools. Just don't ask the PUBLIC to pay for them.

Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Private education is the price YOU pay if you want something different and unique. I went to private school and I'd never choose such an elitist experience for my own children - everyone is free to, but don't ask the rest of us to pay for it the way we are now. With public schools suffering for funds there should be NO public money contributing to private education.

I'm with you, G West.

G West:

Re: Private Schools

Surprise Surprise .....I am going to disagree with you...again !!!.

I used to feel the same, but no, Education is not a monopoly of the so called PUBLIC System, it never has been and never will be.

As far as I am concerned, the PUBLIC system is not PUBLIC any more, its been involved in a "Hostile Take Over" by special interest groups like the BCTF and other idealogues.

Using a reducto -ad -absurdum argument, it wouldn't take much for the competition ie the Private schools to perform an organized tit-for-tat what the BCTF members themselves did at the start of the last school year , ..... close for a short time .....and thus overwhelm the Public School System to show how important ie truly indespensible the Private School System is.

The Private School System is responsible for all its capital costs. This ultimately saves the Public System/General Taxpayer from having to pony up millions per school.

The Private School system literally insists on parent involvement, versus the rather sharp-elbowed condescending staff -inmates that often run the so -called "Public" school asylum.

The Public School System is subsidized by the Private School System,.... NOT vice versa.

PS I guess thats why Lefties like the " Public Sector " status -quo...get their jollies being control -freaks, eh???

Nice doggie....

Totally disagree - but I'm not surprised YOU feel that way maestro. You seem to have little or no sense of public duty (beyond caring and crowing about yourself and your needs and desires) - in a way you're a slightly more polite version of Cappy and a good deal more intelligent than Ron Erwin.

If you don't think parents are involved in the public school system, you're certainly mistaken.

Public schools are public property. I can't go and have a kick around with a soccer ball on the fields at St George's but I can at any public school. Don't ask me as a taxpayer to finance something the public, qua public, gets no utility from - especially when those public funds have important uses, which are now going wanting, and we have a government that cares more about its friends than it does handicapped people, children in care and the health of the health care system.

There are enough things separating us now as citizens without reducing our common experience any more than is already the case.

abusus non tollit usum The fact the public system has problems is hardly a reason for its destruction.

There is no use in denigrating John Young's motives, nor, for that matter, in sanctifying his credentials. He simply pointed out that some school fees were a violation of the School Act.

The government has an obligation to enforce its rules or to change them.

I am very concerned about the ramifications of the decision on schools, but I do not blame Mr. Young for the current state of affairs.

It is intensely ironic that educational opportunities such as field trips are endangered, but extra-curricular sporting events are still permitted. I guess we can always find money for the important stuff!

Actually G. West, my son and other members of his Public High School Team played Rugby on the hallowed fields of St. Georges, and they later played on ours.

Also, my needs are very simple and basic,I aim to be as independent and as non -partisan as possible, an in fact I often think that if , per se, I won the Lottery, I may be more of a socialist than maybe even you.

I may then become a quasi -Gov't entity and direct funding towards those less fortunate on a case- by -case basis, and not be at the whims of the "true" neo-cons, the hypocrites in the Public Service( some, not all )that continually want blank cheques cut with no shareholder input or dare I say accountability . The Public School System is more a neo -con entity than at first glance.

I think that you and I, at times, are often on opposite sides, BUT not the ones you perhaps "perceive" yourself to be on.

Otherwise, no problem , keep the debates and rebuttals flowing.

Maestro: You entirely miss the point, as does your facile observation about your offspring’s extramural sporting events. Nothing you wrote denies the generality of what I said in response to YOUR claim that private educational facilities are not a capital drain on the Privy Purse.

I think they are a significant negation of the idea of a democratic, cooperative and collective shared experience. Were it appropriate so to do at this time, there are many other things about private education - including a perpetuation in some cases of the idea that a particular 'class' of individuals sees itself as somehow superior to the folks who 'cannot' send their children to these institutions – which are downright divisive and dangerous in this increasingly pluralistic society. I am also, for your information, dead set against the mercenary idea that we should be in the business of permitting foreign nationals to send their children to this country – for which they pay the public
school system incredible fees – and then they take up space and resources in our public schools. I am not talking here about legitimate school exchanges, which are valuable in their own right. Public Schools administrations – and the Provincial Government – share in this nefarious exercise in larceny that is, in its own way, as damaging to the future and quality of our schools as is the funding that goes to elitist institutions like St George’s.

The rest of what you have written above makes so little sense to me that I’ll ignore it with alacrity. Nevertheless, please be assured that I am also in favour of taxing lottery winnings. You’d do well to remember my principle: Every dollar earned, no matter how, is a dollar available for taxation.

I lived near St. Georges for a number of years in the 80's and I played soccer on their fields 5 evenings a week during the summers. Chaldecott and Memorial Park West were closer but there was no baseball or softball taking up space on summer nights at St. Georges. I also played rugby against them in high school and we won all 3 games.

No doubt true Gerhardius. The point simply was that, as private property, you had no inherent 'right' as a citizen to be there.

I've played on private fields too - as part of organized events - the point, I think, stands - non feepaying citizens are there on sufferance.

St Georges once were quite a power at rugby - has that changed?

In any case, well done.

I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable having a casual kick round with my mates at St Michael's.

St. Georges is still a powerhouse in Rugby...suspicions are that the school is an masked excuse to play Rugby.

Mind you, the uppity little bastards probably played since Kindergarten, whereas my son just started playing this year.

PS What year did you graduate from St. Georges' G. West...is that what the "G" stands for LOL...

Years back on an interview with Bannerman the Head Master Mr. Brown of St. Georges stated he was clearly mandated to educate the children of the elite, (Whoever they are.) His comment on air was in rebuttal to a caller who asked why the public schools produced more scholars than his school. Mr. Brown's comment was something like. " Yes that is true but my boys will own and run the businesses that hire those scholars."

G West:

Re: some of your points, many of which were foreseen.

On the Glass= "1/2 Empty" vs "1/2 Full " debate....

There is no inherent right nor obligation for the Taxpaying Public to expect any/all Gov't Public service/s to have a monopoly on service provision.

This helps keep both Private and Public sectors honest.

If you do a bit of research, one will find a fair bit of union militancy in North American Public education system ....gee, what a 110% coincidence it involves a motherhood issue ie children as political pawns and captive audience.

Gov't institutions owe us far more than we owe them...somehow this has either gone by the wayside if not corrupted. Look at the school fee issue(this TYEE topic)...Gov't is doing something "illegal" so where are the checks and balances??? Surely someone must have known....versus some poor schmuck getting nailed for some borderline traffic offence.

We can't have a two tier system,( Gov't = us YET its Gov't versus us????) but obviously one exists.

A Private School these days provides options. Many parents wish to pursue it. I believe the BC Gov't has provided funding to Private Schools since the mid 1970's. As parallel systems exist elsewhere in Canada where a Public and " quasi- Private " ie a Catholic system exists and both are publically funded, perhaps this avoids a legally compromising situation in the way BC deals with the Private school issue.

Re Foreign students...I agree, I DON'T agree with it...but it appears a review of the BC school act allows these Public Institutions to literally create Unaccountable corporations , to so-called charge fees...and then use the "profit" money for what ????

It appears, though I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone, that the foreign students get their "DOGWOOD",( ie B.C. Grade 12 diploma) and this allows them to apparently access a BC Post Secondary institute on par with any BC student who has run the entire BC K-12 edu-gauntlet.

PS what's with the G. West Principle ie every dollar earned is a dollar available for taxation...( which actually doesn't suprise me coming from you G. West LOL ). One can tax anything one wants...and to any degree one wants...but review "the goose that laid the golden egg" and " getting blood from a stone" parables.

I'm not really interested in adding more gold -plating to the remuneration of the Public Sector where the real neo -cons often live. Perhaps instead I'll create a scholarship in your name, G west, at some Private School???

Actually Burgess makes a good point.

I also think the "St. Georges" etc. are not very good examples to use in the Private School vs Public School discussion context. They tend to be accessible only to the very well -off.

My focus is more on those Private Schools which are more aimed to be within the means of the middle - class etc.

In addition, Private schools often have extracurricular requirements of their staff as a condition of hiring as opposed to the Public System .

The most blatantly gold plated salaries in the public sector are the ones being paid to the OIC appointments listed in Order in Council # 589 (July 21 2006) and, to a lesser extent (from the point of view of individual salary cost but not, certainly, total cost to the taxpayer) Order in Council # 656 (Sept 12 2006).

Most "real" civil servants, mutatis mutandis, are excellent value for their cost.

I've actually given my tax reform lecture several times. It's based on the report of the Carter Commission on Taxation, a Royal Commission that was initiated during the term of a Progressive Conservative Prime Minister called Diefenbaker.

Perhaps you've heard of him.

Progressive Conservatives, like Diefenbaker, are dead. Replaced by a cult under the leadership of a man Le Devoir called ‘pee wee Rambo’ on the occasion of his first "Imperial" visit to Afghanistan.

You haven't been paying attention apparently.

... back to the issue of school fees

G West:

No. Wrong. Read some of the course handbooks for DS #61 schools. They are still requesting money, hundreds of dollars of cold, hard cash in some cases. Those children who can’t afford the programs will still have to go “cap in hand” and ask for an exception to be made. I’m curious how you believe DS #61 has a more equitable system?

Huh?!?! Who said anything about second class kids? I strongly believe that every child should have full access to quality, public education; that includes well-stocked libraries, music and art programs, exposure to the trades, fitness & sports, and of course good teachers and support workers. The problem is that even in the most well-funded system (which we definitely don’t have now thanks to the financial drain of the current government, top-heavy school boards & ministries, and handouts to private schools) at some point we will reach a dollar limit. So, do we make the expensive, specialized courses like “outdoor recreation” absolutely free for everyone at the expense of providing new books and basketballs to primary students? Rob Peter to pay Paul? If we instead choose to eliminate all the field trips & course choices, we eliminate them for the disadvantaged kids as well – big mistake. After all, it’s much cheaper to learn photography for $30 at school, than $300 at college, or visit Science World for $3 with your class as opposed to $15 on your own. Obviously, the money for these “extras” has to come from somewhere … and the PACs, particularly, in the more needy neighbourhoods, can barely keep up with cash requests now. I prefer not to see commercial sponsorship used as fundraising in our schools and I can’t see the present government coughing up more cash to cover the lost revenue. Which leads to our present dilemma … fees or no fees?

Fees, in my experience, are generally not an issue at the elementary school level, minimal at the middle school level, and serve only to offset the cost of some of the more specialized elective courses at the high school level, and even then, if you choose not pay you will still receive the instruction. Surely, if you choose a specialized program you should expect that it may incur some “specialized” costs.

What would be nice is to see some standardization and limits across the province for school “fees” so that parents have some guidelines for comparison purposes … but that would require District cooperation and I can’t see it happening anytime in the near future.

… and my thanks go out to the dedicated teachers who are now scrambling to secure stocks of free art supplies, wood, and instruments to supplement their meager stocks in anticipation of the flurry of parents who will be demanding that their child receive these things for free …

raingirl:
I expect those fees are not for core courses mandated for graduation. I think the school act funding rules apply to core courses only - and I agree that's a real shame.

You don't think that preventing kids who can't afford the extra fees for specialized courses like Grade XII calculus isn't treating them like second-class citizens.

Well I do. And I bet John Young does too.

And I wager if he could find a way to litigate more fairness in that areas, he'd do that too.

Look raingirl, I've said from the start that more admin. money should go into programs; I've already said clearly that the government paying one red cent to private schools is a crooked fraud. Not sure what more you want from me.

I think Young's action takes us part of the way to where we need to go and I certainly agree with your last two paragraphs. I have teachers in my family who spend between $1500 and $2000 every year out of their own pockets to pay for supplies and materials that the school boards (#61 and #63) I know most about won't pay for.

Yet the things most people who speak up on school issues (guys like Elliot) are exercised about are teacher salaries and 'so-called' illegal strikes.

Go figure!

Unfortunately, the school act funding rules do seem to apply to "elective" as well as "core" courses, which is what prompted my initial frustration. This is an excerpt from Young’s BC advocacy website:

The School Act, and the Regulations, do not permit the charging of fees of any kind for so-called Elective Course.
Finally, the School Act, and the Regulations, clearly state that the Educational Program is free of charge. No fees are permitted for the Educational Program. There are no exceptions to this law which is cited in the School Act or the Regulations

There are simply too many expensive, specialized courses and too little money to go around. I believe the two courses brought forward in the court challenge were Tourism 11 and Art 11, with fees of $107 and $6, respectively.

As far as Calculus 12, at my son's school the only cost is for a "recommended" graphing calculator, and the school provides several which can be used after school, at lunch, etc., so there are already existing options if you are willing to be flexible. Realistically, I don't think purchasing graphing calculators, laptops, clarinets, etc. for the 30 or so kids in each class will ever be an option. Besides which if a child is taking Calculus then they will probably be progressing to a University course where that same calculator will be required & I can guarantee it will not be free there. If they don’t “like” using the shared classroom calculators then perhaps the parents could view it as an investment in their child's future education and save for it. Or the child could be persuaded to earn money and help pay for it himself. Imagine that!

Well raingirl, I don't see any suggestions from you. Maybe Young's work isn't done.

As far as your observation about university is concerned it's beside the point, don't you think?

At least a student can get a student loan for university studies. Not that the system isn't thoroughly tilted in favour fo the wealthy there too.

Is it possible that the materials you've accessed from Oak Bay are based on old data and the so called fees aren't actually charged anymore.

We're talking about equality of 'opportunity' here - not equality of outcome, of course.

I'm actually not sure if you really have a point, given your last three sentences.
Sorry, you've lost me.

In the third para 'fo' should be 'of' and 4th para should end with a ? mark. Sorry.

Well I’ve done a bit more reading up on John Young and his court challenge and I’m not sure if he is extremely naïve … or … well let’s just leave it at that he seems extremely naïve. His “1 % solution” makes too many assumptions. See below:

http://newsdaily.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5309&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Namely, that PAC funding will continue at its current rate and that additional parents will not come forward to demand “no-fee” education. I am having a problem grappling with the concept that Young could not foresee that “no-fee” education would result in one of four things: 1) All elective courses with an attached fee would be either cancelled or compromised; 2) PACs & commercial sponsers would be called in to fill the “fee” void; 3) parents would flee the public system to a private system filled with “choice”’ 4) the government and school boards would have an “a ha” moment and decide that proper education funding should be a priority. Since option 4 has no hope and 1-3 don’t seem particularly appealing I was wondering which of these outcomes Young was expecting.

Also, his letter to parents/guardians advocating that they inform their teachers/principals as to why they will not be paying “fees” sounds a tad adversarial. See below:

http://schoolfees.ca/do/letter_principal.htm

I, regrettably, know of several parents, who are fortunate enough to be able to pay these fees, but will now be taking him up on his offer of “no-fee” education. So we may soon require, instead of the 1% solution the 10% solution … and then what?

Unfortunately, I have been unable to discover where the BC Advocacy Institute receives their funding from. Funding a BC Supreme Court case would be beyond the funding available to the average working person. Does anyone know?

As to G West:

Firstly, the SD #61 Oak Bay website I provided the link for was for the current 2006/2007 year.

http://www.oakbay.sd61.bc.ca/course/OBCourse0607.pdf

I’m sure that those parents who are, as we speak, writing cheques to Oak Bay will appreciate that they are committing an illegal act under Section 82 of the BC school act.

As to my points, I though they were obvious. I would like to see quality public education available to all students in BC, K-12; students should be aware that specialized or recreational courses may, however, incur costs associated with their delivery. The present court ruling with respect to Section 82 of the BC School Act, while appearing to promote socioeconomic equality, may actually be undermining that very aspect.

I just thought that I would add, as an addendum, that I have fired off a letter to my MLA with respect to my views on the BC School Fee Court Challenge, for whatever good that might do. I’m hoping that everyone else who has strong views on this issue will do the same, whatever those views might be!

Oak Bay, you may not be aware, is the Victoria equivalent of West Vancouver. This shouldn't be a surprise to you....
As to the rest, what John Young has tried to do is important - the fact we have a government that cares more about other things (such as supporting private schools) than ensuring some minimal equity of educational opportunity is the REAL problem here.
In my view. It's not John Young, or the Court's decision, that is the problem raingirl. I hope your letter points that out.

Not that it will do any good. Gordon Campbell only listens to his friends and he could care less for actually promoting anything really equitable.

To peewee Mc Rambo's friend/colleague /advisor:

I'll be baaackkkk.

"In my view and based on much experience, the Public Education system in BC is not an underfunded entity, its full of fat, those that continually deny it are full of sh!t and hot air, and the entire public school system simply needs to review and re-assess where its true priorities and focusses lie...or should lie..and quit lying to us."

Really? Why do I spend hundreds of my own dollars each year on my classroom and students. Studies suggest that teachers in BC supplement the system by millions of dollars a year. With the technology needs in the classroom increasing every year, you can bet it will only get worse.

As to the whole fee situation, I believe we have a choice to make. Do we a public education system that somewhat levels the playing field and supplies what we think children should get to everyone, or do we let parents be responsible for their own children. We either have a collective responsibility to educate children in our society or we don't. If we don't, those without children shouldn't be forced to pay for any child to go to school. If we do, then we can't allow one child an institutional advantage over another because his parents make more money.
Make your choice.

Chris H

As I alluded to earlier, I am an involved/active parent at our school via our PAC. I also stated that each school district is given a fair bit of autonomy, and that knowledge is based on my personal choice to try to understand how the school system actually works.

My reference point is what I see occur in our school district...and some others as well, via knowing parties that work in other school districts.

If you are involved with your PAC, you are aware that "Gaming Funds" once allotted approx. $40 per enrolled student. This has been cut back to $20 per enrolled student. At our school, we also have fundraisers, and our TOTAL PAC budget amounts to approx. $16,000 per year, give or take.

What gets interesting is how the money ACTUALLY gets used. This is causing fractures in our PAC. There are those who would literally sign over the funds to the Staff's discretion, which I am told some schools actually do.

Others of us believe that it is not PAC's role to subsidize what should be provided from Education Ministry funds or the school's own internal budget. PAC funds, in my view, should add to a core/baseline norm/expectation ie PAC funds should be directed as "bonuses" to improve the school.

PAC funds cannot be relied on for what may be deemed core inititiatives at any school. That is the start of a slippery slope. A PAC is not a given at every school. A PAC must apply to be recognized, a PAC can fold,(and hence the PAC funding dry - up). The BC Gaming Commission has enforced the existence of a dissolution clause in every BC PAC's Constitution.

Re: FAT in the system...well, when a school administrator can submit a request to the school district and have a frivolous landscaping feature built at a cost of $700 which only ONE Staff member requested and still hasn't used...that's F-A-T. (That's also after repeated attempts to get PAC to fund it).

I could give several other examples of FAT. School districts have access to many cookie jars.

PS I would encourage all to request their own children's(or any) school's yearly budget and expenditures, as I have. It's Y-O-U-R right.

The school district that I work in was one of the districts that stopped asking for school fees in 1997. (We are also on the list provided in the article). My school (I'm in elementary) still charges fees for planners but parents no longer provide money at the beginning of the year for special presentations, art supplies, technology, etc. That now comes out of the school's operating budget. Our elementary school band program was cut at least 10 years ago (I don't know if it was before or after 1997). The funding shortfalls we suffer from in my school are lack of textbooks (although that's getting better), and insufficient supports for special needs students. Money for field trips comes from fund raising by the class and/or the PAC. The PAC also provides each teacher with $100 to buy supplies for their classroom. I, for one, still end up buying things myself but the $100 helps and is greatly appreciated.

I can tell you that I know that there are some principals who snitch money from the special education funding to pay for classroom teachers. There's your rob from Peter to pay Paul.

My school district has some surplus administrators on staff. These people are principals whose schools have been closed, etc. They are given jobs such as administering the BCiSIS program, recruiting foreign students, technology, etc. The school boards rationale for keeping these people on the payroll is that there will be a shortage of administrators in the future so they want to keep them around for when that happens. (They don't seem to worry that we are having problems hiring teachers for classrooms though!!) A very good friend of mine is one of these surplus administrators and, while I admire the work he is doing, I'm sure that his position could have been filled by someone with a smaller salary.

The irony of this is that we had a principal in my town who left the district to become an Asst. Superintendent in another district. Instead of using one of the administrators working in the board office, they moved the principal from my school and hired a classroom teacher to be our principal (all of this happening this past Dec.). The only reason why there is a teacher to replace her is because she did some recruiting on her own to entice a friend to apply for the job. (As we have had a classroom position available since Oct. due to a medical leave even after being advertised provincially, it was widely known that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fill this newly vacant position).

I agree 100% that the funding to private schools by the government should be stopped. This government has increased funding to private schools. I resent my tax dollars being used to pay for private schools. They are called PRIVATE schools for a reason.

And to whoever was going on about the BCTF ... thanks for the chuckle. The BCTF doesn't have anything to do with the operating budgets, etc. for schools. It seems to me that Jinny (and ohhhh how I wish people would spell her name right) stated publicly that she supported this ruling re: school fees and urged the government to adequately fund public education. In fact, now that we aren't negotiating a contract, the average teacher receives very little communication from the BCTF these days (compared to last year).

This was sent to me through a teachers' list serv. I thought it was rather appropriate to the discussion.

Calgary Herald editorial June 25, 1906.

Free School Books

A feature of the Toronto public school system that might well be considered in Calgary is the free text book.

In a system that requires compulsory attendance of every child in the city, regardless of the circumstances of his parents, it might not be amiss to provide the books and supplies.

The difficulty of securing uniformity is considerable when each scholar is allowed to purchase his own book, and throughout the session the work of the teacher is increased by the additional inconvenience of a needless variety of work books, book-keeping blanks, dictation books, business forms, etc.

The delays incident to the old system at the beginning of the term might be avoided if the books were supplied by the Board of Trustees.

The cost would not be prohibitory. In the city of Toronto the cost per pupil for text books on the basis of the total enrollment, omitting Kindergarten pupils, is nine cents.

The cost per pupil for text books on the basis of average monthly attendance is ten cents.

The cost per pupil for supplies on the basis of total enrollment, omitting Kindergarten pupils is 9 1/2 cents.

The cost per pupil for supplies on the basis of average monthly attendance is 10 1/2 cents.

The cost per pupil for both text books and supplies on the basis of average monthly attendance is 20 1/2 cents.

The Herald does not advocate the introduction of the system at present, but it is worth while observing what other cities are doing in this direction with an eye to the future.

© The Calgary Herald 2006

Pardon the intrusion here. Just saying hi to spedteacher. Glad to see you're still there and fighting the good fight. I gave it up and just volunteer in schools (and government waiting rooms) now.

O'Leary
(formerly Cuinn, before leaving town)

Maestro: "Others of us believe that it is not PAC's role to subsidize what should be provided from Education Ministry funds or the school's own internal budget."

I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, when the school, district, or provincial government drops the ball it is the teacher who pays for it out of her own pocket or lets the kids go without.

Some school PACs raise significant more dollars than yours and you wouldn't believe how they spend them.
The new auditorium at Van Tech (in Vancouver) needs new seats that the government won't provide (like the seats from the 40s are still usable?). That bill alone will come to tens of thousands of dollars. Other schools in poorer neighbourhoods have PACs that raise $0. They try and make additional money by things like selling the kids playing field to movie companies for parking. I taught at a school where that regularly happened, but the $400 a day it brought in somehow made up for the fact that the students had no place to play field sports.

"I also stated that each school district is given a fair bit of autonomy"

Also a big problem. You want to see wasted money ... then go with school based decision making. Places that have gone with that system have to make hard choices whether they want Art supplies or get the washrooms cleaned every day. Additionally, when the Liberals scrapped the targeting of funds, it allowed some districts to use money meant for students with special needs to be used on PE equipment instead.

The fact of the matter is that the school based budgets are so small, there really isn't any to waste. If your school is doing that you should complain.

Pardon my interruption too but .... hi Cuinn / O'Leary!! I sometimes envy you folks who got out but I don't think I could. I make my friends laugh when I tell them that I would use any lottery winnings (dreaming!!) to open my own school and show the government how to do it right :-)

Take care.

Chris H:

I'll comment more later, but we are all ultimately on the same page.

In the end, the squeaky wheel gets the grease...it's just that many parties are either intimidated by the system or simply shoot from the lip. Often the problem/s lie within the parents' ranks.

Believe me, my views and perspectives are hard won with many battle scars, blood, sweat and due diligence. I initially went in pretty green and now at times coming out seeing RED.

If there were more better -informed squeaky wheels, we'd see vast and more equitable improvements. Individual schools , unfortunately, are literally operated like literal planets.

Re discrepancies,.... isn't EACH student funded to the same degree, ie approx. $6000 per student? That's a starting point in how that is equitably distributed within each school and also within each school district.

Back to squeaky wheels:

Your comment about auditorium seats struck a bit of a chord.

Well , in our school district, the amount of funding thrown into capital costs still boggles the mind. In the last 5-10 ,those High schools that haven't been 100% rebuilt have hade extensive renovations. Many elementary school have had some architectural embellishment. Why not all, or conversely why only some?

I think it lies in how Pro-Active the given school district is in presenting its " cap- in- hand " case to Victoria. Our school district often seems to get a blank cheque. These capital costs are separate from the yearly operating costs. There seems to be no other reason, as I haven't heard of any pro-rata capital costs.

"Re discrepancies,.... isn't EACH student funded to the same degree, ie approx. $6000 per student? That's a starting point in how that is equitably distributed within each school and also within each school district."

Students that are designated ESL or have certain special needs are funded more than the typical student. In the Lower Mainland this could be the majority of the students in the school. Additionally, there are still targeted funds through MCFD that go to needy and inner-city schools.

Capital projects are highly political and are decided, ultimately, by the provincial government.

G West to Raingirl

I've done some more checking. I my view it seems that school boards (including here on the Island) are playing a game of chicken with parents and the Ministry.

They're continuing to charge fees that are, in effect, illegal and challenging parents to make the next step.

Parents should, province wide, dig in their heels and NOT PAY. Only such a concerted action on behalf of the principle of equality of opportunity and true public education will make any kind of impression on the elitists in Victoria who are more concerned with looking after their friends than discharging their obligations as public servants.

Good article and discussion

good article and interesting discussion.

I've really enjoyed Maestro's comments, which surprises me as I'm further to the left. But I think he's into dialogue and exploration, like Ed Deak, which leads to better conversation and learning, imho.

I don't think raingirl understands what its like for families and children living in poverty; although she's done some good research. Saving up for the $110 math calculator? that's a very middle class assumption.

One in four children in BC live in poverty (the highest rate of any province) and many of their families are trying to cover rent and get food on the table. Food bank usuage continues to increase in BC, as does homelessnes.
A math calculator? probably easier just not to take the course. And frequently families and kids don't want to be identified as poor.

Elliot: some principals reach out a helping hand, others don't. Some districts have good processes in place for charging school fees, others certainly don't.

In the midst of this raging school fees debate, it would be interesting to ask some families and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, what has been the impact of school fees in their schools?

Finally, there are 60,000 students in BC independent schools. Most schools receive provincial government funding and follow the BC curriculum. The biggest group of students belong to the Catholic schools. In other provinces, the Catholic schools are fully funded. (And why not in BC?) If funding for independent schools is eliminated, many of those children would return to public schools and what a big burden that would impose.

Plus I agree with Maestro, having independent schools encourages responsiveness from public schools.

Catholic schools are a different matter

Catholic schools, in provinces where they have them, are not comparable with the situation in BC. Catholic schools in other provinces are funded through property taxation exactly as the public school system is here. One makes a choice about where one's taxes go - to the public (sectarian) system, or to the Catholic system.

BC has never had s parallel Catholic system and it would be absurd to suggest we start one now in my view. It would, furthermore, merely lead to further demands for schools structures that would eventually deteriorate into the 'charter' school nightmare that has proved so problematic in the United States.

Whether or not the (historical) two-track system in other provinces is a good idea or not is a matter of legitimate debate but, given the situation on the ground there is no reason to 'rob' the public system to fund a dog's breakfast of alternatives that ought not to be competing for scarce dollars with the public system that is already established here. In the era of the Charter, such an idea would amount to a death sentence for public education.

I completely disagree with your last point, by the way. And I think you'll find that many private schools pay little more than lip service to many curriculum standards and guidelines - especially the sciences and especially for schools with a fundamentalist bent.

Cut off all funding now. Many of your other points are quite valid.

Private schools

In the early 60's most of Vancouver's local private school catered to out of town families, mainly coastal communties. The bank branch that I worked at held two accounts for two schools. The first account covered the monthly payments for room, board and supplies. The second account was an escrow account (no interest paid). Sort of a building fund/'performance' bond which was refunded when the student graduated, (No refund for expelled students - it was in the contract.) So what happened over the last fifty some odd years? With the student base from coastal and up country students drying up where were the students to come from? Why the rich and social climbers of course. The most interesting part of the whole scenario is the kids of the rich and 'famous' that screw up and are sent to pergatory in the public school system minus the building/performance money. It was always interesting to hear the misdirected anger of the folks that 'lost' their deposit.

off -the -radar.. I'll try

off -the -radar..

I'll try to continue this discussion later...(but the TYEE is apparently closing discussions sooner and unpredictably).

Regardless, my basic advice to anyone is that if anyone wants to get Pro-Active in life, or at minimum get a basic understanding at how Gov't and Organizations in general either interact or act independently, get involved in something like a PAC, or perhaps ESPECIALLY a PAC.

It will be a very useful " apprenticeship in life ", do your " homework " , keep an open mind, but never accept " NO " for an answer.

G West: Re Catholic

G West:

Re Catholic Schools :

Have family in Alberta and relatively familiar with the (2) separate systems ie Public and Catholic System.

I agree that implementing a similar system here in BC now is highly unlikley.

G West...not sure re: your last point

G West:

Not sure what last point I made that you disagree with....the pro rata capital cost one?

Regardless, as "off -the -radar" alluded to, in essence,BOTH an Independent "Private" school system and a "Public" school system keep each other
responsive, and balanced etc.

Otherwise, I am not of the view that any Public Institution is a sacred cow. Public Education way back likely had some sort of " Private " roots.

Unfortuantely, these "sacred cows" tend to be taken over by special interest groups and lose their " Public Status " they are now more like Private Clubs, members only, with the rest of us on the outside looking in while continually writing cheques .

The Mega -Corporation called "Gov't" and it subsidiary "Ministries/branches " and their numerous staff doesn't work for free,not even close, yet it is ultimately accountable to ALL of us.

We , as a society have deemed (i)Health Care and (ii) Education as our biggest investments...Ironically, we give Health Care delivery as a virtual monopoly....BUT a Private(Non Public) School system has always existed...and Gov't, unlike Health Care , knows better than to go near that Independent School issue as far as allowing a monopoly.

Simply stated :
It's not our duty to fund the Non -Private EDUCATION System which calls itself P-U-B-L-I-C....its only called "Public" because its deemed to be free .....and YET it is FAR from FREE...and at times I think it has a " belief system " all its own.

I recently read some enrollment projections from our local School District. This year..... we will have approx. 2100 grade 12 Grads THIS YEAR . The Kindergarten class THIS YEAR is approx. 1300. I'm sure you can extrapolate the inference....declining enrollment for several years.

Is this an across the board demographic ... or the only certainty is these are PUBLIC School System numbers...I still hear about line -ups to enter the Independent Schools.

This does not preclude one -side to look at the situation and say "the competition is beating us, we need to address this Pro-Actively...not simply bleat towards an increasing number of turned backs".

It's ultimately about the STUDENTS BEST interests, NOBODY elses...and not simply pawns in a political CHESS game.

CHECK it out MATE !

Maestro from G West

My response above was to 'off-the-radar' and I thought it was quite clear. I agreed with what he/she posted other than the last point about independent schools - I don't think there's any evidence that independent schools make the public system any more responsive - in fact, it's possible that the opposite is the case.

I believe that the province now funds about 50% of the operating costs of private schools. I think this is a subsidy to business - and it's wrong - especially since it tends to dilute the amount of money available for tax-supported schools. I am almost always against subsidies to business...it's bad for their character.

I think we have to look at the best interests of all the students and not just the ones with parents who want to support private options. I think parents should be involved in their local schools - but that is not always an unalloyed benefit to education either. I've seen many parents foisting themselves on the system who'd be much better to stay at home. It's a fine balance - just like the parents on the sidelines at a juvenile soccer match.

Not everyone is always as good a citizen as they think they are. Me included.