The Impact of the New Rights on the Privatization of Education

IPE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Fellows and guest authors hold a range of views and interests relative to public schools, education issues, and the political landscape in BC. Perspectives is an opportunity for Fellows and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.

The Impact of the New Rights on the Privatization of Education 

Andrée Gacoin

November 25, 2024

The conservative discourses of the new Rights, and their impact on education, was top of mind in October 2024 as BC went to the polls to elect a new provincial government. In Canada, education is the mandate of provincial governments and, while education is not always an election issue, this particular race was dominated by harmful and hateful rhetoric that sought to control and further privatize education. This included:

-Censoring of classroom materials. In media interviews, as well as the party platform, the Conservative Party of BC critiqued educational materials for being politically biased and promoting (progressive) ideologies.[i] The popularity of this view can be seen in the increase of “book challenges” across Canada. These challenges are when individuals or group seek to remove books from school libraries or restrict them to certain audiences. Books that are inclusive of diverse gender identities and sexual orientations, as well as books by Indigenous, Black and authors who identify as People of Colour have all been challenged.[ii]

-Attacking social justice and rights-based approaches as “indoctrination” and seeking to control teachers’ professional autonomy. The Conservative Party’s agenda built on moral panics that have mobilized parent groups across the province, panics seen in previous elections for school trustees as well.[iii] For example, groups have gathered outside schools, and targeted individual teachers, to protest the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the curriculum.[iv] Complaints have been made to the Teacher Regulation Branch, a body that governs the professional conduct of teachers, related to teacher’s curricular decisions related to social justice issues.

-Being explicitly anti-union. The Conservative platform focused on terms such as “open procurement” and “qualified” workers and critiqued government for being overly influenced by unions. This is part of a broader fiscal conservatism that promotes reduced government spending, free markets, free trade, and privatization.

Increased funding for private schools. In BC, many private schools (called “Independent Schools”) receive government funding at either 50% or 35% of their local public school district rate. The Conversative Party of BC argues that private options are necessary because of parent’s concerns about the “ideologies” being taught in public schools.

While the Conservative Party of BC did not ultimately win (barely),[v] they have formed the official opposition and there was overwhelming support for the Conservatives in many parts of the province. Their ideas for education are reflected in the ongoing advocacy of right-wing Think Tanks, such as the Fraser Institute, that champion education reforms “to achieve better value for money and improved results for both students and taxpayers.”[vi] Proposed measures include returning to a “back-to-the-basics” curriculum, increasing student testing for accountability, and establishing charter schools in the province.

The political landscape in BC reflects the rise of conservative politics across Canada. In the province of Ontario, for instance, there is a populist provincial leader who has consistently underfunded public education for six years, leading to larger class sizes, decaying buildings, and fewer supports and services for students.[vii] In Quebec, the rise of conservatism can be seen in politicians who openly and proudly push an anti-union agenda and attempt to convince the public that unions are to blame for the failing of public services. This is coupled with xenophobic rhetoric that blames immigrant populations for problems within the province.[viii] Nationally, the leader of the Conservative Party is seeking to be the next Prime Minister of Canada. He is a self-described “champion of a free market,” believes in “limiting government” and posits that schools should “stick to teaching math, reading and writing.”[ix]  Public opinion polls indicate that he would win if the Canadian election was held today.[x]

As illustrated in the case of the BC election, these conservative political parties are linked to the rise of the “parental rights” movement in Canada – a movement that embodies the many links between far-right ideologies and interest in education privatization. In BC, for example, the attacks have been focused on a program called SOGI 123, which supports teachers to make schools safer and more inclusive for students of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Contrary to the arguments of the new Rights, research illustrates the positive impact of this program. A recent evaluation of SOGI 123, done by researchers at the University of British Columbia, found that the program decreased bullying and sexual orientation discrimination for both LGBT+ and also for heterosexual students.[xi] However, conservative groups, taking up the language of “choice” in education, continue to attack the program (and those who teach it) as “indoctrinating” kids and promoting “radical ideologies.”

Across Canada, this “moral panic” becomes a weapon against public education in two key ways. Firstly, it is used as a political rallying call to “take-back” public education, such as by electing morally conservative trustees on public school boards. Secondly, it legitimizes parent “choice” to opt-out of public education and mobilizes this “choice” to increase the privatization of public services.

[i] See for example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-conservatives-election-eductation-policy-1.7351918 and https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sogi-123-sexual-education-b-c-election-2024-1.7333988

[ii] https://www.teachermag.ca/post/book-challenges-protecting-diversity-in-our-llcs

[iii] See for example: https://www.comoxvalleyrecord.com/community/courtenay-school-board-trustee-candidate-distributing-anti-sogi-material-1636411

[iv] See for example news coverage, and teachers’ responses, at: https://pressprogress.ca/surrey-teachers-speak-out-against-misinformation-around-2slgbtq-education-in-bc-schools/

[v] 47 seats in the BC Legislative Assembly are needed to form a majority government. The center-left National Democratic Party (NDP) won those 47 seats, just securing the majority. The Conservative Party of BC won 44 seats and the BC Green Party won 2 seats.

[vi] https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/k-12-education-reform-in-british-columbia

[vii] See a statement from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) here:  https://www.osstf.on.ca/en-CA/news/new-coalition-announces-coordinated-response-to-ford-government.aspx

[viii] See for example: https://cultmtl.com/2024/11/quebec-mna-haroun-bouazzi-accuses-colleagues-of-recurring-xenophobia-polarizing-lie-or-uncomfortable-truth/

[ix] https://www.conservative.ca/pierre-poilievre/

[x] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-trump-bump-liberals-us-election

[xi] See: https://www.saravyc.ubc.ca/2024/10/09/report-evaluation-of-sogi-123-in-bc/

Dr. Andrée Gacoin is the Director of the Information, Research and International Solidarity Division at the BC Teachers’ Federation and an IPE/BC Fellow. Her research focuses on developing a unique, in-depth and contextualized exploration of education in BC from the perspective of teachers. Andrée is particularly interested in using research as advocacy to uphold and strengthen an inclusive public education system.

A Big No to Big O

IPE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Fellows and guest authors hold a range of views and interests relative to public schools, education issues, and the political landscape in BC. Perspectives is an opportunity for Fellows and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.

A Big No to Big O

By Patti Bacchus

October 1, 2024

Pity the poor tire-store marketing account manager, if there is such a gig. The client has a measly $20,000 to spend on a campaign, which doesn’t go far if you’re buying advertising space in a fractured and crowded media environment.

Here’s an idea: Let’s use unpaid labour in the form of captive public-school kids and their overworked, underpaid teachers, and heck, we can even make them compete for the privilege!

We won’t even have pay to promote it, we’ll get the taxpayer-funded school board’s communications staff to promote it for us!

It’s like that time Chevron tried to promote gas sales through “Fuel Your Schools,” where teachers were supposed to compete for grants to fund classroom projects, with the program being promoted at the pumps, urging parents to fuel up to fund their kids’ classrooms. Yuck.

Those were the thoughts that crossed my mind today when I scrolled by a post from the Vancouver School Board (VSB), promoting “The ‘Big Idea’ with Big O Tires,” a grant program that requires students and their teachers to compete for a $20,000 grant “implement a new, creative initiative that will help service a need in their community.”

Sounds fairly harmless, doesn’t it? I don’t know. If you go to the Big O website, the finer print gets to what this is really about: marketing. It says: “Big O Tires reserves the right to publish through its marketing channels, including but not limited to social media, in whole or in part any submissions received, including any accompanying materials and/or the names of the faculty member and/or school from which the initiative was submitted.”

It would cost the tire company a heck of a lot more than $20,000 to do some good in the community, without the free labour from students and teachers, so you can see why they came up with this scheme.

As a former Vancouver school trustee and its longest serving chairperson, I’m opposed to private businesses using schools to polish their public images. If they want to support schools, they can make a donation to the school district without requiring students and teachers to be part of their marketing programs.

With all the emphasis on critical thinking in our public school curriculum, you’d think the folks making the decisions at the VSB would pause to subject this marketing pitch to the rigours of critical thought. Apparently they did not. It should have been a big no to Big O.

 

Patti Bacchus is a public education advocate, commentator, and IPE/BC Board member, who was also the Vancouver School Board’s longest-serving chair, from 2008-2014. She has also served on the Board of the Broadbent Institute. Patti has written extensively about public education issues in the Georgia Straight. She believes that a strong and well-resourced public education system is key to a healthy and just society.

Let’s make education an election issue!

IPE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Fellows and guest authors hold a range of views and interests relative to public schools, education issues, and the political landscape in BC. Perspectives is an opportunity for Fellows and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.

Let’s Make Education an Election Issue!

By Patti Bacchus

September 24, 2024

Here we go again. My inbox is filling up with urgent pleas from B.C.’s political parties (well, mainly one of them in my case), wanting my money, my time, and space on my lawn for a sign.

As we head to the polls in just a few weeks, we’re hearing a lot of inflammatory rhetoric as the campaign kicks off, but not much about education. This needs to change.

Public education is the cornerstone of democracy and the solution to many of the most challenging problems we face, including those issues party leaders are discussing in the news media: crime, homelessness, addictions, mental health, and inequality. These are all downstream effects of children not getting their needs appropriately met in their early years.

Whether you have kids in school or not, education should be a priority as you head to the polls and consider donating to a campaign.

Don’t get me wrong: We have an excellent public education system, but it’s chronically underfunded. Those working on its front lines have been warning us for years that they can’t achieve the best outcomes in overcrowded classrooms without adequate support and staffing in poorly maintained buildings.

We have an urgent teacher shortage that is stressing the system, shortchanging students, and causing those working within it to consider leaving, risking the problem getting worse.

Many of our schools are aging, inadequate, and seismically unsafe. In some communities, families have to enter lotteries to get their kids into neighbourhood schools because governments have failed to adequately fund school construction and seismic upgrades.

We’re seeing record levels of public funds being diverted to private schools—over $570 million in direct annual provincial funding grants alone, along with various tax exemptions and deductions. This diverts money from the public treasury that could otherwise fund public schools.

According to Statistics Canada, B.C. now spends less of its Gross Provincial Product (GPP) on K-12 education than every other province except Newfoundland and Labrador, causing public school boards to cut programs and staffing and struggle to meet the needs of diverse student populations.

The provincial election is an opportunity to push parties and candidates on what they’ll do for our public education system and hold them accountable for what they haven’t done.

There’s still a backlog of major school seismic-upgrade or replacement projects waiting for funding. Kids are still coerced into writing the FSAs (even though teachers say they have little value and actually cause some harm). B.C. still lags behind most other provinces in per-student funding.

B.C. teachers’ salaries are still lower than many of their Canadian counterparts. Surrey still has far too many portables, and Vancouver families in many parts of the city have to enter lotteries to get their kids into neighbourhood schools—if, unlike those who live in the Olympic Village, their community actually has a school. And as we’ve seen repeatedly, when seismic upgrades or replacements finally get funded, the money is not adequate, and the schools end up too small.

Support for students with special needs is uneven and too often, inadequate, and kids still get sent home and miss school due to a lack of support.

Parents still fundraise for basics, and teachers still buy resources for their classrooms with their own money.

It’s time to let parties and candidates know what you want to see if they want your vote, donation, or volunteer time. If they want to put a sign in your window or on your lawn, demand to know what they’re committing to for public education.  I’ll be letting my candidates know that having among the lowest per-student funding in Canada doesn’t cut it. I want to know when they’re going to complete all outstanding school seismic upgrades.

The IPE/BC has prepared some questions for parties and candidates. Feel free to use them to ask your candidates questions to ensure they know that education is indeed an issue that matters to voters.

IPE Questions for Candidates:

1. Funding: B.C. has fallen behind the rest of Canada in how it funds its public schools. The only province that spends less of its GDP on education is Newfoundland and Labrador. B.C.’s relative contribution to public school budgets has fallen significantly from 2000 to the present, considering what the province can afford.

For the 2023/24 school financial year, B.C. reports spending grants of $6,754 million across the province’s 60 school districts. If B.C. were to spend at the “% of GPP” rate found in the year 2000, this budgetary allocation would increase by $3.8 billion to $10.552 billion.

What will you do to increase funding to B.C.’s public schools to ensure students receive the opportunities and supports their counterparts in other provinces are able to access?

2. Staffing: B.C. schools are struggling with an urgent shortage of qualified teachers and special education support workers. This is shortchanging students and putting increased stress on school employees, making it difficult to retain them.

What will you do to recruit and retain teachers and education support workers?

3. Facilities: The Ministry of Education is forecasting significant enrolment growth in B.C.’s public schools, yet many districts already have overcrowded schools and not enough space for all in-catchment students. Hundreds of B.C. schools are still at high risk of significant structural damage in the event of an earthquake.

How would you ensure B.C.’s students have access to safe, neighborhood schools, in a timely way?

4. Reconciliation: Historically and statistically, Indigenous students have had poorer outcomes in school due to Canada’s history of colonialism, discrimination, and, in particular, residential schools.

What will you do to ensure Indigenous students receive educational opportunities and supports to enable their success in B.C.’s public schools?

5. Inclusion and Safety: Ensuring that schools are inclusive and safe environments is crucial for the well-being and success of all students. Programs that support students’ understanding of sexual orientation, gender identify and anti-discrimination are essential in fostering a respectful and welcoming school culture.

How will you ensure schools are safe, inclusive, and welcoming for all students, and how will you support and protect programs that educate and support students regarding sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and other anti-discriminatory programs and practices?

See you at the polling station!

Patti Bacchus is a public education advocate, commentator, and IPE/BC Board member, who was also the Vancouver School Board’s longest-serving chair, from 2008-2014. She has also served on the Board of the Broadbent Institute. Patti has written extensively about public education issues in the Georgia Straight. She believes that a strong and well-resourced public education system is key to a healthy and just society.

Gone forever- the folly of selling off public school properties

IPE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Fellows and guest authors hold a range of views and interests relative to public schools, education issues, and the political landscape in BC. Perspectives is an opportunity for Fellows and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.

Gone forever- the folly of selling off public school properties

by Rory Brown

September 12, 2024

One of the downstream effects of the disastrous public education policies of the BC Liberal era is the pressure on school districts to sell off school land deemed ‘surplus.’ The BC Liberals closed 267 schools during their tenure, and K-12 funding fell to all-time lows. They also created a program (that still exists) to sell property deemed ‘surplus.’

Currently, BC has again fallen to ninth place for provincial funding in Canada for K-12 public education, and the pressure on local school boards to generate funds through the sale of the family silver (school board and provincially owned land) continues unabated. Like many things in Public Education, the devil is in the details, and we’d all do well to pay close attention to decisions of local school boards when it comes to declaring school lands surplus and especially if there is consideration to sell school lands.

With an astonishing number of schools that need repairs across the province, the temptation to fund new school buildings through the sale of land is keen, yet ultimately foolish and irresponsible. It’s never a good idea to move publicly owned assets into private hands completely and forever. There are always creative and innovative ways that school lands can be used (even to generate income) yet still be kept in the public domain, preserving the perpetual endowment of public assets.

The trouble of course is that much of this land isn’t really surplus and is almost always needed in the future. With the ever-upward march of land values, school properties that are sold are gone forever- unattainable and unaffordable when needed back. Where land values are highest, the pressure to sell land is greatest, and the public has the greatest amount to lose in this folly. In Vancouver, the site of the current Wall centre, worth likely hundreds of millions, was formerly the site of a school.

Worth remembering as well is the obligation of local and provincial governments to consider, consult and seek permission from Indigenous host nations in the disposal and sale of public land that in almost all cases was never ceded away. There are moral and legal prerogatives that are thrown to the wind when public land is sold – usually to land developers whose profit motivation is not in the best interest of the public and certainly not in the best interest of future school-aged children.

In Surrey district, where the population of school-aged children is exploding, the lack of land set aside for new schools is felt keenly as the district packs more and more students into existing schools – many in portable buildings. In Vancouver, where land values are high, schools are in poor repair and some buildings have excess capacity, largely created by the lack of family housing stock in the city, something likely to change in the future as the calls for increased density come from all political camps. North Vancouver district closed and sold many elementary schools during the last twenty years and parents in the district are now desperate for spaces as the density of school-aged children increases past capacity and projections.

We’d all do well to pay close attention to the decisions of local boards when they contemplate the removal of public land from the public endowment. It’s penny-wise but pound-foolish and has implications for many decades to come.

Rory Brown is an IPE/BC board member and long-time public education teacher, advocate and activist. He is currently a member of the BCIT faculty in the Mechanical Engineering Department, Technology Teacher Education Program.  

BC public school enrolment expected to surge in fall of 2024

Perspectives is an opportunity for Fellows and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays. IPE/BC Fellows hold a range of views and interests relative to public education.

BC public school enrolment expected to surge in the fall of 2024

by John Malcolmson

August 29, 2024

Data recently released by BC’s Ministry of Education shows the province’s public school system anticipating a sizeable increase in student enrolment this fall.

The data is part of the Ministry’s Revenue and Expenditure Information system (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/administration/resource-management/school-district-financial-reporting/revenue-expenditure-tables) and is released in distinct stages within each year as a means of reporting on district budgets.  Because BC’s system of funding allocation is primarily enrolment-driven, the system offers a window of insight into the ebbs and flows of provincial student counts.  Some historical information is also available to allow for cross-year comparisons.

The 2024 figures are estimates so they are subject to change.  That being said, Ministry enrolment forecasts have historically been relatively accurate.

Last school year (2023/24) provincial enrolment dipped a small amount with about 1,400 fewer students in attendance compared with the previous year.  However, this September, reports drawn from the school budgeting process show BC anticipating an additional 21,000 students for a net growth rate of 3.7%.  If this projection pans out, this will be the first time BC’s public schools have crested above the 600,000 FTE enrolment mark since 1999.

The chart below places this number in recent historical perspective.

At first glance, the two-decade period shows a system in enrolment decline for the first half and in enrolment rebound and growth for the second.  Over the period leading up to this September, the annual rate of enrolment change has averaged +0.4 per cent.

In the coming school year, almost three-quarters of BC’s school districts – 44 in total – are expected to grow while the remaining 16 will likely contract.  Of the latter, most are in northern coastal or interior locations where school enrolments track population migration triggered by changes in local economic conditions.

The larger “growth cohort” shows some eye-popping rates of expected growth.  The following table shows the top twelve growth districts, all of which are expected to expand more than five per cent.

Of the twelve, seven are within the Lower Mainland region and most are in suburban areas.  Two are south/mid-Island while the remainder are located elsewhere.  What is truly fascinating is that eight of the above 12 districts experienced enrolment loss last year!  There is no immediate explanation for how or why the enrolment picture is expected to change so drastically for this group in the coming fall.

Budgeting implications

Enrolment change has significant implications for school district budgeting. Recent commentary by the Institute for Public Education / BC has drawn attention to the fact that BC’s financial support for K-12 education has fallen significantly in recent times when measured in relation to the key variable of provincial economic growth. As a result, and despite annual reported increases in nominal funding, school districts in this province face an ongoing reality of financial austerity. (See IPE’s recent letter to Premier Eby on this subject https://instituteforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/June-25-letter-to-Premeir.pdf)

Changes in enrollment inject a wild card variable into the triaging that austerity invariably produces. When enrollments are in decline, boards of education face a continual need to reallocate meagre budgetary resources in efforts to manage the inevitable reduction in service delivery while limiting the damage done to existing school programs, staff and those who rely on affected programs.

BC’s expected enrolment surge this fall offers a unique opportunity for governments to assess problems created by the declining level of funding priority given to K-12 public education.  This could and should result in efforts to institute a more robust system of funding support able to support districts, staff and students as they negotiate changes produced by a growth surge that could become a lasting fixture.

John D. Malcolmson, Ph.D, is an IPE/BC board member and a consulting sociologist providing research advice to unions on matters relating to compensation.

 

Public education should be free

Perspectives is an opportunity for Fellows and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays. IPE/BC Fellows hold a range of views and interests relative to public education.

Public education should be free

by Larry Kuehn

August 23, 2024

That is the principle pursued by then Victoria school trustee John Young when he went to court against his own school board to get a ruling that provincial law meant that fees could not be charged. The court case was successful in 2006.

If that news stuck in your mind for nearly twenty years, you may have been surprised when your school handed you a bill for fees. But you wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the impact was overturned when the government in 2007 passed a new provincial law and procedures for schools to charge for some things.

The policy defines what can be subject of a charge: “items such as materials, supplies, equipment, safety devices, exercise books, uniforms and the rental of musical instruments, which are intended for the personal use of the students.” Pretty broad, especially with the “such as” indicating that there could be other items.

The school district will have a procedure defined to carry this out. It should be available on the school district website or available at the school.

The North Vancouver policy, as an example, says that the school principal is responsible for establishing the fees for the school. However, she “shall consult with appropriate teachers, staff, staff committee, students and the Parents’ Advisory Council prior to establish the fee.” Do you recall that consultation last school year?

In North Van, the proposed schedule of fees is supposed to be annually presented at a school PAC meeting in time for the list to go to the Superintendent by April 30 for the next school year or November 1 in secondary schools. Check your local policy for process and dates.

John Young went to court because he believed that charging fees produced inequalities. He grew up in a large family in poverty, himself. He was a teacher and principal in schools where he saw the impact on some students of not having what the other kids had, or having to plead poverty to get what they needed. As a school trustee for some twenty years, he heard from parents who felt ashamed that they weren’t able to ensure their children had the same opportunity as some others.

When the law overturning the court decision was passed, there was a requirement that districts adopt a policy for a fee waiver in cases of financial hardship and how the waiver can be obtained. The policy is supposed to be fair, consistent and confidential. You can find how your district provides this in the district policy or ask the school principal.

That was not enough for John. It still can make students feel marginalized based on their family circumstances. He believed that public education should be free and that meant it should include any resources that are a required part of the program of the school.

John continued advocating for the principle that public education should really be free until he died in his 90s. It is a cry worth taking up by the rest of us.

Larry Kuehn is a member of the IPE/BC Board of Directors and chair of the Research and Programs Committee.  He is a research associate for the CCPA and retired BCTF Director of Research and Technology. He has written extensively on education matters including funding,  globalization, technology and privacy.

 

NATO’s 2% and public school funding

Perspectives is an opportunity for Fellows and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays. IPE/BC Fellows hold a range of views and interests relative to public education.

NATO’s 2% and public school funding 

by John Malcolmson

July 17, 2024

It is hard to turn on the TV these days without being besieged by news of Canada’s “failure” to meet a “2% of GDP” defense spending target.  We are all invited to share in the shame of this failure.  Canada the laggard, the freeloader, the scofflaw!  Busy spending money on other things while ignoring important international commitments!

By my “back of the spreadsheet” calculations, moving Canada to 2% of GDP on defence would have us spending about $14 billion more each year going forward.  And yes, that is not a typo – it is billions we are talking about.

The NATO-induced commitment is not something prescribed by law.  Nor is it a treaty commitment.  It is a political deal hashed out within a supranational military organization that hasn’t been elected by anyone.  It is very telling that when the Prime Minister announced his recent 2% timetable, it was not done in parliament, or even within Canada – it was done in a European forum in front of politicians, bureaucrats, generals and defense pundits – and covered by a mainstream media that increasingly functions as echo chamber for military-industrial interests.  This is the group calling the defense spending shots and the group Canada has decided to answer to.

What if, instead, we agreed to commit 2% of our economy to running our public school system?  Not too long ago (2013) BC did spend the equivalent of this amount on school operations but those days are now in the rearview mirror.  IPE has done past research on this very question and recently sent a letter to BC’s Premier touching on this topic

Currently we spend in the order of 1.6% of GPP (Gross Provincial Product) to run our public schools.  Increasing it to 2% would pump an additional $1.67 billion into the K-12 system annually.

Admittedly, comparing defense and school spending has some challenges.  Defense is a federal responsibility while public education is provincial.  NATO spending plans include capital outlays while our suggested focus on public education funding is limited to operating expenses.  And is the idea of linking school funding to GPP the best option for us to consider when looking at how we support public education?

All this aside, the idea that we must spend more on defense while holding current financial rations in place for schools raises other important issues.  Decades of neoliberal globalization have left Canadian industry and society ill-equipped to benefit from boosted defense spending.  Case in point: plans for Canada to partner with other countries to acquire a new submarine fleet.  The lion’s share of the billions to be spent there will go offshore once decisions are finalized.  Foreign military contractors like Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics and Raytheon wait in the wings, salivating at the prospect of such new largesse.  And little in the way of spinoff benefits for Canadians.

Compare that with a public school system which pushes spending on wages, salaries, services and supplies into every single BC community, large or small.  And think of what we might do with an additional $1.67 billion in school funding every year:

  • Pay teachers, support staff and others’ wages and salaries that would make careers in public education a more attractive option,
  • Address the longer-term sustainability of our public system, including things like mentoring and supporting new staff currently at increased threat of burnout,
  • Have smaller classes, something research confirms are better able to deal with complex student needs
  • Overhaul and fund a special education system straining under the impact of decades-long neglect,
  • Expand and improve professional development to ensure all staff are better equipped to deal with complex and changing needs of both students and the school system as a whole,
  • Accelerate necessary repair and maintenance on existing facilities so that, among other things, older school buildings aren’t death traps when a major seismic event eventually happens,
  • Ensure all schools have the best technological resources at their disposal, those able to support valued educational practices,
  • Look at possibilities for better integrating schools into local and community networks providing other services (like childcare) to children and families,
  • Other? (Fill in your priority – ‘hopes and dreams’ encouraged) _____________________

Here’s a radical idea – encourage and support experimentation and innovation aimed at making schools better able to deal with the social and educational challenges of the future.

Or maybe something more modest?  How about moving the public school system off the treadmill of endless triage caused by resource shortage and funding insecurity?

Funding decisions are about the priorities we make for how we want to live.  And we would be wise to remember money spent in one area is not available in another.

Do we want to steer money to funding a military alliance whose recent history is one of fueling war, conflict and tension in distant places around the globe?  Or do we want to support and improve a vital public institution, and ensure its sustainability for the generations to come?

 

John D. Malcolmson, Ph.D, is an IPE/BC board member and a consulting sociologist providing research advice to unions on matters relating to compensation.

The IPE/BC welcomes the Prime Minister’s April 1 National School Meals Program announcement

The IPE/BC welcomes the Prime Minister’s April 1 National School Meals Program announcement

By Patti Bacchus

April 2, 2024

In our submission to the federal government’s 2024 budget consultation, the Institute for Public Education/ BC (IPE) called on the federal government to place an urgent priority on the implementation of a national, universal school food program, and we are pleased government has responded positively with its April 1 announcement.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is pledging a federal government investment of $1 billion over five years, with a target of expanding school meal programs to 400,000 more kids than are currently receiving school meals. 

The federal government has promised a school food program since 2019, and this is a good step forward, but it falls short of providing a universal food program, as recommended by the IPE. 

As the IPE quoted UNICEF Canada in our brief to the federal budget consultation, “Universal food programs provide the opportunity for all students to learn about food and nutrition literacy, the importance of healthy food choices, the role of food in community and culture, and the positive impact of taking time to share in meals together. 

“By providing school meals only to those students whose families/caregivers are not able to afford sufficient nutritious food, these benefits are lost to the student population as a whole. Additionally, while there may be well-intentioned efforts to eliminate stigma arising from a school food program based on socio-economic factors, the identification of those who ‘qualify’ for such a program ensures stigma is inevitable.”

What we know

As housing and food costs go up, and wages for many stagnate, parents face hard choices when it comes to keeping a roof over their heads, paying high childcare costs, and making sure kids are eating decent meals. Others may have the money, but not the time, to make sure their kids are eating well.

As a school trustee, I was frustrated by the convoluted and time-consuming process we went through to determine which kids and schools would get subsidized or free meals. With limited government funding and a patchwork of donated money, we tried to make sure food was going to those who needed it most, but that’s easier said than done. As staff tried to chase down grants and ensure kitchen equipment was kept up to code and in working order, I was struck by how inefficient a system it was for something that should be much simpler.

Some schools have a high concentration of students from families who live in poverty, but there are kids in every public school whose families struggle to make ends meet and keep food on the table, on a regular basis, or sometimes temporarily. All it can take is a job loss, marriage break up, illness or an eviction notice to create a financial crisis for families who may appear to be doing fine.

The way we allocate the limited number of school meals that school boards can afford also risks creating a stigma for those who get them. Some parents need the support, but don’t want to ask for it, so their kids may go without.

And research also shows that Canadian kids are eating way too much processed food and not nearly enough fruits and vegetables, and other healthy foods. Poor childhood eating habits put kids at risk of a lifetime of expensive health problems. Rushed families spend less time sitting down to home-cooked, nutritious meals together, while kids eat junk in front of screens. It’s bad news.

The good news is there’s a straightforward public-policy solution that’s proven to be effective at countering these problems: universal, quality school food programs. The Prime Minister’s announcement is a step in the right direction.

The benefits of universal school meal programs

Hungry kids don’t learn well. It’s hard to concentrate with a growling stomach. We’re already spending thousands of dollars a year to educate each student, so it makes sense to fill their tummies with good food so they can concentrate and get the most of out of their publicly funded school days.

We also know all food is not created (or manufactured) equally, and that eating processed, high-fat, salty or sugary junk is bad for all of us, including kids. Having access to nutritious, fresh and tasty food at school teaches kids that healthy food can be delicious too.

When schools provide quality, culturally appropriate healthy meals to all kids, it also increases attendance rates and provides social benefits by having kids sit down to enjoy a meal together.

We also know that over half of high school students don’t eat a healthy breakfast before heading to school, which puts them at risk of everything from learning problems, health issues and poor behaviour.

Research confirms that quality school-food programs lead to improved child and youth mental health and may contribute to reduced risk of things like cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and some cancers, due to improved eating habits.

A national, universal school food program would check off a lot of important boxes in terms of good public policy, including reducing poverty’s effects on children and giving kids from low-income families a better chance to succeed, improved physical and mental health for kids, and instilling positive eating habits that could last their lifetimes.

Having good food available at school would reduce busy families’ financial and time pressures, expose kids to a wide range of healthy foods, remove the stigma of current food programs that are targeted only to kids from poor families and support local food production.

That’s a lot of bang for the bucks it would take to fund the program, and could save taxpayers’ money in the long run.

The Prime Minister can only keep this funding promise if he gets re-elected, and the IPE will be working to keep funding for universal school food programs on the agenda and platforms for all political parties as we head into the next federal election.

Patti Bacchus is a public education advocate, commentator, and IPE/BC Board member, who was also the Vancouver School Board’s longest-serving chair, from 2008-2014. She has also served on the Board of the Broadbent Institute. Patti has written extensively about public education issues in the Georgia Straight. She believes that a strong and well-resourced public education system is key to a healthy and just society.

 

Decolonizing Dialogues; The auto-pedagogical potential of encounters with Indigenous art

Decolonizing Dialogues; The auto-pedagogical potential of encounters with Indigenous art 

By Shannon Leddy

March 28, 2024

Indigenous education has emerged in recent decades as one of the key priorities in both curricular reform and educational policy in Canada. Many teachers, particularly those who have completed their teacher education in the years since Indigenous education courses have become a required part of curriculum, have taken up this challenge in earnest and relationally ethical ways, feeling increasingly confident in their ability to navigate the emotional labour this work often involves. But there are probably just as many who still feel unsure about their knowledge base in Indigenous histories, knowledges and pedagogies. And still there are a few who are resistant to these shifts in curricular priorities and the learning required to undertake them (Leddy& O’Neill, 2021).

The words decolonization, reconciliation and Indigenization get a lot of air time in educational discourses these days, but many of us still struggle to understand what these words mean in the context of our daily work. We all stand at different places on the spectrums of Indigenous learning and relationships, and sometimes it feels hard to find the middle path and the common ground. Through this writing, I hope to shed some light on the value of encounters with Indigenous art as a mechanism to help move us along in the learning journey engaging in Indigenous education requires us to take.

There have been many prominent Indigenous scholars of educational discourses over the past number of years who have made clear the need for changes in the way mainstream educational practices and curriculum include and address Indigenous students, their cultures and histories within schools (Battiste, 2004; Dion, 2008; Donald, 2009; Schick & St. Denis, 2004; St. Denis, 2011). They point to the fact that colonial logics and agendas have excluded, reduced, distorted and erased Indigenous cultures, languages and knowledges in curriculum for decades. This is important when we think about the many Canadians who have become teachers having risen through the very systems of education that were perpetuating ignorance and misunderstanding. Indeed, in my early days of teaching Indigenous education to pre-service teachers, many expressed anger and dismay when it became clear to them what was intentionally not taught to them in schools.

But here is where I have found my long-time passion for both creating and teaching about and through art. to be of significant benefit. I have witnessed the power of art to help me teach in ways that call my students in, rather than calling them out. Art, as noted by Dewey (1934) and Greene (2000), has the power to help us transcend our own consciousness as we encounter the reality of another, presented through their manifestation of ideas into art. This is particularly relevant when it comes to encounters with works by Indigenous and other BPOC artists. Indigenous writers and thinkers have also offered ample evidence of the power of Indigenous visual expression to transmit culture, teachings and values (Cajete, 1994; Reid, 2012), making them rich sources with which to dwell and reflect.

In the work that I do in teacher education, I rely heavily on the power of art to spark insight and transformative understandings in my students, using a set of guiding questions (what am I looking at, what does it remind me of, what do I like about it, what do I dislike, and what do I need to learn), and offer them ample time to dwell with each work to which I introduce them. Importantly, this is also done with the caveat that there are no wrong answers – we each bring who we are to these encounters and our responses are our own and legitimate in their own right (Leddy, 2014; Leddy & O’Neill, 2021). We view works by artists such as Ruth Cuthand, Brian Jungen, Skeena Reece, Kent Monkman, Rebecca Belmore, and Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun, each of whom brings their own talents, concerns and thematic tropes to the fore in the art they create.

For my students, these encounters with art can bring a range of emotional responses from dismay, anger, rage, and shame, to elation, connection, relief and clarity. For some, these encounters validate their own identities. For others, their identity, particularly as Canadians, is challenged, upended, and problematized in unexpected ways. But when we do this work together, when we have the courage to share our responses and thoughts in this process, even those who are most uncomfortable often find support in their learning, and inspiration in the insights of their classmates (Leddy, 2023).

To be clear, these encounters with art do not need to occur only the my classroom, or in an art gallery. Plays, novels, films, music, poetry and dance can all open the same windows of discovery. The point is, we need opportunities to encounter them; to learn whose work we are drawn to, and to spend time considering how we feel during our encounters. Art, in nearly all of its forms, has the power to show us what we thought we knew, reveal to us what we don’t know, and point us in the direction of the relearning we need to do. Further, these counters are not only suitable for post-secondary contexts – this work can be done in any classroom, with students of all ages and does not require the teacher to be completely fluent in the process. We are never too old to co-learn with our students, and may we always remain humble enough to do so.

There are so many more elements of this work I would be happy to share, including connections to other curricular areas and to land-based, experiential and holistic pedagogies as well. My passion for Indigenous education never seems to fade because I know how important it is to Indigenous families, including my own. I know how important it is for Indigenous students to see themselves reflected in the curricular resources to which they are exposed. But the best part is that Indigenous approaches to education demonstrably benefit all of our students, making the work of decolonizing and Indigenizing all the more pertinent and pressing (Restoule, 2017). When we teach with attention to Kirkness’s 4Rs of Indigenous education, respect, reciprocity, relevance, and responsibility, then we model what it means to build and maintain good relationships with ourselves, others, and what we must all learn together. When we use holistic frameworks, such as the Medicine Wheel, in our pedagogical and planning considerations, we can plan lessons and learning experiences that address our students as the intellectual, spiritual, emotional and physical beings that they are. And when we undertake to do the work of decolonizing ourselves, we become better at preparing our students for the world they will inherit, putting the Eurocentric practices of the past behind us where they belong.

References

Battiste, M. (2009). Naturalizing Indigenous knowledge in Eurocentric education. Canadian Journal of Native Education32(1).

Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education. Kivaki Press.

Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Perigree Press.

Dion, S. (2007). Disrupting moulded images: Identities, responsibilities and relationships – teachers and Indigenous subject material. Teaching Education, 18(4), 329-342. (Available through UBC Library)

Donald, D. (2009).  Forts, curriculum, and Indigenous Métissage: Imagining decolonization of Aboriginal-Canadian relations in educational contexts. First Nations Perspectives, 2 (1), 1-24.

Greene, M. (2000). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. John Wiley & Sons.

Leddy, S. (2014). Using art to open postcolonial dialogues with pre-service teachers. SFU Educational Review7.

Leddy, S. (2023). Indigenous Visual Expression as Pedagogy; Developing Decolonial Literacy through Dialogic Encounters with Indigenous Art. Relate North. 36. InSEA Publications.

Leddy, S., & O’Neill, S. (2021). It’s Not Just a Matter of Time: Exploring Resistance to Indigenous Education. Alberta Journal of Educational Research67(4), 336-350

Reid, M. J. (Ed.). (2012). Carrying on” Irregardless”: Humour in Contemporary Northwest Coast Art. Bill Reid Gallery of Northwest Coast Art.

Restoule, J. P. Chaw-win-is (2017). Old ways are the new way forward. How Indigenous pedagogy can benefit everyone. The Canadian Commission for UNESCO’s IdeaLab, 1-18.

Schick, C., & St. Denis, V. (2005). Troubling national discourses in anti-racist curricular planning. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 295-317.

St. Denis, V. (2011). Silencing Aboriginal curricular content and perspectives through multiculturalism: “There are other children here”. Review of education, pedagogy, and cultural studies33(4), 306-317.

Shannon Leddy (Métis ) is a Vancouver based teacher, writer, Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty of Education, UBC and IPE/BC Fellow. She has also worked as an instructor at SFU’s Faculty of Education, teaching courses in pedagogy and Aboriginal Education. Shannon is committed to finding new and meaningful ways to incorporate Indigenous content into the school curriculum and is particularly interested in engaging pre-service teachers with Indigenous art as a way of decolonizing education. 

Reflections on the teacher shortage: how teachers are paid reinforces the problem

Perspectives is an opportunity for Fellows and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays. IPE/BC Fellows hold a range of views and interests relative to public education.

Reflections on the teacher shortage: how teachers are paid reinforces the problem.

By John Malcolmson

March 16, 2024

BC continues to struggle with efforts to improve class size and composition standards in our schools. Years ago, Canada’s Supreme Court opened the door to restoring protections in these areas after Gordon Campbell’s Liberals took an axe to negotiated provisions in teacher contracts.

BC is not unique in this regard as other jurisdictions – both in Canada and abroad – face similar challenges in finding and holding onto staff. However, what makes BC stand out is that it was Campbell’s legislative assault in the 2000s that dug the crater we find ourselves in. Its sheer depth complicates efforts to find a way out. That plus the fact that most efforts aimed at addressing recruitment and retention challenges for teachers – forgivable loans, locational incentives, dispersed learning opportunities, etc. – are not working the way we hoped they might.

This note focuses on the way we pay educators. Its basic argument is that how we pay teachers is anachronistic and needs to be changed. Why is this? A few reasons stand out.

  • The current system, developed many decades ago, assumes that new teachers require formative periods lasting up to 10 years to reach a point where they are fully qualified to do their work, and that it is appropriate to deny full pay until that point is reached.
  • The current system incentivizes the acquisition of university credentials, something which is no longer an issue as the latter are not currently in short supply.
  • The current system also embeds cultural biases regarding using these credentials to further stratify how teachers doing the same work are paid.

The current model makes sense if you believe that people in teaching positions don’t fully know what they’re doing for the first decade and this warrants the withholding of full pay. The approach is also a good one if you accept the idea that having five years of post-secondary education automatically makes you a better educator than someone with four but not as good as someone with six. The problem is that no one argues like this anymore because the arguments are not credible.  So why pay people differently on the basis of these approaches?

The bigger problem here comes down to the teacher increment ladder. Educators are underpaid for the nine to ten years it takes to reach full salary – the regular rate for the job. This encourages implementation of an extractivist approach to the use of educator labour. Extractivism is a concept developed by David Harvey, Veronica Gago, Nancy Fraser and others to describe power relationships which afford those in control the ability to confiscate or extract rising shares of value from their subordinates.[1]  It can apply to trading blocs, countries, regions or sectors of work.  In the case of K-12 education, it comes down to the people we rely on to run our public schools.

Young and inexperienced educators are placed in particularly challenging classroom environments for the early parts of their careers. Their teaching labour is exploited by virtue of substandard pay for this period. Their affective labour and emotional commitment to the work they perform is likewise exploited. Mental and emotional energy is extracted piecemeal by the demands of the job.

Replenishment of this energy is the responsibility of the individual. The system is tailor-made for frustration, resentment, feelings of isolation and failure, leading ultimately to burnout.

This translates directly to increased educator attrition and there is plenty of data out there that affirms this. Many young people entering the profession aren’t prepared for the twin pressures of dealing with the professional and emotional pressures of a new job while having to subsist on compressed pay levels for lengthy periods of time. Data from other jurisdictions shows that a rising percentage of teacher graduates elect not even to go into the public school system when graduating. Many young teachers also carry with them transferable skills which allow for the migration to other areas of work.  Less stress?  Better pay? Reduced feeling that your commitment to work is being used against you?  Hey, why not make that move?

Our public K-12 system relies implicitly on an extractivist dynamic to function with the limited financial resources it is afforded. For some time the model has not been sustainable.  What has made the problem critical is the pandemic-induced breakdowns of supply chains fueling price inflation. The influx of cash by governments to stall the slide into depression did work as intended but at the cost of building asset bubbles in areas like real estate. The knock-on effect has been deepened financialization of housing assets whether for purchase or for rent.  It used to be relatively straightforward to find a place to live within your means.  Not anymore. Not for young educators nor anyone else.  And not just in the Lower Mainland or South Island.

What to do?

We need to look at paying and supporting educators differently because the current model is dysfunctional.  Specifically,

  • Phase out the current increment system. Most other occupations, professions included, will have increments recognizing the movement to maximum career proficiency that last three or four years at most.  Why is teacher pay stuck at nine or ten years?
  • Raise the entry-level wage/salary so that it no more than 10% lower that the maximum rate. Anything more perpetuates financial and emotional extractivism and frustrates efforts to build system sustainability.
  • Give a serious look at the teacher qualification system that rewards people for academic degrees. If this doesn’t automatically make for better educators then why structure rewards as if it does? Perhaps we might build in pay recognition for other professional development activities not so closely aligned with acquiring formal academic qualifications?
  • Develop an apprenticeship model drawing on international examples that financially rewards experienced educators for mentoring and supporting their junior colleagues through the difficult early years of a career. This isn’t new or hugely innovative – the trades have been doing this for decades and, while they face their own recruitment issues, they are typically not ones related to burning out new people struggling to get a foothold on compressed incomes.

It’s time to think “outside the box” and look for innovative ideas to deal with a problem that is likely only to get worse. We can all support the call for more funding resources for public education but there is also a need to look at practical options for making better use of whatever resources are provided to support public schooling.

[1] David Harvey, Spaces of Global Capitalism (2019), Veronica Gago, Feminist International: How to Change Everything (2020), and Nancy Fraser, Cannibal Capitalism (2022).

 



Sidebar: Comparing teacher’s and nurse’s pay

How does teacher pay compare with that provided another female-dominated profession in BC’s public sector – nurses?

In 2023 a starting Category 5 Vancouver teacher (the most common designation) can expect to earn $65,176 for 10 months of annual employment. It takes that teacher 10 years to reach salary maximum and, when she gets there, she can expect to make $96,959 at current rates.  At almost 49%, the gap between these levels is high, so much so the new teacher starts off making only about 2/3 the full rate.

A starting Licensed Practice Nurse 1 in BC Health care makes $62,184 out of the gate (12-month employment) and maxes out 10 years later at $78,293 which is significantly lower than the teacher.

However…

The more appropriate comparison would be with a Registered Nurse 3 (the most commonly paid nursing rate). An RN3 starts at $78,408 and reaches maximum after 10 years at $105,846. Both rates are considerably higher than those afforded Vancouver teachers.  And the gap separating min and max rates here is about 35%, considerably lower than teachers.

LPNs and RNs also benefit from long-term “Recognition Pay” if they stick it out in their jobs over the long haul.  In the case of an RN3, this can add up to $6,720 more at the top end of the pay scale.

Both teachers and nurses face serious recruitment and attrition challenges. The pay system for nurses isn’t perfect but it is better suited to addressing these challenges than that used with teachers.

What’s needed is a focus on the long and drawn-out increment path for both groups.



John D. Malcolmson, Ph.D, is an IPE/BC board member and a consulting sociologist providing research advice to unions on matters relating to compensation.