Gone forever- the folly of selling off public school properties

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.

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.

 

 

 

The Community School Model- Just Imagine!

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.

The Community School Model- Just Imagine!

By David Chudnovsky

August 29, 2023

Imagine a small elementary school in a low income suburban community. The teachers are a mix of veterans and younger folks. It’s a really tough job as many of the students come to school hungry and have difficult home lives, but the teachers are enthusiastic and committed. Several of them have been teaching there for almost 30 years. They’ve all thought of looking for easier placements, but they can’t bring themselves to leave these kids.

There’s an evening program for adults – with courses in everything from belly dancing to introductory business skills to gymnastics – and there’s a ceramics studio with a kiln and slip and glazes that’s used by the kids during the day and adults at night.

Students work with a community curriculum developed by the teachers that reflects the experience of residents and neighbours.

Adult Basic Education classes are taught in a couple of empty classrooms during the day and in the kids’ classrooms in the evening – from basic literacy for people who can’t read or write to high school equivalency GED prep sessions. For more than 30 hours a week dozens of adults share the school with the elementary students.

A group of neighbourhood women meet in the school to organize a childcare centre and it’s just about to open in the community centre down the street.

A Community Newspaper is published four times a year through the school.

There’s a seniors group that meets monthly and organizes outings, and also arranges for older neighbours to volunteer in classrooms and interact with the elementary students.

In a portable in the parking lot behind the school is a re-entry program for teenagers who’ve been out of school for at least 6 months. The school recruits those students through local social service agencies, high school counselors and the media.

During the summer, a day camp runs using the school building and its facilities.

There’s a lunch program. Volunteers from the neighbourhood come into the school to make sandwiches or hot dogs – but it’s hard to get the money to make the program permanent.

There’s a community program run out of the school called Shape Up. A couple of the Shape Up staff will help you renovate your house, clean out your garage, landscape your backyard or do any one of hundreds of home improvement projects that keep getting put off. But residents have to contribute. Some help with the actual work of the project at their home. Some store the tools. Some make lunch and dinner for the workers. One guy sharpens and repairs the tools.

There’s an annual fundraising fair at the school, but it has to be scheduled for social assistance cheque week. If it isn’t, there’s no money to raise.  But when it is, the whole neighbourhood participates, they have a great time, and some funds are raised to support the programs.

The School Board employs a teacher to organize and facilitate all of this, plus a night school monitor (paid for out of the fees for the night school courses), and a part time secretary.  However, the real leadership is provided by a Community Board made up of neighbourhood folks who advise and decide on the various programs, advertise, and explain what’s going on at the school to their neighbours, and advocate to the School Board and other governments and agencies for the various programs and activities at the school. Some of them are parents of kids at the school. Some of them aren’t.

Sound good? A bit too good to be true? Pie in the sky? Not at all. That program – with a lot more elements – existed and flourished in a North Surrey neighbourhood for decades. I was lucky enough to be the Community School Coordinator – the teacher hired by the Board to run the Community School Program for close to ten years, and while it was a hard job, it was enormously exciting.

Neighbourhoods with Community Schools knew, and still know, that they are certainly cost effective, but more important, they build cooperation, educational and social success, and resilience.

The Community School model – with different characteristics in communities with different needs – came to an end in Surrey in the late 1980’s as a result of yet another budget crisis.  But it still exists in some jurisdictions.

What a wonderful experience –  using school resources and space to meet community needs. Those elementary school students learned so much from the range of people who themselves benefited from the school’s programs. The kids learned they were part of a community. They learned they could build and strengthen their neighborhood. They learned that seniors, and adults learning to read and write, and the fellow who lived down the street and sharpened tools, were all important parts of their lives. They learned what it means to be a citizen.

While you’re thinking about what was, imagine what could be. What if we added a Community Health Clinic and a Social Services Office to that Community School? What if the School Board meetings were held in each Community School once a year? What if the local First Nations were part of and  the programs at the School?

What if School Boards and the Province really understood the value of schools as part of the wider community, understood schools as the building blocks of stronger and more resilient communities? Imagine a renaissance of Community Schools across BC.

Just imagine.

David Chudnovsky worked in nursery, elementary and secondary schools and at the university level in England, Ontario and BC during his 35-year teaching career.  He is a past-president of the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation and was an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia Legislature from 2005-2009.  David is co-author of the Charter for Public Education.

 

 

Attention to Staffing Shortages Urgently Needed

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.

Attention to Staffing Shortages Urgently Needed

June 3, 2023

By Larry Kuehn

Teachers are frontline workers in the creation of the future. A teacher shortage is a hazard in developing that future and we are facing a teacher shortage in BC public schools.

The early warning indicators are already here. Community members without teacher qualifications are placed in some classrooms. A lack of teachers on call are available to fill in behind teachers away because of illness. Staff lose their planning time as they are pulled in to cover thousands of classes without their regular faculty member. Students with disabilities are sent home, deprived of their right to education because their specialist teachers are required to cover classes for missing colleagues.

Demand for teachers will only increase with a growing population and expanding expectations of the schools. The problems are already here and will explode into a crisis unless we act now. We need both immediate action and long-term planning and commitments.

How did we create this dilemma? It sometimes helps to look at how a problem starts to see how to get out of it.

A reduced demand for teachers in early years of the 21st Century gave a false sense of the real need. School enrolments did decline for a few years. More significantly, the BC Liberal government in 2002 cut about 3000 teachers, eliminating by legislation staffing provisions in the teachers’ collective agreement. This contract stripping created a sudden teacher “surplus.”

This left a pool of qualified teachers as precarious workers. Part-time, moving from one school to another, being laid off every year, hoping to find a position for the next term. Even those with full-time positions worked for lower pay scales than teachers in most other provinces. Not surprisingly, some gave teaching up as a career while others who might have become educators looked elsewhere than teacher education.

The situation changed just as suddenly in 2016. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a lower court decision that the government in 2002 had violated the Charter rights of teachers in arbitrarily cancelling conditions that had been negotiated by the BC Teachers’ Federation. The class size and other staffing provisions were restored, returning education services that students had been deprived of.

With some 3000 teaching positions restored, all those precarious workers now had job offers—and there were not enough to fill the demand, let alone prepare for future needs.

The teacher shortage might have already received significant public attention except that it has had to compete with another crisis—the shortage of people in the health care system, as well as other areas crying about the need for workers.

The BC government has recognized these other demands and has provided funding for increased training positions in health care, technology, and trades. However, education has been an afterthought, if a thought at all.

What can be done to address this teacher shortage?

In the short term, we can look to the same place as is health care—immigrants who have been trained and, in some cases, have experience in the countries they have come from. This does not mean going to recruit elsewhere—that has its own shortages—but people who have already immigrated, often with their education and training being a major factor in why they were accepted as immigrants. When they arrived, they discovered that their qualifications aren’t accepted and there is a long and expensive road to getting recognized. Reducing the red tape would help a bit and some progress is being made in that.

The longer term solution is clear—train more teachers and make the job more attractive to retain those who join the profession.

Some progress in making the profession more attractive has been made with the pay increases recently negotiated by the BCTF. Many of the problems, though, will not be solved until there are enough teachers so that everyone can count on a replacement by a qualified substitute when they are away ill. They will not be solved until we stop grabbing the special needs teacher away from their students or the librarian from the library to cover the classroom teacher who is away. And the teacher shortage will not be over until every student has a qualified teacher—not someone with no training–meeting their educational needs.

It is past time for the government to recognize that public education, like health care, requires urgent attention to staffing shortages.

To meet current demands, and to be prepared for increased demands for teachers in the future, the BC government must place a priority on increasing the number of places in universities for teacher education candidates. And it must provide financial support so that future teachers don’t have to add on to student debt in order to make their contributions as front-line workers in the creation of the future.

 

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.

 

 

Stretched to the Limit

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.

Stretched to the Limit

April 25, 2023

By Moira Mackenzie

Public education is not broken; funding is.

This message was woven through the presentations and discussion at the recent  IPE/BC forum, Stretched to the Limit” with each of the featured speakers putting the pressures on K-12 and post-secondary education into perspective. The forum featured:

  • Annabree Fairweather, Executive Director, CUFA BC,
  • Tracy Humphries, Executive Director, BCEdAccess, and
  • Andree Gacoin, Director of Information, Research, and International Solidarity, BCTF.

While the speakers spoke from very different vantage points, they all underscored the urgent need for a well-supported, accessible, and inclusive education system at all levels

Annabree began by talking about the provincial government’s current post-secondary funding model review which has as its objectives a fair and impartial funding model, alignment with education and skills training needs, and the expansion of supports to students to ensure success. In the government’s own words, the current model has created constraints and inequities, a perspective with which Annabree wholeheartedly agreed. Further, she explained the unnecessarily convoluted and overly complex set of legislation and regulations that govern the post-secondary system in BC which, when coupled with chronic underfunding, leads the institutions to compete for very limited resources.

It certainly was concerning to hear that the share of GDP directed to post-secondary education in BC is less than that in all other provinces in Canada except Ontario. Additionally, much of the funding that does come in has specific strings attached and those strings do not necessarily match the core academic mission. Moreover, there has also been an increasing reliance on private funding, with a corresponding decline of nearly ten percent in government grants between 2006 and 2020. Annabree shone the light on the fact that this decline has led to risky decisions to seek varied sources of private dollars, which in turn has deprioritized the academic mission in favour of sponsored research. Additionally, it has fed the phenomenon of a burgeoning administration rather than a much needed increase in faculty to keep pace with the growth in student enrollment. Further, Annabree pointed out the folly in relying on revenue from international students to bolster budgets, as was made abundantly clear when the COVID pandemic diminished that revenue stream.

As part of the funding review, CUFA-BC has published Funding for Success: Post Secondary Education in BC, an excellent series of briefs outlining the problems and proposing solutions. Despite the significant challenges, Annabree expressed a hope that the funding review and the lessons learned during the pandemic, including the importance of a stable, well funded post-secondary system, will help to bring about much needed change. She also stressed the importance of developing strong alliances between the K-12 and the post-secondary sectors, and wisdom of well funded and well supported education at all levels and for all students.

Andrée began her presentation by referencing the work of Sam Abrams, Director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Columbia University. The prevailing conditions for privatization that he identified are at play in BC today, including the impossible expectation that public schools continue to do more and more with less and less, the commercial mindset in managing public education, the bureaucratic pathologies, and the cultivated message that there is a crisis in education independent of the impact of chronic underfunding.

While successive governments in BC have frequently claimed funding is at the highest level ever, the fact is that the percentage of GDP spent on public education has been in significant decline. In 2001, BC allocated 2.8% to public schools while by 2021, it had reached an all-time low of 1.7%. Had the percentage even just remained steady throughout this period, there would have been an additional $2 billion more in school board budgets. Excessive cost-cutting, as Andree stated, is baked into the current structure of the funding model. We see this at play  in yet another round of budget preparation this spring as numerous school boards are considering cuts once again, a reality that was simply not addressed in the provincial budget tabled and touted by the province in February.

Andree reported that the BCTF recently surveyed its members-the public school teachers and associated professionals in BC. A staggering 40% of respondents said they’d leave teaching in the next two years, citing exhaustion and burnout attributed to the absence of supports, the overcrowding in classes and lack of meaningful in-service. Teachers also spoke about the health and safety issues they face and the impact of so many impossible challenges on their mental health.

Of particular note, Andrée stressed, is the fact that the government’s commitment to inclusive education has yet to be matched with the requisite funding. Boards of Education have had to spend more on special education than they receive from the province and the austerity pressures have led to rationing of special education services and an inadequate level of specialist support. What’s urgently needed is a funding model that addresses the diverse needs of students, schools and school districts along with a funding paradigm based in a strong collective vision of what public education should be. Returning to the issue of privatization, Andrée was clear- we can’t separate the funding crisis from privatization trends, trends that will only serve to undermine our valued public school system.

Tracy spoke further about the support required to meet students’ complex learning needs. She was very clear that the current lack of adequate support leads to exclusion not inclusion. She has direct experience with the issues and, in her role with BCEdAccess, has spoken to many parents who feel their kids are not welcome in public schools. Due to underfunding and lack of appropriate supports, many students are being excluded from public schools and the full and appropriate range of learning experiences that should be available to them. BCEdAccess has been tracking incidents of exclusions and now has four years of data to illustrate the impact on students and their families, including the finding that students with multiple marginalized identities are much more likely to be excluded. Linking back to the issue of underfunding, Tracy shared that the exclusions are also more likely to happen when unmanageable conditions, lack of support and burnout prevail. None-the-less, she stated emphatically, “Our kids have a right to quality, inclusive public education.”

Additionally, Tracy reminded the forum participants of the changes to the special education category designations made by the provincial government in 2001 and never rectified. These changes resulted in the removal of supplementary funding to support the many students with identified high incidence needs. While the number of designations then dropped markedly and the supports diminished, the students’ special or diverse learning needs did not, of course, leaving many educators unsure of how to best support these students and without the appropriate means to do so.

Tracy was clear about the steps that need to be taken. The government needs to urgently address funding levels and support for all students and our public schools. She stressed that there should be a more holistic approach and coherent links between pre-school, K-12, and post-secondary education. We need to amplify the message that a quality, accessible and inclusive public education system is of great worth to our society as a whole. It should be valued and supported independent of the needs of the marketplace. “There are kids for whom a job may never be a possibility,” said Tracy, “but that does not mean that education is not valuable to them, and that the system does not gain value from having them there.”

Annabree, Andrée and Tracy clearly struck a chord with everyone in attendance as the discussions continued well after adjournment. IPE/BC is very grateful to each of them for their thoughtful and informative presentations and for fueling a renewed commitment to supporting our public schools.

Moira Mackenzie is a member of the Board of IPE/BC and long time advocate for quality, accessible, inclusive public education.  She taught in BC public schools for many years at the primary and intermediate levels, and as a Resource & Learning Assistance teacher. Moira, who is now retired, also served in a number of elected and appointed roles within the teachers’ federation.