Category: Perspectives Blog

IPE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Associates 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 Associates and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.

B.C.’s School Boards matter, but only if they act like it

December 14, 2025

By Patti Bacchus

With elected school boards under threat in Ontario, it is more important than ever for B.C.’s boards to demonstrate their relevance by engaging meaningfully with their communities and stakeholders.

Elected school boards are already gone in Nova Scotia, Quebec (where francophone boards were replaced, though anglophone boards remain), and Newfoundland and Labrador. Their elimination is part of a troubling trend toward increasingly centralized control of public education.

In British Columbia, Education Minister Lisa Beare flexed her ministerial muscles shortly after her appointment by firing the elected Greater Victoria School Board and replacing it with a sole administrator. The board’s offence? Ending its police officer liaison program — a decision made after a lengthy public consultation and formal decision-making process, but one the minister appears to have disagreed with nonetheless.

I firmly believe that locally elected school boards are essential to a strong public education system — but only if trustees understand their governance role and lead collaboratively, transparently, and with authentic community engagement.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen that commitment erode in my own district, Vancouver. The Vancouver School Board now bars the public from attending standing committee meetings, upending decades of practice. It’s unclear what problem this change is meant to solve — the meetings are already livestreamed. Perhaps some trustees are simply uncomfortable with members of the public sharing the same physical space. The board has even begun forbidding photography and recordings during public meetings, another break from long-standing norms. For what purpose?

As the Vancouver School Board’s longest-serving chair, and as a former DPAC representative, I know how critical open committee meetings are to meaningful engagement and community-building.

But this isn’t about me. It’s about the survival of local democracy—and convincing the public that elected school boards are worth keeping. That case becomes very hard to make when people are made to feel unwelcome in meeting rooms, or are scolded or threatened for something as innocuous as taking a photo at a public meeting.

Even registering to speak to trustees has become a convoluted, bureaucracy-laden process that could be  — and was — far simpler. What is the point of locally elected trustees if they go out of their way to make it difficult for the very people they serve to engage with them?

This problem isn’t unique to Vancouver or even to B.C. In The State of the System: A Reality Check on Canada’s Schools, Nova Scotia education writer and commentator Paul Bennett examines the evolution of school governance across Canada. He argues that “our public schools, initially established as the vanguard of universal, accessible, free education, have lost their way and become largely unresponsive to the public they still claim to serve.”

I don’t always agree with Bennett, but on this point he’s right in some cases.

Later in the book, Bennett observes that trustees are often treated as though they should “behave much like children in grade school,  focus narrowly on policy, avoid administrative matters, keep their distance from local groups, respect rigid board solidarity, and act primarily as goodwill ambassadors.”  This culture, he argues, cuts boards off from the communities they are meant to represent — and he identifies it as one of the factors that led to the elimination of elected trustees in Nova Scotia.

We should learn from that.

I frequently hear from newly elected trustees that they’ve been advised by senior management or their provincial organization not to speak to the media or engage with the public on social media. Good grief. What is the point of local government if local elected officials are discouraged from talking to the locals?

As an education columnist, I regularly contacted individual trustees for comment. Some told me they were “not allowed” to speak to journalists, because only the chair could do so. While it’s true that chairs speak on behalf of boards, individual trustees are also elected officials. They can— and should —speak publicly, provided they are clear they are not speaking for the board. Accountability demands open communication.

New trustees are also warned not to meet with community groups or individuals — especially union representatives — unless the entire board is present. That’s pure balderdash. The very purpose of local government is local contact. This siege mentality frustrates the public and, over time, risks breeding public indifference — making it far easier for governments to abolish school boards altogether with minimal public pushback.

Make the Most of a Whittled-Down Role

I served as a school trustee for eight years, without regrets. I worked with a strong caucus, and together we accomplished important work. We held the public’s ground against relentless pressure to close schools and sell valuable public land. We successfully negotiated hundreds of millions of dollars for new schools and seismic upgrades.

We developed a model for incorporating purpose-built childcare centres into new and rebuilt schools. We launched a Mandarin bilingual program, opened an Indigenous-focused school, and expanded early literacy intervention.

Yes, the trustee role is diminished from what it once was. Trustees can no longer levy taxes, and most collective bargaining now happens provincially. Still, I believe passionately that school boards can — and should — be among our most democratic institutions, precisely because they are closest to local values and concerns.

Outside of small-town city councils, there are few places where grassroots movements should be able to have more influence than at a local school board.

Vibrant, effective boards, where debate is encouraged, all voices are heard, and access to trustees is open, are a vital component of a high-functioning public education system. By most measures, Canada’s public schools are remarkably successful, delivering strong outcomes for the public investment they receive. Do school boards contribute to that success? I believe they do, at least in some cases.

Yet many B.C. school boards are moving in the opposite direction. Restrictive codes of conduct muzzle trustees. Barriers discourage public participation. Boards increasingly take direction from management, rather than exercising independent governance. Too much of the public’s business— because school board business is the public’s business —takes place behind closed doors or in private emails instead of in public meetings, where it belongs.

B.C. school boards need to give themselves a hard shake. They must decide whether they want to do the hard but essential work of transparently representing the public — or continue fussing over decorum and control as they inch toward irrelevance.

I hope they choose the former. I fear many will continue with the latter, and we will all be poorer for it — especially students.

School board elections are next fall. Ask candidates to commit to open meetings with open public galleries, and to making public participation easy, not burdensome. Ask whether they understand how to use the trustee role to improve educational opportunities for all students — not simply to rubber-stamp management recommendations.

If you don’t want to listen to the public, or keep communication open, accessible, and respectful, then running for school trustee may not be for you.

School boards matter. Strong public schools depend on them. Don’t squander them by electing ineffective—or inaccessible—trustees.

Patti Bacchus is a former education columnist and is the Vancouver School Board’s longest-serving chair (2008-2014). She sits on the board of the Institute for Public Education (BC). 

IPE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Associates 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 Associates and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.

Denying the reality of education underfunding  

August 3, 2025

By Moira Mackenzie

Gaslighting: a form of manipulation where someone is led to question their own reality, memory, or sanity, often by denying or misrepresenting events or situations.

Once again, prior to the end of June, BC’s school boards approved their budgets for the coming school year and, once again, faced with significant shortfalls, many districts have approved even more budget cuts. The persistent gap in funding, over many years and through governments of differing political stripes, has resulted in a public education system now under severe stress. We know that the staffing shortages, overcrowding, lack of sufficient funding for inclusion, dwindling supplies and program losses have already created deep cracks in what should be a strong, stable, accessible system that fully supports all students. If anything, the persistent and decades long denial of the needs and reality in our public schools begins to feel like gaslighting.

Parents/caregivers, support staff, teachers, trustees, advocacy organizations, and, in a number of cases, young people themselves are speaking out. They know well the impact of underfunding on student learning and well-being, and on the school community as a whole. They’ve been imploring the government to address the shortfalls, reverse the losses, and make public education a high priority. Their perspectives should be welcomed and respected.

Yet, even as the pressure on public schools escalates, the responses from successive governments have changed very little over many years and, unfortunately, too often serve to dismiss the reality of all those directly connected with our valued public schools.

Let’s look at the prevailing and, unfortunately, enduring government messaging.

• These are tough decisions that boards have to make at the local level.

True, the decisions are excruciating, but it’s the province that controls the funding. When the actual needs of public schools and the complexities of supporting students aren’t adequately accounted for in the pot of money given to each board, the conditions inevitably deteriorate. As an example, while I applaud successive provincial governments that have advanced inclusion in public education, the funding falls far short of the support and services needed. In 2023/24 alone, there was a $340 million dollar shortfall between what the government provided and what school districts needed to spend on inclusive education.

The government transfers public tax dollars to school districts and boards are required to set their budgets within the funds they’re given or be subject to dismissal. It’s the provincial government dictates the size of the pie, regardless of whether it’s adequate, and boards are simply left to slice it up. We can safely conclude that no district would even consider cutbacks if the funding matched the costs.

• Every student, no matter where their families live, receives the same level of support.

This messaging appears to answer a question that was not being asked. We can all agree that students, regardless of where their families live, should have access to quality, accessible, inclusive public education. It’s the level of funding that is the issue, not the location of the students.

• Education is receiving the highest funding ever. We’ve increased education dollars every year.

Of course, the education funding figure is the highest ever. Districts are primarily funded based on student enrollment numbers and, as we know, the student population in BC has increased significantly. The total number of K-12 public school students was 521,038 in 2014/15. Last year, public school enrolment in BC reached a historical high point of 614, 869.[ii]

In addition, it simply stands to reason that, with inflationary pressures and rising costs, more funding would be required just to deliver the same services as the year before. It’s very likely that the dollars allocated to most, if not all government services, are the “highest ever.”  But, in terms of per pupil spending in education, BC does not have a record to crow about. According to Stats Can updated figures for the year 2022 (latest available) BC ranked fourth from the bottom of the provinces and territories in dollars per pupil dedicated to public education. [iii]

Further, it’s telling to look at the percentage of the gross provincial product being transferred to school districts to fund their operating costs. That is, how does the amount of tax dollars given in operating grants to school districts compare year over year as a percentage of Gross Provincial Product. In 2022, as reported by Stats Can the percentage going to education in BC was 3.0%, the second lowest among the provinces and territories in Canada. [iv]

Considered another way, for the 2023/24 school fiscal year, BC reported allocating grants totaling $6,754 billion across the province’s sixty school districts. If BC were to spend at the “% of GDP” rate that it did in back in the year 2000, this budgetary allocation would increase by $3.8 billion to $10.552 billion. [v]

• Our education system is doing very well. Wonderful things are happening in BC schools, our students continue to score highly on international exams and other jurisdictions are using the BC curriculum.

We agree- amazing things are happening in BC public schools and that’s entirely to the credit of teachers, support staff, parents, administrators, students and the school community overall. It’s not at all a sign that the funding matches the needs and it’s certainly not sustainable as pressures mount. And, when another jurisdiction choses to use the K-12 curriculum developed in BC through the hard work contributed by teams of BC teachers, they are not also endorsing the conditions under which it is being taught.  These are two different realities.

• We’re in difficult and uncertain times. We can’t afford to boost education funding.

To that, I would say, we simply can’t afford not to. We know that quality, accessible, inclusive public education is key to a healthy democracy and thriving society. We believe that in dark and uncertain times, support for public education is all the more important. Today’s young people are growing up a world that’s facing incredibly complex problems and threatening conditions. Providing students with the skills, knowledge and supports to help them to not only cope but contribute in a meaningful way is more urgent than ever. It’s a sound investment in our collective future.

Further, at a time when public schools are in dire need, it’s impossible to justify the substantial sum of public tax dollars going to private schools. In 2024/25 alone the total was a whopping $570 million. [vi]

Just imagine the gaps that could be filled if these dollars stayed in the public system each year.

• Education funding isn’t a top priority for voters.

An additional and somewhat less public reason sometimes given for the funding crisis is that spending on public education is not identified as  a top priority by a majority voters  and therefore is not a “vote getter” issue. If this is so, it’s understandable. In contrast to healthcare, for example, the daily impact of education underfunding may not be as evident  to individuals who don’t directly engage with the system. However public education truly is a foundational public service- a societal benefit that we can all rely on whether or not we’re directly connected to a school.

As chronic underfunding takes a bigger and bigger toll, a wise and long overdue move for government would be to invite feedback and learn from those who experience the pressures and tensions in public schools firsthand, rather than appearing, however inadvertently, to deny their reality. Gaslighting is a term that may occur to many who struggle to secure the services and support children and youth need. The broken record responses are doing no one any good; it’s really time they were traded for a much more meaningful dialogue.

[i] Beyond the Gap- https://instituteforpubliceducation.org/beyond-the-gap-the-need-for-accountable-education-funding-that-demonstrates-that-society-values-inclusion/

[ii] Government of BC – https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2025/sp/pdf/ministry/educ.pdf and https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2015EDUC0051-001334

[iii] StatsCan tables 37-10-0064, 37-10-0065, 37-10-0007 and 37-10-0153

[iv] The Facts on Education Funding https://instituteforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/BC-Education-Funding-Facts.pdf

[v] The Facts on Education Funding Facts- https://instituteforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/BC-Education-Funding-Facts.pdf

[vi] Public Funds for Public Schools- https://instituteforpubliceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Public-Funds-for-Public-Schools.pdf

Moira Mackenzie is a member of the IPE/BC Board of Directors and retired educator. She taught for many years at the primary and intermediate levels, as well as in inclusive education as a Resource and Learning Assistance teacher. Moira also worked at the BCTF in professional issues and communications positions, and as the federation’s Executive Director.

For further reading on education funding:

BC school boards faced to make cuts; say they’re all out of Band-Aids

Increased public funding for private schools is dividing us and needs to stop

Is BC’s Education Underfunded and at a “Tipping Point”?

Calling on government to address the funding gap

Beyond the gap: the need for accountable education funding that demonstrates that society values inclusion

IPE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Associates 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 Associates and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.

Public School Music Education Deserves a Standing Ovation – And More Funding

May 22, 2025

By Louise Herle

When people talk about ‘important school subjects’ music education is often treated like a tambourine: a necessary component of the concert but easily dismissed if not shaken with enthusiasm. At budget meetings music programs are too often first to be reduced or cut. When we consider music education superfluous, we disregard it at our peril. Fulsome music education programs contribute to sound foundational education curricula. Provincial governments – via their ministry of education and school boards – would be seen to better provide for students were they to ensure quality, fully-funded, free, and accessible music education, regardless of students’ postal code or their families’ household income.

1. Music Makes Us Smarter

Research repeatedly shows that music education activates more brain areas in students than almost any other activity. Students use visual-spatial reasoning while reading music notes and engage fine motor skills while playing an instrument. When they learn to listen to music critically, they activate memory, pattern recognition, and math skills. Music education students also exhibit advanced language development and stronger executive functioning skills – like planning, organizing, following instructions and controlling inhibitions – essential skills for managing daily life. Music education strengthens working memory, cognitive flexibility (easily shift from one academic subject to another), self-monitoring (observe, evaluate and check work for errors) and task initiation (practice, avoid procrastination).

2. Music Teaches Emotional Intelligence and Social Intelligence

Music education allows students to access and express emotions that they may not otherwise have words or actions for. It helps them to manage their emotions. It also helps students to feel and to understand others’ emotions. When students play in an ensemble, they learn to listen – not simply hear – and they learn to wait for their turn. They learn to support others, and to create and enjoy the harmony that is realized in teamwork. These are life skills that make such students a better friend, partner, co-worker, and citizen. Music education has been shown to teach students to navigate social interactions and resolve conflicts in a positive way, to be more self-aware, and to be more empathetic. They read social cues and thrive.

3. Music Is a Group Project

In music ensembles every student plays a part; the tuba player matters just as much as the lead trumpet. The second violinist may not have the spotlight solo, but they sustain the harmony. The student who plays the triangle enhances the overall sound. Group music projects (writing songs, talent shows, forming bands) offer opportunities for creative expression, communication, and high morale. They foster collaboration, responsibility, and humility. No one can opt out without the whole group noticing. Teamwork and synergy rule.

4. Yes, There Are Legitimate Careers in Music!

We have all heard the tired expression the ‘…starving artist”. Music education and the music industry offer vast career opportunities, from composition and performance to production, music therapy, technician, sound design, music scores for film, designing music festivals and concerts, repairing instruments, luthier. Music education students may also work as sound engineers, public relations industry experts or musician promoters. Musicians are lifelong learners; they develop transferable skills that employers seek: self discipline, creativity, time management, problem-solving, and public speaking to name a few. Life is richer with musicians, song writers, composers, conductors, music director, DJs, sound engineers, audio engineers, talent managers, booking agents, and teachers!

5. Music Connects Us to Culture, History, and Each Other

Music education students develop an appreciation for a variety of cultures and histories by studying composers and international music. They study spirituals, protest songs and ballads that have been passed down through generations. Diverse styles such as jazz, classical, country, soul, singing, reggae, opera, folk, pop, rock, hip-hop, rhythm & blues, EDM (electronic dance music) are all part of a proper music education curriculum. These experiences show students who we are, where we have been, and who we can become. Music is a universal language; it transcends cultural and linguistic boundaries and connects us.

6. Some Students Stay in School Only Because of Music Class

For many students, especially those who struggle academically or socially, music class is the reason they go to school. Music class is where they truly engage; they find their passion, their people, and their voice. They find meaning, humour and connection. Reducing or eliminating funding for music education potentially removes a lifeline. Music class inspires confidence and creates belonging. It offers students a chance to succeed outside sometimes rigid constructs of desks, keyboards, pens and paper. Schools with strong arts programs tend to have higher graduation rates, increased student attendance and increased positive community engagement (students practise instruments after school instead of hanging out in a mall). Music help students manage their stress. Since we believe that every student deserves their best opportunity to thrive and succeed, music education programs must be viewed as key components of the overall curriculum.

7. Finale

A music teacher in BC public schools for 30 years, I worked at three schools in order to secure full-time status. I taught – and wrote report cards for – over 350 students, three times each year. I conducted five choirs, three bands and taught general Music K-grade seven. That meant three different staff meetings, innumerable parent-teacher meetings, eight festival entries and countless school concerts. My assigned ‘classrooms’ were school gyms, libraries and when lucky, portables. One school year, my meagre budget meant using fishing line to replace ukulele strings; a durable but not melodious remedy. Lunch ‘breaks’ were usually spent driving to the next school. Programs can devolve from quality to quantity; thirty minutes of music per week does not equate quality music education. Public school music education needs to be reconsidered as essential for brains, hearts, and our future, rather than a luxury or bonus that only students in private schools can access (look at a brochure for any private school and you will always see classes for stringed instruments and arts).

Louise Herle is a member of the Sunshine Coast Retired Teachers’ Association and the BCRTA where she currently serves on the Membership and Communications Committees. A graduate of University of Regina (Music), Université Laval, Québec (Linguistics), UBC (B.Ed) and Simon Fraser University (M.Ed), she taught grades K-12 and Adult Ed in Saskatchewan, Quebec and British Columbia. Louise worked on many BCTF committees and served as President, Sunshine Coast Teachers’ Association, for seven years. Louise enjoys teaching piano lessons, playing fiddle music with her grandfather’s violin in Celtic and Bluegrass groups, and playing her French Horn in a Community Orchestra. 

IPE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Associates 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 Associates and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.

Beyond the gap: The need for accountable education funding that demonstrates that society values inclusion

April 10, 2025

By Andrée Gacoin

In British Columbia, school districts have an obligation to provide a meaningful education to all students who arrive at their doors, including those with disabilities and diverse educational needs. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada, inclusive education service is not a “dispensable luxury” but instead is “the ramp that provides access to the statutory commitment to education made to all children in British Columbia.”[i]

The Ministry of Education and Child Care’s policy manual for the provision of inclusive education services outlines a “continuous and flexible” process for identifying students with disabilities and diverse needs and then providing the necessary supports.[ii]  Broadly, a student with observed exceptionalities in learning and/or behaviour should be referred to a school-based team. This is a team of teachers and other professionals (e.g., counsellors, psychologists, speech and language pathologists) who come together to discuss and problem-solve how to support specific students and the classroom teacher.[iii]  Teams may request further assessments (e.g., psycho-educational testing) which are used to assign students to Ministry-defined inclusive education categories. These categories are then used to determine supplemental funding needed by the district.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the funding provided to school districts to provide inclusive education services is woefully inadequate. In addition to core operational funding (which is primarily based on the number of students enrolled in a district in a particular year), the Ministry of Education and Child Care allocates supplementary funding for inclusive education based on a per-pupil funding amount for only some inclusive education categories. For example, schools receive supplemental funding for the number of students with a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or who have Moderate/Profound Intellectual Disabilities.[iv]  However, school districts do not receive additional funding for other identified needs, such as learning disabilities, students requiring moderate behavior supports, or enrichment opportunities for students who are gifted. Furthermore, the funding that is provided is “block funding,” meaning that a lump sum is provided to the district and is not specifically allocated for particular students or supports.

Every year, BC school districts spend more on inclusive education than they receive in funding from the Ministry of Education and Child Care. BCTF Research analysed funding and spending data on inclusive education from 2007-2024 and found a persistent funding gap over at least the past 17 years. In 2023-24, for example, provincial government funding only covered 72.3% of what BC school districts spent to provide inclusive education services. In dollar terms, this was a $340 million dollar funding shortfall that districts were forced to cover with their core operational funding. Besides creating pressure for districts to redirect funding from other operational areas, the lack of funding forces districts to ration inclusive education staff and services. Research with teachers has found that this can be seen as having to “triage the system,” including trying to fit in supports through creative scheduling, shifting support intended for one student to multiple students, and cobbling multiple small supports together.[v]

Crucially, data also indicates that even if provincial inclusive education funding was increased to meet spending, it would not be enough. The 2024-25 BCTF Membership Survey[vi] found that only 13% of teachers feel that students with disabilities or diverse needs are having their needs met. As one teacher shared, “our greatest challenge in our district is not having the funding or EA support to properly manage and/or support real inclusion.[vii]

Read through this lens, the chronic underfunding of BC’s inclusive education system is deeply disturbing. Children with disabilities and diverse needs have the right to meaningful education. They have a right to feel a sense of belonging in their school community and be supported by policies and procedures that value the success of all students.

Increased funding alone will not “fix” inclusive education. However, it is the necessary condition for moving BC along the path of more inclusive school communities.[viii] Imagine communities in which every child has access to timely learning assessments and specialist support services. Imagine sites where teachers and other education workers have the time and space for collaboration and relationship building within the school and the broader community. We can get there by enacting inclusive policies, approaches and procedures that are grounded in a rights-based perspectives – enabling classrooms and schools where all students are thriving and supported to explore and develop their gifts, passions and abilities.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

[i] Moore v. British Columbia (Education). See https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12680/index.do

[ii] See https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/inclusive/inclusive_ed_policy_manual.pdf

[iii] See Shields, K. (2018). Use the power of your school-based team to help yourself and your students. Teacher Magazine, 31.

[iv] Funding is provided according to three levels, with particularly inclusive education needs within each level. See p. 38 of the Ministry’s inclusive education policy manual for more details – https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/inclusive/inclusive_ed_policy_manual.pdf

[v] See https://www.bctf.ca/docs/default-source/for-news-and-stories/thelandscapeofinclusion97ee6f5ddf14430994d7d266b141e404.pdf?sfvrsn=9afa2c50_0

[vi] Report forthcoming. The random sample survey, fielded in February 2025, provides results that can be generalized to the overall teacher population in BC’s public schools with reasonable accuracy and a small margin of error: +/- 1.5% 19 times out of 20.

[vii] See https://www.bctf.ca/docs/default-source/for-news-and-stories/bctf-membership-survey-summary-report-2023-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=3bdb986c_2

[viii] These ideas were developed at the June 2024 Think Tank on Meaningful Inclusion for Students with Disabilities and Diverse Needs. See: [viii] https://www.bctf.ca/docs/default-source/default-document-library/inclusion-think-tank-report.pdf?sfvrsn=6bbd94c9_2

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.

PE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Associates 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 Associates and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.

New Research Casts Doubt on School Cell Phone Bans

March 29, 2025 

By Patti Bacchus

Cell phone bans in schools have gained popularity, often championed by politicians who announce them and leave the task of enforcement to teachers and administrators. The best part? These bans typically don’t cost anything. But do they actually work?

While there’s little debate about how distracting cell phones can be—both for students and for many adults—there’s a lack of solid evidence suggesting that banning these powerful devices during school hours is an effective solution to the complex challenges they present.

A recent study out of the UK has been generating significant attention, and for good reason. Published in The Lancet in February, the University of Birmingham study found that students at schools with cell phone bans showed no better outcomes in terms of mental health, physical activity, sleep, or academic achievement.

This isn’t to say that excessive cell phone use or social media isn’t negatively impacting youth; rather, it suggests that banning phones in schools isn’t the solution politicians often claim it to be.

I’m old enough to remember a variety of knee-jerk bans on things kids do. I recall marbles being banned at my elementary school (something about gambling), “clackers” (those balls on strings that had a tendency to send small pieces of glass flying), and even pants for girls (until that glorious day in the late 1960s when the ban was finally lifted and I ran home to change at lunch). In the 1970s, calculators raised alarms in my high school, and the list goes on.

It’s easy for adults to impose bans on children and youth, who have little power and no vote. But just because we can impose a ban doesn’t necessarily mean we should.

Sure, kids checking Instagram, TikTok, or Snapchat during class isn’t conducive to learning. It’s disruptive and distracting. Teachers should absolutely have the authority to set rules in their classrooms, and keeping phones away during lessons generally makes sense—unless they are being used as part of the lesson or assignment.

But given that schools are meant to educate students and prepare them for healthy, engaged lives as productive citizens, are we shortchanging them by opting for simplistic (and often hard-to-enforce) bans instead of more comprehensive, nuanced approaches? Wouldn’t it be better to help them develop healthy tech habits and the ability to set boundaries for themselves, enabling them to use technology constructively?

The Birmingham researchers believe so. Not surprisingly, they found that time spent on phones and social media correlated with negative outcomes, including worse mental wellbeing, decreased physical activity, poorer sleep, lower academic performance, and more disruptive classroom behavior.

However, the researchers concluded that simply banning phones in the classroom won’t solve this problem. Instead, they argue we need to take a more holistic approach to managing overall phone use as a key part of improving adolescent health and wellbeing.

That may require further study to determine the best strategies, as well as funding to educate teachers, parents, and students about managing phone use. Schools and the education system are well-positioned to play a central role in this, but it will take much more than the “headline-grabbing gimmicks” of cellphone bans.

I’d also recommend involving students in the process of developing policies and strategies for cell phone use. This could shift the focus from mere compliance with rules to fostering critical, engaged thinking about technology.

This broader, more thoughtful approach may not grab headlines and is unlikely to be cheap, but we owe it to students to consider a solution that will improve their lives both now and in the future. It might just be time to ban the bans.

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.

Inclusionary practices in BC schools: Are we making progress? 

March 12, 2025

Moira Mackenzie

On March 6^th, IPE/BC held a public forum asking the question, “Are we making progress on inclusionary practices in BC schools?”  Thanks to our panelists, Tamara Taggart, President of Down syndrome BC, Tracy Humphreys, Executive Director of BCCPAC and past-ED of BCEdAccess, and Hilary Thompson, President of Inclusion BC, we learned a great deal. And, unfortunately, the answer to our question was a resounding “NO” from all three.

For years, the BC government has had an admirable policy statement on inclusion on the books, but without the necessary funding, supports and services in place, it is in danger of becoming an empty promise, especially to parents/caregivers who have to work so hard to advocate for their children with disabilities and/or diverse needs. These parents and many others know it’s a system under stress; they and their children regularly and directly experience the impact of teacher and support staff shortages and chronic underfunding. They also know how difficult it is to access the education decision-makers and be heard. And they speak  to the fact that placing students with disabilities and/or diverse needs in classrooms without the necessary supports or, as is sometimes the case, in segregated classrooms, serves to stigmatize their children and seriously undermines their ability to succeed.

Further, we learned that it’s not only the children and youth who are stigmatized, it can happen to their parents/caregivers as well, since they are forced to be determined, relentless advocates while also dealing with all the usual demands of parenting. Our panelists, who are all experienced advocates, spoke about the hurdles they and other parents face in trying to access information and be heard. They also know that they are among many, many others in this situation as each of their organization hear from great numbers of parents with similar experiences each year.

As an example, Tamara Taggart shared that Down syndrome BC was interested in finding out more about how the education dollars marked for inclusion were actually being spent. Were they, for example, being diverted to other uses? In communicating with Ministry officials over time, the organization was told that the Ministry doesn’t keep track of this spending and, so, didn’t have an answer. Undeterred, Downs syndrome BC wrote to a sampling of school boards only to be given the same answer- the district didn’t track that spending. It was very frustrating and equally concerning,  to say the least.

Tracy Humphreys spoke to the need for school boards to hear the concerns of parents. Too often, access to board meetings and even individual trustees is severely limited. She proposed that trustees make it a practice to include the voices of District Parent Advisory Councils and Parent Advisory Councils at the board table. In the BC School Act, DPACs, which include reps from PACs, are assured of their right to advise the board on any matter pertaining to education in the district and so should be regularly welcomed to share their concerns.

Hilary Thomson was very clear that what we need is “more humans” in the system providing more support. Simply put, placing students  in classrooms without supports is not inclusion. Hilary stressed the need to learn from parents and to ask the kids themselves what they need and want.

Looking back, inclusion first became a government initiative in the 1980s. The Royal Commission on Education report in 1988 and subsequent education School Act revisions mandated the closing of segregated schools and established the requirement that neighbourhood schools were to provide for the success of all children. There was the expectation of significant positive change and, for a time, there were meaningful steps in that direction. But, years of underfunding and the lack of adequate staffing and supports has us seeing inadequate supports as the “norm” and exclusionary practices coming back- reduced time at school, exclusion from certain activities, and, in some cases, even segregated programs and classes.

As our panelists reminded us all, inclusion is a recognized right, not just in BC but on the national and international levels. For example, the, Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities , which was ratified by Canada in 2010, speaks directly to the right to an inclusive education with access to necessary accommodations and supports.

So, given that our education system in BC has been struggling with inclusion, what needs to be done now? Hilary was clear that simply placing students in classrooms without the staffing and support they need is not inclusion. What we need is more humans, she told us, along with the willingness of school districts to better involve and learn from both students and parents. Tamara spoke to the need to  eliminate segregation; it breeds discrimination and children and youth carry the painful experiences of segregation into adulthood. Tracy reminded us of how important it is for post-secondary institutionsa to ensure that teacher education courses include a significant focus on inclusionary practices. And, all panelists agreed that education assistants need to be recognized for the information, skills and supports they can provide. Both education assistants and are teachers struggling under staffing shortages, underfunding and impossible working conditions.

We’d add one more step. We’d encourage everyone to call on each school district and the Ministry of Education and Child Care to hold similar forums with parents/caregivers, support staff, educators and students to learn from their experiences and recommit to fully supported inclusion in all of our public schools.

We’re very grateful to our panelists for sharing their wisdom and experience and for the incredibly important work they undertake. We also thank our very skilled panel moderator, Patti Bacchus, and all of our participants online and in person.

Click here to watch the forum. 

For more reading on inclusion in schools in BC today, we’d recommend:

Advocating for Equity, Report of the Vancouver DPAC Inclusive Education Working Group

Communities of Belonging: Conversations from the Think Tank on Meaningful Inclusion of Students with Disabilities and Diverse Needs

Too Many Left Behind: Ensuring Children and Youth with Disabilities Thrive,  report of the  BC Representative for Children and Youth, BC.

Realities of Inclusive Education in Surrey’s Public Schools

BC Ombudsperson’s Investigation into Exclusion of Students from School

BCEdAccess Exclusion Tracker

Placing a Priority on Public Education

Moira Mackenzie is member of the IPE/BC Board of Directors. She taught in BC public schools for many years, serving as a primary, intermediate, resource ,and learning assistance teacher ,and retired as Executive Director of the BCTF. She feels very privileged to volunteer with IPE/BC and work with others dedicated to quality, inclusive, accessible public education.