Category: Updates

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.

 

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.