Category: News

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. 

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

The Role of School Police Liaison Officers: Do We Really Need Them?

Sharon O’Dornan

December 11, 2024

Education Minister Lisa Beare has threatened to fire the elected school board of Greater Victoria (SD 61) if they do not provide a revised “safety plan.” It appears that the safety plan must include the reintroduction of the School Police Liaison Officers (SPLO) program.

In schools, staff work diligently to ensure that programs are effective. Measurable goals are created, data is gathered, and results are reviewed regularly. Reports regarding student progress are generated at prescribed intervals. These reports are shared with parents and relevant school staff, covering everything from classroom achievements to individualized programs such as speech-language therapy. The information is securely, confidentially stored for future reference as needed. The rationale behind this process is clear: if we do not measure our efforts, we cannot determine whether our interventions are truly making a difference.

However, school board chair Nicole Duncan stated (in an interview with Gregor Craigie on On The Island CBC radio, December 10, 2024) that she has received no response to her requests for data and reports regarding the Greater Victoria Police Department’s previous involvement in the SPLO program. Police Chief Del Manak has provided occasional anecdotes about the program, but that is far from the comprehensive data needed to assess its overall effectiveness.

Schools operate with a great deal of transparency. Classroom teachers provide daily plans that are utilized by themselves or a teacher-on-call. Support staff, such as English Language Learning teachers and contracted specialists like occupational therapists, follow universal referral systems, administer standardized assessments, document observations and provide reports . Caseload information is readily available to school administrators, and priorities are confidentially discussed during school-based team meetings.

Before I retired from my role as an itinerant speech-language pathologist in SD 61, I found it difficult to understand the role of the SPLO. The transparency regarding their schedules and duties was lacking. If I wasn’t clear about why a police officer was standing in the office or walking in the halls, I can only imagine how unclear the students might have been. This lack of clarity raises important questions about whether the program could be contributing to profiling. It feels strange to have a police presence in a public institution without a specific, stated requirement for their involvement. Why, as a society, do we believe that groups of children require a police presence to be safe, especially when there is no concrete data to demonstrate that this approach actually ensures their safety?

As schools work hard to maintain a safe and supportive environment for students, the question remains: Does the presence of School Police Liaison Officers truly contribute to the safety of our schools, or is it simply an unproven assumption? Without clear data and transparent reporting on the program’s effectiveness, it’s difficult to justify its widespread adoption. Perhaps it’s time for a deeper, more data-driven conversation about how best to ensure the safety and well-being of students without relying on programs that lack measurable evidence of success. It’s crucial that we continue to explore alternative solutions that prioritize student welfare while addressing the complexities of modern school safety.

Sharon O’Dornan retired from the Greater Victoria school district (SD61) in 2020, after a 34-year career as a speech language pathologist. During that time, she worked in the Vancouver, North Vancouver and Victoria school districts. 

For further reading on this important and topical issue, see:

What is the alternative to police in schools?

Policing in Schools Project 

“Relationship Building” and the Normalization of Police in Schools

Victoria School Board says lack of communication upended safety plan 

Not everyone is welcoming police officers back to schools

Five reasons why school policy officers may not be the most effective way to prevent violence 

Vancouver votes to reinstate the SLO program 

 

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

The Impact of the New Rights on the Privatization of Education 

Andrée Gacoin

November 25, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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