News

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.  

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.

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.