Search

This report describes the methodology used by the Ministry of Education to calculate per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) student funding for independent schools and discusses the underlying inequities when the public school funding formula is applied to funding for private schools. Vancouver school district is provided as a case example to work through each step of the funding formula for public schools and to show how this applies to funding for independent schools.

The BC Ministry of Education announcement about 2012-13 operating grants estimates includes "new" funding to districts of $11.2 million for vulnerable students, $10.7 million for districts to implement elements of the Education Plan, and $21.8 million to address "districts' differing geographic circumstances." This makes for a total of $43.7 million in "new" funding for these supplements, yet 2012-13 operating grants estimates increase by only $4 million, from $4.721 billion in 2011-12 to $4.725 billion in 2012-13. This suggests that most of the "new" funding is actually a shift of funding between categories within the funding formula. While increased funding for vulnerable students is welcome and essential, the benefits arising from this funding should be evaluated in the context of the adverse effects of budget shortfalls on students as a result of cuts to programs and services in other areas. For example, in an effort to deal with an anticipated shortfall of $8 to $8.5 million in 2012-13, the Vancouver School Board hired Price-waterhouseCoopers (PwC) to identify areas of cost-savings, some of which, if implemented, could directly affect vulnerable students, such as changes in reimbursement criteria for bus fare and changes in school cafeterias providing meals to students in need. What is needed to address the funding crisis in BC public schools? What is needed is an assessment of the overall impact of funding policies on students and families, weighing the benefits of these newly-announced funding initiatives against the adverse impact of cutbacks arising from district budget shortfalls such as school closures, staff layoffs, larger classes, and loss of educational programs and services. (Contains 12 footnotes.)

This research report, which is an update of research report 2011-TS-03, shows the salary difference for each step of British Columbia's (BC) Category 5 or comparable qualifications. Salaries for Vancouver public school teachers are compared to teacher salaries in Toronto (elementary), Ottawa (secondary), and Edmonton. Salaries for Prince George public school teachers are compared to teacher salaries in Near North (elementary), New Brunswick, and Lethbridge. In 2010-2011, a "Vancouver" teacher at maximum salary (Category 5) earned $10,969 less than an elementary teacher in "Toronto," $11,876 less than a secondary teacher in "Ottawa," and $16,860 less than a teacher in "Edmonton." In 2010-2011, a "Prince George" teacher at maximum salary (Category 5) earned $10,685 less than an elementary teacher in "Near North," and $16,675 less than a teacher in "Lethbridge." If BC teachers receive no salary increase for 2011-2012, a teacher in "Edmonton" with equivalent years of experience and education will earn $95,354 compared to $74,353 for a teacher in "Vancouver." The earnings gap will widen from $16,860 to $21,001. The earnings gap between a "Lethbridge" teacher and a "Prince George" teacher with 10 years teaching experience at Category 5 will widen from $16,675 to $20,808. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Amber Yaciw and Anne Field.]

A news release by the BC Ministry of Education on December 9, 2011 describes upcoming changes to the funding formula for the 2012-13 Operating Grants and announces increases in CommunityLink funding for 2012-13 and 2013-14. This research report analyzes the potential impact of these changes and compares BC's performance in improving education funding over the last five years to other provinces in Canada. (Contains 2 tables and 6 footnotes.)

Each budget year, the Ministry of Education responds to concerns about chronic underfunding of public education by asserting that the ministry is providing its "highest funding ever" during a sustained period of declining student enrolment. This assertion of the "highest funding ever" continues in "Budget 2011," ignoring the evidence of a systemic structural shortfall in education funding. Nor does "Budget 2011" acknowledge that education is receiving a diminishing share of the provincial budget. The percentage of the provincial budget going to the K-12 education system fell steadily from 19.67% in 2001-2002 to 15.34% in 2009-2010. If funding for K-12 education in 2010-2011 was restored to the 2001-2002 ratio of 19.67%, an additional $1.5 billion in funding would be available for public education. The British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Education continues to justify current funding levels by noting the decline in student enrolment over the last decade, yet education and population statistics clearly indicate a trend of increasing enrolment in the coming years. The number of FTE students enrolled in public schools increased by 2,595.6 FTE students between 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Kindergarten enrolment is projected to increase by almost 7,000 students over the next 10 years, from 36,003 students in 2010-2011 to 42,933 in 2019-2020. A 2010 report by BC Stats forecasts population growth for children and youth up to the age of 15 over the next 10 years. Nor is a period of declining enrolment a justification for eroding learning support for students. Other provinces in Canada also experienced declining enrolment in the last decade but did not make drastic cuts to numbers of educators in the way BC did. The BC government could have chosen to use a period of declining enrolment as an opportunity to address the unmet needs in the education system by offering smaller classes, clearing up wait lists for assessments, and increasing learning support for special needs and other unique student groups. (Contains 3 tables, 1 chart and 30 footnotes.)

Each budget year the Ministry of Education responds to concerns about chronic underfunding of public education by asserting that the ministry is providing "more funding than ever" during a sustained period of declining student enrolment. While the nominal amount of education funding has increased, this increase has not been sufficient to fully fund publicly-mandated education programs and services. According to a 2010 report by the Saanich School District, new costs to school districts exceeded provincial block funding resulting in a $157 million shortfall in 2009-10, after accounting for savings due to declining enrolment. K to 12 education is actually receiving a diminishing share of the provincial budget. This paper shows that Ministry of Education funding as a percent of the provincial budget fell to 15.34% in 2009-10, down from 19.67% in 2001-02 and 26.36% in 1991-92. More of this funding has gone to private education. Since 2005-06, independent-school funding increased by 34%, while public education funding increased by only 13%. Budget 2010 restores $100 million of the $128 million in Education Programs funding for 2010-11 that was lost in the revised provincial budget introduced in September 2009. But this is still $28 million short of the amount originally allocated in the February 2009 Budget Plan. Public schools funding is the largest component of Education Programs, increasing from $4.699 billion to $4.82 billion for 2010-11. The new budget claims to provide funding for wage settlement costs for teachers, implementation of full-day K, and to partially restore $110 million of AFG funding spread over two years. (Contains 3 tables, 19 footnotes, and 1 chart.)

In March of each year, the ministry publishes the Operating Grants Manual showing estimated funding allocations for school districts for the upcoming school year. These estimates are based on enrolment projections. On September 30 of the new school year, enrolment is counted and the grants are recalculated based on actual enrolment. The ministry holds back a portion of funds to be released subject to enrolment changes. Summer learning funds are also included in the holdback. The final budget figures are published in December of the school-year in Recalculated Operating Grant tables. The Recalculated Operating Grant also shows the amount of the $71 million holdback that was released for enrolment adjustments. Enrolment for Distributed Learning and Special Needs students is counted several times a year, so the ministry retains some of the holdback to cover potential enrolment increases in these programs. The basic enrolment-based grant increased by $21 million and the Unique Student Needs supplement increased by $17.5 million. This increase is partially offset by a $3.6 million decrease in the Enrolment Decline supplement. About half of the holdback ($32 million) was released after the September enrolment count, of which $15.4 was allocated to the Summer Learning grant. This left $16.6 million to cover the $38.5 million increase required to fund the extra students (basic enrolment and special needs) who were not budgeted for in the March estimates. What was not expected was the $25.3 million decrease in the salary differential supplement between the March 2009-10 estimates and the Autumn 2009-10 recalculation. (Contains 6 tables and 3 footnotes.)

This research report examines changes in FTE teachers, FTE administrators, and teacher-administrator ratios, drawing on two data sources over two time periods. The Ministry of Education collects statistics about administrators from two different data sources. Teacher Statistics, an annual report published by the ministry uses data collected in Forms 2001 and 2003. Form 1530: FTE Employees by Program collects data to assist school districts in planning staffing levels and for budgeting purposes. Administrators are defined differently in each data collection form. Each of these measures provides unique insights into changes in the employment of school-based and district-level administrators. A glossary is included. Appended are: (1) Teacher/Administrator Ratio: 2004-205 to 2008-09 (FTE Public Schools only); and (2) Teacher/Administrator Ratios, 2001-02 and 2007-08--Form 1530 data. (Contains 3 tables and 5 footnotes.)

A new report by the Centre for Civic Governance of the Columbia Institute sheds light on why districts are struggling to balance their budgets while the Minister of Education claims they received the "highest funding ever." The $122 million increase in the current 2008-09 operating grant fell $15 million short of the $137 million required to cover increased labour settlement costs. As a result, all school districts but two received less discretionary funding than in the previous two years. Discretionary funding is the amount of funding left over after contractual obligations are met. This left many districts having to use surpluses and/or reduce services to make up for budget shortfalls. Labour settlement costs increase each year to reflect salary increases or other improvements in working conditions that were negotiated in good faith through the bargaining process. While school boards are obligated to meet these contractual obligations, the Columbia Institute report showed that in 2008-09, the provincial government did not provide sufficient funds to cover increased labour settlement costs. (Contains 3 tables and 6 footnotes.)

In 2006, there were an estimated 181,000 low-income children in the province, with British Columbia (BC) reporting the highest before-tax child poverty rate (21.9%) in Canada (15.8%) for the fifth year in a row. This was the news in the "2008 Child Poverty Report Card" recently released by the First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition. Many of these families lived on incomes that were at least $11,000 below the before-tax low-income threshold. These figures tell that thousands of BC families are struggling economically, whose children are dealing with the effects of poverty. The current economic recession will further intensify the challenges many families face in earning an income sufficient to support their families. Part 1 of this paper discusses why it is important for educators to challenge assumptions and beliefs about the structural causes of poverty. How one thinks, feels, and communicates about poverty makes a difference in how students feel about themselves and their school community. This section also draws on educational research to explore conceptual issues around the framing of poverty and children. Part 2 of this paper draws on current policy and statistical reports to examine how economic, political, and social changes over the past decade have contributed to child and family poverty. Improving one's understanding of the structural determinants of poverty can help to raise awareness of the external factors that undermine the efforts of many families to achieve economic security. The response of the BC government to the issue of child and family poverty is compared to that of other Canadian provinces. This section concludes by describing poverty reduction strategies proposed by social policy advocates. Implications for the public education system are discussed throughout the paper. (Contains 1 table and 3 charts.)