64 replies to this topic

[Caramia]

Group 2 schools - meet the same requirements as Group 1 schools. They receive per student grants at the 35% level, because their per student costs exceed those of the local public school district. e.g., usually University-prep/British model schools (often coined “elite schools.”)

I'm confused.. it looks like this is saying 35% of the cost of educating the student is covered by the public per student allowance. IE: the student gets the same amount, but these schools spend 65% more than public schools.

Or are they saying that these schools only get 35% of the normal allowance that a public school student gets?

[mat]

I'm confused.. it looks like this is saying 35% of the cost of educating the student is covered by the public per student allowance. IE: the student gets the same amount, but these schools spend 65% more than public schools.

Or are they saying that these schools only get 35% of the normal allowance that a public school student gets?

I think they get 35% of the normal per student funding. Looking at the Min. of Ed website is not a help for clarification - there is no info on this that I could find (yet - still looking in frustration)

[davek]

Everyone might be interested to know that figures used for per student funding calculations usually don't include capital costs. This can mislead folks into thinking the cost of public schooling is lower than it actually is. I don't have any local figures, but in some cases the true cost is shocking.

[mat]

Everyone might be interested to know that figures used for per student funding calculations usually don't include capital costs. This can mislead folks into thinking the cost of public schooling is lower than it actually is. I don't have any local figures, but in some cases the true cost is shocking.

Capital costs for buildings, upgrades (like seismic) and grounds (and that takes into account what that real estate could be sold/leased for other purposes) are naturally high. But, whether the school is privately funded or public, is irrelevant. There have to be schools and universities.

The initiatives that do seem to work well in the public interest are collaborations like Gordon Head Middle School - when they renovated 3 years ago and changed from an elementary to middle, the school partnered with Saanich recreation so classrooms, gyms, dance studio, computer rooms, home-ec etc. are used on evenings, weekends and during holidays for adult classes and programs. It is an amazing facility - the students have some of the best equipment and rooms I have seen anywhere in SD 61.

School buildings are also part of disaster planning, used as polling stations, blood drives etc. so capital costs must be viewed as 'total usage' not just for educational purposes.

[davek]

... is irrelevant...

Knowing the true cost of something is entirely relevant, especially when you are forced by law to pay for it. The government shouldn't say it costs $8k a year to educate a student if it costs $10k a year.

Not to say that that's the situation in Victoria... I haven't seen any statements on local education spending.

The initiatives that do seem to work well in the public interest are collaborations like Gordon Head Middle School... the students have some of the best equipment and rooms I have seen anywhere in SD 61.

Things like this are wonderful, and market forces would likely make such arrangements even more common, as private suppliers of education look for ways to make the most out of their resources. In a more choice-oriented system, we might have seen a collaboration like this much earlier.

School buildings are also part of disaster planning, used as polling stations, blood drives etc. so capital costs must be viewed as 'total usage' not just for educational purposes.

This is correct, and although the difference is probably minor, those extra uses should be part of the calculations when determining costs. It is unfortunate that such an effort is required in order to determine what something costs when it is supplied through the state. It makes holding the government to account much more difficult. If it turned out it cost $14k a year to educate a regular K-12 student in a government school, people might be a lot more interested in a market-based option.

Perhaps one of the VPEC-endorsed candidates could tell us what the cost to educate a local student is?

[LJ]

I think they get 35% of the normal per student funding.

That is correct. The parents make up the rest through tuition and volunteering.

Volunteering - another activity that the teachers union is trying to eradicate.

[mat]

LJ - while being pro-teacher, and in effect pro-union for the support the BCTF provides to the educators of our children, there is valid criticism of prior and current union practices - however one of them is not being against volunteering. Teachers themselves have stepped up against member proposals to force payment for pre and after school activities, not in the 'normal' curriculum - and have determined that 'volunteering' should not be used as a guideline for promotion or raises.

Having said that, there is obvious pressure on schools and teachers to provide extra-curricular activities not mandated as required under the school act. Parents want a school that offers a variety of sports, clubs, field trips and extra tutorials - the only way to provide that is with teacher supervision, and effort, which goes unpaid.

Being a teacher is a job, - if you were strong armed into working unpaid hours the Employment Standards Act offers large fines, sanctions and compensation against your employer. Why should that be different for teachers?

[mat]

Knowing the true cost of something is entirely relevant, especially when you are forced by law to pay for it. The government shouldn't say it costs $8k a year to educate a student if it costs $10k a year.

Not to say that that's the situation in Victoria... I haven't seen any statements on local education spending.

Davek - if you like, and have the time, fiscal reports for every school board are available on their individual websites - SD 61 is here.

I am only assuming you mean budget allocations in supporting on-going capital costs, and not determining a per student valuation of servicing debt (as an example) - in that case you would also have to allow for a sales consideration of property (school grounds and building are assets). That kind of determination might (in a good market, say 2006) bring per student cost ratios down substantially.

In my experience (UK especially - many colleagues and friends with school age children) where private partnership models were used for general schooling, it has been a miserable failure. NY has some interesting charter school programs, but the jury is still out on how effective they will be long term, and in the current economic environment the NY state education system is already planning for takeovers as private collateral debt funds have dried up - it has again become cheaper for the state to run the schools than private organizations.

[davek]

Davek... That kind of determination might (in a good market, say 2006) bring per student cost ratios down substantially.

Thanks for the link, but if you saw the Washington Post article I cited earlier, you'll understand when I say I don't have the accounting skills needed to come to a defendable conclusion. But don't you agree that it shouldn't be this difficult to find out how much you're paying for something?

In my experience... it has been a miserable failure.

A robust market of private education is not something that can develop overnight by allowing a few agents to operate against an army of subsidized competition. Investors require a signal from government that it is committed to letting the process develop. I predict a city-wide full scale school choice program would take up to a decade to be running as optimally as conventional retailers do.

... it has again become cheaper for the state to run the schools than private organizations.

Private organizations offer a better education more cheaply than the state does, and people are still unable to afford it because they are forced to pay for the state school whether they use it or not. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that it is cheaper for the state to run schools.

Just as the market has driven the prices of cell phones, dvd players, and big screen TVs down to levels where the common man can enjoy them as only the wealthy previously could, a free market in education would allow more people to access the higher quality education currently available only to the well-off. We are not interested in having government supply us with clothing, or cars, or goods of any sort, because we know the private sector does it better. Why settle for public schools?

[LJ]

LJ - while being pro-teacher, and in effect pro-union for the support the BCTF provides to the educators of our children, there is valid criticism of prior and current union practices - however one of them is not being against volunteering. Teachers themselves have stepped up against member proposals to force payment for pre and after school activities, not in the 'normal' curriculum - and have determined that 'volunteering' should not be used as a guideline for promotion or raises.

Having said that, there is obvious pressure on schools and teachers to provide extra-curricular activities not mandated as required under the school act. Parents want a school that offers a variety of sports, clubs, field trips and extra tutorials - the only way to provide that is with teacher supervision, and effort, which goes unpaid.

Being a teacher is a job, - if you were strong armed into working unpaid hours the Employment Standards Act offers large fines, sanctions and compensation against your employer. Why should that be different for teachers?

The volunteerism that I was referring to was that of the parents - not the teachers, although as you stated that can be a problem as well.

Parents sometimes expect a lot more of a school than it is mandated to provide. If they want all the "extras" they should be willing to provide their time and/or funding in order for that to happen.

[ted - 3 - dots]

The volunteerism that I was referring to was that of the parents - not the teachers, although as you stated that can be a problem as well.

Parents sometimes expect a lot more of a school than it is mandated to provide. If they want all the "extras" they should be willing to provide their time and/or funding in order for that to happen.

----- Why the double Taxation ...? -----

John-Young , who is running for school-broad ,
has been fighting the Government for their OFF-LOADING the expense, on to teacher's & parents...!

Basically , "I" think I understand John Young , and I think he says this :

"Why is a child's education dependant on some kind of lottery...? ( ie: you get a "good-education if your lucky enough to have been born into "the right kind of neighborhood" ...??????????? )

Simply , the more education cost's , the less you get ....!!!!!

People like John-Young say this is UN-EXCEPTABLE .

John has spent, and will spend his own personal pocket money ,
sue-ing the Gov to provide the same education for all...!



--------- bottom line ----------

How special , your children are , they have parent's who are willing to do stuff ...!

How un-fortunate , the for children who parent/parents ,
are too busy just making end's meet ...!!!!!!!! ( or , parents who do nothing )


so what do we tell the children who are "un-fortunate" ...?

sorry , kid's

blame your "shift-less parents" because you DIDN'T GET AN EQUAL CHANCE ...!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ted... ( just asking , as John Young does, " is this fair " ...? )

>>> sorry to have jumping onto one post <<< but ,
I think the one above , reminded the most about what John Young said to me so very long ago ...!

ie: we have to stop trying to "Punish the Parents" , by punishing their children ...!

;{-

.

your education shouldn't be DEPENDANT upon the kind of parents you have.
or the kind of neighborhood you grow up in.


sorry

[Jessica Van der Veen]

This nonsense about teachers stopping parents from volunteering is some kind of goofy rumour. (As we know, some folks simply must campaign on rumours rather than truth and public records.)

Teachers want parents to not have to spend so much time volunteering to raise money for basics like textbooks. Then they would have more time for meaningful volunteer work that would engage them with their kids, their school and the learning community.

The other problem with parents spending their volunteer time fundraising is that the rich areas raise pots of money and the poor areas raise little or none creating inequities in the system. That is sad and pathetic in a country like Canada.

And no -- let's not start another stupid rumour that the teachers want to stop parents from raising money and all the programs will be cancelled because of this. The teachers want the province to pony up more money so we can have fair, equitable properly funded public education and parents can spend more time with their kids, their fellow parents and the teachers when they are doing stuff for school.

Only a person with little or no vision of a positive future would translate this desire for proper funding into a mass panic that programs would be cancelled. Trouble is -- our leadership has no vision of a positive future for everyone, so we keep hearing these negative rumours. Pathetic really.

[Jessica Van der Veen]

Well at least by identifying the VPEC candidates, I know who NOT to vote for.

Bring in a voucher system and encourage the establishment of more private schools.

Anything that would bring an end to the fiefdom of the teachers union is a good thing, for students, for parents, and for taxpayers.

Weird to hear you vilify a group of people like this - objectifying and labelling them and then blaming the world's problems on them. You talk about teachers the way men used to talk about women and people used to talk about Jews, or African Americans.

The chief objection people seem to have to unions is the idea that they have too much power. I always wonder -- compared to whom do unions have too much power?

Try this: All social institutions come with a tension between the power they have to protect and benefit us and the power they have to control our lives. None are perfect.

[martini]

In my own opinion I speak as staunch NDP. I'm pro union.

What I object to and many others is your bulldozer attack mode.

You may want to refine that if your running provincially.

The negativity and attack mode backfired on VPEC.

[Caramia]

Jessica as much as I respect teachers, and the teachers union, Victoria's unions have not shown themselves to be the good guys recently.

With the VLC endorsement fiasco, and now your own posts here in this thread, those speaking for unions are coming off as if they believe themselves to be above reproach or self-examination.

I disagree with LJ fervently on this topic and many others, however he's not vilifying anyone in his post, he's stating his opinion, and I respect his right to do so. Diversity of thought is a good thing in a lively debate.

[Jessica Van der Veen]

You are right and I apologize for my tone. My sense of grief and outrage at the way this election was won has gotten the better of me. All across the city parent communities are full of strife and conflict as a result of the letters that went out about the music programs. Bizaarely -- of all the parents and teachers who sent these letters threatening the death of music programs should our candidates be elected -- not one had the grace to call and speak with the candidates before they furthered the rumours. It seems so unfair that these untruths would be spread like this and that no-one had the decency to verify the information from more than one source.

The worst though, as I said, is that our community is now divided -- and these sub-communities within schools and music programs are now divided. Even the teachers are divided against others. This is what always happens when people use rumour-mongering to pit people against people. It brings out the worst in all of us. I am very sad for all of us and very very upset.

I also agree that democracy is founded on civil debate -- and lively disagreements are a part of this.

I certainly don't think unions (or anyone else including me) are above reproach. I will try to be more civil in the future and I apologize if I have hurt anyone's feelings.

[think local]

My own opinion is that Victoria Public Education Coalition (VPEC) was very successful in this campaign. The were no huge gaps in the results, especially considering some of the candidates began with little to no community profile. VPEC's not made up of a group of professional campaigners but rather of grassroots community members deeply concerned for public education and in the case of this election, the status quo of this District.

Did VPEC make mistakes, of course. None of us are beyond reproach, life is a humbling experience no matter what activities we engage in, politics requires that if it's to encourage strong candidates to create change.

I wouldn't suggest that negative campaigning is one of VPEC's mistakes. (Martini, I know we disagree on this yet I also believe diversity is a good thing, it keeps one on their toes). I do believe there was more VPEC time spent reacting and responding to the negative campaigning of the Walsh, McEvoy, Pitre, Holland slate but it was a good lesson to learn and next time VPEC won't be new campaigners, none of these members are slow learners. What they do know best is the issues around education. VPEC wasn't created as a campaign machine but as means to engage and build community together to ensure the best public education system possible for all students. So although the McEvoy slate has retained the majority of the seats my prediction is that there will be more changes in the works.

What happened with the letter writing campaign was dishonest and does not reflect the modelling and rebuilding of relationships that these 4 men talked of in the public forums. However, they like everyone else, are not perfect. Should they be accountable, one would hope so, I'm not holding my breath but rather looking towards the future.

Campaigning is an interesting beast within itself. There have been accusations of VPEC negatively campaigning yet that's not what I've observed. It perplexes me. My own thought is that votes and actions speak volumes. My hope is that now that the community has become engaged in this process that it will remain and better yet, grow. There are serious issues a foot for the students in our communities across the country.

Lil ol' Victoria is not alone in facing challenges. We're following in the footsteps of our American neighbours and those within the education system there are trying to tell us what to look out for. Will our communties listen and then stand up and back our school boards when they refuse to succumb to the agenda for the sake of fiscal responsibility? It's certainly disasterous for the communities of America, specifically in those communities that are struggling, for those students who can't afford the 2-tiered systems happening here to begin with, never mind the "No Child Left Behind" or should I call it the "Most Children Left Behind" debacle of their country. If you've got money you'll be fine, you'll find success. If you don't come from money, we'll not only leave you behind but we'll (the US Ed system) make sure that from a very young age you have no chance of getting ahead at all. I want boards across the country to stop this agenda country wide. I just hope that the whole of this new school board will recognize this agenda and work to stop it. It's not about fiscal responsibility when the remaining system has been sliced so thinly by the provincial government that student needs are not being met.

For the record, I believe that music, art and sports programs are an essential part of meeting student needs. Personally, it was the music programs that kept me in school. My situation required that I pay the rent and that meant quitting school. I stayed in the music programs and a year later returned to school. Had I not had that opportunity to attend, free of charge (free for everyone), it's highly unlikely that I would have returned to graduate. Had there been a fee I would have been proud to ask for a waiver, my parents would not have asked either and it would have been my loss. We can't expect people to beg in the current system nor can we tolerate the agenda that has already begun to slowly and subtly entrench itself within our public education system.

My own child does not attend the regular public system because of the current state that it's in. Her needs were not being met. Some testing has suggests she's in the gifted range, I'm not sure about that, I do know she's really bright BUT she has learning needs that teachers were unable to meet in the regular classroom. They didn't have time, other students with far higher (and more boisterous) needs had to be met first. In other words, the loudest need gets met first. Yet still there are too many of these louder needs not being met, never mind the grey area students who are falling more and more behind.

We have a close family friend who works as an education assistant. She's been assigned 4 grade 4 students, who aren't eligible for any funding, and none of them can read. This EA is about to be transferred to another school because of the student she is assigned to leaving. This means that these 4 students who can't read will not progress. Since starting to work with them she's seen huge progress but she's only just begun. She's devasted and wonders how she can leave them. My question is, how can we as a community allow for these types of things to happen? Or the SN child who requires 100% supervision and assistance and only gets 3 hours shared EA time in a 6 hour day. How can we allow these common practises to continue? It's criminal and neglect in my opinion.

As community members we need to get more engaged, attend board meetings, join PAC's, become knowledgeable about public educational issues. Collectively we need to stand up and protect the rights of our children to a healthy education system and community schools that are should be the centres of our communities.

[LJ]

I was going to respond in a hasty retort when I first read Jessica VDV's post, however reading Caramia and others posts I calmed down. Well that and the fact I am in Hawaii right now enjoying some sun and sand.

My wife volunteered to run the library for my kids elementary school. buying books, travelling around picking them up, sorting them, cataloguing them, bar coding them etc.
She was told "no thanks" we would rather the kids do without so that we can get a real librarian in here to do that. Never Happened - so the kids did without.

We transferred out to a private school that was just starting up - my wife volunteered same services - yes please. Kids had all the resources and information they needed.

Get rid of the BCTF and we can start working on a "quality public education".

[think local]

Get rid of the BCTF and public education in BC will have far more problems than it does now. The BCTF is not free of faults BUT the efforts they take to keep public education public, to ensure good sound education practices are kept at the forefront of public education are far more significant and beneficial for the students in this province.

[martini]

I have not heard any issues with the BCTF, on the other hand I've heard plenty of grumblings about the GVTF.
How does one distinguish the two?