There鈥檚 an evolving crisis in school-district funding, yet it rated nary a mention in the recent premiers-in-waiting televised debate.
Yet here we are at that point in the apparently endless public-education budget process, which begins in March of one school year and does not really complete until Feb. 28 of the following school year, by which time schools have been in operation for six months.
A graph on a sa国际传媒 Ministry of Education website illustrates that since 2000-01, yearly enrolment in districts has decreased from 597,948 to 534,691, while the per-pupil funding has increased from something like $5,700 to about $8,000.
That sounds pretty good, until you take a closer look at some preliminary budgets being posted publicly on district websites. Then you get a better idea of where a good whack of the money goes 鈥� other than into providing service for kids.
And let鈥檚 be clear about this 鈥� service to kids includes the administration of multimillion-dollar organizations (which school districts are), facilities maintenance, transportation and secretarial services.
In one mid-size district budget I examined, I found that while there was no provision in the preliminary budget for general wage increases, the cost of contract benefits had risen, in one year, by a whopping $1.17 million.
CPP contributions from the employer were up $42,000 due to a forecasted increase in the maximum insurable earning from $50,100 to $51,100.
EI contributions by the employer had risen by $89,000 due to a forecasted increase in the maximum insurable earning from $45,900 to $47,400.
That increase is mostly due to the fact that teacher contracts include a 12-step scale tied to seniority.
Medical Service Plan contributions by the employer increased by $60,000 due to a four per cent increase in premium costs.
Then there were pension costs associated with the teacher pension plan 鈥� up by $931,000 due to an increase in the contribution rate from 13.33 per cent to 14.63 per cent.
Extended-health contributions were up by $50,000 and dental-plan contributions by $84,000.
All those organizations and agencies were balancing their own budgets simply by charging more.
School districts, on the other hand, basically have no one to charge for anything, and simply have to absorb all those cost increases, funded or not, into a spending plan that is not even confirmed for months after the schools are in operation.
None of this may be as interesting as some of the topics hashed around by party leaders in the debate, such as carbon taxes or leadership suitability, but these facts are the dry truth behind why, day after day, we read about school districts struggling with significant deficits as they cut services, reduce teaching staff and close schools.
And it gets better.
One preliminary budget I examined in detail included an anticipated hike of $282,000 in rates for electricity, natural gas, water, sewer, garbage and recycling.
Then comes a real zinger.
One mid-size district estimated a cost of $182,000 associated with a return to the PST, and then a further cost of converting from HST to PST estimated at $268,000 (not including PST related to utilities).
The costs of services and supplies were also estimated to increase, as there will be no PST rebate for school districts.
As if that is not enough to have school trustees tearing their hair out, there are impossible-to-predict medical and other leaves, whereby the district finds itself paying for the same teacher position twice 鈥� once for the person on leave and again for a replacement teacher.
An interesting sidelight to this is that contracted leave provisions are potentially massive unfunded liabilities, in that if all teachers took all their leaves, the district would go into bankruptcy within weeks 鈥� that or shut down and send the kids home.
Anybody considering running for school trustee next election?
Somehow, despite all this, public education is still producing good results from the kids at the Grades 4 and 7 levels as measured by the Foundation Skills Assessment and at Grade 10 and 12 exam time.
But make no mistake, an anachronistic funding structure and process appears to be crumbling and driving increases in class size and cutbacks in school-building maintenance. It cannot, even in the short term, lead to anything good.
Dull stuff? Maybe, but those are the facts.
Geoff Johnson is a retired superintendent of schools.
