It’s because per pupil spending goes to salaries and benefit.  In Ontario it can go as high at some boards to 85%.  Rather than spending taxpayers money, other things need to be worked on to improve education.

The blind leading the blind.
Why do we put up with it?I am demoralized as a Canadian to see the amount for per student education in Nunavut.
I was in Pond Inlet about 4 years ago to do a teacher workshop on phonemic awareness.
The Superintendent that hired me was a different one that ran Language Arts.In their complete ignorance they insisted on their own language and no English till grade 4-immersion till grade 3 and when the students arrived in grade 9 they delivered the Alberta High School curriculum -to English illiterate students.Result-drop out rate 90%-and suicide and drug addiction that is off the charts.
Who runs these school boards and the appalling decisions that are made that are not derived from research but rather from opinion.

There is a direct corelation between spending and achievement, who are you trying to kid? The Atlntic provinces always come last in Canada in achievement and literacy and spend the least. Alberta comes first and spends the most of the lower 10 provinces. The far north is a different story as you might well imagine. Vast distances, housing, and starting miles behind others + the Aboriginal component of a demoralized culture destroyed by us.

Hugh MacKenzie has more updated figures at Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. They are cited on my report in the archives.

The naysayers would say, we need more teachers, carefully avoiding the accounting practices and processes on how money is spent within the education system. One of more nefarious practices that is the norm, is the centralized education system, are quite willing to fund expenditures that can be controlled. Expenses such as salaries, and capital building. The other expenses that no one can estimate with a degree of accuracy. are the student population of the individual schools and their needs.

Processes have been put in place, where it is left to the administration of the schools, to make the final decisions, what will or will not be funded for education purposes. Often the education portion of the individual student who needs extra resources gets cut, to pay for increases in bus transportation, heating fuel, or resources for the classroom. It does not go below the amount of the education funding per student, but the portion set aside for SE funding, is cut per student.

For example, if there is a dozen students with various physical deficits, such as hearing or vision, they needs will be met first, and fully funded by raiding the needs of other SE students whose needs are met through the educational portion. A wheel chair ramp, an elevator, specialized computer equipment, special desks, FM systems, and so forth are met first, before trying to deal with the SE population, and other regular students who are having learning problems. This is where the inequities occur, within the student population. As a result, the whole student population pays for it, in terms of the one-sized-fits-all approaches that are rampant in our education system.

As Joanne has pointed out, Nunavut is an example of the typical accounting practices employed where extra resources goes bye-bye, and as result, the whole student population suffers. Good quality resources for the english language and the trained staff .

Now the naysayers, and in particular one we all know, would insist that it is other social factors or the students themselves, for the flatline achievement data, despite the increase funding in the education system, and declining enrollment.  Since it is 2005 figures, funding has increase again where teachers’ salaries have risen again. In NL, the teachers were given a 20 % increase, plus a few more perks, compliments of the taxpayers. I have yet to see real improvements in achievement data, unless unions, boards and the politicians think a 1.5 % or a 3 % increase is wonderful.

Until, the actual education of each child is funded according to their needs, along with good quality curriculum that are research-based, and the elimination of accounting practices that are more in keeping with a production line, the achievement rates will remained flatlined.

Nancy, teachers are not given raises because of improvement in results. They are given raises because the cost of living goes up. If the don’t get a raise with inflation, they have a cut. Places that don’t fund wages well are very well known to teachers and they have trouble recruiting.

No where did I state a connection between raises and achievement data. I certainly do wish teachers get raises on the cost of living, and only on the cost of living. Than we would not see 8 % + raises at time of renewal of contracts.

Doug, if spending is correlated with achievement, why aren’t the Manitoba kids doing the best?

Ludicrous and ridiculous posts by Doug-
If I have cancer-the more I spend the better my treatment will be-not what I do that matters but how much I spend?
I am speechless and for one I won`t be writing back-I don`t feel it is productive to talk to Mr.Doug-children`s lives-each one of the kids or teenagers who struggle should matter-the Union is only about teachers and that`s morally wrong.

I mean it-I`m out,you`ve given this guy too much power.

Jo-Anne, we need people like you.  I know how upsetting it is reading some of Mr. Little’s blogs.  Is the teachers’ union and the education burearcrats really as morally bankrupt as he is?  But If you quit, Mr. Little has achieved what he’s set out to do—to begin breaking up this blog.  The more of us who contribute to here, the more informed the public becomes, which is exactly what he and the powers that be in the educational system don’t want.  If Mr. Little meets his goal and kills this blog, who will speak for the children; who will get the right information out to thousands of misinformed taxpayers?

Malkin you cannot be serious about $50 or so. It is the big swings that make the difference. Manitoba is the long term NDP government that is trying to catch up to others. The other NDP government in Nova Scotia is starting in a deep hole but the general trend is there.

It is interesting to me that this “money does not matter” argument usually comes from the “keep the taxes down” conservatives but they really do want Toronto money redistributed across Ontario so they get more of it. If money didn’t buy improvement, Harris and the Tory ridings could have said “oh yes Toronto has much more due to its rich tax base but that doesn’t matter because money does not buy success.” I have a really good way to give money to the ones who want it and not the ones who don’t seem to want it because it doesn’t help.

I say we add $2billion to the Ontario education budget to be distributed to schools in the ridings of MPPs who vote for the increase. The ones who don’t believe it does any good will save us a lot of money that can be spent where people do believe it is important. What do you say?

The OISE survey clearly showed that people wanted more funding for education and were prepared to pay more THEMSELVES to get it. Where is the evidence to the contrary?

Let all the parents who don’t believe money helps, write a letter to their board and the ministry saying, no more for our school please, we don’t need it.

Jo-Anne, why did NFLD Premier Danny Williams seek treatment outside Canada. Could it be that he believed that he could get better treatment by spending more?

I think Mr. Little’s plan is excellent, but only if ridings that vote against more spending on education get tax breaks and percentage wise are not responsible for that portion of Ontario’s huge public debt and deficit.
The extra money won’t improve education.  The loin’s share will go into lining the pockets of staff.
Eqao tests will decide who’s right and who’s wrong.
Perfect!

Doug, if people really knew the truth how the education system is funded, and how it whittles funding off the students, in bits and pieces, they would be no one advocating for more money. But what should be done, is a complete inquiry on education, as they should with health.

Now that you brought up Williams, I can assured you he did not go out of the country to spend more, for better treatment. Two reasons why he did what he did. I might add, he was no different from others who have the means to do so. The first reason, he did not want to bumped anyone off a waiting list. Politically that would be suicide and yes even for him in this province. The second reason, he went to the states, for a heart operation that would get him back on his feet faster. Anyone, in his place that had the means, would do exactly the same thing, and possibly for the same reasons.

As usual, the Dougs of the world do not look at how the education is funded. As a parent, I am sick and tired of seeing science labs not properly funded, for the essential resources needed. If not that, try the art and music programs at a regular school. Same thing, where anything government will cut funding, as soon as an another organization is offering to pay for resources. This has been ongoing for the last 30 years.

Meanwhile I went to school in the 60s, where there was a TV in each classroom, and in a time where the majority of students did not have a TV at home. Now, even a TV is a luxury in some schools. Fully equipped science labs,art room and of course music. The era of the baby boomers. My elementary school was 800 in population, and the high school was at 1800. Throughout the years, I never once hear, no you can’t have a extra copy, because I ran pass the quota. Nor, did I ever hear we can only have 5 science experiments for the year.  Nor did I ever hear a teacher, say no to a student for extra tutoring. at lunch time, or sometime doing the school day. If one had detentions, it was spent on learning to speed read, grammar in one of the portables, all conducted by the guidance teachers, who were all full time. Nothing escape them, and many of a time was spent down in the guidance office, justifying our grades, where they thought we should be in the top 15 % of the school. We had field trips, and I paid only a very small amount on each field trip. They was always bus transportation for school games on a regular basis. It was one way of finding easy transport to the cities, and a chance to get out of the rural digs.

Doug, there is something seriously wrong with the system, and there needs to be a major inquiry on all aspects of the education system. We are heading towards 85 % of total spending for salaries, which leaves only 15 % to fund the rest. Not a whole lot. The system is not sustainable, and something has to give. When the school has to call in the electrician to change light bulbs, because the janitor is not qualify to do so, the system has gone crazy. Common sense has left the education system, a long time ago, and if the citizens leave it in the hands of unions, boards and the ministries, the staff might as well hand out the lists of what a staff member can do or cannot do. Better yet, just write the shorter list of what one can do. In another 10 years, what one can do will be only one page.

You are on Bev, and as the parents in the ridings that voted to stay out of the new money for education start to grind their MPP to dust because they voted not to get public money we can watch them squirm.

Oh no, there are no tax breaks for private schools or funding for them in my proposal. This is strictly a public school thing. Those that vote Tory and say we don’t need money to improve education just won’t get any. Period. More for the rest of us and keep taxes down at the same time. Of course if they changed their mind they would be guilty of the worst kind of hypocracy.

keep in mind the figures are from 2005; Daltie was only partially into his “dump money into education” plan.

In any case the bulk of the provinces,( BC, Manitoba, Alberta, OntarioSaskatchewan are within a few hundred dollars, plus or minus, of each other so I suspect there’s only limited value in attaching too much to the per-pupil funding thing.  Unless we know how the few hundred dollars is allocated it’d be just about impossible to know if it even is used directly on kids.

What we do know is that Ontario spending is above the Canadian average; hardly grossly underfunded as some would try and claim.

To Doug

  You do understand that “per student” funding and “per capita” funding are two different things, right?

Yes john but those people who actually follow education closely use per capita for per student quite often. We understand what we mean.

Yes the figures are old. I have more up to date figures on my site. Manitoba now spends 9.5% more than Ontario. If Ontario spent 10% more it would be another $2 billion which is what I say we need as an absolute minimum to keep the lights coming on and the buildings from falling apart. No luxuries. $2 B to keep the ship afloat only.

Ontario of course at 44% of the total size largely determines the average. Nevertheless, more provinces spend more than less and only really poor provinces spend less.

This is starting to get creepy.

“Per capita” is spending divided by every citizen in the province, which is entirely unlike “per student”.

Any “educator” who tries to use them interchangably can’t be the genuine article.

I think everybody knows that John now could you find a real problem?