It is all about keeping the status-quo, serving the best interests of those who work within it, and passing the costs of the final outcomes to the users and the taxpayers. The parent trigger laws are such a beast, that threatens the status-quo of the public education system, and attempts have been made to remove the trigger laws, or at the very least limit parental involvement with power, within the public education system.

“Unfortunately, we cannot march together until AFT stops pretending that parent involvement is the same thing as parent empowerment. While bake sales, field trip supervision, and powerless advisory councils can be nice parent empowerment gives parents real, tangible power over the educational destiny of their children. Involvement is essential, but involvement alone can never rescue millions of children trapped in failing schools across our nation. For that, parents need power.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-austin/parent-empowerment-and-ra_b_924061.html

“As usual, the people the people who provide the service are being protected, while the people who use it are taking the hit.”

... and, Ms. Dare - how is that any different from the private sector model you keep touting?  Let’s use an analogy - I used to own a restaurant.  If my supplier raised their wholesale prices, would I take the hit, or pass it on to the consumer in higher prices?

This analogy is eerily similar to the debt debate in the US.  The Tea Party wants across the board cuts without any increase in revenues (a la not continuing the Bush tax cuts for the rich).  In individual states like Wisconsin, where the far right tried not only to make spending cuts while protecting the wealthy, but to curtail the public sector as well, they have met steep resistance from the people - not just the trade unionists.  During the US debt debate, CNN did a poll - 66% of Americans favour an increase of taxes on the wealthy to help decrease the deficit.  It is interesting that neither of the cases you cite consider raising revenue.

In the Ontario education sphere, we do spend quite a bit on a per pupil basis, but I’ll grant you we need to look at how effective our spending really is.  We have crumbling facilities, torn texts and expensive extra curricular activities.  We have outdated, outmoded instruction models and poor teacher training.  Would the public balk at education spending if it was spent more wisely?  The overly simplistic rhetoric of the extreme right is not a good fit for the Canadian experience.

Wayne,what you are saying makes sense.
There is however an educational bureaucratic rind that is non penetrable,illiogical and unaccountable.
Those that rule do so as generalists from FOE to MOE to school administration and curriculum directors,just look at the Trillium List in Ontario for example.

How would you feel about the pressure of accountability escalating K-3 for math and literacy(reading ,spelling and writing).

That would mean much more success later on,the foundational years are key.

I think rather than criticize,we should do something that promotes ONE change,what would that change be for the betterment of education outcomes and well being for our students?

Reform is just a word without a plan and school choice is certainly a good idea,but will it fly in our country?If it meets stumbling blocks,could we not have more accountability and consequences that would start to cut away at some of the fat and lack of results from the top?

Mr. Wainscotting asks why I think it’s okay for private sector businesses to pass their cost increases on to their customers in the form of price increases, but not okay for school boards to cope with cost increases by raising their prices or cutting their services.

There are of course many differences between the public and private sectors, but the key difference here is the fact that competitive pressures exist in the private sector but are largely absent in the public sector.

In a competitive situation, businesses are reluctant to increase their prices because they worry about losing market share to competitors who do not raise their prices. Therefore, there is a strong incentive for private businesses to reduce their costs in preference to raising their prices. This is often done by making their businesses more efficient.

Public sector institutions such as school boards, on the other hand, do not face the same competitive threat, as their market share is largely guaranteed. They thus find it easy to raise their prices - and have much less incentive to lower their costs through increased efficiencies. (What California is doing is typical of public sector institutions. Although they will not increase their prices exactly, by providing fewer days of school at the same cost they will increase the cost per day - in effect a price increase.)

To sum up: in the private sector, competitive pressures encourage cost increases to be absorbed by the providers, while the absence of competitive pressures in the public sector encourages the providers to pass their cost increases on to the customer.

It’s appalling that the working poor and other lower income families, in Illinois, will have to pay for English and phys ed classes.  Obviously the teachers unions worked to get politicians into office who will look out for their best interests, by not laying them off, and not the people who need a good public education.  At the end of the day, this is the way the left thinks—whatever they say, bottom line shows that they’re only interested in themselves, and to boot, they’re not even generating any revenue.

Ms. Dare,

There is this persistent myth that all costs are eaten by private entrepreneurs because of ‘competitive forces’. That is true to some small extent, but I assure you that business people are not in it for charity.  If costs go up, but revenue does not, then eventually the business will lose money.

Furthermore, there is another persistent myth about ‘efficiencies’.  Business people must produce a product or service that the public wants.  If the costs to supply those go up, the only ‘efficiences’ are in the biggest line item: personnel.  The private sector can lay off employees - but only so many.  Eventually you run out of the people required to produce your product or service.  In the education sector that means larger classes.  Why?  Do you really think that boards will cut non-classroom staff to save money?  Come on.  You have also forgotten the whole fiasco surrounding the privatizing of Toronto Hydro a few years back.  The new board wanted to make an immediate rise in the rates of 5 cents.  Why?  They wanted to make a PROFIT.

Your entire response to me was based on the premise that it is wrong for boards to pass on increases to clients because they have no competition.  But you forget - they also have no profit motive.  In fact, most boards in Ontario are operating on a loss.  Despite years of increased education funding - and (as you have pointed out) years of declining enrollment - boards are losing money.  Why?  THAT should be your argument, not these false, simplistic, trite ‘facts’ that are constantly being reiterated by the Tea Party.

Wayne, there is more to efficiency than the laying off staff. Actual, there has been quite a lot written on efficiency of the public education system, and more so on the inefficiencies of the public education system.

There is the financial part, but the other half of the efficiency equation, is the services that are being provided, if one wants to used the corporate model. The same model that is presently being used in the education system. How the services are rendered, the time spent, the resources and the final outcomes. It is here where the public education system, and for that matter any part of the public sector that enjoys a monopoly, become very inefficient. My biggest beef is the time wasted in the special education department. I speak of experience, the most inefficient department no matter the school system.

Whether it is increases being pass down, or cuts being made, a public education system does not have the incentive to improve within, and ultimately passes it down to the users of the systems in one form or another. Tax increases, if not than increases in school fees, but never changes made within to become more efficient in providing services.

Services from a customer’s view, are terrible in the public education system. Why does it take six months to take action of students who are failing? Doesn’t matter what grade, one is talking about, but as a parent in the last 10 years it should not take six months, a year or in my case 3 years for an assessment. The same assessment that can be done privately within 3 months. A lot of time is wasted, using energy devoted for the excuses, rather than using the time constructively, with the available resources on hand. I can go on Wayne, but my point is the quality of services being received. And it is here the public education system does not have to be competitive, since parents and students have few options that does not require one to open up their pocketbook.

Inefficient for parents, students and taxpayers,  but very efficient to serve the best interests of those who work within the public education system. As for the cost increases being passed down, a typical monopoly at play here. I leave you with this article, a different slant at looking at the numbers. The value number, rather than how much is being spent.

” So the question I ask is what is an efficient school district? In 2001 the cost of educating a student in the state’s largest districts was 4 percent lower per student than it was in the smallest districts. However, due to their lower graduation rates, the costs per graduate was actually 14 percent higher in the largest districts than in the smallest districts. And then I was reminded of a conversation I had with my father many years ago, when upon graduating college it was time for me to buy my first suit. In a nutshell he said there would be many different suits on the rack with many different prices. “Don’t just look at the price, but rather look at the value,” he said. “It’s often preferable to pay a little bit more if the value is there.”
http://www.mnsu.edu/ruralmn/pages/Publications/Commentary/comm2003/ FOH0302schools.html

Nancy,

I understand that there are other areas of inefficiency other than financial.  However, the issue of finances was raised by the initial article.  Ms. Dare voiced the opinion that it was unfair to pass cost cutting measures on to the parents and expect them to pay more.  Therefore, that is the question we must answer.

I can’t speak for the East Coast, but let me give you a quick run down of what has happened in Ontario in the last 15 years.  The government prior to McGuinty (which shall remain nameless since it always raises hackles ) started the budget cutting process.

One of the first areas to take a hit in our board was busing.  Our board was creative enough to enter into agreements with the local Catholic boards and contiguous public boards to coordinate busing and save money.  Then, budget ‘envelopes’ (as the ministry likes to call them) for transportation were cut even further.  Now we have a rule that children may be expected to walk up to 1 km to get to the nearest bus route.  Since we have children in JK as young as 3 or 4, that is implying that we want them walking up to 1 km on country roads with no sidewalks and in the dark in the middle of winter.

Since operating budgets are separate from capital budgets, our board cut their repair budget (under operating) to the bare minimum.  We have had schools fall into disrepair and have been torn down.  Why do that?  The board can get special funding for capital projects outside of the normal budget - so they are in essence passing the buck on to the Ministry.

We have had PD budgets cut from several million to $400,000.  Textbooks, supplies and other budgets have been cut to the bone.  The entire supply budget for one year for one of my departments was $4.95, for example.  Now, I go out and buy office supplies on my own.  We don’t buy computer equipment any more - we lease it.

Due to declining enrollments, teachers have been laid off - 50 this year alone.  We have lost EA’s, office professionals and custodial staff as well.  Special programs and courses have been cut as well, so students do not have access to as wide a variety of subject areas that they once were.

In fact, through all these cuts and layoffs, there has been only ONE area of the board that has increased in size and budget in the last 15 years - I’ll let you guess what that might be.

Rural boards were not hit as hard as urban boards.  Mr. Harris separated the property tax base from education funding.  Thereby large boards like TDSB were cut off from the rich industrial and commercial tax base and they faced even tougher cuts than some boards like ours.

So, in conclusion, you may now understand why I said that boards have little other option but to increase class sizes if they do not pass on certain costs.  Other than that one area I mentioned, all other ‘inefficiencies’ have been cut out.  What would you do?

Can also add the part that the Ontario education ministry has moved to centralized busing transportation, and where the small independent (usually located in rural areas) are being pushed out by the big guys. Just waiting, because there will be bad service, such as kids being dropped off the wrong bus stop, or force to walk a 1/2 mile in a raging snow storm because the roads have not been shovel. By the way that is horrible, making kids walk up to a mile to the bus top, and this particular policy comes from the cities. In my provinces, K kids are pick up and drop off at their door, and no child travels more than .4 km to the bus top.

I get your point on the funding, which my province follow suit, but this all came after the closures. the severe drop in student enrollment, which made it easier to target education funding. It was just in 2005, that students no longer have to buy text books starting in grade 7. Anywhere between $500 to $900 in senior high school, plus school fees have dropped drastically to under $50, and renovation of schools, rather than building schools.

Fifty teachers laid off, is high. That never happen at any of the 4 boards in my province, and if anything some positions becomes part-time, or shared with other schools. Like vice-principles or guidance teachers. They have even added SE teachers at the high school level,which was absent for a long time. I cannot even conceived the number 50 of layoffs at the lowest level, and to me what is the size of the staff at the board level. Probably could do without a few more consultants, and other board staff minus their higher wages being paid out.

It was the actions of the board, that forces the only solution, bigger classes, or multi-grade classes. And in the end, the growing inefficiencies at the other end, will just widen, creating more inequalities across the board. And than the board expects results, and improvement, and in my opinion it is downloading all the responsibility and accountability to the lowest levels. Kicking the can games are numerous, where solutions are few, but plenty of blame can be attached, as the easy scapegoat it is.

Wayne,this is about the reduction of PD money.

I am not an analyst when it comes to schools and how they spend their money.

In my own field of expertise,I believe the Literacy Secretariat has received all the money for PD.School boards using the training I offer bought in in 2004 and 2005 with CODE Funding and some with a school improvement grant;since then,all of these grants seem to have disappeared.

Doretta and Malkin know more than I do but it is my understanding their funding is $25 million dollars a year and they are very tied into OISE.

It`s a closed shoppe and an insider`s club.
Training teachers in explicit systematic synthetic phonics and intense training in phonological awareness training becomes something the odd board seeks out because they hear about the reading research and somehow with paying Peter to pay Paul they muster up some kind of training budget.

Without a doubt,budgets are much much tighter in spite of all the increased funding since McGuinty took over.

I hear everyone agreeing about budget cuts and how painful they have been, and clearly there’s something I don’t understand here.

In 2003, $14,899,139,477 was spent on Ontario education, while in 2010 it was $20,569,296,053. Every year between 2003 and 2010 the amount increased steadily, with no cutbacks, and the pattern is projected to continue, with 2012 spending projected to be $21,046,286,196. Now I grant you these amounts are stated in current dollars, and so they don’t take inflation into account, but on the other hand, enrollment has fallen steadily over these years, and so the enrollment decline likely balances out inflation more or less.

So, why are these spending increases feeling like cutbacks?

Joanne concluded, “It`s a closed shoppe and an insider`s club.
Training teachers in explicit systematic synthetic phonics and intense training in phonological awareness training becomes something the odd board seeks out because they hear about the reading research and somehow with paying Peter to pay Paul they muster up some kind of training budget.

Without a doubt,budgets are much much tighter in spite of all the increased funding since McGuinty took over.”

Which does answer Malkin’s question, why the spending increases, feel like cutbacks.

As a parent, I have come across it time and time again, when trying to obtain services for my youngest child. Despite the increases in education spending, budgets are much tighter as Joanne has stated. Very true, but on the other side of the equation is the tightening of access to education services, the meeting of narrowly defined criteria, that in turn, controls the traffic flow to the services.

As it stands now, it prevents schools, school boards, and the individual teachers from seeking training other than the training that is part of the process, and controlled by the ministries of the education, and the teachers’ colleges.

For parents and students, the spending increases came along with newly redefined criteria in all aspects of schooling and education. As I have experience, and a great many of other parents seeking education services above the norm, the criteria becomes more narrowly defined, that effectively limits the number of students seeking access, and thus controlling the access gates, as well as the number of the students who are receiving services.

Inclusion can be shown as an example of controlling the access gates, as well as the number of students receiving education services outside of the inclusive classroom. Where for the most part the LD students are in the inclusive classroom, and do not meet the criteria for education services concerning reading, numeracy and writing remediation. This results in the severe LD students receiving remediation services, leaving the majority of mild to moderate LD students in the inclusive classroom, where remediation takes place in the classroom, that is dependent on the training of the teachers, and a host of other variables. In turn, the teachers are hog-tied every which way from the above levels, to increase the achievement levels of the LD students, as well as the other students in the classroom, who are low achievers. Stats state anywhere between 40 to 60 % are low achievers, but as the educrats keep on repeating forever and a day, but the low achievers are passing. The very process of obtaining remediation in reading, writing and numeracy, the criteria is that the student must be failing.

I had many of an argument with educrats, including those who roost at teachers’ colleges, on the premise that anything above a 50 % or higher rests entirely on the student, and only students who are failing are in need of remediation services over and above what is in the classroom.

I believe the increases in education spending, outside the inflation, salaries, and other fixed expenditures, feel like cuts to expenditures to most of us, whether it is a teacher, student, parent or taxpayer is because the increase education spending, is in reality a reduction in all education services. Despite the large increases in SE funding, the same lousy stats on achievement for SE children is evident, in areas of reading, writing and numeracy.

And where as Malkin has pointed out, that education spending has been projected as increasing beyond the inflation and other economic variables for some years to come, to maintain the current status-quo, increasing political power and control of the monies reins and has little to do with increasing achievement in students. The powers to be are quite happy with the status-quo of 40 to 60 % of students, achieving at 50 % average, and one of the reasons why the stats are published as pass rates, and not broken down into the number of passing between points.

Ms. Dare,

You are forgetting the provincial bargaining table that gave teachers 3% raises per year - we are in the final year of that.  Also, you still haven’t hazarded a guess as to which area of our board has grown despite the cutbacks and declining enrollments - come on, I’ll give you one last try!