The underfunded, the future liability prevents governments to form policy around the needs of the majority of their citizens who are in the private sector. The public sector unions will be the downfall of Canada and United States, just like it is in the current situation of Europe. When and not if, is the question?  Will Canada go down the route as European states have done?  The Marks and Jennifers of Canada, may not have the same satisfaction on their faces, in a few years from now, or they should start to pray for an economic miracle of the sorts, that decreases the wage gap, as well as closing the gap between public sector pensions and private sector pensions and the CPP. Than the Marks and Jennifers will be howling about their reduced assets and not singing the praises of public sector unions.

Something has to give, because the majority of citizens are all tapped out when it comes to providing the rich pensions of the public sector.

Before people start slamming public sector unions/pensions again, it would be best to do a little homework.  Mr. Tufts has been around for some time.  Here is an excerpt from a 2009 Star article on this topic, “Resentment over disparity in pension income has been simmering for years. Braniff, Pierlot and Tufts think the focus of public policy should be on improving retirement security for the private sector.”  Furthermore, one solution has been put forward, “... that Ottawa and the provinces should consider expanding the Canada Pension Plan to provide more security for those not employed by the government.”  So, their solution is to give private sector workers a public pension - paid for through taxes.

Public sector pension funds HAVE been dealing with the shortfall in funding, but not by asking the public to pay more, “... pension plans for Ontario teachers and hospital workers have dealt with a funding shortfall by increasing payroll deductions and saying that benefits earned in future will only rise with the cost of living if investment returns are high enough.”  All public sector employees are paying more for their pensions and receiving less.

You will find the entire article here:  http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/602771

Well Wayne, we all know where you stand, including repeating the public sector unions talking points. Or as the authors of Pension Ponzi has stated in this one article, “The true costs of public sector pensions have been hidden from the taxpayer through ?voodoo accounting?. In 2008 for instance, in the wake of the biggest stock market collapse since the Depression, pension funds were allowed to amortize their losses over 10 years instead of the traditional 3-year valuation period. This process known as ?smoothing? or by its official name ?Pension Solvency Relief? postpones dealing with losses in the hopes of an economic recovery.

If however, the markets do not recover, the shortfall must eventually be paid by employee deductions, or more likely taxpayer contributions.  Employee deductions must be negotiated with the employees through their unions. Taxpayer contributions are guaranteed by law”

http://fairpensionsforall.net/2011/10/04/market-crash-rips-160-billion-hole-in-public-sector-pensions/

Voodoo accounting - I like this phrase - it describes the public sector pensions to a tee, especially when they cry out, they too have to pay more than their fair share in employee contributions
to their pensions. But still, the government is picking up the majority of the tab.

On the Canadian government site - for federal pensions:
35 % shared by employees
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/bp-rasp/pensions/overview-apercu-eng.asp

Not a bad gig, especially when public sector employees do not take any risk, and all risks fall back to the taxpayer, and in part to the private sector.

On an earlier article in the year, “?The real crisis lies in unsustainable public sector pension commitments and the lack of fairness in the Canadian pension system overall,? states the CFIB website. ?There is already too large of a gap between private sector and public sector retirement benefits?a gap that will not go away and will only grow larger unless governments address pension inequality. You should not be asked for one more cent in payroll tax until federal and provincial governments fix Canada?s pension unfairness.?
http://www.benefitscanada.com/news/public-sector-pension-plan-under-attack-19019

And Bill Tufts at Fair Pensions for All - “The UK has a pension system that is very similar to the one that Canada has for its public sector employees. It is based on the same plan design and very similar pension formulas. The report would be the star of a good road map towards changes here as well.

Hutton examined whether the current system is fair to employees and fair to taxpayers. What he discovered is that taxpayers are responsible for most of the future risk associated with these types of plans. These risk include investment; inflation; salary; and longevity risk.

There are also several gaps in fairness between what the public sector gets in pensions and what government workers get or should I say don?t get.”
http://fairpensionsforall.net/2011/03/11/landmark-report-on-public-sector-pensions/

I beg to differ with the above:
For the past four out of six years, the public has been topping up the retired teachers’ pensions; yet anyone in the private sector whose pension has been reduced has simply had to live on less.  Also, unlike GM, this money for the teachers’ pensions is not required to be paid back.  All ready Ottawa is proposing tax hikes by upping employer and employee EI andCPP pmts, and Ont has delayed tax cuts for Ontario businesses: both appear to be avoiding showdowns with the psu’s and instead handing the private sector the bill.  How many struggling businesses will go bankrupt because of our government, and therefore further deplete the already eroding tax base?  It’ll get worse before it ever gets better…

Yes, and I know where you stand.  However, let’s stick to the facts.

The ‘top up’ to which you are referring is similar to the deal reached in New Jersey under governor Chris Christie. You ever heard of him? The deals in both Ontario and New Jersey require greater payroll deductions to receive the increased funding.  Our plan has also cut income protection at the same time.

See these articles: http://www.ai-cio.com/channel/REGULATION,_LEGAL/Emboldened_Christie_Sees_Pension_Reforms_Passed.html
and
http://www.ai-cio.com/channel/DEALS/Ontario_Teachers_Gets_Top_Up_From_Union_Members,_Government.html

“had been operating with a $17 billion shortfall as of late. After a tentative deal reached between the provincial government and the union that represents teachers, however, changes made to the system will shrink the deficit going forward. The deal was reached a year before the system officially had to report to regulators on its funding status.

Similar to a bill passed last week in New Jersey, the pension deal will require teachers to contribute 1.1% more from their salaries into the plan, phased in over three years and matched by the government, according to the Globe & Mail. Unlike New Jersey, however, the deal was relatively uncontentious.”

1.1 percent more over 3 years, and the government will match it, Topping it off with taxpayers money, no matter how you cut it Wayne, plus this topping off is really all about retaining the perks that come with a public sector pension. However it is band-aid solution, that still does not address the low contributions of the employees, when one considers that public sector pension plans, do not have to worry about taking on the risks, when the taxpayers purse is always willing to bail out the liability or the shortfall. Sooner or later, public sector unions are going to face the fact that the taxpayers, the main bulk of them are not willing to support the lifestyles of public sector workers, on their gold-plated pensions, when the very same governments are asking for increases in CPP, and other related tax increases to pay for the public liability and associated expenses related to the economic turn-down just to maintain current funding for CPP and to received less services. And the now-retired public sector worker, has access to all services, because the gold-plated pension covers the fees, other expenses plus having discounts on insurance, and other products/services because of being a public sector worker. What is left, is paying for the license plate renewal, a hunting license, property taxes and the other related income taxes that all Canadians must pay. Sooner or later, the public sector unions will figure that one out to, and stick it to the rest of the non-public sector , but not before a government finally decides to kill the golden egg of public sector pensions. The latter event will happen first, but relaxed Wayne, it is the younger public sector workers and future workers who will be paying the price, and the older public sector workers will be able to keep their gold plated pensions, and the lifestyles that go with it.

The Ontario teachers’ pensions have been bailed out by taxpayers.  Psu pensioners should be treated exactly the same way as private sector pensioners:  if there’s a money shortfall, then the psu pensioners take a cut—same as in the private sector.  The problems lie with the fact that the psu’s are so powerful that they can lobby against any politicians who stand up to them.  Hence, Ontario is presently being run by the psu’s, but even the Liberals must realize that they can’t keep bleeding the businesses when they’re trying to compete globally.  It’s going to be interesting to watch the Liberals and see how they’ll handle the psu’s now that Ontario’s credit rating has been down graded.  The Ontario Liberals are being forced to actually do something about tackling the huge deficit and debt they’ve racked up.

Bev, I have been reading in the pass month or so, on Ontario’s dicey situation. BC as well, is another province to watch for. I don’t pretend to understand everything, but the year 2012, should be very interesting to watch and some economists have said the prefect economic storm in provinces like Ontario and BC. living beyond their means.

I cannot honestly understand, how the ordinary people are coping with the additional costs of living, and paying more taxes, for less services. The personal debt of Canadians, especially the debt of people in Ontario and BC, is also adding to the woes, and having a direct impact on government finances and their ability to pay for the public sector wages and pensions. Something has to give, and I sure hope it won’t be the pathway that Europe is on. The deep cuts in the social net are very painful as well as cuts being made in education and health, and the ordinary person is paying a steep price. The only bright spot is that there is more choice in education, as the private sector has moved in with their own form of charter schools. Apparently quite popular among the middle-class in Europe, and showing dissatisfaction with the quality of public education being received in the European states.

OTPP was used for many years as a source of cheap loans for the provincial government. OTPP basically financed the 401 almost by itself. The public did not top up the pension fund, the teachers increased their contributions up to 15% to finance the shortfalls. The government had been paying their share with IOUs for many years and was forced to replace it with cash.

1) The deals were made many years ago and they cannot reneg now. A contract is a contract. Any change would go straight to the Supreme Court, the teachers would win and the gov’t knows that.

2) Teachers pay a huge % for a good pension in deferred wages.

3) The problem is not high public pensions but low or non-existant private pensions.

4) The solution is a CPP with much higher contributions and payouts.

5) Teacher bashing limits any support the reform movement can muster inside the system.

6) Any shortfalls are made up by TEACHER contributions. Teachers have been asked to vote twice in recent years between increased contributions, lower payouts or delayed retirement. They chose the former each time.

I haven’t read any teacher bashing on this thread. 
As far as the government losing if they wish to revise a contract, if the $$ isn’t there, it can’t be paid.  No bank will lend $$ to a country run by a feckless government:  that’s why Moody’s has already down-graded Ontario’s credit rating.  btw, this down-grading will affect all hospitals and boards of education…
If there’s no $$ none of what you say Mr. Little, matters.  This is what makes it all so interesting to watch…

Bev, if the Liberals want PSU support they will forget wage controls. The doctors have already said no. If they are allowed to say no it is game over for the gov’t.

The PSUs will shift en mass to the NDP in Ontario. They seem to be way out in front in BC as well. Looks like BC wants the “socialist hordes” back again.

Doug, you make it sound like the public sector pension plans, just give the money away to government to spend on highways. In the Wikipedia, “Role of pension funds The average allocation to infrastructure only represents 1% of total assets under management by pensions- excluding indirect investment through ownership of stocks of listed utility and infrastructure companies. But there are wide typology differences across regions with many large, sophisticated, pension funds in jurisdictions such as Ontario, Quebec, California, Holland, and Australia already investing more than 5% of their total assets (and typically more than a third of their ?alternative? assets) in infrastructure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure

Most pension funds have long-dated liabilities, with matching long-term investments. These large institutional investors need to protect the long-term value of their investments from inflationary debasement of currency and market fluctuations, and provide recurrent cash flows to pay for retiree benefits in the short-medium term: from that perspective, infrastructure is an ideal asset class that provides tangible advantages such as long duration (thus facilitating cash flow matching with long-term liabilities), protection against inflation and statistical diversification (low correlation with ?traditional? listed assets such as equity and fixed income investments), thus reducing overall portfolio volatility.

The various types of pension plans (public and private pensions and superannuation schemes) account for approximately 40% of all investors in the infrastructure asset class, excluding projects directly funded and developed by governments and public authorities.[28]”

Used as an long-term investment, and the taxpayer ended up paying the investment return for the pension funds. Probably raided the operating funds in health and education to pay for the investment return for public sector pension plans.

As for rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada, can always change, especially when the financial woes is the deciding factor. In the private sector, a company can walk away from their pension plans, and declared bankruptcy. Shall we list the private companies, that have gone into bankruptcy in Ontario in the pass 25 years?  Or shall I pass on your blog address, for you to received the angry letters of pensioners who lost their pension, or on a much reduced pension? 

How can private pensions increase, when the average wage in the private sector has not kept pace with inflation, cost of living, and all the other demands being made on the ordinary pocketbooks of Canadians. Not everyone can work in the oil and mining industry Doug, and nor can they work for the public sector. It is the choice of the individual teacher to pay more into their pension, and is not force down their throats. Just like it is a choice in the private sector pension plans to pay more, to get a bigger pension in their retirement years.

CPP cannot be the sole answer to Canadians, especially when CPP is more than just old age pensions. As Tufts has stated, a reality check for both public sector unions and the governments.

The only reason why public sector workers take the first option of increasing their contributions, is because it is still peanuts compared to the private sector pensions, where contributions are based on the 50-50, or 60-40 split. The second reason that public sector unions take the increasing contributions options, is to protect their perks of the pension plan, as well as creating a public image, that public sector workers are paying their share. However, when public sector pensions are receiving 70 % of their best years, and private sector pensions are lucky to received 50 percent of the average salary over the whole period of work. Not at all fair, and ...................
“Today, more than 12 million of Canada’s 17.5 million workers don’t participate in a DB plan.

The result is a two-tier system, the study’s authors argue, in which those with DB plans (increasingly mostly public sector workers) have an “unfair” ability to fund their retirement….............“What’s worse, Canadian taxpayers now owe hundreds of billions of dollars in public-sector pensions that governments have promised, but never put aside the funds to support, the authors claim.”
http://money.ca.msn.com/retirement/gordonpowers/why-people-are-mad-about-the-pension-gap?ocid=tweet

12 million Canadians Doug, out of 17 million, that are restricted, even when the few that do have the extra money to salt away. It is only the public sector workers that has the unfair advantage, over all Canadians, and to boot the very ones to blame the declining access and quality public services, so government can pay the high salaries, the shorter hours of work, as well as the pensions and benefits.

Bev, ask some teachers. negative comments regarding teachers wages, benefits and/or pensions IS teacher bashing.

The teacher split is 50-50.

Once again, the problem is not high public pensions, the problem is low private pensions.

It is hardly the teachers fault that the government covered their obligations with IOUs. That is the government’s fault.

Teachers are very financially conservative and are much happier with a big pension even if they subsidized it with low wages throughout their careers.

Mr. Wainscotting states that “Public sector pension funds HAVE been dealing with the shortfall in funding, but not by asking the public to pay more, ?... pension plans for Ontario teachers and hospital workers have dealt with a funding shortfall by increasing payroll deductions and saying that benefits earned in future will only rise with the cost of living if investment returns are high enough.?  All public sector employees are paying more for their pensions and receiving less.”

Here is a relevant section from “Pension Ponzi”.

“The amount of lump sum value of a pension of a mid-level public sector employee is in the range of $600,000 to $1.3 billion. This is the total liability of the taxpayer. If the pension fund is short - and the OTPP (Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan) declared a $17.2 billion shortfall in 2011 - the fund can ask the taxpayer to make up the difference. The plan paid out $1.8 billion more in 2010 than it collected from employees, and this gap is expected to grow to $5.3 billion per year by 2030….

“In June 2011 the OTPP announced an agreement with the provincial government to eliminate the current $17.2 billion shortfall by increasing employee pension contributions by 1.1 per cent over three years. Of course the teachers’ contributions are tax-deductible from their income, whereas your contribution is ... wait for it ... just plan tax. So even though in principle the teachers are matching the taxpayers’ contribution, in real terms you are paying more than your share.”

(You can read more about the OTPP/Ontario government agreement at http://www.otpp.com/wps/wcm/connect/otpp_en/home/plan+funding/top+plan+funding+qas The b.ottom line is that the Ontario government will continue to match teachers’ contributions to their pension plans.)

The lump sum value of a teachers pension is about $500 000 only in the sense that a private person would need about $500 000 in the bank to produce an annuity equal in value to the average teacher’s pension. This is not part of the teachers estate in the sense that they cannot have the cash value. It does however have a survivor benefit of 50-60% depending on what the member signs on for.

Doug, benefiting from a public pension, one can hardly lay the blame on the government’s door step, when the public sector unions have played a starring role in higher salaries, along with gold-plated pensions with all the perks. One can hardly asked the government to increase private pensions, when private sector wages have not kept up to the cost of living and inflation, and in some industries, roll backs on salaries. And you cannot use the excuse of low salaries, when teachers salaries as an example, it is the highest wages in the last 10 years of working for 30 odd years, as the average, and not the average of the 30 odd years working. So on average, a teacher retires with a $45,000 pension plus the benefits, and if it taken over a life time of working, it would be much lower than the $45,000.

Most Canadians are financially conservative Doug, and not just the teachers. But most Canadians do not have a public sector union fighting their battles for higher wages, holding the public hostage, and working in an monopoly, that forces almost all Canadians to used the public education system. Public education systems, do not have to complete for their students, nor does the public education system have to deal with education quality, By law, all the public education system has to provide is the desk, a classroom and a set of books. And the best part, the public education system does not have to be worry about the quality of education being received after 12 years of schooling. And you have the gall to complain about low salaries, when workers in the private sector have been fired for less things, that might do harm to their name, their image and their products.

The year 2012 will be interesting, and even more so when the ruling on the Moore case comes down from the Supreme Court of Canada. Really interesting how the judges will square access to education services over and above the so-called inclusive classroom to equity to the individual’s education needs, and compared to the expenditures of over 75 to 80 % being spend on salaries, pensions, benefits within the public education system. Somehow, I don’t think the educators are going to get a free pass on this one, nor will the horrible equity policies that seems to think that it is okay to discriminate against whole groups, when no one is receiving the opportunity or access to an education service.

Governments of all parties at all levels have been to Labour arbitrations over and over and told arbitrators “there is no more money.”

The arbitrators have told them over and over in response, “of course there is always more money… go and raise the taxes.”

“The arbitrators have told them over and over in response, ‘of course there is always more money? go and raise the taxes.’”

...hence, the Ponzi.

Well said…  Hence arbitrators aren’t really impartial; otherwise they’d look more closely at the taxpayers’ and business’s side of the issue, rather than assuming.  I wonder how many businesses could succeed if it weren’t for the heavy taxation in Ontario.  Also, while visiting BC, I heard about what a rough time their government gives small businesses:  the govt there is rigid, slow, autocratic…

Bev, there is something that I came across reading pension issues, taxes and the public sector unions, that has a direct bearing on the inability of ordinary citizens who do not work in the public sector, the ability to save, without paying a steep premium to have savings.

The first thing, our tax system is inherently unfair, when net dollars after tax, are taxed again if a person withdraws their money out of a register savings certificate or a retirement plan or for that matter an education register plan. It is one thing to be taxed on the interest earned, but it becomes unfair when the whole amount is taxed again, and not the interests. It creates a disincentive for the average citizen to salt away money for a rainy day, and the price to be paid, for people who are high wage earners.

This disincentive prevents the average wage earner to salt away dollars for a retirement as one of their priorities, when there is more urgent demands made on the average wage earning, in the form of government taxes, the living expenses in shelter, food and basic services. As well as the nice to have items, such as a newspaper, a membership at the library, or dental health insurance, that quickly puts the priority of saving at the bottom of the list for most Canadians.

The tax system and the ability to save, is what the public sector and its unions uses to extract the gold plated pensions, higher salaries and all the other perks, so public sector workers now have the ability to save, as well as more purchasing power compared to the average wage earner.

The public sector worker, can now salt away the maximum amount allowed in retirement savings, because they no longer need to purchase drug and health insurance, as well as having more purchasing power in the nice to have things category. Can a non-public sector two income couple salt away one income for a rainy day and future needs?  No, because there is restrictions place on registered retirement plans, by the government, and are force to follow the pathway of higher risks such as entering the stock market, to seek a higher retirement income to live on.

The public sector is the same place, where some public sector workers are the very ones who set the rules for maximum amount allow, and other tax measures unto all citizens, and leaves the politician as the front person to deal with the fallout and defending the rules and policies. But in reality, the public sector best interests, is to keep the tax system unfair, limit people’s ability from salting their money for a rainy day, and the gross wages earned, a high demand is place on the wages, forcing the wage earner to prioritized their purchases. What are the purchases? The basic needs of shelter, food and transportation, taxes in its many different forms, and whatever is left over, are the nice to have things.

The public sector can than used their influence and power, to increase the public sector wages, pension and benefits, because there is a high demand place on the public sector to provide services that its very nature calls for government to provide. Policing, firefighters, teachers, nurses, doctors, are some of the services that are best run by a government, and a bureaucracy is built around to regulate and control access points who can or cannot use the services. In turn, the bean counters part of the bureaucracy, along with the lawyers and civil service professionals enters the picture to control the money tap and flow of money, in the form of taxes, fees and other revenue generating avenues, to pay for the wages, benefits and pensions of the pubic service.

The economic crisis today and what the world is experiencing, is ground zero for the average citizen and no longer having the ability to save for a rainy day, because the would be savings is feeding the hungry mouths of the public sector in government no matter the political stripe. The options for the average citizens comes down to hard decisions based on their cash income, their credit, their personal debt ratio to their purchasing power. Guess who has more purchasing power? The public sector workers!

And to add more salt into the wound, the individual parts of the public sector, work away to prevent private options from forming, such as school vouchers, charter schools, that are funded by tax dollars. Leaving education options in the private sector at a price that is cost prohibitive for most parents’ pocketbooks. As well as making the public education system the only viable choice that parents have.

Vouchers are simply not popular. They have been on ballots many times in the USA and lost every time. The only places they exist is where existing right wing Republican governments put them in due to pressure from religious groups. The University of Arkansas study, funded by pro voucher groups but unbiased, found that voucher students in Milwaukee did no better than Milwaukee PS students.

The results of the Stanford study of charter said the same thing. Although there are some very good charters there are some very good public schools a well. On balance once again, no overall gains.

The charter advocates are now asking for more oversight of charters because the number of God Aweful ones plus the number of scandals is damaging the entire idea.

Public money is for PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Private money is for private schools. There should never be public money for private schools.

Charters ride the boundary line, often technically public but de facto private schools.

For the use of public money, there needs to be heavy public accountability. Public money is given every day to private construction companies or for procurement but there is heavy public accountability for it. You cannot just have public money to go off and do as you please unsupervised.

Charter schools ARE public schools—just that they are not normally unionized or school board- controlled.  There are some “de-facto private schools” in some regular publicly-funded systems—arts schools, for instance, come to mind.

Doug, please provide a link to “the University of Arkansas study, funded by pro voucher groups but unbiased, [that] found that voucher students in Milwaukee did no better than Milwaukee PS students.” I would be especially interested in confirmation that the study was funded by pro-voucher groups.

CHOICE In & Of Itself Is A BEAUTIFUL THING!

As long as the cost is minor, choice and freedom are worth it.

They are values in themselves and cannot be measured by economic instruments or school scores.  So what if charters as a whole do not score profoundly?  What do scores count when students and parents are happy there?  What about the teachers? happiness?  What are we willing to pay for happiness, self-respect, being a voluntary recruit rather that a ?conscript? to a school not of your choice?

Anyway, some economists will say that the aggregate score of a wide variety of choices will usually yield a higher rating than the same number of centrally managed units.  Example:  soviet collectivized farms vs individual plots.

In BC our government has undertaken a sort of ?consultation? process by setting up a website to gather input for education ?transformation?.  This may be just a sop to placate people while we?re all suffering under a protracted teacher strike, but here is the Vancouver Sun story: 
?What would you like to change about B.C. education?? http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/12/31/what-would-you-like-to-change-about-b-c-education/

This is my comment:

Needed Changes In BC Education ? K-12

1. Parent Rights understood. A starting-point : http://genuine-education-reform-today.org/2010/04/06/parent-rights-and-their-childrens-education/

2. Teacher training in parent relations, theory and practice.

3. Full public funding following the student to school or setting of choice.

4. Equal opportunity for all students a basic operating principle. Special needs qualify for additional funding and resources.

5. Canadian Test Of Basic Skills results available to help parents/students make informed choices.

6. Ministry of Education guidelines/support for starting new choice schools—retaining the prohibition on sedition and retaining measures of public accountability.

7. Compulsory public education seen as a value to the common good. Education of the young is a contribution to the economic, social, cultural and civic well-being of the province. Public funding but not necessarily public provision. Choices and flexibility the norm.

In the link from the Sun, in Tunya’s post - “
Don’t neglect core competencies, including spelling, grammar, math and reason, to emphasize new priorities such as creativity, digital literacy, how to communicate emotions and collaboration.

. Build the curriculum around fewer but higher level out-comes, giving students more time to explore interests and passions.”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Group+kids+ability+school+public+says/5922609/story.html#ixzz1iDsomR7w

A trustee’s response - “
Simon Truelove, a Surrey teacher and Delta school trustee, warned that not every-thing in the curriculum should or can be personalized.

“It would be foolish to suggest that children always know what is best for them. Success often rests on the ability of the teacher to choose what is best. With all the undoubted benefits of personalized learning, please don’t go too far.”

The trustee, is actually saying, parents don’t know what is best for their own children, and the job should be left up to the teacher.

The only trouble is in today’s system - no one is responsible and held accountable within the education system, and the job is given to parents who remains responsible and accountable with limited options at their disposal.

This trustee is calling for the status-quo, and in a province that manage to make a blotch of things, sending an education issue, right to the Supreme Court of Canada. All the parents ever wanted was their son to learn how to read and write, but they send them packing, telling them that it is their responsibility. Part of the status-quo, within the public education system, will be fighting tooth and nail to prevent parents and the students seeking new reforms - “B.C. schools should group students by ability rather than age, promote personalized learning but not at the expense of basic skills, eliminate standardized tests and provide more frequent reports to parents about student progress.”

What scares them?  Perhaps basic skills , the solid foundation that has been missing for a while in the public schools. The basic skills the Moores was seeking for their son, and was told to take a hike.

Tunya, Has it ever crossed your mind why you do not get the policies that you advocate in BC? It is because they are unpopular. Nobody wants them except you. The vast majority have their kids in public schools and are satified with the results.

I get the biggest kick out of people who “yell at the screen” in politics and expect things to change. Politicians of all stripes poll and focus group constantly. We have these periodic tests called elections. If opinions like yours are not majoriterian you will not move the needle one degree.