Albertans want private schools to fund themselves

[rustled]

I don't think you've ever been able to direct where the school portion of your property tax goes in BC.

But in Ontario:

When you fill out your property tax form, indicating which school system you'd like your taxes to benefit — English or French public or English or French Catholic — you may assume that's where most funding for your board of choice comes from.

But property taxes only account for about a third of the province's overall education budget, according to Ministry of Education spokesperson Gary Wheeler.

For the 2013-2014 school year, the total allocation for Ontario's elementary and secondary education is projected to be almost $21 billion.

Property taxes will contribute about $6.8 billion. The rest — $14 billion — comes from general provincial revenue streams.

Wheeler said the province takes property tax dollars, combines them with provincial dollars “up to the level set by the funding formula,” and distributes them to each school board.

It's been that way since 1998, when the province assumed the previous authority of school boards to levy local property taxes.

https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/prop ... get-248865

[erinmore3775]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/private-schools-do-not-deserve-a-cent-from-our-public-funds

The above article above indicates that the discussion of whether to fund private schools is a world wide discussion. This discussion is taking place in Australia, the UK, and some parts of the United States. In all areas this is an emotional political issue that has little to do with fundamental constitutional laws.

From the time of Confederation education has been considered a provincial issue however, documents mandated a taxpayer funded public education system that encompassed both church run (Catholic) and Public schools. These stipulations satisfied both demands from Ontario and Quebec. Private schools in existence at that time were not funded. It was not until the Seventies that funding was extended to "private" schools in many provinces. In almost all cases, funding was granted to these schools by conservative provincial governments at the behest of their supporters. Funding for private schools was granted, provided that they met all provincial regulations and curriculum requirements not as a cost saving measure but as a political favor.

There is no provision in Canadian law for the return of taxpayer money to the taxpayer who does not use a tax supported system or service. The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down or refused to hear (on merit) all challenges to the current tax system along these lines.

In this time of fiscal crisis in the education system perhaps it is the opportunity to re-examine funding to private schools. It is a long held tenant that tax supported services should be open to all taxpayers. Private schools are not open to all. Many do not provide services for special needs students and many have rigid entrance requirements that exclude.

The gradual reduction to zero of taxpayer support of private schools will not result in a total collapse of the private system. Nor will it overburden the public school system. It will however, force the necessary re-evaluation of the student funding system, which unfortunately now is unfair and inadequate. It will mean a reallocation of monies that are in short supply.

Sending your child to a private school is a choice, not a right. It is an optional choice that is made to provide something over and and above what is provided by the standard taxpayer funded public school system. The only time that this choice option should be supported is for medical reasons (autism, blindness, hearing impairment, etc.) where the public system cannot provide adequate support and a private provider can.

A simple comparison is that our tax dollars are used to develop transit systems. Users pay a fee for use. Those that do not use the system still must pay the tax and do not receive a rebate. In fact they pay additional costs, fees, and taxes if they choose to use alternative forms of transportation like automobiles, planes, or ferries.

If we have a choice between supporting and "elite" and optional education system and a public education system, with taxpayer dollars, during a time of fiscal crisis, then my vote will always be for total support of the public system to the exclusion of the private system.

[rustled]

Funding for private schools was granted, provided that they met all provincial regulations and curriculum requirements not as a cost saving measure but as a political favor.

In your opinion. I doubt anyone really thought about cost savings, just about not having the choice cost more. As to political favour, our friends who attended Catholic schools in Ontario have never mentioned which government made the change. In their opinion, it was simply the fair thing to do.

In this time of fiscal crisis in the education system perhaps it is the opportunity to re-examine funding to private schools. It is a long held tenant that tax supported services should be open to all taxpayers. Private schools are not open to all. Many do not provide services for special needs students and many have rigid entrance requirements that exclude.

I expect you'd find most schools don't exclude. Those most likely would be the group receiving the least public funding, which is perhaps this is why their funding is significantly reduced. Unless you're able to show this exclusion is rampant, using this as an argument against public funding is emotional rather than pragmatic. Also, without public funding, why would the public have any right to control what goes on in these schools? Fully unfunded private schools, the ones not playing by normal societal rules, are the ones we ought to be concerned with.

The gradual reduction to zero of taxpayer support of private schools will not result in a total collapse of the private system. Nor will it overburden the public school system. It will however, force the necessary re-evaluation of the student funding system, which unfortunately now is unfair and inadequate. It will mean a reallocation of monies that are in short supply.

It would result in a partial collapse of the most inclusive schools.

Your assessment that the funding system is unfair and inadequate is opinion.

Sending your child to a private school is a choice, not a right. It is an optional choice that is made to provide something over and and above what is provided by the standard taxpayer funded public school system. The only time that this choice option should be supported is for medical reasons (autism, blindness, hearing impairment, etc.) where the public system cannot provide adequate support and a private provider can.

Again, your opinion. If parents don't feel their local public school is providing adequate support, how is it up to you to further impede their ability to do what they feel is best for their children?

A simple comparison is that our tax dollars are used to develop transit systems. Users pay a fee for use. Those that do not use the system still must pay the tax and do not receive a rebate. In fact they pay additional costs, fees, and taxes if they choose to use alternative forms of transportation like automobiles, planes, or ferries.

To apply your comparison, those of us choosing to use alternative forms of transportation are currently having those choices subsidized through our taxes. The roads we drive on, the bicycle paths we use, the airports and the ferries are all well-supported through our taxes. Why should that same level of choice not apply to our education system?

If we have a choice between supporting and "elite" and optional education system and a public education system, with taxpayer dollars, during a time of fiscal crisis, then my vote will always be for total support of the public system to the exclusion of the private system.

Again, this is emotional and not pragmatic. The first schools to go wouldn't be the elite ones. And frankly, if some parents want to drop a bundle of money so their kids can attend a different school than my grandkids go to, I'm all for it. If other parents want to scrimp to access an optional system, I'm all for that, too. Because both groups are freeing up public resources for our kids' and our grandkids' and and our aging parents' other needs, and easing our tax burden.

You'd refuse to fund private schools on principle, telling the thousands of parents who are willing to pay for choice that if public school isn't good enough for you, tough luck. To me, that's simply spiteful.

You opened by asserting it was supporters of the conservative governments who wanted some funding of private schools. I think this may be causing you some perception bias around this issue, and I very much doubt it's true. I believe centrist parents also want choices, and if they are willing to pay for their choices, I believe lots of centrist people support giving them that choice. Why wouldn't you?

[erinmore3775]

Rustled wrote: " I believe centrist parents also want choices, and if they are willing to pay for their choices, I believe lots of centrist people support giving them that choice. Why wouldn't you?" [Italics, my emphasis]

I believe you have answered your own question. Since Confederation there always has been a choice. Parents can send their children to publicly funded schools or to private schools. I support their right of choice, "if they are willing to pay for their choices." What I do not support is the spending of public taxpayer money on the support of exclusionary "private" schools, clubs, or endeavors.

Parents have the right to support private schools. They have the right to have their children attend private schools. They also have the right and obligation to pay the full amount required to send their children to private schools. They do not have the right to expect their fellow citizen to pay to help send their child to that private school.They do not have the right to redirect taxpayer funds to support their exclusive choices. Support of private schools through taxpayer dollars was/is a political provincial budgetary decision. I am also pointing out that in a time when fiscal conservatism should be paramount, allocating nondiscretionary funds to the private school system is a choice. It is a choice that should be revoked. This has nothing to do with spite or prejudice. It is simply respecting the right of choice and asking that the choice to have taxpayer support of private schools stopped at a time when the public system is in need of fiscal support.

[Urbane]

Many of us believe (and I think have clearly shown) that the grants to independent schools SAVE taxpayers money. Do we really need to go over those figures again??? Some people either don't accept those figures OR they don't care because on ideological grounds they simply want to see all tax money going to public schools. We sent our kids to public schools and I taught in the public system but I believe in choice. If we can help to provide choice and save money it's a win win. Why fix something that isn't broken?

[flamingfingers]

The Fraser Institute report used Statistics Canada data to examine spending increases by province. Albertans saw the biggest boost in classroom funding with a 92.4% increase to $7.79 billion from $4 billion. B.C. students came last in the study with a 24.7% funding increase to $6.3 billion from $5 billion.

On a per-student basis, New Brunswick students saw the most money coming into the classroom with a 91.5% increase to $13,181 from $6,884. B.C. students also saw the lowest increase, 41.1%, in funding per head, increasing to $11,418 from $8,093.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... -institute

Somehow I can't see where $11,418 will make a lot of difference or alter a decision to send a kid to private school. Not in the face of already looking at tuition fees of $30,000, $40,0000 or even $50,000.

[rustled]

Many of us believe (and I think have clearly shown) that the grants to independent schools SAVE taxpayers money. Do we really need to go over those figures again??? Some people either don't accept those figures OR they don't care because on ideological grounds they simply want to see all tax money going to public schools. We sent our kids to public schools and I taught in the public system but I believe in choice. If we can help to provide choice and save money it's a win win. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Exactly. It's beyond bizarre to me that people can allow their ideology to blind them to common sense. Erinmore completely ignores how taxpayers support choice in transportation, her own example, provided those choosing pay an additional cost.

That's exactly what's happening here.

These objections, this blind and puerile insistence that any parents who want choice--any of the parents who currently forfeit more than 50 per cent of taxpayer support in order to have that choice--should instead forfeit all taxpayer support, make absolutely no rational sense. To couch it in terms of being fiscally responsible is utterly ludicrous.

[goatboy]

One has to consider, what is the true different between a public school and a private school that currently receives 50% funding? The two main differences is that it may be selective in its admission standards (for certain things) and it may teach things which have been deemed off limits in public schools, mainly religious things, and even then they cannot include programs that in theory or in practice will promote or foster doctrines of racial or ethnic superiority or persecution, religious intolerance or persecution, social change through violent action, or sedition. These schools must still teach to the same level as public schools, must graduate students with the same requirements as public schools and are inspected and scrutinized by the Ministry of Education. It's not a free for all. So does selective admission and additional teachings warrant losing all their funding? Remember, not only do they only receive 50% operational funding, they receive zero capital funding, so all building and equipment funding is their own responsibility.

[Urbane]

One has to consider, what is the true different between a public school and a private school that currently receives 50% funding? The two main differences is that it may be selective in its admission standards (for certain things) and it may teach things which have been deemed off limits in public schools, mainly religious things, and even then they cannot include programs that in theory or in practice will promote or foster doctrines of racial or ethnic superiority or persecution, religious intolerance or persecution, social change through violent action, or sedition. These schools must still teach to the same level as public schools, must graduate students with the same requirements as public schools and are inspected and scrutinized by the Ministry of Education. It's not a free for all. So does selective admission and additional teachings warrant losing all their funding? Remember, not only do they only receive 50% operational funding, they receive zero capital funding, so all building and equipment funding is their own responsibility.

Well put. Those who often talk about diversity seem to be opposed to it when it comes to parental choice in education. Funny how that works.

[occasional thoughts]

Over the years I've come to like and respect and even meet Urbane and I don't usually disagree with him, but he's dead wrong imho with his statement that grants to private schools saves us money. Taking a kid out of the public school system and enrolling him or her in a private school may save some money in theory, but compensating them for doing so starts to cost money with the first dollar of subsidy. In other words, government is voluntarily giving up some of the saving that is so widely proclaimed as virtuous.

I don't believe in pandering choice. We don't have the option to leave our legal system (while remaining in Canada), we don't have the option of leaving our tax system, there's not much discretion to leave the road system (if one chooses to drive). The people who have corrupted our education system by leaving and through the false validation of "choice" are those who are well off and are hooked on privilege (class system) and/or are pushing some religions or ethnic agenda.

[goatboy]

Over the years I've come to like and respect and even meet Urbane and I don't usually disagree with him, but he's dead wrong imho with his statement that grants to private schools saves us money. Taking a kid out of the public school system and enrolling him or her in a private school may save some money in theory, but compensating them for doing so starts to cost money with the first dollar of subsidy. In other words, government is voluntarily giving up some of the saving that is so widely proclaimed as virtuous.

I don't believe in pandering choice. We don't have the option to leave our legal system (while remaining in Canada), we don't have the option of leaving our tax system, there's not much discretion to leave the road system (if one chooses to drive). The people who have corrupted our education system by leaving and through the false validation of "choice" are those who are well off and are hooked on privilege (class system) and/or are pushing some religions or ethnic agenda.

From experience, most (not all) of parents who choose to put their kids in a Class 1 or 2 independent schools are not well off or pushing an agenda. They are average income families that have chosen to invest some of their income in their children's education. No different really than choosing to invest in their post secondary income, which by the way is also subsidized by our tax dollars and who's schools also have selected entrance criteria.

Those that don't want to see how these schools save the system money are blinded by their bigotry of the concept of these schools, not by the fiscal reality that actually provide the system.

[rustled]

From experience, most (not all) of parents who choose to put their kids in a Class 1 or 2 independent schools are not well off or pushing an agenda. They are average income families that have chosen to invest some of their income in their children's education. No different really than choosing to invest in their post secondary income, which by the way is also subsidized by our tax dollars and who's schools also have selected entrance criteria.

Those that don't want to see how these schools save the system money are blinded by their bigotry of the concept of these schools, not by the fiscal reality that actually provide the system.

That's my experience, too.

And I'd add that some of the parents choosing alternatives would prefer to help fix what they see as the shortcomings in the public education system, but have been thoroughly frustrated in their efforts. The more I was involved in public education, the better I understood their frustrations.

I wonder how different the issues would be in Alberta.

[Urbane]

Here's an excerpt from a 2015 Calgary Herald editorial on this subject. Please click on the link to read the full editorial:

Here’s the math in Alberta. In 2014/15, 631,089 students were enrolled in the public school system, with another 29,400 students in independent schools.

To figure out how much the latter saved the province, one must first calculate costs in the public system. Here, I include instruction, operations and maintenance and student transportation expenses. Add those up and divide by the number of students and the per student cost last year was $10,874.

In contrast, the per-student cost (to taxpayers) for independent schools was just $5,150, because parents pay school instruction fees to have their kids in those alternative schools.

If all the children enrolled in independent schools last year instead attended public schools, the extra cost to the province’s education budget would have been $168 million. Add in the previous four years of savings (2010/11 to 2014/15 inclusive) and the total is $750 million. That’s the money the provincial government saved by having tens of thousands of students enrolled in something other than public schools.

This is a conservative estimate of the savings to the education budget. In reaching the per-student cost for public schools, I deliberately excluded other expenses that are not necessarily boosted by extra students in the public system: costs incurred for governance and system administration, program support services and basic education programs.

The usual response to such number-crunching is that in the absence of taxpayer funding for independent schools, not every one of the 29,400 students in private schools would be enrolled in public schools last year.

Fair argument, except it misses the critical point that any extra student enrolled in public schools instead of private schools costs the public education system extra money.
Full editorial: http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/column ... e-us-money

[LoneWolf_53]

You'd refuse to fund private schools on principle, telling the thousands of parents who are willing to pay for choice that if public school isn't good enough for you, tough luck. To me, that's simply spiteful.

I don't know if I'd call it spiteful. It comes off more as the ramblings of some lifelong unionized government employee, afraid that monies they feel should be coming to them, are going to someone else.

Logic and fact doesn't enter the equation, when it becomes a matter of "they're getting money that should be coming to me".

Greed would be the more appropriate term.

[rustled]

Here's an excerpt from a 2015 Calgary Herald editorial on this subject. Please click on the link to read the full editorial:...

Thanks for posting this, Urbane. I found this interesting:

...per-student taxpayer funding for private schools (for the base instruction rate) ranges from 60 to 70 per cent of the money available to public schools.

In BC, per-student funding for eligible independent schools ranges from 35 to 50 per cent of the money available to public schools. I'm not sure it's an apples-to-apples, but in Alberta the savings are considerable even though they appear to provide far more generous support for students in independent schools.

I felt the editor made some good points around the matter of choice itself, too. It's a very different world than it was when our public school system was born, and much has changed over the centuries. If anything, we'll need even more progressive and varied approaches to the delivery of education in the future.