Education Minister Fassbender seems to have backed off his stance that class sizes don't matter. Not surprisingly, it was one of the first concerns raised at the annual general meeting of the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Council's Q & A discussion:
Education Minister Peter Fassbender spoke to conference delegates Friday morning and was later peppered with questions, starting with this one: “How does class size not matter?”
Parents also wanted to know what his government is doing to help with complex classes, how it will protect schools threatened with permanent closure, whether the labour dispute will upset graduation activities and final exams and whether negotiations will continue throughout the summer.
There were no surprises in his answers: Class size is important up to a point, but not as important as class composition and teacher quality, given limited tax dollars, he said. Government has provided additional dollars to help with class composition challenges but it’s an issue that needs more attention, after a contract is signed, he added.*
So his back up answer? We can't afford it. And another old standby...class composition matters more. (I don't deal with teacher quality - another red herring, but read my thoughts on it here.)
Class size and class composition are inextricably linked. When the portion of the student population with identified special needs is high, the only way to create educationally sound classes is by having smaller classes. So if, for example, what is reasonable for a typical classroom is three students with special needs (the guidelines that used to be in legislation with Bill 33), but there are 8 students with special needs in Grade 5 out of 50 students, the only way to configure classes is to have three smaller classes rather than two larger ones. I'm not sure what other solution Fassbender could be referring to for class composition, unless he means segregation.
So can we afford smaller classes? British Columbians both can afford it and are willing to pay for it. The best evidence comes from an excellent report prepared last year by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. They costed this specific question, and they asked British Columbians what they thought about it.
The first thing they point out is how much tax revenue we would have for public services if only the tax cuts implemented by the BC Liberals never took place:
If BC collected today the same amount in tax revenues as a share of the economy
(GDP) as we did in 2000, we would have $3.5 billion more in public funds this year
alone. Meaning, no deficit, and the ability to invest in enhanced or even new public
services.
But they go on to look at class size and composition in particular, and what it would take to fund this with new, progressive income tax brackets for high income earners:
Two new brackets at the top: 18%
on income $150,000–$200,000; and
21% on income over $200,000
(would generate) $700 million
(which could pay for) 2,000 units of new social housing per year plus restore
K–12 class sizes, composition, and specialist teacher
staffing to levels that prevailed five years ago
Or alternatively:
Increase the current top (5th) bracket rate
to 17%, and add two new upper income
brackets: 20% on income $150,000–$200,000,
and 22% on income over $200,000
(would generate) $930 million
(which could pay for) Welfare benefit increases, a major funding increase to
the Ministry of Children and Family Development, plus
restore K–12 class sizes, composition, and specialist
teacher staffing to levels that prevailed five years ago
The CCPA backed up these policy proposals with polling to see what British Columbians think about increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, or even themselves, in order to spend on public services. Here is what they found:
The overwhelming majority of British Columbians (90%) think there should be income tax increases for those at the top. As to where those higher taxes should kick in, a clear majority (57%) says at $100,000 per year of income. A majority (67%) also think major corporations are asked to pay less tax than they should.
...
Of course it’s easy to say someone else should pay more taxes. That’s why it comes as a further surprise to discover the openness British Columbians show when it comes to potential tax increases for themselves. When initially asked a general question about their own level of taxation, most people feel they pay too much – no surprise given the cost of living challenges many wrestle with. But, when taxes are linked to concrete policies that can reduce inequality and improve our quality of life, the story changes.
Respondents were asked if they would consider paying a slightly higher share of their own income to provincial income tax (for most people representing a few hundred dollars per year) in order to help bring about 11 different policy changes. The changes included things like providing more access to home and community based health care for seniors, increasing welfare benefit rates, creating a $10 per day child care program, protecting BC’s forests and endangered species, or reducing class sizes in K-12 education.
Education Minister Peter Fassbender spoke to conference delegates Friday morning and was later peppered with questions, starting with this one: “How does class size not matter?”
Parents also wanted to know what his government is doing to help with complex classes, how it will protect schools threatened with permanent closure, whether the labour dispute will upset graduation activities and final exams and whether negotiations will continue throughout the summer.
There were no surprises in his answers: Class size is important up to a point, but not as important as class composition and teacher quality, given limited tax dollars, he said. Government has provided additional dollars to help with class composition challenges but it’s an issue that needs more attention, after a contract is signed, he added.*
So his back up answer? We can't afford it. And another old standby...class composition matters more. (I don't deal with teacher quality - another red herring, but read my thoughts on it here.)
Class size and class composition are inextricably linked. When the portion of the student population with identified special needs is high, the only way to create educationally sound classes is by having smaller classes. So if, for example, what is reasonable for a typical classroom is three students with special needs (the guidelines that used to be in legislation with Bill 33), but there are 8 students with special needs in Grade 5 out of 50 students, the only way to configure classes is to have three smaller classes rather than two larger ones. I'm not sure what other solution Fassbender could be referring to for class composition, unless he means segregation.
So can we afford smaller classes? British Columbians both can afford it and are willing to pay for it. The best evidence comes from an excellent report prepared last year by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. They costed this specific question, and they asked British Columbians what they thought about it.
The first thing they point out is how much tax revenue we would have for public services if only the tax cuts implemented by the BC Liberals never took place:
If BC collected today the same amount in tax revenues as a share of the economy
(GDP) as we did in 2000, we would have $3.5 billion more in public funds this year
alone. Meaning, no deficit, and the ability to invest in enhanced or even new public
services.
But they go on to look at class size and composition in particular, and what it would take to fund this with new, progressive income tax brackets for high income earners:
Two new brackets at the top: 18%
on income $150,000–$200,000; and
21% on income over $200,000
(would generate) $700 million
(which could pay for) 2,000 units of new social housing per year plus restore
K–12 class sizes, composition, and specialist teacher
staffing to levels that prevailed five years ago
Or alternatively:
Increase the current top (5th) bracket rate
to 17%, and add two new upper income
brackets: 20% on income $150,000–$200,000,
and 22% on income over $200,000
(would generate) $930 million
(which could pay for) Welfare benefit increases, a major funding increase to
the Ministry of Children and Family Development, plus
restore K–12 class sizes, composition, and specialist
teacher staffing to levels that prevailed five years ago
The CCPA backed up these policy proposals with polling to see what British Columbians think about increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations, or even themselves, in order to spend on public services. Here is what they found:
The overwhelming majority of British Columbians (90%) think there should be income tax increases for those at the top. As to where those higher taxes should kick in, a clear majority (57%) says at $100,000 per year of income. A majority (67%) also think major corporations are asked to pay less tax than they should.
...
Of course it’s easy to say someone else should pay more taxes. That’s why it comes as a further surprise to discover the openness British Columbians show when it comes to potential tax increases for themselves. When initially asked a general question about their own level of taxation, most people feel they pay too much – no surprise given the cost of living challenges many wrestle with. But, when taxes are linked to concrete policies that can reduce inequality and improve our quality of life, the story changes.
Respondents were asked if they would consider paying a slightly higher share of their own income to provincial income tax (for most people representing a few hundred dollars per year) in order to help bring about 11 different policy changes. The changes included things like providing more access to home and community based health care for seniors, increasing welfare benefit rates, creating a $10 per day child care program, protecting BC’s forests and endangered species, or reducing class sizes in K-12 education.
The results are striking: 68% say they are willing to pay a higher share of their income in order to help bring about 4 or more of the 11 policies. And once again, this held true for majorities regardless of which political party people intended to vote for in the next provincial election.
And to move forward on these policy alternatives may require a regulatory change to compel citizens to vote, like a small tax deduction instead of a fine in the way so many other countries have chosen to increase voter turn-out. Apathy toward corrupted government can only be changed from the bottom up.
ReplyDelete