With Kathleen Wynne's swearing in scheduled for Feb. 11, I haven't seen too much chatter on her choices for cabinet, other than some backing away from the cabinet table. With only 10 MPPs who supported her candidacy, if the premier-designate sticks to backroom-style politics those 10 could be up for some promotions.
In terms of those with cabinet experience under this government, here are some thoughts. Of the list, I would imagine, if I were in Wynne's shoes, I'd keep London North Centre's Deb Matthews at the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. Perth-Wellington's John Wilkinson barely kept his seat in 2011 thanks to his term as environment minister coupled with rural reaction to wind-farm developments. However he could land back in cabinet in some other portfolio. I would imagine Glen Murray would slide back into research and innovation, if that ministry continues to exist. If not, Murray's strengths could see him in municipal affairs and housing or perhaps back at training, colleges and universities. Kingtson and the Islands' John Gerretsen has held a number of portfolios since 2003. Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale's Ted McMeekin only made it to cabinet in McGuinty's last shuffle, but Wynne has already indicated she wants to serve as premier and minister of agriculture and rural affairs for at least the first year.
Of course my interests are in education.
Given the current state of things due to Bill 115, education will continue to be a key political post. Many have said current minister Laurel Broten will be axed from the post and either demoted to a less-glamorous cabinet post or to the back bench. Broten didn't support Wynne in the race, but Wynne has said she won't rip up the contracts imposed under Bill 115. There could be merit in keeping Broten in the post at the beginning of this refreshed cabinet's term-- the education sector unions won't like it, but Broten might deserve the opportunity to find a way out of the mess that is in place right now.
Of the rest on the list of supporters, only Guelph's Liz Sandals draws my eye. Another former trustee turned MPP, Sandals was also the MPP who served as parliamentary / legislative assistant for a good chunk of the time that Wynne was minister. She then followed Wynne to transportation after that shuffle. She's not yet been in cabinet and this might finally be her time.
Outside of the list of supporters, Ottawa Centre's Yasir Naqvi has also done the parliamentary assistant gig (under Leona Dombrowsky) and as OLP president I've seen other writers muse his time in cabinet is due. The current PA is Mississauga-Streetsville's Bob Delaney, who like Sandals was first elected in 2003.
Any other suggestions?
Showing posts with label Ontario 2011 vote. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario 2011 vote. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Monday, January 30, 2012
Drummoned?
Though the speculation today is all about what changes may be coming to the healthcare system (delisting things from OHIP, etc.), I have no doubt the players in our provincial education system are watching carefully.
The reports came out earlier this month across all media about consultant Don Drummond's pending report to the McGuinty government with its cost-containment recommendations. As health and education are (in that order) the province's biggest bills, keeping an eye on how the overall report is released and its recommendations received is important for both sectors.
What did we learn earlier this month?
The biggest ed-related item was a call for the province to re-evaluate its primary class size (PCS) program. As most familiar with it would know, this investment in education came out of the Liberals' first mandate, when it was a centrepiece of the party's education platform. With the odd exception here or there within a handful of years, 90% of the province's kindergarten through Grade 3 classes had ratios of 20 students to one teacher. The remaining 10% had a hard cap of no more than 23 students to one teacher.
That ratio changed a bit in the early years / kindergarten classes as full-day kindergarten gets rolled out across the province, as it allows up to 26 students to one teacher and one early childhood educator.
The edu-academics were all over the PCS from when it was first announced -- as were some school boards who identified they would have issues with providing the necessary physical classroom space. The research is, to be fair, varied on class size vs. other factors when it comes to student improvement. Fewer than 20 students with a poorly trained teacher do worse than 30 students with a well-trained teacher, etc.
The PCS always sold well with parents however. Parents who vote. Who were tired of seeing a blended class size average in elementary of 26 (with boards being allowed to push that to 27 under some circumstances). Some of that excitement faded with the increase in split-grade classes caused when PCS was implemented, but a big portion of that was how the system reacted to a class cap combined with overall declining enrolment.
Will it become the sacrificial lamb to squeeze money out of education spending? I'm doubtful a government led by a premier who has long fashioned himself as an "education premier" would start hacking away at one of the key parts of the platform that won him a first majority government.
Similarly, most new funding in education is being directed at FDK implementation-- something all three parties supported in the campaign, so it's doubtful there'll be many chainsaws taken to that program unless people change their tunes (again).
Something that didn't come out? Both the PCS and FDK initiatives have helped stem job losses in the ranks of teachers as they bolstered staffing in years that declining enrolment was having its biggest impact. That population decline is now set to move through high schools twice as fast as it moved through the K-8 panel-- and with all of the Learning to 18 programs now fully implemented, there won't be many new programs to save jobs when the student numbers are no longer there to support them.
Given it's doubtful the province will ask its education-sector employee federations to agree to zero-increase contracts, the path ahead for the Liberals may be in trying to balance the expected decline in staffing (particularly in secondary) with any increases in wages and benefits. Keep it at a net-zero level and you can make it through a mandate without allowing education spending to balloon.
More on this once Drummond's recommendations go public.
The reports came out earlier this month across all media about consultant Don Drummond's pending report to the McGuinty government with its cost-containment recommendations. As health and education are (in that order) the province's biggest bills, keeping an eye on how the overall report is released and its recommendations received is important for both sectors.
What did we learn earlier this month?
The biggest ed-related item was a call for the province to re-evaluate its primary class size (PCS) program. As most familiar with it would know, this investment in education came out of the Liberals' first mandate, when it was a centrepiece of the party's education platform. With the odd exception here or there within a handful of years, 90% of the province's kindergarten through Grade 3 classes had ratios of 20 students to one teacher. The remaining 10% had a hard cap of no more than 23 students to one teacher.
That ratio changed a bit in the early years / kindergarten classes as full-day kindergarten gets rolled out across the province, as it allows up to 26 students to one teacher and one early childhood educator.
The edu-academics were all over the PCS from when it was first announced -- as were some school boards who identified they would have issues with providing the necessary physical classroom space. The research is, to be fair, varied on class size vs. other factors when it comes to student improvement. Fewer than 20 students with a poorly trained teacher do worse than 30 students with a well-trained teacher, etc.
The PCS always sold well with parents however. Parents who vote. Who were tired of seeing a blended class size average in elementary of 26 (with boards being allowed to push that to 27 under some circumstances). Some of that excitement faded with the increase in split-grade classes caused when PCS was implemented, but a big portion of that was how the system reacted to a class cap combined with overall declining enrolment.
Will it become the sacrificial lamb to squeeze money out of education spending? I'm doubtful a government led by a premier who has long fashioned himself as an "education premier" would start hacking away at one of the key parts of the platform that won him a first majority government.
Similarly, most new funding in education is being directed at FDK implementation-- something all three parties supported in the campaign, so it's doubtful there'll be many chainsaws taken to that program unless people change their tunes (again).
Something that didn't come out? Both the PCS and FDK initiatives have helped stem job losses in the ranks of teachers as they bolstered staffing in years that declining enrolment was having its biggest impact. That population decline is now set to move through high schools twice as fast as it moved through the K-8 panel-- and with all of the Learning to 18 programs now fully implemented, there won't be many new programs to save jobs when the student numbers are no longer there to support them.
Given it's doubtful the province will ask its education-sector employee federations to agree to zero-increase contracts, the path ahead for the Liberals may be in trying to balance the expected decline in staffing (particularly in secondary) with any increases in wages and benefits. Keep it at a net-zero level and you can make it through a mandate without allowing education spending to balloon.
More on this once Drummond's recommendations go public.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Looking in both directions
Here's to looking back at 2011 and looking ahead to 2012 in the world of K-12 education in this province, as well as a chance to reflect on what's been in this space in the last 12 months. As I wrote about for my employer, 2011 was a year of change from the fellowship back to my former job to a new post starting in August.
In the past year this space has seen just over 3,800 visitors, a slight majority of whom had been here at least once before. Traffic was highest in the winter and early spring when the fellowship granted lots of time for posting and waned throughout the rest of the calendar year as I went back to work (bad blogger, bad).
Here were the posts that drew the largest audiences:
Here's my cut of the top issues in K-12 Ontario education of 2011:
In the past year this space has seen just over 3,800 visitors, a slight majority of whom had been here at least once before. Traffic was highest in the winter and early spring when the fellowship granted lots of time for posting and waned throughout the rest of the calendar year as I went back to work (bad blogger, bad).
Here were the posts that drew the largest audiences:
- Full-day kindergarten = ECE shortage? (a post from 2009)
- Keep those EQAO envelopes sealed
- Mapping our Full-day Kindergarten
- Bil 177 (another post from 2009)
- Ontario's next education minister is (noting my guesses were all wrong)
- On teaching (from 2010)
- A thought on teacher education and the job market (another from 2010)
- DSBN Academy coverage keeps growing
- My long goodbye to OISE
- Defenders of the faith(-based)
Here's my cut of the top issues in K-12 Ontario education of 2011:
- Bullying became the worst thing ever about any school system this year. Unfortunately helped by a number of well-publicized suicides where this harassment was either known or suspected to be the primary cause, along with the politicization of Gay-Straight Alliances as some sort of bullying cure-all, bullying has been on everyone's tongue throughout the year. I'm curious as to whether it will result in meaningful action in 2012.
- School accommodation / demographic shift continues, though not as noisily in most areas of the province as it has in the last few years. Many boards outside the GTA have tackled their first few rounds of school-closure reviews, petitions and post-review openings. The Toronto boards also began tackling this, though not as assertively as they probably need to in order to keep up. Towards the end of the year the Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School decision raised eyebrows (and the dander of many) showing accommodation issues are by no means ever a dead issue.
- A new minister came to the portfolio in October after the scrappy Leona Dombrowsky was sent into political retirement by the voters in Belleville and area. Laurel Broten was appointed minister to the surprise of many (or maybe just me) after previous stints in Environment and Children and Youth Services. She's been pushed with the reaction to Bill 13, but like every minister since Sandra Pupatello and her predecessor Gerard Kennedy, the steps out of the spotlight to allow Premier Dalton McGuinty to fulfill his "education premier" desire.
- Full-day kindergarten continues to drive the education agenda provincially. Though the 2011-12 crop of new schools is the smallest cohort of the five years, the issue of before- and after-school care for four- and five-year-olds isn't settled across the province. Its popularity even drove the PC Party of Ontario leader Tim Hudak to do a 180 on the program, going from labelling it another Liberal Cadillac program to saying he would support implementation as proposed. While the components of the original Pascal Report flowing from FDK for 6-12-year-olds were part of the Liberals' election platform, rollout timing is indeterminate in this minority Parliament.
- Money will be key to everything in 2012-- the province's debt and deficit will become a focus of the pending provincial budget. While no one in opposition would likely defeat a budget based on health care or education spending (which will likely be almost 3/4 of all provincial spending), those in the know are well aware that every passing year will be a bigger budget challenge. New spending on capital projects will by and large be to support implementation of full-day kindergarten. There will likely be a kitty to tap into for employee contracts (more on that below) and some token amounts to keep up with rising utility and other non-staffing costs, but the years of pilfering to support old buildings over programs and people in those buildings are coming to an end and boards that are supporting too many older buildings or vacant pupil places will have a tough time tackling 2012-13 budgets in June.
- The bullying theme will stubbornly stick around-- a Liberal minority in the legislature may very well capitulate on controversial sections of Bill 13 in committee if it wishes to see the bill come back for third reading before the legislature rises for the summer break. This will serve as the next step in the premier's initiative to get character development further entrenched into the curricula.
- Just for kicks, it might be worth tracking whether election-campaign promises, such as the wraparound programming for 6-to-12-year-olds, the two-year teachers' college and the one or two others get implemented in the coming year.
- Finally, I do think the contracts will be an issue in this year. They do expire on Aug. 31, after all. I would have a litter of kittens if any agreements of significance were ratified (at provincial discussion tables or locally) before the end of this calendar year however. I don't believe any of the parties have given big signals on priorities for the next agreement -- other than the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario trying to reach the parity their executive pissed away in the standoff over the 2008-12 agreements. The back half of this year will likely, particularly after annual meeting season in the summer, feature an entrenchment as the various unions and federations stake out what they think a minority Liberal government can get them and the Liberals mark their turf. I wouldn't expect any battle stations to be manned until some time between March Break and summer vacation 2013 though.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Ontario's next education minister is...
... a question that surely has been circulating through people's minds since the results came in on Oct. 6 showing Leona Dombrowsky had been defeated in her Belleville-area riding.
I was somewhat shocked, to say the truth. Not being as connected as people in the region, I wasn't anticipating that her seat was under threat. Coverage from the night shows it might have come as a surprise to her as well, though fingers also pointed at the HST and the ongoing debate over wind energy developments. While no one's thumping their chest on the first, at least one group is on the second.
Regardless of all that, the question now becomes who will Ontario's next education minister be?
Looking at who was re-elected, an easy choice is Dombrowsky's predecessor, Kathleen Wynne. Wynne, despite the shuffle / lateral move / demotion to Transport a few years ago, has been Dalton McGuinty's longest-serving education minister and was in that ministry when she defeated then OPC leader John Tory in 2007.
Wynne may not have been shepherding the implementation of full-day kindergarten (and let's face it, the premier was the public face of that program), but she shepherded Bil 177 and the first few tests of the province's school-closure guidelines. She was the minister when the current and soon-to-expire collective agreements were negotiated.
If McGuinty chooses to leave Wynne at Transport or move her into another portfolio whose minister was shown the door Oct. 6, who's left that's a known quantity on the Liberal bench that has the chops to handle the education portfolio?
Looking at former parliamentary assistants to the ministry is one way to go.
The most recent was Ottawa Centre MPP Yasir Naqvi, who was in the PA slot until the writ was dropped. His social-media outreach is incredible and he appears to be very well liked by his constituents. He's a lawyer by trade though and the preference of late has been to either put reformers in the slot or people with political experience in school boards.
Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale's Ted McMeekin was an education PA earlier in the McGuinty government, and he's been in cabinet since 2007. If memory serves he was PA when former minister Gerard Kennedy pushed through the first omnibus bill in the government's first term of office. He may have also had the role during Sandra Pupatello's brief tenure in the ministry.
Guelph MPP Liz Sandals was the longest-serving PA for education since 2003. In addition to that honour, she chaired a number of strategic legislative projects around safe schools and the initial shepherding of FDK legislation. Sandals is a past public board trustee and past-president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association.
Looking around the rest of the caucus, some others' names have popped up. In my work riding (Brant) reelected MPP Dave Levac is a former teacher and I did see a mention or two of his name and education within social-media feeds. That position would surprise me for Levac, who isn't (publicly anyway) egging for a cabinet position of any kind.
I don't know enough about the background of the rest of the field elected or reelected Oct. 6 to confidently predict whether any would be in contention as strong candidates for education minister.
The next minister will have to work to complete implementation of FDK, negotiate a new round of collective agreements for every school employee group and take boards through what will no doubt be interesting times of trying to muddle through times when the education budget will be under severe pressure to match the enrolments that will for the most part continue to drop throughout this next term of government.
For my vote (and a coffee, whatever it's worth to you as a reader), I say Sandals gets the nod, with my backup choice being Wynne. For all the complications of cabinet-making, the minister will likely be a woman and this may be a post that helps the government if it's not given to a Toronto-area MPP.
Place your friendly wagers in the comments section. I promise I won't email you to collect on any coffee.
I was somewhat shocked, to say the truth. Not being as connected as people in the region, I wasn't anticipating that her seat was under threat. Coverage from the night shows it might have come as a surprise to her as well, though fingers also pointed at the HST and the ongoing debate over wind energy developments. While no one's thumping their chest on the first, at least one group is on the second.
Regardless of all that, the question now becomes who will Ontario's next education minister be?
Looking at who was re-elected, an easy choice is Dombrowsky's predecessor, Kathleen Wynne. Wynne, despite the shuffle / lateral move / demotion to Transport a few years ago, has been Dalton McGuinty's longest-serving education minister and was in that ministry when she defeated then OPC leader John Tory in 2007.
Wynne may not have been shepherding the implementation of full-day kindergarten (and let's face it, the premier was the public face of that program), but she shepherded Bil 177 and the first few tests of the province's school-closure guidelines. She was the minister when the current and soon-to-expire collective agreements were negotiated.
If McGuinty chooses to leave Wynne at Transport or move her into another portfolio whose minister was shown the door Oct. 6, who's left that's a known quantity on the Liberal bench that has the chops to handle the education portfolio?
Looking at former parliamentary assistants to the ministry is one way to go.
The most recent was Ottawa Centre MPP Yasir Naqvi, who was in the PA slot until the writ was dropped. His social-media outreach is incredible and he appears to be very well liked by his constituents. He's a lawyer by trade though and the preference of late has been to either put reformers in the slot or people with political experience in school boards.
Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale's Ted McMeekin was an education PA earlier in the McGuinty government, and he's been in cabinet since 2007. If memory serves he was PA when former minister Gerard Kennedy pushed through the first omnibus bill in the government's first term of office. He may have also had the role during Sandra Pupatello's brief tenure in the ministry.
Guelph MPP Liz Sandals was the longest-serving PA for education since 2003. In addition to that honour, she chaired a number of strategic legislative projects around safe schools and the initial shepherding of FDK legislation. Sandals is a past public board trustee and past-president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association.
Looking around the rest of the caucus, some others' names have popped up. In my work riding (Brant) reelected MPP Dave Levac is a former teacher and I did see a mention or two of his name and education within social-media feeds. That position would surprise me for Levac, who isn't (publicly anyway) egging for a cabinet position of any kind.
I don't know enough about the background of the rest of the field elected or reelected Oct. 6 to confidently predict whether any would be in contention as strong candidates for education minister.
The next minister will have to work to complete implementation of FDK, negotiate a new round of collective agreements for every school employee group and take boards through what will no doubt be interesting times of trying to muddle through times when the education budget will be under severe pressure to match the enrolments that will for the most part continue to drop throughout this next term of government.
For my vote (and a coffee, whatever it's worth to you as a reader), I say Sandals gets the nod, with my backup choice being Wynne. For all the complications of cabinet-making, the minister will likely be a woman and this may be a post that helps the government if it's not given to a Toronto-area MPP.
Place your friendly wagers in the comments section. I promise I won't email you to collect on any coffee.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
On hiatus
Not that I've been terribly wordy on here lately, but the blog is going on hiatus until Oct. 6 as I travel to do some more volunteer work.
I did promise to do a platform-by-platform comparison, which I haven't done for here but I did do as part of our campaign coverage for the Expositor if you want to take a peek at it there.
I'll return with some thoughts on election day and thereafter.
I did promise to do a platform-by-platform comparison, which I haven't done for here but I did do as part of our campaign coverage for the Expositor if you want to take a peek at it there.
I'll return with some thoughts on election day and thereafter.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Double time in the instruction line
I took to twitter Wednesday morning as soon as I started reading tweets about the Ontario Liberal Party's announcement that if reelected it would extend teacher-training programs from the current minimum of one academic year (eight months in reality) to two. Here's the OLP release.
A lot of newsrooms got into this today-- here's The Star (which did two), The Globe and Mail, the CBC (which did a radio thing on the Toronto / southern Ontario drive-home show but has no podcast), CTV and even some of my colleagues within Sun Media / QMI Agency.
First and above all else, I like this plan. Eight months -- and it's not because you factor in holidays and it's less than eight months -- and 40 practicum days is too short. I've seen it in the experiences of new teachers and I've heard it, anecdotally, from many B.Ed. grads that aside the practicums there's little for many to learn in teachers' college that they didn't already have a foundation in before starting.
The Libs are correct in stating this province has one of the shortest degree-to-teachers'-college-to-job-market turnarounds. Looking at those countries we aim to match in the skills our students can display, teacher training isn't over and done with in eight months. Over the last three generations this has evolved from the point where becoming a teacher meant graduating high school and attending a few years of normal school to now needing an undergraduate degree before starting your teacher training.
Other nations require master's degrees and then a multi-year or multi-stage teacher education program.
The very proof of the relative inadequacy of initial teacher education in Ontario is a program this very government created when it killed off teacher testing: the New Teacher Induction Program. Every new teacher since the middle of the last decade must complete this mentoring / observation / evaluation program within the first two years on the job. Their certificates with the Ontario College of Teachers aren't given full status until the NTIP has been completed.
These are the reasons why this program should be extended an additional year regardless of who wins the election on Oct. 6.
One of the reasons mentioned by Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities John Milloy Wednesday is tricky. He cited how a two-year program would cut the number of graduates in half. Um, OK.Implied but not specifically stated in this is that instead of throwing 9,000 through per year, they'd throw half that number through and still only have 9,000 in total registered. It does little to address the four-plus years that universities and the college of teachers have been pumping out 9,000 grads a year into a highly oversaturated market-- but I do keep forgetting all those teacher-education grads are supposed to travel the world and feed teacher shortages in the places few Ontario teachers' college grads actually want to teach.
Some were also griping about the added cost of an additional year of teachers' college. Though I wholeheartedly agree the last reason anyone should get into teaching is money, this is a well-compensated profession in Ontario. If you can get full-time permanent work, you're set for life financially as long as you don't do silly things with your money.
Implementation is where this idea starts to get mired in the details. Aside from concurrent B.Ed programs, I'm only aware of a single two-year initial teacher education program in the province, which is the Masters of Teaching program I had the opportunity to shadow in Toronto. Universities will have a lot to say about whether they would accept a mandated two-year program for all.
The Ontario College of Teachers, which for all intents and purposes is the regulatory approval agency for teacher education in this province, would also need to approve -- or be told/regulated to approve.
These are not insurmountable odds and all parties should be signing on to this idea.
A lot of newsrooms got into this today-- here's The Star (which did two), The Globe and Mail, the CBC (which did a radio thing on the Toronto / southern Ontario drive-home show but has no podcast), CTV and even some of my colleagues within Sun Media / QMI Agency.
First and above all else, I like this plan. Eight months -- and it's not because you factor in holidays and it's less than eight months -- and 40 practicum days is too short. I've seen it in the experiences of new teachers and I've heard it, anecdotally, from many B.Ed. grads that aside the practicums there's little for many to learn in teachers' college that they didn't already have a foundation in before starting.
The Libs are correct in stating this province has one of the shortest degree-to-teachers'-college-to-job-market turnarounds. Looking at those countries we aim to match in the skills our students can display, teacher training isn't over and done with in eight months. Over the last three generations this has evolved from the point where becoming a teacher meant graduating high school and attending a few years of normal school to now needing an undergraduate degree before starting your teacher training.
Other nations require master's degrees and then a multi-year or multi-stage teacher education program.
The very proof of the relative inadequacy of initial teacher education in Ontario is a program this very government created when it killed off teacher testing: the New Teacher Induction Program. Every new teacher since the middle of the last decade must complete this mentoring / observation / evaluation program within the first two years on the job. Their certificates with the Ontario College of Teachers aren't given full status until the NTIP has been completed.
These are the reasons why this program should be extended an additional year regardless of who wins the election on Oct. 6.
One of the reasons mentioned by Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities John Milloy Wednesday is tricky. He cited how a two-year program would cut the number of graduates in half. Um, OK.Implied but not specifically stated in this is that instead of throwing 9,000 through per year, they'd throw half that number through and still only have 9,000 in total registered. It does little to address the four-plus years that universities and the college of teachers have been pumping out 9,000 grads a year into a highly oversaturated market-- but I do keep forgetting all those teacher-education grads are supposed to travel the world and feed teacher shortages in the places few Ontario teachers' college grads actually want to teach.
Some were also griping about the added cost of an additional year of teachers' college. Though I wholeheartedly agree the last reason anyone should get into teaching is money, this is a well-compensated profession in Ontario. If you can get full-time permanent work, you're set for life financially as long as you don't do silly things with your money.
Implementation is where this idea starts to get mired in the details. Aside from concurrent B.Ed programs, I'm only aware of a single two-year initial teacher education program in the province, which is the Masters of Teaching program I had the opportunity to shadow in Toronto. Universities will have a lot to say about whether they would accept a mandated two-year program for all.
The Ontario College of Teachers, which for all intents and purposes is the regulatory approval agency for teacher education in this province, would also need to approve -- or be told/regulated to approve.
These are not insurmountable odds and all parties should be signing on to this idea.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Hudak's FDK change of mind
Though I have a number of tabs open to blog about on the desktop, I'm hunkered down avoiding highway driving in torrential rain as this came across Twitter tonight. The Star's Queen's Park columnist Martin Regg Cohn posted this Wednesday evening with the details on Tim Hudak's change of heart on full-day kindergarten.
Meeting with Dr. Charles Pascal during my foray at Massey College, he was steadfast to what he's said about full-day kindergarten since day one. It's a program parents love and want. No party would dare touch it in the upcoming election— and this was mere weeks after Hudak came out with his quip on the first day of school saying the government was implementing a "Cadillac" version of the program.
Cohn gives Hudak a "middling mark" on FDK. Interestingly though, it perhaps shows why Witmer came to Brant a few weeks ago to peddle the hydro message and didn't say a word about education.
Sadly for people like me, it also means the pending election will be bereft of any K-12 education debate.
But Hudak had reflexively opposed full-day K when Premier Dalton McGuinty acted on the recommendation of his early-learning adviser, Charles Pascal.This comes as no surprise to me.
“When your credit card is maxed out, when you have no money in your bank account, Ontario families don’t go out and buy a shiny new car,” Hudak said last year. Full-day K “is just not affordable at this point in time.”
He refused to commit to any future rollout. It wasn’t just a matter of money — $1.4 billion a year by 2014 — but ideology and politics. Instead, Hudak held out a classic Tory alternative: putting cash in parents’ hands.
A PC survey asked voters about scrapping full-day K to “provide parents with direct financial support to allow them to choose the child-care option that works best for them.”
The answer came back that Ontarians actually liked full-day K. That’s also what MPPs were hearing from parents and school trustees in their ridings. With growing pushback from caucus, Hudak gave Witmer a hearing — but still didn’t heed his education critic.
That changed when the party did its own intensive polling. Witmer, who wears her social conscience on her sleeve, acknowledged privately to her education contacts that Tory focus groups showed overwhelming support.
Meeting with Dr. Charles Pascal during my foray at Massey College, he was steadfast to what he's said about full-day kindergarten since day one. It's a program parents love and want. No party would dare touch it in the upcoming election— and this was mere weeks after Hudak came out with his quip on the first day of school saying the government was implementing a "Cadillac" version of the program.
Cohn gives Hudak a "middling mark" on FDK. Interestingly though, it perhaps shows why Witmer came to Brant a few weeks ago to peddle the hydro message and didn't say a word about education.
Sadly for people like me, it also means the pending election will be bereft of any K-12 education debate.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Treading softly into the writ drop
It was an interesting week watching and reading coverage from the proceedings at the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario's annual meeting. I did so mostly through Twitter along with the various media outlets' coverage of the different speakers throughout the week.
As usual, I was left in awe by Moira MacDonald's insightful analysis in a few columns throughout the week from the floor of the conference. The first spoke of how the union is treading softly, "talking softly," MacDonald said, heading into the pending provincial election.
There was nothing earth-shattering in McGuinty's address, as he tried to cozy up to the federation while indicating strong support for continuing the Education Quality and Accountability Office testing the union so abhors, as well as investments in full-day kindergarten.
Ontario PC Party leader Tim Hudak wasn't invited to address the convention, but did send out an open letter to Ontario's teachers on the last day. I have that letter on my work laptop and will upload and link it here soon.
Add to the mix my own conversation with re-appointed First VP Susan Swackhammer (a Brantford resident) and it'll be interesting to see the road ahead. Rather than reaching the usual volume of rhetoric coming out of the convention, the federation is lying low. No doubt it will invest its dollars in ads and such during the pending campaign, but there's no bold statement on what it wants from government.
If the federation is getting better at its political strategies, it would lie low during this campaign-- should there be a change in government, and it won't be to the NDP the delegates swooned over on the same morning McGuinty spoke, it's best to save energy for the battles that may lie ahead. Those with longer memories will remember that the teachers' federations abandonment of the Ontario NDP in 1995 because of their opposition to the so-called social contract bit back in a huge way.
Members understandably want their wage parity back. They should carefully consider how to achieve that given it's very tough to argue for it in this economic and political climate regardless of what party's leader is sworn in as premier after Oct. 6. Had a different government been in power these last seven years, it's quite easy to conclude ETFO would be a smaller union than it is today thanks to continued declining enrolment. It's not and in fact has sustained if not grown its membership.
Hopefully they've pondered that.
As usual, I was left in awe by Moira MacDonald's insightful analysis in a few columns throughout the week from the floor of the conference. The first spoke of how the union is treading softly, "talking softly," MacDonald said, heading into the pending provincial election.
There was no fist-pounding or pumping. Maybe gambling one too many times with the government — and losing — especially in its 2008 contract talks, has sobered the union up or taught it to be poker-faced.Later in the week, she wrote about the awkwardness of Premier Dalton McGuinty's address to the union-- itself quite interesting. Other media outlets (here's the CBC's as an example) focused more on the messages in McGuinty's speech that fearmongered support for other parties. As far back as I can remember, the ETFO annual meeting has played host to education ministers and leaders of opposition parties, but this week was the first time McGuinty addressed the delegates and I can't remember Ernie Eves, Mike Harris or Bob Rae having done so.
At that time, combative previous president David Clegg (note, he’s not president anymore) headed a confusing campaign called “Close the Gap.”
It tried to put elementary teachers’ work conditions on par with high school teachers’, even though they’re two different jobs.
Great salary improvements, despite the 2008 global financial meltdown, were offered by the government, along with other perks.
But the union blew multiple government deadlines to achieve its demands and ended up with a 10.4% raise, not the 12.55% all other teachers got over the contract’s four years.
Instead of closing the gap, ETFO opened a new one between its members and others doing the same job.
There was nothing earth-shattering in McGuinty's address, as he tried to cozy up to the federation while indicating strong support for continuing the Education Quality and Accountability Office testing the union so abhors, as well as investments in full-day kindergarten.
Ontario PC Party leader Tim Hudak wasn't invited to address the convention, but did send out an open letter to Ontario's teachers on the last day. I have that letter on my work laptop and will upload and link it here soon.
Add to the mix my own conversation with re-appointed First VP Susan Swackhammer (a Brantford resident) and it'll be interesting to see the road ahead. Rather than reaching the usual volume of rhetoric coming out of the convention, the federation is lying low. No doubt it will invest its dollars in ads and such during the pending campaign, but there's no bold statement on what it wants from government.
If the federation is getting better at its political strategies, it would lie low during this campaign-- should there be a change in government, and it won't be to the NDP the delegates swooned over on the same morning McGuinty spoke, it's best to save energy for the battles that may lie ahead. Those with longer memories will remember that the teachers' federations abandonment of the Ontario NDP in 1995 because of their opposition to the so-called social contract bit back in a huge way.
Members understandably want their wage parity back. They should carefully consider how to achieve that given it's very tough to argue for it in this economic and political climate regardless of what party's leader is sworn in as premier after Oct. 6. Had a different government been in power these last seven years, it's quite easy to conclude ETFO would be a smaller union than it is today thanks to continued declining enrolment. It's not and in fact has sustained if not grown its membership.
Hopefully they've pondered that.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
A missed opportunity, maybe because you've got nothing to add
Got an advisory at work Monday regarding Ontario PC Party Kitchener-Waterloo MPP Elizabeth Witmer's drive-through appearance in Brantford on Tuesday morning. As I type this post Witmer's appearance is about 10 minutes away from starting, but she's the latest in a line of PC MPPs to drive through the riding of Brant in support of candidate Mike St. Amant, who's facing incumbent Liberal Dave Levac. I had the joy of covering Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod's drive-through visit last week.
I'll post our article once it's up on the web, post visit.
Here's what confused me: All the branding in the advisory suggested Witmer was coming to town to talk about hydro and energy rates.
Yeah. The Ontario PC Party sends the last education minister of its last government -- who also happens to be its current education critic -- to a riding to talk hydro rates.
Why not send Witmer into Brant to hammer away at the Liberal government's record on education? Is it because you've got nothing up your sleeve or in your pockets that could make any kind of impact on the education file? Of all the current MPPs I can't think of anyone who would be more experienced or qualified to chase the Liberals on education than Elizabeth Witmer.
She was the first person in government to start acting on the Rozanski report almost a decade ago, the first to realize the 1998 funding formula needed its tweaks to address some longstanding issues. I could go on.
I would think her talents are wasted in coming to Brantford to talk hydro. So have the PCs just given up campaigning on any education-related matters?
I'll post our article once it's up on the web, post visit.
Here's what confused me: All the branding in the advisory suggested Witmer was coming to town to talk about hydro and energy rates.
Yeah. The Ontario PC Party sends the last education minister of its last government -- who also happens to be its current education critic -- to a riding to talk hydro rates.
Why not send Witmer into Brant to hammer away at the Liberal government's record on education? Is it because you've got nothing up your sleeve or in your pockets that could make any kind of impact on the education file? Of all the current MPPs I can't think of anyone who would be more experienced or qualified to chase the Liberals on education than Elizabeth Witmer.
She was the first person in government to start acting on the Rozanski report almost a decade ago, the first to realize the 1998 funding formula needed its tweaks to address some longstanding issues. I could go on.
I would think her talents are wasted in coming to Brantford to talk hydro. So have the PCs just given up campaigning on any education-related matters?
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Anyone else doing the math?
This came to mind this week as I covered a pre-campaign event in Brantford, centred on energy bills. I was chatting with a staffer in the local PC candidate's campaign office and was mentioning how a former candidate for the Ontario Liberal Party nomination in my former coverage area (Oxford), a trustee, very quickly mentioned the government's investment in schools in the riding.
A colleague at the Sentinel-Review had asked this very question earlier this year and was working on an article (that I do hope she publishes at some point) in regards to what the dollar value of capital (not including Good Places to Learn and school-renewal funds) investment in schools is within the riding.
Given some institutional memory, I was able to rhyme off some very quick numbers to reach a number between $85 and $90 million between the three local school boards.
I wasn't that far off-- the number is approximately $92 million invested since 2001.
In a nutshell, that includes a new K-12 French school opening in September, a new K-8 school on a greenfield site, a new K-8 consolidated school and significant expansions to 12 other elementary and two high schools. With one exception, these projects were all since moving away from the old pupil-places capital funding program under the PC government from 1998-2004 to the various capital funding schemes that have existed since under the Liberals.
As an example, the town where I reside (Ingersoll), as of the completion of construction later this year, will have no K-8 school whose facilities haven't been significantly rebuilt or built since 2003. There's some $20 million to $26 million of school construction and renewal in this village alone since 2002-03.
In the riding overall, that's not a bad record to be running on given the last new school to be built in the riding prior to the current government opened in 1996. A big part of this is how aggressively the Thames Valley DSB moved to go through school-closure committees (the board has completed its third round of these, ahead of any other board in the province that I'm aware of) and work with the province to secure capital funding so that every student displaced by a school closure was moving to a school that was in better condition and a better physical learning environment than the one they left.
Before you start typing the "but" comments, I am very aware this came at a cost.
The new schools and expansions happened after the closure of nine schools since 2005. Communities that had a school in some cases no longer do-- one township (South-West Oxford), had a K-3 and K-8 school in its northern stretch and as of this fall will have none in the entire township. In a locally very controversial move, a 9-12 high school with between 200-250 students at the time was closed in the Village of Norwich. The impacts of those decisions can't even be measured yet, but will start to become visible over the next few years.
The point here is who's out there doing this math? Off the top of my head and without doing some digging, I wouldn't be able to state what the number is in the riding where I now work (Brant). I wonder how many other reporters out there would ask the same questions, regardless of who currently holds the riding.
These numbers might be interested to know and would add another education discussion to the election conversation that, as far as education goes, is looking like it will be all about implementing full-day kindergarten.
A colleague at the Sentinel-Review had asked this very question earlier this year and was working on an article (that I do hope she publishes at some point) in regards to what the dollar value of capital (not including Good Places to Learn and school-renewal funds) investment in schools is within the riding.
Given some institutional memory, I was able to rhyme off some very quick numbers to reach a number between $85 and $90 million between the three local school boards.
I wasn't that far off-- the number is approximately $92 million invested since 2001.
In a nutshell, that includes a new K-12 French school opening in September, a new K-8 school on a greenfield site, a new K-8 consolidated school and significant expansions to 12 other elementary and two high schools. With one exception, these projects were all since moving away from the old pupil-places capital funding program under the PC government from 1998-2004 to the various capital funding schemes that have existed since under the Liberals.
As an example, the town where I reside (Ingersoll), as of the completion of construction later this year, will have no K-8 school whose facilities haven't been significantly rebuilt or built since 2003. There's some $20 million to $26 million of school construction and renewal in this village alone since 2002-03.
In the riding overall, that's not a bad record to be running on given the last new school to be built in the riding prior to the current government opened in 1996. A big part of this is how aggressively the Thames Valley DSB moved to go through school-closure committees (the board has completed its third round of these, ahead of any other board in the province that I'm aware of) and work with the province to secure capital funding so that every student displaced by a school closure was moving to a school that was in better condition and a better physical learning environment than the one they left.
Before you start typing the "but" comments, I am very aware this came at a cost.
The new schools and expansions happened after the closure of nine schools since 2005. Communities that had a school in some cases no longer do-- one township (South-West Oxford), had a K-3 and K-8 school in its northern stretch and as of this fall will have none in the entire township. In a locally very controversial move, a 9-12 high school with between 200-250 students at the time was closed in the Village of Norwich. The impacts of those decisions can't even be measured yet, but will start to become visible over the next few years.
The point here is who's out there doing this math? Off the top of my head and without doing some digging, I wouldn't be able to state what the number is in the riding where I now work (Brant). I wonder how many other reporters out there would ask the same questions, regardless of who currently holds the riding.
These numbers might be interested to know and would add another education discussion to the election conversation that, as far as education goes, is looking like it will be all about implementing full-day kindergarten.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Biting off one's nose to save one's faith?
There was a delicious development in the Catholic schools vs. equity and inclusiveness policy saga Monday, as Coptic Christian families with children enrolled in Toronto Catholic DSB schools threatened to pull their kids from schools. Here's the Star's article.
Well, first it adds an interesting element for Catholic trustees who might be swayed by the threat into taking a stand on the provincial policy and developing board policy that isn't consistent with what's coming from the ministry. If they care about the loss of students, then they might be willing to fight to keep these students and bend to the Coptic church's wishes.
For the families in question I'm left wondering how serious a threat they're willing to act upon. Sure, 4,000 kids is enough to setup a few private schools. Families may be willing to pay and the church may be willing to fundraise to run these schools, which would be faith-based private schools.
The article correctly and rightly points out that public schools wouldn't be an option for these families opposed to the policy, as they've already enacted it. The interesting part is that unless the families leave the province or stop paying taxes altogether, they'll still financially be supporting the policy they abhor.
The money the families already pay to support the publicly funded school system would still be recovered by the province through taxation and just end up supporting the very system that's adopting the very equity and inclusiveness policy they don't like-- meaning regardless of where they educate their children, they're still supporting a publicly funded system even if the TCDSB isn't getting the per-pupil funding for their kids.
Pulling their kids is perhaps more damaging to the public funding of the Catholic education system in the long run. If the publicly funded system doesn't meet their needs, then why fund a faith-based publicly funded system to begin with? Have a singular secular system and those families that believe a faith-based instruction is essential for their children can do so within the private-school system.
So while the families might think their threat pushes the province towards dropping the requirement that Catholic boards enforce the policy, it only adds fuel to the fire of those who might wish to eliminate those boards altogether.
The final kick? The call isn't supported by the Canadian Egyptian Congress.
But (Fr. Jeremiah) Attaalla said the Coptic Church is vehemently opposed to any education about homosexuality. Attaalla wrote a letter on behalf of four Coptic churches in the city to the Toronto Catholic school board demanding that the teachings remain true to Catholicism.So the elements that are delicious?
“Our members do not want gay-straight alliance groups in our Catholic schools,” Attaalla said. “We will pull our children from the Catholic schools if they go ahead with it.”
The Church said it has 4,000 families with children currently attending Toronto Catholic schools. The board purportedly receives $8,000 to $10,000 in public money for each student, which means this could cost the board up to $40 million.
Well, first it adds an interesting element for Catholic trustees who might be swayed by the threat into taking a stand on the provincial policy and developing board policy that isn't consistent with what's coming from the ministry. If they care about the loss of students, then they might be willing to fight to keep these students and bend to the Coptic church's wishes.
For the families in question I'm left wondering how serious a threat they're willing to act upon. Sure, 4,000 kids is enough to setup a few private schools. Families may be willing to pay and the church may be willing to fundraise to run these schools, which would be faith-based private schools.
The article correctly and rightly points out that public schools wouldn't be an option for these families opposed to the policy, as they've already enacted it. The interesting part is that unless the families leave the province or stop paying taxes altogether, they'll still financially be supporting the policy they abhor.
The money the families already pay to support the publicly funded school system would still be recovered by the province through taxation and just end up supporting the very system that's adopting the very equity and inclusiveness policy they don't like-- meaning regardless of where they educate their children, they're still supporting a publicly funded system even if the TCDSB isn't getting the per-pupil funding for their kids.
Pulling their kids is perhaps more damaging to the public funding of the Catholic education system in the long run. If the publicly funded system doesn't meet their needs, then why fund a faith-based publicly funded system to begin with? Have a singular secular system and those families that believe a faith-based instruction is essential for their children can do so within the private-school system.
So while the families might think their threat pushes the province towards dropping the requirement that Catholic boards enforce the policy, it only adds fuel to the fire of those who might wish to eliminate those boards altogether.
The final kick? The call isn't supported by the Canadian Egyptian Congress.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Tory op-ed piece on education
I have no idea if this is just one of many salvos the Ontario Progressive Conservatives are preparing to launch in the coming months on education, but it definitely caught my eye. In this case, it was Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett's name under the headline in the Tillsonburg News.
Some of this op-ed doesn't really read as though Barrett wrote it himself— and I've met the man a few times so I think I can tell. The question I'm left with is whether this is something sent from PC head office for all MPPs that have op-ed columns in papers across the province or is more of a runoff.
The part that excites me is that it also starts to present what a Tory platform on education could look like. Since it's received nary a mention in the PC Changebook— well, except for a bullet point that's identical to the headline on the column above. That's exciting because the Liberals are showing all the signs that while they are developing counterpoints to the higher-traction items such as hydro, they're going to want to lead on education.
While the education budget increased 35 per cent over the past eight years, salaries and benefits for Ministry of Education bureaucrats went up 62 per cent. The number of education administrators who earn more than $100,000 a year increased by 181 per cent over the same period. This is unacceptable and robs resources from the classroom.The column also quotes from a 2008 People for Education report on schools regarding the funding formula review that never really quite happened as promised. It also speaks to giving teachers more freedom and a restoration of the fall report card that is now a fall "progress report."
Another concern is every year parents are paying over half a billion dollars for essential learning tools, such as textbooks and science equipment. This means parents with two children in school are paying an additional $570 annually.
Apart from yearly funding increases, there are other measures required to make our public education system better than it is now. Education is not a one-size-fits-all system. Schools in different parts of Ontario have different and unique needs.
Some of this op-ed doesn't really read as though Barrett wrote it himself— and I've met the man a few times so I think I can tell. The question I'm left with is whether this is something sent from PC head office for all MPPs that have op-ed columns in papers across the province or is more of a runoff.
The part that excites me is that it also starts to present what a Tory platform on education could look like. Since it's received nary a mention in the PC Changebook— well, except for a bullet point that's identical to the headline on the column above. That's exciting because the Liberals are showing all the signs that while they are developing counterpoints to the higher-traction items such as hydro, they're going to want to lead on education.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Capital priorities
This article by Nathan Taylor at the Orillia Packet and Times (though the link is from the Barrie Examiner) does a good job of explaining the current fiscal and approval realities for capital construction in this day and age in Ontario.
Boards are routinely submitting and updating their capital priorities 'template' where they make business cases for particular capital projects-- be they new schools, school renovations or school expansions.
As Taylor's work shows, the ranking submitted by boards isn't always that given priority by the province.
Boards are routinely submitting and updating their capital priorities 'template' where they make business cases for particular capital projects-- be they new schools, school renovations or school expansions.
As Taylor's work shows, the ranking submitted by boards isn't always that given priority by the province.
While local trustees would like to see the government fund the Orillia priority — a new high school to amalgamate Orillia District Collegiate and Vocational Institute and Park Street Collegiate Institute — it's not surprising that a new Bradford school has been approved.
"There's a huge growth occurring, which isn't the case in Orillia," Edwards said of enrolment.
But it is an election year, and "interesting things can happen," she said.
"Let the games begin."
Jodi Lloyd, trustee for Ramara, Severn and Tay townships, said the funding for Bradford "is great," but she is still waiting on the Ministry of Education to provide an explanation as to why the Orillia project has not been funded.
"If it wasn't selected in this round, why not? And what is required to get the funding?" she wondered.
This is where board politics and ministry / provincial politics may be colliding. Are there more votes in Bradford? Maybe. Or, as has been mentioned in the past when the Simcoe County DSB missed out on an entire round of capital funding, do the board's priorities simply contain more politics than reason?
Monday, July 11, 2011
A campaign briefly centred on education
A week ago today, it seemed as though the front was opening for a 2011 Ontario campaign defined by education. Ministers Leona Dombrowsky (Education) and John Milloy (Training, Colleges and Universities), took to the podium at the legislature's media studio to tout progress in education over the past two terms of the Liberal government. This as the provincial government released the first in a series of progress report cards on how it sees itself doing in key areas. The education progress report is here, with the PDF here.
Overall it's a lot of high-fiving and back-patting amongst the government and its Liberal Party for a job well done. It points out measures such as 68% of students meeting the provincial standard — defined as a "B average" for the first time I've noticed it in print —in the Grade 3/6 standardized tests, along with pointing out that 50,000 more students are meeting the standard than when the Liberals took office in 2003. It has several nods to the first years of implementing the full-day kindergarten program, as well as the completed primary class size initiative that has reduced student teacher ratios in 90% of the province's classrooms to 20:1. Not to mention the increased graduation rates, which the Liberals are attributing to their portfolio of 'Learning to 18' programs and initiatives. High school grad rates sat at 81% as of the the 2009-10 school year.
It was no doubt a calculated move to kickstart this series of progress reports with education. Especially given the opportunity to poke at the other issues (hydro, the economy) that comes so much easier. With a few small exceptions here and there over the past seven years, the opposition parties have been pretty much silent when it comes to education. The Progressive Conservatives, burnt by this platform in both 2003 and 2007 have not appeared eager to engage the Liberals on this. The NDP haven't touched it substantially either.
The challenge though, as indicated by People for Education's Annie Kidder on the day of in a CBC Radio report (and likely elsewhere) by Mike Crawley (sorry, can't seem to find a link) is that when things are going OK in education, it's not a sexy issue. They're preaching to the choir on that one, considering the reasons this space exists, but it's a valid point. Who's going to come out and, in the midst of a campaign, actually admit they're going to slash the education budget? Or that they're going to cancel one of the programs or initiatives this government has implemented?
The most excitable we might get is the doom-and-gloom scenarios coming from the Liberals trying to scare people into not voting for someone else. Dombrowsky gave a taste of that in the media conference on July 4, and it's not good campaigning (yet).
The Liberals' lead plank in both their 2003 and 2007 platforms was education, so it's no surprise they're leading with it again in 2011. However in both elections I don't think it was the ballot-box question— despite the impact of John Tory's faith-based plank on his campaign.
As much as I'd like it to, I don't see it being the ballot-box question in 2011 either.
Overall it's a lot of high-fiving and back-patting amongst the government and its Liberal Party for a job well done. It points out measures such as 68% of students meeting the provincial standard — defined as a "B average" for the first time I've noticed it in print —in the Grade 3/6 standardized tests, along with pointing out that 50,000 more students are meeting the standard than when the Liberals took office in 2003. It has several nods to the first years of implementing the full-day kindergarten program, as well as the completed primary class size initiative that has reduced student teacher ratios in 90% of the province's classrooms to 20:1. Not to mention the increased graduation rates, which the Liberals are attributing to their portfolio of 'Learning to 18' programs and initiatives. High school grad rates sat at 81% as of the the 2009-10 school year.
It was no doubt a calculated move to kickstart this series of progress reports with education. Especially given the opportunity to poke at the other issues (hydro, the economy) that comes so much easier. With a few small exceptions here and there over the past seven years, the opposition parties have been pretty much silent when it comes to education. The Progressive Conservatives, burnt by this platform in both 2003 and 2007 have not appeared eager to engage the Liberals on this. The NDP haven't touched it substantially either.
The challenge though, as indicated by People for Education's Annie Kidder on the day of in a CBC Radio report (and likely elsewhere) by Mike Crawley (sorry, can't seem to find a link) is that when things are going OK in education, it's not a sexy issue. They're preaching to the choir on that one, considering the reasons this space exists, but it's a valid point. Who's going to come out and, in the midst of a campaign, actually admit they're going to slash the education budget? Or that they're going to cancel one of the programs or initiatives this government has implemented?
The most excitable we might get is the doom-and-gloom scenarios coming from the Liberals trying to scare people into not voting for someone else. Dombrowsky gave a taste of that in the media conference on July 4, and it's not good campaigning (yet).
The Liberals' lead plank in both their 2003 and 2007 platforms was education, so it's no surprise they're leading with it again in 2011. However in both elections I don't think it was the ballot-box question— despite the impact of John Tory's faith-based plank on his campaign.
As much as I'd like it to, I don't see it being the ballot-box question in 2011 either.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Reading into the next 10 years
The Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure released its 10-year plan for infrastructure growth in the province earlier today.
Of particular interest to me (of course) was the section on education. The overwhelming theme I keep hearing in this part of the province, which echoes my own suspicions, is that after the current round of school-closure reviews is completed, there will be next to nothing available for school boards to do capital improvements to schools not related to implementing the full-day kindergarten program.
I liked this chart, which I've embedded off the online report's page. Enrolment vs. investment in capital.
To quote from the report:
Consolidations and closures will likely still exist in the education vocabulary. This also shows a focus on modernizing learning spaces, recognition there's still a lot of school buildings out there built in the 1950s and early 1960s that have been superceded by more modern learning spaces that are more amenable to the tools teachers and students use inside and outside the classroom today.
Of particular interest to me (of course) was the section on education. The overwhelming theme I keep hearing in this part of the province, which echoes my own suspicions, is that after the current round of school-closure reviews is completed, there will be next to nothing available for school boards to do capital improvements to schools not related to implementing the full-day kindergarten program.
I liked this chart, which I've embedded off the online report's page. Enrolment vs. investment in capital.
To quote from the report:
Moving forwardSo this means more French-language schools in communities that have the demand for them -- mine is included as the board is about to open a brand-spanking-new K-12 facility for approximately 350 students. The province is in the midst of updating its databases on school condition assessments and boards have been working on these elements as well as they submit their business cases for capital funding to the ministry.
Over the next 10 years, Ontario will work with school boards to:
- Ensure a system of elementary and secondary schools that meets present and future needs.
- Continue capital investment to support underserved French-language rights-holders.
- Base renewal funding decisions on school condition assessments and asset management plans, and work towards setting state-of-good-repair targets. This change will enable school boards to undertake projects to address the backlog of repairs in the most cost-effective way.
Consolidations and closures will likely still exist in the education vocabulary. This also shows a focus on modernizing learning spaces, recognition there's still a lot of school buildings out there built in the 1950s and early 1960s that have been superceded by more modern learning spaces that are more amenable to the tools teachers and students use inside and outside the classroom today.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
More FDK implementation details
Since my return full-day kindergarten has held a few good headlines. The Toronto Star's Kristin Rushowy and the Globe and Mail's Kate Hammer approached space/capacity issues from opposite ends of the spectrum. Rushowy's piece spoke to students in intermediate grades being pushed into high schools to free up classrooms for FDK classes, whereas Hammer dealt with an expected increase in kindergarten-Grade 1 split classes in schools where the number of students don't add up in groups of 26, or simply aren't large enough to form a standalone kindergarten class.
In both cases, the ministry and minister have been giving boards the same consistent message on accommodation issues-- make your own decisions. These sorts of quandaries aren't new-- for example, the Catholic schools in suburban Ottawa went K-6 and 7-13 in the late 1980s after full funding was implemented because many elementary schools didn't have space for the intermediate grades when all the junior high schools became high schools.
They're also rightly in the hands of the district school boards. Bricks-and-mortar answers, even if the questions are largely framed by the province, should be answered locally. School organization -- which has always varied depending on where you live and when you went to school -- is also a very local issue that deserves to remain so.
When the primary class size initiative was being implemented, boards were faced with similar accommodation challenges as they tried to meet the 20:1 cap in 90% of classes without exceeding the average class-size caps for junior and intermediate grades or building expansions they weren't getting the money to fund.
In that case, boards were required to tell the ministry what they needed. For the most part the requests were funded and at the end of full implementation a number of boards had leftover capital dollars for primary class size that they had to return to the ministry or get reallocated under a different capital-program label. So for FDK the ministry appears to be more cautious on how it's allocating capital, and holding back on any announcements until the schools have been announced.
The question of capital has always been around since the FDK program was introduced and it may prove to be its messiest to answer as the program is implemented. The ministry does ask for and receive capital planning information from school boards, with particular attention to FDK in the past two years so that it knows what the request for capital is. Yet it's never been completely transparent on any estimates it might have as to what the total capital budget for full implementation over the five years might be. The Toronto Sun's Moira MacDonald got into this in her most recent column as Minister Leona Dombrowsky answered her question from a previous column in a letter to the editor (it's the first one listed here). The figure quoted is $1.5 billion / year operational budget at full rollout, with $1.5 billion in capital needed to get there. With about half the school sites announced, about a third of the capital has been allocated. The real work remains ahead.
In both cases, the ministry and minister have been giving boards the same consistent message on accommodation issues-- make your own decisions. These sorts of quandaries aren't new-- for example, the Catholic schools in suburban Ottawa went K-6 and 7-13 in the late 1980s after full funding was implemented because many elementary schools didn't have space for the intermediate grades when all the junior high schools became high schools.
They're also rightly in the hands of the district school boards. Bricks-and-mortar answers, even if the questions are largely framed by the province, should be answered locally. School organization -- which has always varied depending on where you live and when you went to school -- is also a very local issue that deserves to remain so.
When the primary class size initiative was being implemented, boards were faced with similar accommodation challenges as they tried to meet the 20:1 cap in 90% of classes without exceeding the average class-size caps for junior and intermediate grades or building expansions they weren't getting the money to fund.
In that case, boards were required to tell the ministry what they needed. For the most part the requests were funded and at the end of full implementation a number of boards had leftover capital dollars for primary class size that they had to return to the ministry or get reallocated under a different capital-program label. So for FDK the ministry appears to be more cautious on how it's allocating capital, and holding back on any announcements until the schools have been announced.
The question of capital has always been around since the FDK program was introduced and it may prove to be its messiest to answer as the program is implemented. The ministry does ask for and receive capital planning information from school boards, with particular attention to FDK in the past two years so that it knows what the request for capital is. Yet it's never been completely transparent on any estimates it might have as to what the total capital budget for full implementation over the five years might be. The Toronto Sun's Moira MacDonald got into this in her most recent column as Minister Leona Dombrowsky answered her question from a previous column in a letter to the editor (it's the first one listed here). The figure quoted is $1.5 billion / year operational budget at full rollout, with $1.5 billion in capital needed to get there. With about half the school sites announced, about a third of the capital has been allocated. The real work remains ahead.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Budget: +4.5% for Ministry of Education
Having perused the full budget documents, the details (such as they are available in a budget) are always found in the nether regions of the full budget papers. Specifically, the pages I always enjoy perusing are the independent sections dealing with each subject matter such as education (duh), municipalities and any new revenue sources. Then I always take a look at the budget charts that have the actual detail-- in particular the overall budget lines for each ministry. I've extracted the pages and put them on GoogleDocs, however they're also helpfully here, here and here.
So what do they show for the Ministry of Education? Let's keep in mind these figures include all grants for student needs and ministry spending on things such as the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat and related agencies such as the Education Quality and Accountability Office.
The actual numbers for 2008-09 are $20.471 billion and in 2009-10 $21.177 billion. That's a 3.4% increase for the years before implementation of the full-day kindergarten program.
The expected number for 2010-11 is $22.2086 billion -- a 4.8% increase in the first year of FDK implementation.
The budget figure for 2011-12 is $23.2203 billion -- a 4.5% increase.
That may look like a lot of money, and it is. However, you need to subtract 3% of that increase right away as all wages across the sector are rising by that amount for 2011-12 (even for the public elementary teachers whose provincial union botched the first two years' wage increases). Add to that a smaller number of schools coming into FDK this fall, but it's another chunk of money. That leaves very little behind for operational needs next year. The grants for student needs are being released at the end of the week, so some more detail should be forthcoming, but I completely expect several school boards will be net-zero increases once you take wage increases into account.
Capital (the third page on GoogleDocs or here) is separate and shows an increase from 2010-11 projected of $1.822 billion to a 2011-12 budget of $2.121 billion -- a 16% increase. So the overall increase when the GSNs are released will be padded by this capital figure.
My one regret is I'm going on hiatus towards the end of the week as my transition from Massey College to a working reality means I'll be away for the grants and all that follows.
So what do they show for the Ministry of Education? Let's keep in mind these figures include all grants for student needs and ministry spending on things such as the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat and related agencies such as the Education Quality and Accountability Office.
The actual numbers for 2008-09 are $20.471 billion and in 2009-10 $21.177 billion. That's a 3.4% increase for the years before implementation of the full-day kindergarten program.
The expected number for 2010-11 is $22.2086 billion -- a 4.8% increase in the first year of FDK implementation.
The budget figure for 2011-12 is $23.2203 billion -- a 4.5% increase.
That may look like a lot of money, and it is. However, you need to subtract 3% of that increase right away as all wages across the sector are rising by that amount for 2011-12 (even for the public elementary teachers whose provincial union botched the first two years' wage increases). Add to that a smaller number of schools coming into FDK this fall, but it's another chunk of money. That leaves very little behind for operational needs next year. The grants for student needs are being released at the end of the week, so some more detail should be forthcoming, but I completely expect several school boards will be net-zero increases once you take wage increases into account.
Capital (the third page on GoogleDocs or here) is separate and shows an increase from 2010-11 projected of $1.822 billion to a 2011-12 budget of $2.121 billion -- a 16% increase. So the overall increase when the GSNs are released will be padded by this capital figure.
My one regret is I'm going on hiatus towards the end of the week as my transition from Massey College to a working reality means I'll be away for the grants and all that follows.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Fraser mumblings
The Frasier Institute rankings (possibly the only thing hated by educators more than media coverage of Education Quality and Accountability Office results) were released on the weekend, with exclusive day one coverage by the Toronto Sunday Sun. The Sun's copy was picked up by most of the other Ontario papers in the chain for Monday editions, as the province's two Suns in Toronto and Ottawa are the only papers in the chain that have Sunday editions.
The writers over at Our Kids Blog also took a stab at the coverage, in a piece that scratched a little deeper below the surface than the lead article in the Sun coverage did.
The Sun's take on the results is that despite billions more in K-12 education-sector spending the EQAO results upon which the rankings are based haven't seen a corollary increase.
I remember the days I used to write Frasier Institute report articles. Then I got busy with other beats and, armed with the knowledge no local school officials would comment meaningfully on the results, was happy to let the provincial coverage take the day.
Just as there are in EQAO results and the Society for Quality Education's Sunshine on Schools, there is value in the Frasier Institute data. It's what's done with the data that matters-- FI uses it to rank schools, fairly or not.
The ministry and boards use EQAO data to help make decisions on programming and resources.
As to the Sun's point -- billions more for little results -- given most of the increases went to wages and benefits, I'm OK with that for the moment. It'll be a different conversation when an increasing number of teachers are in the $100K club (coming soon to every school board near you thanks to agreements currently in place) but given their role I'm OK with that for now as well.
The writers over at Our Kids Blog also took a stab at the coverage, in a piece that scratched a little deeper below the surface than the lead article in the Sun coverage did.
The Sun's take on the results is that despite billions more in K-12 education-sector spending the EQAO results upon which the rankings are based haven't seen a corollary increase.
But with all the extra money that has gone into schools under Premier Dalton McGuinty — he's ramped up spending to $20.2 billion in 2009-10 from $14.4 billion in 2002-03 in his quest to be the Education Premier — the results are thin, (the Institute's Michael) Thomas said.The Sun coverage drew a quick response from the minister, whose office sent out an open letter to the Frasier Institute by e-mail on Monday. I've tossed the e-mail up on my GoogleDocs.
"If that's going on, we would expect to see more than a slow steady increase," he said.
"I can't make any sense of the extra money that's going into education, where it's going, what initiatives. It seems to be a little bit more unfocused, than spending before."
I remember the days I used to write Frasier Institute report articles. Then I got busy with other beats and, armed with the knowledge no local school officials would comment meaningfully on the results, was happy to let the provincial coverage take the day.
Just as there are in EQAO results and the Society for Quality Education's Sunshine on Schools, there is value in the Frasier Institute data. It's what's done with the data that matters-- FI uses it to rank schools, fairly or not.
The ministry and boards use EQAO data to help make decisions on programming and resources.
As to the Sun's point -- billions more for little results -- given most of the increases went to wages and benefits, I'm OK with that for the moment. It'll be a different conversation when an increasing number of teachers are in the $100K club (coming soon to every school board near you thanks to agreements currently in place) but given their role I'm OK with that for now as well.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
FDK roundup
The past week has been a big week for full-day kindergarten in Ontario, with the province's announcement of another 900 schools that will host the program starting in the third year of its implementation in September 2012.
The coverage has been virtually provincewide, as every media outlet reported on the schools in their coverage area that would host the program's third phase. The running total on the number of schools that will have the program by September 2012 is approximately half of all publicly funded elementary schools in the province.
Some notable coverage that jumped out at me-- likely because it went beyond just listing school names and a program description:
Probably the biggest element is that the government can't be flamed every time it makes an adjustment to its original plan during this five-year implementation. Giving flexibility to address existing children's services agencies' offerings in schools and the reality of program implementation in remote regions shouldn't equal getting tarred and feathered for 'flip-flopping.'
That said, I did think it rich that Progressive Conservative education critic (and the party's last education minister) Elizabeth Witmer was trying to get mileage out of slamming the Liberal line that Conservatives would kill off implementing the rest of the program. For a party that has only made vehicular references ("Cadillac program") to the full-day kindergarten program it was a bit much to critique the Liberals' attempts to paint Tory policy. Especially when, to its credit, the government was talking full-day kindergarten consistently last Wednesday while the opposition was moaning about hydro. I guess they didn't get the memo, so the response could only come the following day.
Leaving the program at 50% implementation would be a disaster. Let's see what alternatives, if any, arise in the coming months.
With all the coverage, I'm still not seeing anything substantial that comes back to the families who spoke to the media in September when the kiddies started school. I'm also not seeing anything that attempts to describe play-based learning.
Somewhat related, I started working on something fun related to this yesterday. I'll unveil it here when it's done.
The coverage has been virtually provincewide, as every media outlet reported on the schools in their coverage area that would host the program's third phase. The running total on the number of schools that will have the program by September 2012 is approximately half of all publicly funded elementary schools in the province.
Some notable coverage that jumped out at me-- likely because it went beyond just listing school names and a program description:
- An article on Liberal MPP Bob Chiarelli's letters to media sent to journos by the OLP research department in PC ridings (I got my own);
- An editorial from QMI Agency;
- The Star on how the parties are doing with FDK as an election issue; and,
- The North Bay Nugget on FDK for small, remote schools.
Probably the biggest element is that the government can't be flamed every time it makes an adjustment to its original plan during this five-year implementation. Giving flexibility to address existing children's services agencies' offerings in schools and the reality of program implementation in remote regions shouldn't equal getting tarred and feathered for 'flip-flopping.'
That said, I did think it rich that Progressive Conservative education critic (and the party's last education minister) Elizabeth Witmer was trying to get mileage out of slamming the Liberal line that Conservatives would kill off implementing the rest of the program. For a party that has only made vehicular references ("Cadillac program") to the full-day kindergarten program it was a bit much to critique the Liberals' attempts to paint Tory policy. Especially when, to its credit, the government was talking full-day kindergarten consistently last Wednesday while the opposition was moaning about hydro. I guess they didn't get the memo, so the response could only come the following day.
Leaving the program at 50% implementation would be a disaster. Let's see what alternatives, if any, arise in the coming months.
With all the coverage, I'm still not seeing anything substantial that comes back to the families who spoke to the media in September when the kiddies started school. I'm also not seeing anything that attempts to describe play-based learning.
Somewhat related, I started working on something fun related to this yesterday. I'll unveil it here when it's done.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Bring back a mill rate?
Caught this the day it was published in the Star, but have been distracted by other things. In the meantime, also noticed it was picked up in the comments of a different post.
Former infrastucture minister David Caplan has proposed school boards be, again, allowed to establish a levy on property taxes within Ontario for local purposes. Just to clarify, this would be on top of the 10% to 20% of your property tax bill that your municipality already passes onto the province for education.
Caplan, a former cabinet member, is certainly aware of how the ministry of education runs its capital programs. He should, therefor, know that school boards have been submitting rolling capital plans to the ministry for at least the last four years. They know (or, they should know) what state all of their facilities are in and what the priority projects are. The Good Places to Learn program was already supposed to address the most urgent of these renewal and repair needs (and there's been three? four? rounds already) over the past five years or so.
Some boards didn't put some schools on GPTL or other renewal funding lists because if you use GPTL funding on a school that facility should be excluded from being a candidate for closure.
Others have too many vacant pupil spaces, forcing them, until they're able to consolidate some facilities, to spend more of the benchmarked funding to maintain and operate facilities and less on maintenance and repair.
Second, I seriously doubt this private member's bill will go anywhere beyond first reading, with the writ about to be dropped in about six months.
Further, Caplan should at least be somewhat aware that in many parts of the province the education portion of property taxes is decreasing. Two provincial budgets ago, the province announced reductions in the percentage rates for industrial and commercial properties, that pay a larger percentage of their property taxes for education than residential owners do.
When it comes to new growth schools, boards still have the power to establish education development charges-- meaning they can collect a fee when a new lot is registered to put towards new-school construction. However they can't do that if they have too much existing vacant space.
Boards have also been receiving declining-enrolment grants, but those are drying up as they were never meant to be permanent, just stop-gap funding to allow boards to reduce enrolment-related expenses in areas such as its capital programs and utilities costs.
Does Caplan really want boards to plead with municipalities to add up to 5% onto tax bills?
I'm surprised it hasn't drawn an immediate reaction from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, since its members would take the heat for the increased bills, not the province.
Lastly, Caplan's claim that boards don't have a stable revenue source is laughable. With a small adjustment here or there, any board that has been doing its planning properly knows exactly what it's reasonable to expect until about 2013-14. Combined with the capital planning they've been expected to undertake in the last five years, no board should be lost here.
Whether they've been making the best decisions on capital is another possibility altogether-- but an extra 5% won't fix that problem.
Former infrastucture minister David Caplan has proposed school boards be, again, allowed to establish a levy on property taxes within Ontario for local purposes. Just to clarify, this would be on top of the 10% to 20% of your property tax bill that your municipality already passes onto the province for education.
Caplan’s bill would have the minister of education create a capital plan forcing school boards to identify what needs to be fixed. Boards could then raise an additional 5 per cent of their annual revenue from property taxpayers.I'm puzzled by so many parts of this.
In Toronto, that would collect an additional $100 million annually.
“That is a far cry from what they need. However, it would start to get them on the way with a stable revenue source to begin to make a dent in it,” he said.
Mindful that property tax hikes are never popular, Caplan insisted for most homeowners it would be $2 or $3 and more for business operators.
“It’s literally a cup of coffee … on your property tax bill,” the MPP said, adding the repairs will only get more costly.
Caplan, a former cabinet member, is certainly aware of how the ministry of education runs its capital programs. He should, therefor, know that school boards have been submitting rolling capital plans to the ministry for at least the last four years. They know (or, they should know) what state all of their facilities are in and what the priority projects are. The Good Places to Learn program was already supposed to address the most urgent of these renewal and repair needs (and there's been three? four? rounds already) over the past five years or so.
Some boards didn't put some schools on GPTL or other renewal funding lists because if you use GPTL funding on a school that facility should be excluded from being a candidate for closure.
Others have too many vacant pupil spaces, forcing them, until they're able to consolidate some facilities, to spend more of the benchmarked funding to maintain and operate facilities and less on maintenance and repair.
Second, I seriously doubt this private member's bill will go anywhere beyond first reading, with the writ about to be dropped in about six months.
Further, Caplan should at least be somewhat aware that in many parts of the province the education portion of property taxes is decreasing. Two provincial budgets ago, the province announced reductions in the percentage rates for industrial and commercial properties, that pay a larger percentage of their property taxes for education than residential owners do.
When it comes to new growth schools, boards still have the power to establish education development charges-- meaning they can collect a fee when a new lot is registered to put towards new-school construction. However they can't do that if they have too much existing vacant space.
Boards have also been receiving declining-enrolment grants, but those are drying up as they were never meant to be permanent, just stop-gap funding to allow boards to reduce enrolment-related expenses in areas such as its capital programs and utilities costs.
Does Caplan really want boards to plead with municipalities to add up to 5% onto tax bills?
I'm surprised it hasn't drawn an immediate reaction from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, since its members would take the heat for the increased bills, not the province.
Lastly, Caplan's claim that boards don't have a stable revenue source is laughable. With a small adjustment here or there, any board that has been doing its planning properly knows exactly what it's reasonable to expect until about 2013-14. Combined with the capital planning they've been expected to undertake in the last five years, no board should be lost here.
Whether they've been making the best decisions on capital is another possibility altogether-- but an extra 5% won't fix that problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
