In recent weeks, as school boards have been preparing and debating their budgets for the coming year, there has been a lot of public discussion about whether government is fulfilling its agreement to fund teachers' salary increases. To repeat what I have said many times to school boards, teachers, reporters, and anyone else who will listen: government made a commitment in the five year agreement and we are not backing away from that commitment. Government will fund these salary increases.
Albertans are well aware that our province is weathering the same global recession that all other jurisdictions in the world face, and though we are well positioned to do so — indeed, among the best prepared in the world — we must still take prudent and measured steps to ensure that Albertans and Alberta are protected from the full impact and are well positioned for recovery.
In terms of Education, that meant this year we needed to take steps to prioritize our actions, delay some projects, and indeed reorganize some of our work. We reduced our internal budget by over 20 per cent and have reduced our staff complement by almost five per cent. This is always very difficult when you know there are more things which can be done to drive continuous improvement. At the same time, we continue to focus on the long term direction of education so that we will remain leaders in the world and are well positioned as we emerge from these troubled fiscal times.
School boards have been asked to help. I met with school boards throughout the fall of 2009 and encouraged a collaborative approach to our work determining where we could be more effective with the substantial resources which are provided to the Education system — where could we work together regionally or provincially, and how could we eliminate practices and processes which were no longer effective at achieving the outcomes we want. While some translated that discussion into a fear campaign about massive cuts, it was clear we were not about to make drastic cuts to education. At the same time it was also clear to anyone paying attention that there could not and would not be significant increases in funding.
The salary adjustment due to teachers beginning September 1, 2010 is 2.92 per cent. While funding for this adjustment was not provided for in the budget (the amount was not even known at the time the budget was prepared), and has not yet been provided, government has not backed away from its commitment to fully fund this increase.
The funds necessary to cover our government's commitment will be provided in the future. I am currently working on a number of scenarios and plans with Treasury Board and with stakeholders as to how that will be accomplished. It may involve a five year horizon with a new comprehensive agreement, but it may also involve increases to operational grants even sooner than anyone expected. Earlier this spring, we funded the adjustment of this year's wages from 4.82 to 5.99 per cent as soon as resources could be identified to do so. We may be able to resolve the current situation in a similar way.
There is a very clear, simple way for boards to retain their teachers throughout this period, and I have encouraged them in the strongest way possible to use it. I have asked school boards to draw down their savings, and to run deficits if necessary, to retain and recruit the teachers they need to meet their needs. I have consistently advised school boards that in preparing their budgets this year, they should not adjust teacher ratios for the sole purpose of balancing their books. I am not in a position to order school boards to run deficits, nor to reject school board budgets that have not followed my recommended approach (this news release from the ATA wrongly implies that the Minister of Education approves school board budgets). If I were to make boards' decisions for them, there would be no point to having them — and I firmly believe that locally elected school boards are essential.
Nonetheless, it is most disappointing for both students and teachers that some boards have chosen to unnecessarily lay off teachers because of a temporary funding difficulty. We have a growing student population. Alberta has had both a baby boom over the last five years and significant in-migration of young people with families. We will need all our new teachers and without further action will see a teacher shortage by 2012. I see absolutely no point in school boards laying off young teachers and refusing to hire new graduates when we face a growing student population and a pending bulge of teacher retirements in our province.
If anyone believes that we are simply downloading the cost of teachers' salaries onto boards, I need only remind them that the Government of Alberta has done exactly what we have asked school boards to do — namely, run short-term deficits and draw down savings to protect core public services. Just as the provincial government has had to postpone some of things we wanted to do, I am asking school boards to postpone some of the things they wanted to do, and focus on getting through this short-term issue.
It should also be noted that budgeting at the school board level is also complex. If they are making staffing changes because they are losing students or altering their programming, that must be their decision. I can only speak from a system-wide perspective, not a local school board's view. While all school boards received the same operational grants as last year — no increases, no cuts — there were in fact some adjustments which affected individual boards.
For example, while class size initiative funding has been maintained, the allocation has been refocused on the K-3 grades where it will do the most good, and where we have not achieved the class size targets. This change means that some boards which had been overcompensated in the past lost some funding while others gained. Those boards which lost funding will obviously have some adjustments to make. On the other hand, class size funding is allocated on a per student basis, so it will grow with student growth.
Simply put, laying off teachers in the short term is an exercise in balancing the budget, but it does not meet the needs of students today, or into the future. I have told school boards that we will fund teachers' salary increases so that they can balance their budgets. It is up to them to make decisions which meet the needs of today's and tomorrow's students. The Alberta government remains committed to both the agreement it entered into and, most importantly, to the future of Alberta's students.
Since your express purpose is to fully fund the salary increase, I am wondering at the reason for the delay.
We are all aware of the global recession, but this is becoming a bit of a cop-out. As you stated, Alberta is "among the best prepared in the world" to weather the storm. What if the storm lasts longer than you expect? Does every "may" turn into a definite “no” since "it “may” involve a five year horizon with a new comprehensive agreement, but it “may” also involve increases to operational grants even sooner than anyone expected"? You are asking the public to take a lot on faith after losing our probationary teachers.
"funding for this adjustment was not provided for in the budget (the amount was not even known at the time the budget was prepared), and has not yet been provided, government has not backed away from its commitment to fully fund this increase."
This is simply untrue. The amount was known for some time. The Albert government signed an agreement with the ATA. It later decided to refuse to honour that agreement, forcing the ATA to arbitration. The arbitrator did not decide the increases - he simply ruled that the Government was obligated to live up to the agreement it freely reached.
If you were not backing away from your commitment, you would provide the school boards with the dollars to pay for the agreements that you - not they - agreed to.
School boards reject your "solution" of running deficits mainly because they have far fewer sources of revenue to return to a revenue-neutral position in the future. They are rightly concerned that once they go into debt, they'll stay there & it will permanently handcuff their future choices. If laying off teachers is their best option then so be it.
The Government is the total problem here. What you're saying is irrational and makes no sense whatsoever. Prudent boards are not willing to "blue sky" their budgets. There is no commitment from government to cover the increase in teacher's salaries. Something much more concrete and "buyable" has to be offered by the government. What you're saying does not even remotely make sense. I've heard your line many times and keep trying to figure out what is he saying. it just doesn't make sense. We don't do business that way. Ar you trying to break the boards and then disband them so you can appoint someone? Yes, prudent boards will cut staff.
Minister, for the first time, I feel like there's a conversation going on here through the use of your blog. Thank-you for blogging and speaking "with" Albertans instead of at them.
My hope is that funding returns these boards back from their short-term deficits to sound operations sooner rather than later.
The only problem with the strategy outlined above is that school boards WILL lay people off in an attempt to stay out of debt as much a possible. This process not only enables
the retention of older teachers, it really doesn't treat those with less experience as humans or as professionals.
The provincial government did make a commitment to find these salary increases, and is, in my opinion, not honouring that commitment. Paying it out later doesn't change the dire situation today. If I were to sign an agreement with a financial institution, and then ask that institution to reach into its own reserves to pay what I cannot, my property would be repossessed. The government is, unfortunately, not bound by those same restrictions; in this case, however, young professionals and Alberta's children are being made to suffer the consequences.
With all of the uncertainty in the profession, and the difficulty that new graduates have finding jobs, it's really no wonder that so many brand new (and very effective) teachers leave the profession in five years.
You can't criticize boards for planning for fewer teachers while at the same time saying that you support local decision making. Supporting local decision making means just that - supporting the right of school boards to make whatever decisions they feel are best for their communities into the future.
Also, let's not simplify this into teachers and their raises agreed to by the provincial government. Other costs have also increased over the last year - support staff for one, bussing for another and basically every supply that a school will have to buy. A zero increase means something must be cut. When 80% of what boards spend is for staff it is very hard (impossible) to make ends meet without having fewer staff.
For the last 30 years I have been hearing about an impending teacher shortage. If it happens in 2012 I will be amazed. Even if there were not enough teachers in Alberta, there will be many unemployed teachers in other provinces. Their student numbers are dropping.
Minister, are you being paid this year? Would you be willing to work for a boss who told you that he was "fully committed to providing" the salary that you'd both agreed upon... just not when he'd promised, and with no definite schedule of future payment?
What you are saying is irrational and shows contempt both for the school board and for the general public. You have defaulted on your commitment to pay teachers as agreed, and are now trying to push the blame onto the school board for the inevitable layoffs. The money for the salary increases is the province's responsibility. How can you consider it acceptable for the school board to run a deficit in order to retain teachers? If it's acceptable practice for the school board, then the provincial government should go in debt as much as it needs to in order to keep the teachers' jobs which you're so worried about saving.
Simply put, we as Albertans sucked it up when King Ralph was in power, and got that debt and deficit paid off. Now here we go again, and the minister even has the guts to tell school boards to run deficits and to just trust them, they will honor their end of the bargain, SOME DAY. Debt is the reason why all other countries and regions are having a hard time pulling out of the recession, and you are encouraging us to go there? How impractical, and short sighted is this government?
Based on what everyone else is saying here, it certainly seems that the Mr. Hancock's message is a lot of smoke and mirrors. Shifting the burden onto school boards is not what should be happening. School Boards have only one revenue source: the provincial government. The provincial government on the other hand can increase revenues by adding a sales tax, changing its regressive flat rate income tax, increase its take on oil royalties etc. to cover a shortfall. Because the government refuses to look into these possibilities, the blame for underfunding education lies clearly on the shoulders their shoulders.
Thanks for the comments Laurie. The reality is we are emerging from a global recession. We budgeted at a level which would include a substantial deficit (now somewhat lower) to be covered from the Sustainability Fund. The final amount of the salary increase was not available at the time the budget was finalized, nor was the arbitration award available. We could have budgeted on the basis we would lose the arbitration and used the interim numbers provided by the revised Stats Can formula however that would probably have meant finding other places to reduce spending either in education or across government to maintain the budget levels determined to be manageable. Once the budget was approved in the Leg (and the arbiter's award received) I was able to fulfill the commitment to fully fund the salary requirement for 2009 at 5.99% and did so immediately. Our record for fulfilling commitments is strong. There are difficulties in funding in year adjustments to budget, not the least of which is that government is limited to in year adjustments of 1% of total budgeted expenditures. That requires that each in year change be carefully examined to determine if it is emergent and urgent as each additional approval reduces flexibility to deal with emergent needs. What I have asked Boards to do is exactly what we have done and indicated we will do, draw against reserves now to fund the area of teacher's salaries to avoid making short term adjustments which will hurt the system in the long run, and rebuild reserves out of future income which we have committed to provide just as we intend to rebuild the Sustainability Fund. I have asked for a short time to finalize agreement between government, school boards and the profession simply because I cannot expect that boards will go for longer than one year without firm understandings precisely because, even though things look positive at this point, none of knows exactly what the future will hold. Whatever agreement is reached, or in the event one is not reached, future intentions will have to be reflected in the next three year business plan and 2011 budget.
This approach is necessary precisely so that we don't lose our probationary teachers and new graduates. We will need them as the school age population grows!
Sorry David, but your comment is inaccurate in a number of ways. The amount was not "known for some time". The agreement provides for an adjustment based on the increase in the average weekly earnings of Albertans year over year. The measure of the increase was linked to the Average Weekly Earnings Index as published by Statistics Canada.Statistics Canada changed the way it calculates its index. The government did not believe this truly reflected the intention of the agreement and thus the interpretation of that portion of the agreement was taken to arbitration. This is a normal and appropriate way to resolve differences of viewpoint or interpretation. Before the Arbiter's determination the figure for 2009 could have been the old figure of 4.83% as budgeted or the 5.99% figure calculated under the changed formulas. The Arbiter determined that regardless how StatsCan determined it it was the Index which was agreed to and therefore the new number applied. When that determination was made the Boards were provided with the additional funds needed to fulfill that commitment as soon as possible.
There was no refusal to honour the agreement! That is a wholly inaccurate depiction of an honest and appropriate difference of viewpoint on interpretation. When there is a material change of the nature made we owed it to the taxpayers of Alberta to try and have what we believed to be the true intent of the agreement upheld.In a time when many Albertans were losing jobs and personal income was down it is hard to imagine that a new formulas showing an increase of average weekly earnings of Albertans at 5.99% accurately reflects what was intended. However, the Arbiter determined that the agreement tied us to that calculation and we are bound by the arbiter's decision.
With respect to the 2010 adjustment of 2.92% on September 1, 2010, that number was not known at the time of the 2010 budget as I indicated. First - the budget had been finalized prior to the Arbitration decision at the end of January and could not be adjusted before delivery about one week later. As such we did not know then whether the new formulas or some other form of determining the adjustment would be used. Even if we assumed the new formula, although preliminary numbers were available, the final number is not available until the end of March (that was the problem in 2009 when we used the interim number of 4.83% only to have both the formula and the number changed in late March to 5.99%)
I have explained the in year adjustment issues in reply to Laurie so will not repeat. Suffice to say our commitment to school boards remains. It will be fulfilled when it is possible for me and government to do so.
Fair points Wilfred (but for the smoke and mirrors) - Increasing taxes is always an option for the Provincial government. However, we have made a conscious, and I believe prudent, decision not to try to tax our way out of the recession. There is no good data to suggest that Albertans would be better off if government taxed them more to pay for public goods at this time. However, it is also prudent I believe, not to drastically cut back on public goods to balance a budget in the short term. That is why the Sustainability Fund was created - to provide for a leveling effect and to cushion the impact of volatile revenues.
The point is not one of who to blame for "underfunding education" but rather can we focus together as a system on how to make the best decisions for now and the future. In my estimation that means keeping our teachers, hiring those on probationary contracts and continuing to bring in the new students. If that results in a short term deficit at school boards, to be covered by future budget increases as government moves to meet its commitments then so be it. while we all dislike deficits, there is a balance in terms of the public good to be met. Whether that deficit is held by the provincial government or by a school board it will be a public deficit. School boards can use operational reserves for the short term like we use the Sustainability Fund and replenish those reserves from future grants where appropriate.
Bruce, Alberta is still the only jurisdiction in North America with no net debt! We have the Sustainability Fund to weather short term variations in income, which is what we are using to deal with the provincial government deficit. You may recall we predicted a $4.7B deficit for this year. While I expect the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board to announce a somewhat smaller deficit - we believe it is prudent not to make extreme cuts in the short term to balance a budget when we know we are well positioned to lead North America out of the recession. Maintain services to those most in need, maintain public goods such as health and education, build necessary infrastructure to pave the way for future growth - these are the recipes for both a stable society and recovery from recession.
By the same token, most school boards in our province have operational reserves. they totaled in excess of $400M last year. This is money that Albertans have given to boards to pay for education. Granted they have saved money for specific reasons in many cases, but it is not unreasonable to ask boards to take the same "value review" process to their budgets as provincial government departments have taken to ours to see what can be done differently, and it is not unreasonable to ask them to dip into or use up those reserves in the short term to maintain necessary teacher numbers in our system as the system begins to grow. This is particularly true as government has maintained its commitment to the 5 yr agreement and has assured boards in no uncertain terms that we will fulfill the terms of the agreement - they will get the $. Why is this so hard to understand. There is no magic wand that creates new money. There is no easy way to make increases mid year. All adjustments to budget have to be taken into an overall provincial context where room for in year growth is limited. In year adjustment remains one of the options when the full picture for the year begins to unfold and if that does come about won't it be unfortunate that boards made adjustments instead of trying to be collaborative and work with the situation.
It should be clear that I am not and can not criticize individual boards. They have to make decisions on a number of factors, not just teacher salary adjustments and may be making adjustments based on those other factors. All of my comments are based on a system wide perspective, but within the system some boards will grow in student numbers and some will decline.
Red - simply responding by saying my comments make no sense makes no sense. Government has made commitments in the agreement and I have reaffirmed those commitments. Our commitment to date has been evidenced by the fact that we have supplemented grants to school boards to meet the 5.99% increase awarded as a result of the Arbiter's decision on the AWEI issue. What way do you not do business? In this case all I hae asked boards to do is maintain teaching ratios in the short term because we will need those teachers n the long term. It makes no sense to build a bigger problem than we now face due only to an immediate cash flow issues. Business often takes a longer term view than one budget cycle, particularly when cash reserves can cover short term losses. What is irrational is any suggestion that this is an attempt to "break the boards and then disband them". I would fire a board for doing what I have asked them to do? How absurd.
Ian, I have heard that concern about the flexibility of boards to manage their individual situations once they no longer have reserves or are carrying a debt. I think that is a very real problem. However, they will have a much more difficult time making any future choices if they move away from the class size policy by reducing teaching staff.
The answer, while I continue to work for resources as soon as they can practically be made available, is to work on an agreement which recognizes the early contribution of school boards in a five year strategy which deals with salaries as well as some of the other important concerns re teaching excellence. We should be able to, actually we have to be able to, get that together before the next budget and boards will then very clearly know that they are on firm ground.
Walter - Me too
However Megan, School Boards are not banks - they are an integral part of the governance system in education, We are not adversaries or disconnected organizations making business deals we are collaborative parties in ensuring that the best possible education system is available for Alberta students. That is why it is important to retain our probationary teachers and hire our new graduates. we will need them. And we need them now to continue to refresh and renew our education profession. The loss of 1/3 of new teachers in the first 5 years of their practice is precisely why we need to focus on more than just the money and truly find better ways to recruit, educate, induct and sustain the teaching profession. Excellence in teaching is the primary root of an excellent education system.
You talk of uncertainty in the profession, but it truly is one of the most stable professions. Teachers are well paid.It is a difficult but a rewarding (in terms of the satisfaction one gets for the effort) profession. As a paid profession, teachers do not have to worry about hourly rates or billing like most professions, and benefits, particularly pension benefits are among the best and certainly far better than most professions.
Wouldn't it be great if I simply had the money to meet teacher salaries (at an unexpectedly high level when it is clear that Albertans average earnings are not increasing last year and this) as well as all the other things that we have had to slow down or forgo until the recession abates. I don't - so I have to ask for collaborative and thoughtful action. I have to ask for boards to use reserves in the short run (with our commitment in hand). I have to ask that we not take actions which are not focussed forward. But I do have to ask, because we do have local boards and they do have to make the decisions they are charged with. I do not approve budgets. Control is at the annual report level where I do have control over deficits, which is why we have asked boards which do not have reserves or which will have to go into deficit to work with us up front rather than after the fact.
Monique, you are absolutely right. that is why I make it perfectly when I comment that I am commenting about the system and not about any particular board. Some boards may have to make adjustments for any one of a number of reasons, and they should be able to identify those reasons. My focus has been solely on the contracted increase for teachers and support staff. That is what government has committed to cover. Other cost are increasing but not significantly in this economy. Other wages are a problem as many contracts have been signed on the same AWEI basis. School Boards were not asked to take a cut like so many other areas of government (the Education department restructured and had to make do with about 40 fewer people), but they did not get an increase. This does create issues which is why last fall I asked school boards to come together to work on ways we could use our resources better, collaborate better, eliminate things that were not helping us achieve results. ATA and School Boards turned this into a huge "Stop the Cuts" campaign which was ill founded and misdirected. The energy and resources would have been more effectively used in the value review process ensuring that the significant resources which go into education today are used in the most effective manner possible.
At the end of the day School Boards, who are charged with the responsibility of involving their communities and ensuring that the students entrusted to their care get the best opportunity possible to succeed, must make the best decisions they can locally, and be responsible for those decisions. As Minister of Education, I too have responsibility. I have no magic wand to make money appear - but I too must be responsible to ensure that the system takes a long view and makes decisions which reflect that long view. I that requires asking my partners in education to work with me to overcome a short term issue I hope they will take that into consideration.
Carly - where your argument falls short is on the timing issue.
Government has committed to the agreement and has not backed away from that agreement. There is nothing in the agreement which deals with timing. We now have a recession with a significant impact on income and cash flow. At the time of Budget preparation we had a reasonable expectation that salaries would not be tied to a new SatsCan formula for AWEI which clearly does not represent the true picture for Albertans Income for 2008 and 2009. It was only after the budget was finalized (before tabling in legislature but too late to make change) that the Arbiter determined that the Agreement was specifically tied to the Index StatsCan produced notwithstanding the fact the the index itself was changed after the agreement. So be it. As I have referenced in other replies - we are going into deficit (not debt) supported by the Sustainability Fund to provide that bridge to recovery. We could balance the budget by cutting out other areas, but that is not seen as prudent as we try to maintain activity and build infrastructure to be well positioned for recovery. Why is it so wrong to ask school boards to participate in something everybody else has to do, postpone those things which are not essential, find efficiencies, look at everything we do to make sure that it helps us meet our objectives, and yes - even though none of us likes a deficit - if necessary run a deficit to maintain our teacher-student ratios and our class size initiative. Most Boards have reserves. This is not about forcing Boards to give up those reserves, but it is about protecting essential programing like AISI and the class size initiative. School Boards will get the teacher contract funding. Until they do - lets strike a prudent course. In my view that means focusing on the classroom!
Now this, I must say, is a very refreshing forum for an exchange of ideas and thoughts! Whether I agree with all the comments or not, it is quite fascinating to see this level of interaction from a Politician to Albertans.
Thank you for the open exchange. I respectfully disagree with your assertions. You agreed to pay increases equal to the Average Weekly Earnings Index. You didn't like the numbers and an arbitrator ordered to pay as you had previously agreed.
I disagree with your spin, but again apologize for my earlier rude and inappropriate reaction and tweet.
Mr Minister on a different note, I have spoken to you about the need for support for teachers with children with specific educational needs in their classroom. My main interest is in the area of support for teachers who have at least one and commonly more than one ADHD students in their classroom. I am not sure more funding is the answer but perhaps more professional development for teachers on how to effectively teach these students while at the same time meeting the needs of the many other children in the classroom. I thank you for your time.
thank you so much for your responses Mr. Hancock. I hope you can convince your government collegues not only to fund education properly but also to find a way to talk to interested Albertans in the way you have.