Tags: Alberta Education, budget, class sizes, school boards, student outcomes, students, teachers
In recent weeks, several school boards have announced preliminary budgets for the next school year which include reducing the number of teachers and support staff they employ. A representative from one stakeholder group suggested that this will "lead to larger class sizes, less attention for students and more difficulty improving graduation rates." Others have made inflammatory predictions about student safety!
It's easy to make these sorts of dire predictions and out of context statements to frighten parents into believing that more money will instantly produce better outcomes for their children. Not only is the simple notion that "more money equals better student outcomes" demonstrably wrong, but most of the people making these predictions and statements--the teachers' association, school boards and opposition politicians (the very people who should be most knowledgeable about research on effective learning)--should know better.
For a discussion about education funding to have any value, it must focus on spending money on what actually improves student learning, and be grounded in a realistic notion of what our province can afford. Amidst the hysteria and hyperbole of the past week, both perspectives are conspicuously absent.
If there is one constant refrain about education funding in Alberta, it is that "education is an investment." Indeed it is, and so it behooves us to invest our money where it will reap the greatest returns for our students. Most people put away some money each month as an investment for their retirement, relying on professional financial advisors to seek the best return for that money. Imagine how outraged you'd feel if your advisor told you that he could have got a 10 per cent return on your money, but he chose to get only a 5 per cent return because that's how he has always done things.
Yet that is in most respects the approach to education funding that predominates in Alberta: we spend on what we've always done, rather than what gets the best results for students. It makes no sense to continue to spend money in ways that have been clearly demonstrated, both through international research and our own experience, not to have much effect, much less the maximum possible effect, on student outcomes. When we do nothing but focus on the amount of money we spend and the number of teachers in our classrooms, we are putting our own interests, not those of students, first.
More Money, Fewer Teachers?
So let's talk about how we invest our education dollars in Alberta. Budget 2011 provides $6.065 billion in operating support for education, an increase of $258 million over the previous year. Despite this increase, some grants were eliminated or reduced as well; if these grants had not been touched, the increase to education funding would have been $107 million over and above the $258 million. This September, we project that $6.065 billion will support 599,887 students with 35,591 teachers, plus thousands of other support staff.
Critics of Budget 2011 say that it will mean fewer teachers in the system--1200 according to the Alberta Teachers' Association. Where this number comes from is anyone's guess: at this point, only 14 of 63 school boards have passed their budgets. Most are still discussing their options, and if past experience is any guide, virtually all boards find ways to improve on their initial draft budgets, no matter what their fiscal circumstances.
Moreover, this sort of dire claim is not new, but the rhetoric does not now and never has matched the reality. In the past two years, campaigns like Stop the Cuts and Join Together Alberta have repeatedly proclaimed that government cuts will mean teacher losses. Yet there are more teachers in Alberta's classrooms than there have ever been--35,185 this past September versus 34,992 in September 2009 and 34,843 in September 2008. That's a full 382 more teachers in two years when budgets have been tight. If anyone thinks that's not enough to maintain class sizes, they should consider that at the same time, the student population has increased by 5,772 students. In other words, we've added about one teacher for every 15 additional students--well below the lowest class size guideline of 17 students per teacher. This record speaks for itself, and Albertans should not be taken in by another year of the teachers' association or school boards crying wolf.
Part of the reason that these campaigns have repeatedly been wrong is that when school boards, and especially individual schools, prepare their budgets each spring, they plan conservatively for the number of teachers they will need in the fall. When enrolments are confirmed in September, they often find themselves in a position to bring on more teachers. Parents concerned about teacher reductions may want to ask their board about who they are including in their numbers and if they are likely to rehire those teachers in the fall.
It's also worth noting that some schools are going to see teacher reductions for the simple reason that they are seeing declining enrolment. At least one school board (Battle River) has seen declining enrolments for the past five years, but has maintained the same number of teachers in its schools by drawing on its reserves. There's no reason to fault that board or any other for taking that approach, but even if budgets were not tight, it could not be sustained forever.
Money and Learning
However, all this talk about how much we spend and how many teachers we have in our schools misses the fundamental point: are our children learning those things we expect them to learn? This is the primary consideration for our education system. If we could double the education budget overnight, we would not consider our education system twice as good. We would expect that more students would achieve our acceptable standard or standard of excellence, and complete high school.
The evidence from Alberta and elsewhere is incontrovertible: more money does not necessarily mean more student success. In Alberta, the education budget has increased by 63 per cent over the past ten years - an average of 5.6 per cent per year. Over that period, student outcomes have remained about the same, improving in some areas, and declining in others. (Over the past five years, we have seen steady improvement in our high school completion rate, but that is due in large part to changes in teacher practice, not more funding or more teachers.) We certainly have not seen a 63 per cent improvement in student outcomes commensurate with that budget increase.
We have hired more teachers - 12 per cent more over the decade, while the student population has increased by just over 4.1 per cent. That proportionally larger increase--about 2200 teachers more than we would expect with just the student population increase--is a result of the government's small class size initiative. While there are other reasons why we might consider class size important, student outcomes have not increased commensurate with the investment in the class size initiative.
Class Size Funding
For this reason, this year we have made some changes in how class size funding is allocated. I want to be clear that government has not cut funding to the class size initiative. In fact, Budget 2011 continued government's funding for the class size initiative, providing $228 million to school boards (an increase from the $222 million in Budget 2010). What has changed is how these funds are allocated. In Budget 2010, school boards received class size funding for students in three categories: grades K-3, grades 4-6, and high school students in particular Career and Technology Studies courses where smaller class sizes are necessary for training or safety reasons. In Budget 2011, we have directed the funding for grades 4-6 to provide additional support for grades K-3, which is where research indicates that it has an impact that will justify that investment.
It is important to understand that the class size funding formula is an allocation formula only, not a targeted grant. In other words, while Education provides to school boards with additional per student funding in grades K-3 (in Budget 2011, for grades 1-3, this additional funding will be $1,419.71 on top of the base student grant of $6,214.57), school boards are not held directly accountable for spending this money to reduce class sizes in grades K-3. Some boards may feel it is more effective to target some or all of these additional dollars elsewhere. However, school boards report their class sizes through the publication of jurisdiction-wide class size averages each year. You can find this information for the 2009/10 school year (the most recent year for which information is available) online at http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/classsize/avarage2010.aspx .
Focusing on Class Size at K-3
I have sometimes been challenged to provide the research on which I based my decision to focus class size funding on K-3 students. It is important to stress that there is general agreement in the education research community, though by no means consensus, about these research findings.
· Alberta's Class Size Initiative came about as a result of the Alberta Commission on Learning (ACOL). The discussion of class size in the Commission's 2003 report is available online here. While the Commission recommended class size targets for all grades, its report notes that, "Beyond grade three, the research is not nearly as abundant or as clear. In fact, the research conducted by the Commission turned up very few studies that address the impact of class size in the later grades."
· The most succinct summary of class size research is the Canadian Education Association's (CEA) leaflet "The Facts on Education: Do Small Class Sizes Improve Learning?" As this leaflet notes, "Smaller classes in primary grades have been linked with somewhat better student outcomes, but the evidence is much weaker above the primary level."
· The CEA also produced a lengthier report entitled "Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know?", which concludes that "primary class size reduction is an initiative worth undertaking, but that it must be undertaken thoughtfully and carefully. It is not a 'magic bullet.'" The report finds that unless other factors, particularly teaching practice, change along with smaller class sizes, then those class sizes may not be helpful.
· The Canadian Council on Learning's paper "Lessons in Learning: Making sense of the class size debate" notes that "The best evidence is that smaller classes in the early years of schooling make a difference" and, citing another research paper, that "Evidence for the possible advantages of small classes in the upper grades and high school is so far inconclusive."
· New Zealand education professor Dr. John Hattie conducted a widely respected study of the factors that most contribute to student learning. This study was published as the book "Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement". You can read the pages relating to class size via Google Books (pages 85-88). Hattie concludes that "the evidence overall suggests that the results are systematically small... It appears that the effects of reducing class size may be higher on teacher and student work-related conditions, which then may or may not translate into effects on student learning" (original emphasis).
· In 2007, the consultancy McKinsey & Company released a widely discussed and cited study entitled "How the world's best-performing school systems come out on top". This study observes that "the available evidence suggests that, except at the very early grades, class size reduction does not have much impact on student outcomes. Of 112 studies which looked at the impact of the reduction in class sizes on student outcomes, only 9 found any positive relationship. 103 found either no significant relationship, or a significant negative relationship. Even when a substantial relationship was found, the effect was not substantial."
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of studies of specific instances of class size reduction, which show a variety of impacts and relative degrees of effectiveness in improving student learning. The ACOL report mentioned above cites some of these studies. As Minister, I do not believe it is a sound approach to simply rely on one study or another as the basis for policy decisions; I need verified, repeated, peer reviewed research like those studies above that examine the effects of a policy on a broad range of students. It is also worth noting that, in the time since the research cited in the ACOL report was conducted, considerably more study of class size reductions has occurred, and these findings are reflected in the studies I mention above.
I do not wish to give the impression that I do not think that small class sizes are important--in some situations, they are. There are, no doubt, students who benefit from smaller classrooms beyond grades K-3, but the research is clear that small class sizes are not the best way to improve student outcomes for most students. This is why school boards and, to a varying extent, individual schools have the flexibility to allocate their funding to the approaches that they think will have the greatest impact on their individual students.
Where Should We Spend Our Money?
When allocating finite resources (and even in Alberta, there is always more ask than answer), my decisions must be about which approaches will have the greatest effect for the most students. As some of the studies above attest, approaches other than class size reductions have bigger effects on student outcomes for the same or less money.
As a matter of provincial policy, I believe the research on student outcomes is clear that, as the McKinsey study puts it, "the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers" and "the only way to improve outcomes is to improve instruction". It is for this reason that, as Minister of Education, I have focused as much time and money as possible on improving the selection, preparation, induction and professional learning of Alberta's teachers.
Parents and other community members have every right and obligation to be concerned about education funding in Alberta--but the conversation must focus at least as much on how dollars are spent as on how many are spent. We must not forget that those dollars are a means to an end, and that getting the best for our children means spending those dollars wisely. There are many ways to spend money on education that have little benefit for our students. Meaningful public discussion about education must focus on those approaches which have clear positive effects on student learning. If our conversations do not have that focus, then we are not putting children first.
The biggest part of education spending is for salaries & benefits. Teacher salaries & benefits take over 50% of the total spent. Other non-teaching staff take another 20% - teacher aides, bus drivers, custodians, secretaries, etc.
So now that the Province is in the business of negotiating teacher salaries, are you planning to limit teacher salary increases to the growth in their productivity i.e. to student results?
Your collegue Mr Liepert came to our school council meeting last week and said that he did not believe the government was achieving reduced class numbers - our school is potentially going to lose 3 teaching positions and our enrollment remains the same and yet our kindergarten classes will have numbers in the region of 27 per class. More should be done to control the wise spending of our money for students both at the provincial and local level - the government has a responsibility for the teachers pay agreement that they were directly involved in (not try and renegotiate now),to take more control of the school board spending by setting targets for how much of the the base student grant of $6,214.57, will reach the schools say 80% or 90%, increase taxation or take more from the Sustanability Fund - or this education system will no longer be able to sustain itself.
Dear Mr. Hancock,
The budget numbers of our school shows three less teachers, higher number of students in classrooms, split classes, two half days that our library will be closed and a decrease in support and custodial services. My son has progressed in his early years at Banff Elementary School, in particular this past year, with a class size of 22. His teacher is caring, concerned, articulate, and committed to all of his student's learnings. As a result of the "cuts" he has not been asked back. Yes the ATA plays a big role in this, however, less $ is really what has resulted in him not being able to return to BES. My son is a natural athlete and not such a natural learner. How do I feel confidence in the words you have written above when these are the results I see at our school. I know the principal and teachers have embraced the philosophy of "how can we be more effective? What can we overcome, together, to continue being the best school we can be for our students". The budget is not helping. I respectively ask that the #'s be reviewed. That oil & gas prices that are much stronger now that originally budgeted, be used to invest in my future, in Albert's future. In my son's future! I look forward to hearing from you.
I would like you to consider another analogy of household budgets and responsibility. A family decides that one of the adults will manage the home and second would continue in the work force. They decide together on a budget they will work with. It is working and the children are thriving and they have made a couple of changes to ensure the children have additional activities to make them well rounded indivduals so less money is spent on clothes and toys. One day the working parent comes home and says I've changed the budget...I've cut out 1/3 so that I can go back to school. What does that do to the household? What does that do to the children's activities? Yes, it's critical for one to improve oneself and look to the future..but at what cost? Would it be more worthwhile to plan futher ahead and go back to school part time? I again, ask that you reconsider this budget. Listen to the concerns coming from the people of Alberta. Our future is worth it. What will your legacy by Mr. Hancock?
If as minister of education, your background is law and you have never been a teacher than how can you speak intelligently on what does and doesn't effect student performance. You can't read it in a report anymore than one can understand the practice of law by reading alone. Your understanding of teaching at a primary and secondary level is therefore academic.
Academic studies are just that, academic. Academic research and international research are a foolish compass to direct your investment efforts as the most effective teaching strategies change almost daily. Theory and reality are very often totally independent and unrelated.
From a teacher's perspecitve....larger class sizes = less time to teach and more time required for crowd control. That is a simple reality. If you don't believe me then I suggest you try running a class with 35 juniour high students versus a class with 20 juniour high students and observe first hand the effect on class size of getting through the required material in the alotted class time.
Also, your investment analogy is overly simplistic and predictable response of a person who short sightedly values immediate gradification over the benefits of longterm investment. Politicians need to stop with this four year re-election fiscal thinking. You will not see the investments you make in education for at least 20 years.
So here's some numbers for you. There is $100 million dollar short fall for alberta schools according to the Calgary Herald. Alberta's GDP in 2010 was $247.2 billion in a recession year. That 100 million dollar short fall represents a 0.0405% of the provincial GDP.
Think about it.
Mr Hancock in your blog you say "Albertans should not be taken in by another year of the teacher's association or the school boards crying wolf".
I think it is shameful that the government seeks to justify its budget by mud-slinging such as this and the comments made recently by Ed Stelmach.
This is the reality on the ground:
One of my children's schools will lose 2 fantastic teachers and 3 support staff. One of these teachers has been amazing in encouraging my children to become responsible, global citizens. Extra curricular team sports have further encouraged my children's confidence and contribution to society. These will be cut next year due to the reduction in the number of Phys Ed teachers. In my other child's High school there are already some classes of over 40 students - in some cases there are more students in a class than desks in the classroom. With a loss of 11 teachers in this school, classes can only get bigger.
This cannot possibly result in an improvement to the education system. No matter how many studies you quote, the reality is that the number of students in classes at all levels has a huge effect on the teachers ability to teach and the students ability to get the individual attention they need.
In the newspaper yesterday I read that the government is spending $500 Million to educate Albertans about the oilsands and carbon capture etc. I respectfully suggest that it would be far wiser to invest in the education of our students so that in the future some of them can improve on the technology of carbon capture and reduce the environmental impact of the oilsands.
And much as I love museums, I would far rather see the $340 Million to be spent on a new museum in Edmonton be postponed until more prosperous times, than see education funding cut.
Minister Hancock,
I am one of your critics who "...is supposed to be most knowledgeable about research on effective learning". We "should know better", in your words, than to question policies that cut teaching and support staff for children aged eight and up in our school system. Your idea of getting a greater percentage return on our investment in education (so that we can invest less overall) is sound in principle. Perhaps the financial advisor in your analogy could double the return on your investment? But children are not financial instruments. Money doesn't care what happens to it. Children do. They are deeply invested in how they are educated. When students stay in school through graduation, they do so for reasons that are personal. There are some students who become alienated by the culture and mindset of the education system or face long-term obstacles that many of us don't have to face. If the interventions of the school and wrap-around services of the Board fail to adequately address that alienation, their decision to remain in school or leave is also intensely personal. Students know that a reasonable class size improves their school experience. The viewpoint of everyone but yours is that larger class sizes will make school more difficult for many kids in this province. You cannot compare investment in children with something like a contribution to a Mutual Fund. Remember that a Financial Advisor who promises to double your investment returns next year will undoubtedly be exposing you to increased risk, unstable annual returns and a greater chance of losing your investment altogether. Albertans are simply not comfortable with that.
Money and Learning
It is a clever rhetorical trick to claim that "the experts" are on your side in any debate. To your credit, you state fairly that there "is by no means consensus" on the effects of class size on achievement in the research community. You impressively say, "I need verified, repeated, peer reviewed research like those studies above that examine the effects of a policy on a broad range of students". For example, you quote, "Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement", in which John Hattie states, "the evidence suggests that the results are systematically small." This sounds convincing until Hattie directs us to Table 6.2 on page 86 that "summarizes many of the synthesizing studies", in his words. Many of Hattie's conclusions are based on reducing class size from 25 to 15! How can these conclusions be relevant here in Alberta where you are set to allow class size balloon to 30 or more? I had a class that fluctuated between 38 and 42 students before the Class Size Funding Initiative. How many classes of fifteen do we really have in this province? I doubt many teachers would even want classes that small. The first lesson in any Research Methods course is to never accept the conclusions of any study without analyzing its methodology. This is impossible with meta-analysis. There is the "garbage in - garbage out" problem and Hattie argues in favour of including "low quality" studies (low number of subjects, questionable controls for bias, etc.) in his meta-analysis. Agenda-driven bias is another problem, and while Hattie seems like an agreeable guy, we don't know who financed the study, nor the economic or political circumstances in New Zealand that surround it.
Despite devoting just three pages of analysis and discussion to class size, and ignoring the irrelevant class size numbers, Hattie does make a couple of good points. One of the main factors that have the greatest effect on student achievement is better teaching strategies. Teachers with new smaller classes in Hattie's analysis had not changed their teaching practice sufficiently in order to make the most of that new circumstance. Hattie states that there needs to be a "reconceptualization of what it means to be excellent as a teacher" when class size is reduced. Similarly, you quote the Canadian Education Association's study on class size in "Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know?" Among this study's robust findings were the following:
"The research confirms that class size reduction does provide the environment in which teachers can teach differently. In smaller classes, they interact with individual students more frequently and use a greater variety of instructional strategies. They can create more opportunities for higher-order co-construction of meaning by students. They also may spend out-of-classroom work time on more creative planning (and less on routine marking), and they may interact more frequently with other teachers and adults in support of classroom teaching."
"The research on student outcomes and behaviour tends to support teachers’ beliefs that they can teach more competently and effectively in smaller classes. In smaller classes, students learn more academically and socially; they are more engaged and less disruptive."
When conclusions such as these are supposed to be in support of your argument for increasing class size, is there any wonder why Albertan's are unconvinced? Teachers in Alberta are innovative in their teaching practice. In 2005, when teachers of Hattie's study hadn't adapted their strategies to the new conditions of (much) smaller classes, my colleagues and I were studying Brain-based research findings and their implications for learning in the classroom. Even before the introduction of Class Size Initiative Funding teachers were advancing their knowledge and skills associated with the personalization of student learning. Teacher Professional Growth Plans and Professional Development are and have been focused upon Differentiated Program Delivery, Distributed Learning Environments, Multiple Intelligences, Inquiry-based learning, innovating practice in Learning Technologies and Universal Design for Learning. We are eager to move forward in establishing Personalized Learning Profiles for our students and are excited by the initiatives listed in Inspiring Education and Inspiring Action. We are poised to continue changing our practice to meet the evolving and diverse learning needs of students in our classrooms. Teachers and parents wish to put students in environments where they want to learn and where they can discover and develop their abundant natural capacities. We embrace educational transformation in Alberta, and you need not be concerned about us dragging our feet in improving teaching practice. You have to know that these new teaching approaches work better in reasonably sized classes. Your cuts will have the inevitable effect of discouraging transformation, despite teachers' eagerness to change. Even Hattie ends his class size discussion with "... increasing class size is poor policy."
Class Size Funding
I have seen the erosion of wrap-around and core school services that provide support for students. Guidance Counsellors, Teaching Librarians, English as a Second Language Assistants have become a thing of the past. Educational Assessments of children who appear to have possible learning problems are now nearly inaccessible. Facility Operators, Administrative and Office Staff as well as Resource help have all been significantly cut back. I've worked in the same school, with stable enrolment, for the past eleven years. Let me describe one example of the roadblocks schools run into when these supports no longer exist. A few years ago, I was given the routine responsibility of creating Individual Learning Plans for four students with psychologist identified learning problems. One of these students had trouble reading, couldn't write legibly and fatigued quickly shortly after starting any activity. In my first meeting with his parents I learned that an eye exam had found a previously undetected problem and the doctor wished for the school to contact him. He told me that he had prescribed corrective lenses to improve the vision of the much weaker eye. Unfortunately, the problem had been present so long it would take specific exercises to overcome the difficulties in depth perception, and, as I understood it, "getting his brain to start using the weaker eye." He said that Occupational Therapy while he was wearing his glasses would also be beneficial to improving his coordination and writing legibility. With no Guidance Counsellor or Resource Person available, and having no idea where to start, I asked the Assistant Principal for guidance. She agreed that we should request OT help and found the appropriate paperwork to be filled out. We finished all of this and submitted the request before the end of September of that year. Despite repeated inquiries and requests, nothing happened until the end of March, six months later. The explanation was that such work was completed on a priority basis and that department was working through its files. In all, the student received just a few hours of appropriate OT help for more than forty hours of staff time, including meetings, communication and write-ups. I could have used this work time more productively in the service of my other 150 students. Hitting such dead ends is part of the reason for the outcry at your Education Cuts. Teachers have no expectation that Guidance Counsellors and other important wrap-around services will ever come back to our schools like in the past. But with reasonable class sizes we feel we can help students to be successful.
Where Should we Spend our Money?
In your next caucus meeting, announce that you will be cutting positions in proportion to teacher losses in schools, reorganizing boundaries of Tory constituencies and increasing responsibilities for those who escape the cuts (call it "a reallocation of funding" if that helps). Explain to your colleagues (the youngest among you) who have been let go that (all quotes in your words), "these are tough economic times", the results "won't be that bad", and that government's role "is to be there with intelligence in making tough decisions". After the awkward and dumbfounded goodbyes, explain to those remaining, "We are all being asked to do a little more with a little less." How many MLA's won't cry foul and rightfully assert that more responsibilities will simply hurt their ability to adequately serve their constituents? Which member will fail to point out that this reorganization will hamper progress in important initiatives and priorities they are passionate about? Do this and you'll have earned some credibility. The Alberta government is actually creating 255 positions this year (Calgary Herald, February 25), while it asks some of our most vulnerable Albertans, the children that these school personnel serve, to make the greatest sacrifice.
With more than 6.4 billion dollars in capital spending approved for each of the next three years (1/6th of total spending), you and the Treasury Board clearly value infrastructure over education. This year, our government will spend 50% more per person on such investments than any other province in Canada... and then point out that the cupboard is bare. In contrast, getting lost personnel back into schools would take four-tenths of one percent of Alberta's current GDP. As Learning Minister, You should be advocating for education in Budget deliberations and confronting the interests that place time-saving industrial off-ramps well ahead of alleviating the confusion and despair of young child who has started to struggle in school, and doesn't understand why. Instead, you endorse the budget and then characterize opposition as "hyperbole" and "hysteria". You chide stakeholders who "should know better" than to question unconvincing conclusions from wavering research. You repeat these conclusions at every opportunity in the hope that we will start to accept them. You're an intellectual tourist, visiting education with a suitcase of rhetorical tricks, presently aimed at convincing Albertans to go along with the idea that class size makes no difference to learning after the age of eight. But conformity dulls individual judgement, and those with a real stake in education are not buying it.
Thank you for your in depth response. I entirely agree that the financial investment analogy breaks down if taken too far. Children are not money! The point is that there are never enough resources to do everything we want to do and so we do have to make choices. Those choices must be based on doing those things that make the most difference, and conversely, being prepared to stop doing thing which do not make a difference. Of course even that is easy to say and hard to do because each child is different and it is very difficult to make rules or create systems which work for everyone. That is why our transformation process through Inspiring Education is so essential. We need to get to a system which is much more nimble, relying on teachers as professionals to create appropriate learning opportunities for each student, and creating with their colleagues, an engaging learning environment.
Your comments about the personal nature of the education experience for each child are extremely important. While we expect teachers to differentiate instruction based on the assets and challenges each child presents, we cannot expect individual teachers and schools to have the capacity to deal with the issues children bring with them from home, from the community. That is why the collaborative approach and wrap around services are so important to student success. The school will always be the place where these issues are recognized because of the time spent but more importantly, the relationships teachers have which allow them to recognize when there is change, when something is wrong, however we need the community to be there to help provide the services needed to help a child (and their family) through. I have never said that class size is unimportant. I have said that where it is most important is at K-3, where we are not meeting the policy targets. Thus we reprofiled the class size funding to k-3 and to HS CTS classes where safety is an issue. I have also said that class size by itself does not appear to be the defining factor at the other grade levels. That is why so much effort went into attempting to obtain an extension of our agreement with the ATA and include the ASBA, based on interest based discussions. The factors that are universally important involve excellence in teaching. That requires us to look at a number of variables including instruction time, assignable time and non assignable time; it involves focusing on teacher education, induction and long term professional development and practice; it involves a focus on principal leadership; etc.
We do need the research, the data, and the practical applied experience to inform decisions. I applaud your analysis however reject your thesis. I am not advocating for larger classes - simply pointing out that single minded focus on class size does not get to the important work which you go on to enumerate. We have made and are making significant progress, and I certainly did not wish for nor ask for this fiscal situation to come along with the potential to interfere and distract from that progress. However I was faced with a situation that even with a significant increase in Education's budget there was not enough to cover salary increases, current pension obligations (not pre 1992, those are in Finances budget) and student growth. Being short $107 Million I focused on targeted grants particularly where results did not meet the rationale for the targeted grant. The one exception was in AISI - an exceptional program providing solid results and attracting international attention. Fortunately we were able to retain it although at 50% funding.
I appreciate your comments regarding in school support and OT and other assistance. It is precisely that problem we are trying to address with the Action on Inclusion work. Not only do we need to reduce the time and paper involved in determining and arranging the appropriate supports for learning, but we need a more equitable distribution of scarce resources (OTs and others in that field) while we continue to try to increase the resourcing available. The hazards of the political process is that the acute tends to drive out the important - it is hard to build that long term sustainable strategy when there is so much to do right now.
While I understand your point, it is simplistic (as it was with my financial investment analogy) to take a direct reference to the # of MLAs, the supposed growth in the civil service or the percent of GDP. We have invested strongly in education over the past 10 years - a 63% increase in the budget with only a modest growth in student population. A significant amount of that increase has resulted in an increase in the number of teachers employed. This year, while painful, is but a modest adjustment. On the other hand there has been a hiring freeze in government for three years. In Education, with a staff of just over 700 people we are now down over 100 positions! Overall in government there has been a significant reduction in the size of the civil service. This is very difficult as the work has not gone away - we are expecting and get yeoman service. "Value reviews" as I have asked from the Education system, are the order of the day and have been for several years across government. Again - while over 95% of the Education budget goes directly to school boards we led with reductions in the Department budget (over 25%) before asking anyone else to reduce theirs. Fiscal restraint is not easy. But burdening our children in their futures with paying for today's groceries is not acceptable. We will and are growing out of this recession. The future is looking very bright. There will be more students and more teachers. The focus must always remain on how we can invest wisely in the most important and productive ways to ensure that each and every child has the opportunity to succeed. It is not always about more - it can also be "how do we do this differently". It is always easy to argue for 4/10th s of GDP more. It is much harder to be faced with the reality of a >$4Billion deficit and the prospect of retiring the Sustainability Fund before balance can be achieved. It is the constant adding of those "small" increments that get us to a place where we rely too much on volatile nonrenewable resource revenues, or need to increase taxes to support the important programs and investments that people want.
Mixing in the Capital budget does not help clarity. For government investment we are not talking cash flow, but amortization. On the expense side, a significant part of the budget consists of transfers to Municipalities (Municipal Sustainability Initiative). In any event it is extremely short sighted to continue to avoid the need for capital investment in schools. 50% of our schools are more than 40 years old. Population growth and demographic shifts create very real pressures which must be addressed. This is not an wither or situation.
As the Education Minister there has been no stronger advocate for education and for the education budget. I believe in and have advocated for my whole time in government for the investment in our children as the most important investment we can make. I am hardly an intellectual tourist. I have lived with educators my whole life and seen and participated in their work. My mother, my wife, my son, my sister are or were all teachers. You do not need to be a teacher to understand the value of education nor to understand the value of teachers. In understanding government it is necessary to understand that once the budget is struck, it is my job to implement it. I was a very strong advocate during the making of the budget. To suggest that I should be advocating in budget deliberations, once the budget has been presented, suggests that I should resign. If I resign I leave the implementation to someone who replaces me whose job it would then be to implement the budget and I have no further influence on government policy. The net result - the same budget with the loss of one of the strongest advocate for education in government, hardly a useful result.
Thank you for a thoughtful and challenging response. It is my belief that we need frank and honest discussion to truly improve any aspect of public policy. Rhetoric has its place - particularly in the provocation of discussion. Thoughtful reflection and analysis has real value in the discussion. We all have an important role. None of us is extra to or a tourist in the discussion of the value of education as foundational to our society and the importance of ensuring that each and every child has the opportunity to reach their potential so that they too can participate as full citizens locally and globally.
"Crying wolf" is hardly mudslinging. It is an expression which succinctly indicates that early expressions of concern or worse, often have not been shown to end up with the result decried. School Boards often budget with one expectation only to show a much rosier picture in actual results. This is understandable. Until the actual student enrollment count on September 30 they don't have actual numbers, however in a number of cases there has been significant and predictable differences. My point has been and continues to be, that while this is in fact a difficult year and there will undoubtedly be fewer teachers this fall, the overall effect will be no where near as dramatic as has been predicted by the ATA or the Boards. I do not know what Board or school you are in, but I know of no board which has passed on to a school such a significant budget restraint that it needs to lose 11 teachers. Enrollment decline and other factors have caught up with some boards resulting in the need for larger reductions. In Edmonton the EPSB reductions as they have projected them would result in the average loss of one teacher per school. There has been much talk of layoffs. Historically 4000 teachers leave every year due to retirements, leaves, job change etc. 1800 return each year for a net of 2200 teachers needing to be replaced before accounting for growth. Even if we assume a lower attrition rate due to retirement as a result of the 4.54% increase in salary on Sept 1 and we assume the full 1200 teacher positions predicted are lost we still need 800 new teachers to the system. Many boards are taking the precaution of not renewing probationary and temporary contracts at the moment. Again history would suggest that in September most, if not all of those teachers will have been placed. There will be reasons for the actions taken at each school and each board but at the end of the day if all the classes are the size being predicted the per student grant would add up to a very significant amount per class and per teacher - and if it is not being invested in the classroom, then where?
People often suggest taking from other areas to invest in their priority. I can assure you no one has a higher priority for education than I do. However - if we do not build an understanding of the role of oilsands in our near term future, the sustainable approach we are taking to development and the very strong environmental stewardship we have compared to the rest of the world, with a focus on continuous improvement - Albertans and the world will buy into the "dirty oil" concept resulting in a much worse impact on our economy and Canada's economy than anything we've seen to date, with much more dire consequences to our ability to invest in important areas like education. We need to build a robust economy beyond oil and that requires a well educated population, but despite significant effort we are still very much a carbon based economy. Capital investment in a museum is not a one year matter. If the museum were cancelled it would not mean that there was money available to be transferred to operational spending and it would certainly not provide the year over year funding needed to sustain teacher salaries and salaries of others that make up 70% or more of the budget.
While I do not agree with your assumption that only someone who has experienced the classroom can be intelligent about education, I can assure you that i would be extremely foolish to base any decision simply on my own research, observation and belief. I do not make decisions alone. The Department has as one of its primary functions providing policy options that are research and well thought out, with input from stakeholders, most assuredly including teachers. Most employees in Education have a background that includes classroom teaching. I can assert that I do have considerable experience in observing, studying and discussing education policy and practice and in learning from some of the best teachers Alberta has to offer. I have observed large classes that were desired by both the teacher and the students as well as those that were disfunctional. Equally I have seen small classes that were an impossible task. It is not my mission to debunk class size theory - only to observe that class size by itself is not an answer. Certainly class size can be important - but it is the teaching that is really important. Class size can affect the teaching. but teaching excellence is not directly connected to class size.
I would also challenge your assertion that i have a short sighted view, preferring immediate gratification over the benefits of long term investment. Nothing could be further from the truth! In every portfolio I have served, my mission has been to develop a policy framework for decision making which sets a long term horizon. Indeed I championed the development of the government's 20 strategic plan back before the 2004 election. While the plan itself has not survived the passage of eight years, two elections and a new Premier the principles or pillars "Unleashing Innovation" and "Leading in Learning" to position us for "Competing in the Global Marketplace" creating an "Alberta that is The Best Place to Live, Work and Raise a Family". In Advanced Education I initiated the "Learning Alberta" process to engage Albertans in a long term vision for post secondary education. In Education, over the past three years we have been focused on Inspiring Education - a Dialogue with Albertans - with two objectives - understanding what an educated Albertan would be 30 years from now, and creating a public discussion about the foundational value of education to our society and community.
You can always add more to a budget if you are prepared to run a larger deficit or raise taxes. Percentage of GDP numbers don't really help. At the end of the day the bills have to be paid - even if you believe, as I do, that education is an investment. Governments have to deal with the short term issues of public demand, yearly revenue aberrations and competing priorities. With a 4.7% increase in the Education budget compared to an overall government budget increase of 2.2% the priority for education is clear. And one of the perennial challenges in government is the irony of the fact that while you get elected to think big picture and long term, your report card is often based on how many potholes you filled.
Perhaps a better way of taking the analogy forward would be that the working parent plans ahead and says to the household - things are getting pretty rocky. We'd better be careful with our spending. With the economy the way it is, it is very unlikely I'm going to be able to sustain my income. The company is tightening up at all levels and I don't think, even though they really value me and i am integral to the companies future, that i can avoid being a part of it. The family spends some time trying to look at what has lasting value for them and what perhaps can be reduced temporarily or permanently. While some progress is made they cannot agree on everything and then the day comes when the working parent is hit with a pay cut - and now they have to deal with the reality of it - not to go back to school, but because for the short and medium term the companies business is still going to be reliant on trade and while business is getting better the buyers are not yet placing long term orders. While we polish up on the business we are good at the family decides maybe we do need to look to the longer term at the same time - . I hope that when I look back on my time in government I will be able to say I made a difference and because of that Alberta is a better place. I hope that in Education we will have taken an Education system which is one of the best in the world today and ensured that it is one of the best in the world five, ten and twenty years from now. That we have an education systems which values all children regardless of background, belief or ability and helps each child find his or her value, develop their passion and move from where they are to where they can be. This is not my budget to reconsider - it is the government's budget based on the best available assumptions, and created on the values that we need to live within our means, we should not leave debt from the groceries for our children to pay, royalty and nonrenewable resource revenue is an asset for future generations and therefore should be invested in multi-generational assets which build long term sustainability and that you can not tax your way out of a recession. As a member of government I hope that my legacy is that our children and grandchildren will have the same opportunities we had - to live in an environment with clean air and water, big blue skies and pristine areas, that they can look forward without a burden from the past but with the opportunities of a rich education enabling them to live anywhere, but choosing to live here because prudent foresight created by thoughtful balance in decisions.
There is no doubt that his is a difficult year. It is not what I would have hoped for, but it is manageable. We have invested much - 63% increase over 10 years. Canadian Rockies is a very nimble and leading edge board. They have invested annually and have not built up huge reserves and they are relatively small so have the flexibility which allows them to be innovative and adaptable may mitigate against them in this instance. I commend them for the work they do. Will be meeting with them soon - but truthfully cannot hold out hope fro budget adjustments. Have not seen first quarter results yet but do not believe they will be strong enough to encourage significant change. We budgeted a significant deficit so that reductions could be minimized but we have to be back to even before we run out of funds in the sustainability fund. Gas is not consistently stronger (and it was the real breadwinner). Oil Sands royalties are starting to build due to time and the new royalty framework but the strength of the CDN$ mitigates against rises in oil price - and volumes are not back to normal. The lag time in other government revenues behind economic recovery means we will need to be prudent for some time yet. The good news is that we do have excellent teachers in an excellent education system and that will not go away because of this brief downturn.
Difficult to measure. You cannot simply rely on standardized exams. The true "productivity is in how a teacher helps students move from where they are to where they can be. As I have often been told it is hard to determine potential and measure whether it has been reached. Students come from a variety of backgrounds, abilities and with a multitude of potential barriers - so there is no formulas that can work. Any move to merit pay would have to be based on leadership judgement - and that requires a level of trust which is not currently present. What we can expect now that teachers are well paid - is a commitment to professionalism and professional practice, personal responsibility for maintenance of professional competencies, participation in ongoing professional development, both personally directed and school and board directed, an understanding that teaching is more than the subject or the classroom but involves student engagement, school leadership and participation - in short full participation not just in assigned instructional time but also assigned no instructional time and in non assigned time directed toward the whole student and the whole school learning experience. Merit pay in Singapore is based on that type of model. That would be stringently resisted here, but for the pay now received we should still be able to expect that type of full participation - and I can tell you that we get that now from very many excellent teachers in our province.
Thank you for your comments. Always an interesting discussion - how much autonomy for local school boards, how to ensure that they are open and accountable not to government but to their electors. You've noted the per student grant. it changes by grade grouping with class size funding now focused on k-3. There s no excuse for large classes at those grades. I did try to renegotiate salary increase this year as part of a tripartite process which would focus on excellence in teaching - because that is truly what makes and excellent education system. If that agreement had come together we would have had this best of all worlds - no reduction to targeted grants and all party focus on what truly matters. We will be back at the table soon.
Sir,
As a parent of an ABE teacher, I am shocked to see that you don't take young children's education to heart. Bigger class sizes don't help children with the most basic of teachings. Reading Writing and Maths skills require more one on one time.
Let teachers do their jobs with proper funding and support.
As a teacher of 14 years, I cannot beleive how little emphasis is placed on the importance of educating our children in environments that actually support learning. We are not babysitters - children need valuable opportunities to learn which include the updated technology, the passionate teachers and the chance (read - not one in 35 kids)to try out what is being taught in a meaningful, experienctial way. How can this bee done in large classes, cut funding and lowered resources???
Why spend money to educate our youth? Stupid people are easier to govern.
When students with learning difficulties are in large classes (ie. 24 plus) they easily give up and try very little. When a teacher can spend more time with each student they will learn and not give up. Large classes in high school once again hinder the learning of students with learning difficulties.
I find it interesting that when budget cuts come, it is the teachers that bear the brunt of the cuts. In business, when making cuts intelligently, you cut support staff and keep front line staff running hard.
In Calgary, we are saddled with a spanking new admin building that is underutilised and several other properties with little opportunity to liquidate either leased or owned space. Investing that money in school renovations and new construction, ie: serving your customers directly, would have been a much more productive use of capital expenditures, but that is only my simplistic opinion.
So cut the teachers. Makes loads of sense.
The Conservative government of the day signed an overly generous contract with the Teachers in order to prevent a strike and preserve the possibility of re-election. Honestly, it is the politicians and incompetent administrators that should be paying the price here. Not the teachers.
Thank you Mr Hancock for your thoughtful reply to my comment of June 14th. As my information that we would lose 11 teachers in one school was based on initial information I had received, I went back to confirm and you are correct that they are not all due to the shortfall. 5 teachers are to be lost due to the shortfall and the rest (I think it is 6) due to a decline in enrollment. This is still a large % of teachers to lose and I understand that as a result both educational and extra curriculum programs will have to be cut.
The decline in enrollment leads me to one of my biggest concerns over class sizes. I personally know families who support public education but have moved their children to private schools because their children were not succeeding in the public system, They moved specifically because of the smaller class sizes that the private system offers and their children have thrived in smaller classes. I am deeply concerned that larger class sizes will cause more parents to move their children out of the public system. It is clear from your blog that you look carefully at the overall statistics, but we have to be careful how these are interpreted. If students leave the public system because they are not coping well in larger classes it could be that overall exam performances in the public system would improve with increasing class sizes but it would be wrong to interpret the relationship as causative.
In a public education system we should be giving all students an opportunity to get the attention they need. I agree with you that class size is not the only important criteria for children to get a good education, but it is simply not possible for any teacher to give students individual attention in large classes. I agree with you that "more money does not necessarily mean more student success" but the reverse is not true. We cannot expect better outcomes with fewer teachers and the government cannot expect the increased satisfaction from parents that it has as its goals in its Education Business plan. Nor is it right that those who can afford it can get a better education than our most vulnerable students.
Turning to the analogies with household budgets, it seems to me to be penny wise pound foolish to be losing teachers at a time when all predictions are for significant increases in enrollment in the near future and the government itself is planning to build more schools. In the household analogy this could be likened to selling half the furniture in a garage sale to buy food when money is tight, rather than dipping modestly into the savings funds or delaying buying a new car, and then having to spend much more in the long run buying new furniture to replace it.
Dear mister Hancock:
I'm writing today to put on emphasis on my views as a student affected by the budget cuts.
Going to a good school, with good teachers, I have had the treat of many options and extracurricular courses. Included among these being debate, sports teams (i.e. volleyball, track and field, badminton ect....) and have learned a lot from this. I have also had many great teachers, many of which will not be returning next year. For options, my plan was to take spanish, been enrolled in the french immersion program I have learned the values of speaking a second language, and would like to expand on a third, the only problem is, the option is no longer available.
In school, the effects will be quite different. To my understanding, all the young teachers we will be losing (the ones that end up doing most of the options and extra curricular activities associated with school) will be replaced by more senior teachers. I believe this has to do with the teachers union, but as it was brought up by another viewer, that the teachers really shouldn't be taking the brunt of the issues, caused by what largely seems to be the creation of another administration building, for our great administrators to enjoy having a nice coffee while discussing how to justify their latest act.
Most of these arguments revolve around money. I have a serious issue with this, as was brought up by one Mister Paul Genge, education is not about money. Education is about teaching kids. Seems a bit obvious, and is often overlooked by many people with a less direct connection to students. True that there are restrictions on what can be done because of funding, but when the budget is blown on a building, that has very little direct impact on a students education, and then my education is effected in a negative way I can see what is meant on the webpage title "money matters: let's focus on what improves student outcomes".
As for larger classes, as a student, I'm already enrolled in one of the larger classes in our school, and have difficulty finding the time to get help when I'm having issues at school. In even larger classes, I know that this will become next to impossible, and what today is a question in class will turn into waking up early and going in before school, where my brain won't function as well due to being tired, and spending time one on one with the teacher.
Thanks for your time
Dear mister Hancock:
I'm writting to agree with your ideals. All these people seem to disagree with you, and I can't seem to understand why. I mean bigger classes, less teachers. I know a lot of people are scared for their children's education.
In 2009 there was a 3 year plan released. The mega end was:
Each student will complete high school In keeping his/hers individual abilities.
It seems logical that you can achieve this end through larger classes, fewer teachers, which causes less options.
Less options means less area for students to grow their personal abilities.
And that's all I have to say about that (which ironically I learned in an option course)
Thanks for your time.
Mr. Hancock, our children in schools all over the Province are going to suffer next year just because the Government and the ATA are squabbling. Really. Is that something I can explain proudly to my children? No, it is sad. We tell them that school is the most important thing in their lives. Yet, it would appear to be pretty low on your priority list. We want them to be well rounded, strong, fit and bright citizens. How will that continue to be possible if they can't learn the basics because their classes are so big and they can't do extra-curricular activities because their teachers are overwhelmed? Please, show us that good education is YOUR priority too and commit to consistent funding so our teachers can do their excellent work with the next generations.
I go to Elboya School and you think stupid people are easier to gover but they're not. When people are "less-stupid" they are less likely to get a job they will then in turn go to drugs for depression then will they be easier to govern?
Think about it?
It is time to rethink the public money that goes towards PRIVATE schools if there is not enough money to adequately fund public education.
Like many parents, I pay my taxes, pay my school fees, volunteer in the classroom and for field trips, bake cookies, work the school casinos, organize and financially support school fundraising initiatives, attend school council meetings, and constantly write cheques for field trips, supplies or extracurriculars.
Our public schools are already underfunded and parents have been shouldering this burden to ensure the quality of education delivered to their children isnt compromised for many years.
Private schools select which students are allowed to attend and offer smaller class sizes, programs and facilities the public schools cannot afford.
The recent budget cuts are a slap in the face to all those who support and believe in public education.
Mister Hancock,
As a grade 9 student at Elboya School, I experience first-hand the effects of a budget-cut. So do the teachers. So is it not a good idea to listen to their ideas, and to their opinions? One of your points is that bigger classes don't mean worst grades. I disagree: personally, I am a solitary worker, that is just my character. But not all of my classmates are like that, some of them require more aid from a teacher. Are you really going to put money in front a child's education and future? It certainly seems that way. Also, I have experienced both private and public schools, and I must say, in a private school, with a smaller class, I was getting more time to ask the teacher questions, and now, in public, I get less opportunities to do so, but it is still an acceptable amount of time. Yet, when you cut the budget, the time would be less.
Furthermore, I have some concerns about the extra-curricular options: they are a wonderful opportunity for children to experience activities beside the basic courses. I myself have gained an ample amount of confidence from my drama option, which has enhanced my skills as an oral speaker. Once those are gone, students will get less and less opportunity to experience new things. Were you a child, I am sure you would have been displeased about this too.
The opinion that matters most here is not truly that of the government, Mr. Hancock, but it is that of the people affected : the educators and students. It could do you good to think about what they have to say on the matter, and not just dismiss it.
The title of this article is "Let's focus on what improves students outcomes", and that's proper education. And from what I've seen, we sure as anything aren't going to get that.
Mr. Hancock, I agree that we spend a significant amount of money on education. I agree we need to be careful to spend what we have and not go over budget. What I don't agree with is the lack of process that we seem to have when deciding what to spend our education dollars on.
1. There should be some sort of process where the Education Department decides what they feel is important and prioritize the spending. DO this first without looking at the budget numbers. ie priority number one is to teach math/english/science/social studies to all students, number 2 is to teach phys ed/french/arts to all students. Number 3 is to provide ESL services to students that require it, number 4 to provide services for special needs students etc.
2. Once the priorities are set, look at each category and decide how much money you can afford to give.
3. There should also be a category for the Education department and what they do wrt research and changing the curiculum. What happens in this category has a major effect on each school and should be taken into account. Many decisions at this level have a direct effect on the budget of each school.
I would encourage you to focus more on needs and prioritize what we really want from an education system rather than focus on the money first and deciding what it will or will not buy us. That way we can make better decisions on where to spend the money that we do have, it will help us really understand what we are deciding not to fund when we cut a budget.
You cite the following opinion of a “stakeholder group” that cuts to education funding will “lead to larger class sizes, less attention for students and more difficulty improving graduation rates.” Nothing in this statement suggests that the stakeholders in question are proposing to blindly throw money at education problems. Yet you interpret it such.
Your statement that the intentions of your critics are to “frighten parents into believing that more money will instantly produce better outcomes for their children” is, (see above) inaccurate because no one is making the “throw money at the problem” argument you claim they are. Further, this statement positions Alberta parents as dupes who can’t form their own opinions about education funding and education issues.
There is no logical link between the statements that
1) Critics want Alberta to maintain or increase education funding;
2) Therefore critics want to perpetuate ineffective practices.
Yet most of your critique is based on this non-sequitur.
Further, it does not follow that cutting funding will lead to improvements in education. You are very short on details about how alternatives to having more teachers will lead to these improvements.
You state that one such alternative is investing in the teachers we have. You note that AISI has been invaluable. AISI has become entrenched among schools and school boards as integral to teacher professional development. It provides needed local autonomy, and has encouraged teacher leadership. It has been internationally recognized. AISI funding has been cut by 50%.
New teacher induction and early career professional development remains fragmented, adhoc, and unfunded. This is exacerbated by a constant shuffling of teachers among schools, which is in part a consequence of erratic education funding (see below).
Your statistics and figures on the number of teachers the province has funded overlooks significant factors contributing to teachers’ workloads and effectiveness:
• Increased integration of special needs students and a growing number of ESL students
• A bloated, nitpicky curriculum
• Continuing focus on standardized exams
• The chaotic effects of unreliable education funding and incoherent policy
You state that family members are teachers. I talk to teachers all the time as part of my own work. I’m baffled because we couldn’t possibly be talking to the same group of people if you are denying that the teachers we have are overwhelmed, overworked, and frustrated that they can’t meet the needs of all their students (not just the bright ones who are easy to teach).
Your responses to those who took the time to respond to your blog are detailed, polite, and concede points that no one could disagree with. Yet in substance, your responses say “We’re right; you’re wrong.”
You fall upon the usual strategy of reducing your critics’ accounts to “rhetoric” while claiming your own position represents the “voice of reason.” You cite research to support your position. Critics will cite their own. This is a futile exercise when there is no will among stakeholders to genuinely consider counter-arguments and possibly revise their positions.
I really just don’t think you’re listening.