Public education advocates call on Alberta to axe funds to private schools

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Interesting that the fascination with 'data driven' decisions goes out the window when the perception is somehow a rich person is somehow benefitting.

Better outcomes? Who knows. Better for parents. Doesn't matter. Cheaper? No clue. No one even asks.

The perception that rich #######s might be snubbing the masses and getting something better - well that crap has to get shut down.

[iggyformayor]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If you are making $80K you are not sending your kid to private school unless they have some sort of trust fund from a rich family member.

That is such a load of crap. I went to a private Christian school K-12 with a single Dad that worked his ass off to allow me to go there. We had it ok, but never went on crazy luxurious vacations because he felt that our education was more important. And the generalization that kids going to these schools are being brainwashed is total bull as well. While it was a part of it, the only time religion was really prevalent was a morning prayer and chapel once a week. We also had a religion class which taught us about all religions, such as Judaism, Islam, etc, which I happen to think should be mandatory in public school as well in order to prevent a lot of the ignorant, mindless crap that it so prevalent these days. Other than that, the only major difference from a public school was class sizes, and I think this benefited both my brother and I significantly. We both struggled with ADHD (him more than myself) and would have easily gotten lost in a larger class setting.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Interesting that the fascination with 'data driven' decisions goes out the window when the perception is somehow a rich person is somehow benefitting.

Better outcomes? Who knows. Better for parents. Doesn't matter. Cheaper? No clue. No one even asks.

The perception that rich #######s might be snubbing the masses and getting something better - well that crap has to get shut down.

I understand that there is a whole spectrum of outcomes/benefits to consider, but hasn't the desire for equality proven to be a pretty decent thing to strive for? Especially in the domain of preparing children for the future? I'm not certain it is as simple as eff those rich people as you make it seem.

You frame it as people overly worried about "rich people benefiting" and "snubbing the masses". Why not frame it as "people want an equal chance for their kids, lets find a system where we can make that happen". If private schools are clearly so much better, are those stuck in public schools not disadvantaged? Why not look at the system to see if we can fix that (ie. look into routing more money to public instead of private...those who can afford it can clearly still stay in private and the rest of the system then gets elevated to become closer to matching it)?

Fascinating that you focus on the parts you do.

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Interesting that the fascination with 'data driven' decisions goes out the window when the perception is somehow a rich person is somehow benefitting.

Better outcomes? Who knows. Better for parents. Doesn't matter. Cheaper? No clue. No one even asks.

The perception that rich #######s might be snubbing the masses and getting something better - well that crap has to get shut down.

I agree with this. If it is truly a private school system, it should be just that. Why are we continuing to subsidize these types of institutions and sacrificing the amount of funds going to the public system. 60% of the cost for private school students. It should be 0%. The public school system is struggling mightily to provide a system that works and works well. Our kids have learned disabilities and never get the attention they need in the regular school system, we can't afford private school, the next option is home schooling which will hopefully start in the fall.

I understand that there might be a influx of students moving to the public system if they remove all funding for private schools but that should at least give the public system a good chunk of money to create more classrooms and hire more teachers. I have no issues with that. The problem will be the first few years. One thing I hope the NDP does is give the schools more programming money and support money instead of a huge pay raise for the teachers. I just don't get the raises for teachers when the economy is in the toilet.

No more subsidies for private school students. End this.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

I agree with this. If it is truly a private school system, it should be just that. Why are we continuing to subsidize these types of institutions and sacrificing the amount of funds going to the public system. 60% of the cost for private school students. It should be 0%. The public school system is struggling mightily to provide a system that works and works well. Our kids have learned disabilities and never get the attention they need in the regular school system, we can't afford private school, the next option is home schooling which will hopefully start in the fall.

I understand that there might be a influx of students moving to the public system if they remove all funding for private schools but that should at least give the public system a good chunk of money to create more classrooms and hire more teachers. I have no issues with that. The problem will be the first few years. One thing I hope the NDP does is give the schools more programming money and support money instead of a huge pay raise for the teachers. I just don't get the raises for teachers when the economy is in the toilet.

No more subsidies for private school students. End this.

I am not trying to be rude, but do you understand how the subsidies work? I understand your frustration with your situation and I feel for you - but what you've suggested (remove subsidies and force a significant number of students back into the public system) would make it worse, not better. The per-child incremental subsidy is only a fraction of the actual cost of educating that child in either system - so what you'd be doing by removing the subsidy is actually hurting the public system more, as counter-intuitive as that seems at first blush.

[puffnstuff]

One of ours went to a private school for a few years but then back to the public system just before high school. It made sense for him and his learning. The benefits to him were immense and well worth the money and the sacrifices we made as a family to afford it.

So people know the actual money involved and the total Alberta education budget, from the article it was $151 million to 94 private schools and $83 million to 13 charter schools during the 2015-16 fiscal year. The total budget, from a quick google, in 2015-16, Education’s total budget is $8.9 billion. This includes $7.6 billion in consolidated operating expenses as well as $1.3 billion in capital commitments.

[temple5]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

If your paying $10,000 a year for your kid to go to elementary school you need to give your head a shake.

Its a bargain compared to $12K/year for daycare for a two year old and I would say we are getting a "good deal" on that price.

Its a decision we are going to make. If a private school is the same price as daycare, then why not send them if we can swing the first 5 years on reduced after tax income.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

The perception that rich #######s might be snubbing the masses and getting something better - well that crap has to get shut down.

That's not what I'm seeing here. I see people concerned that public money is going to a discretionary private service. There are already provisions in the public system for people who want greater choice and specialized programs - charter schools.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by iggyformayor

That is such a load of crap. I went to a private Christian school K-12 with a single Dad that worked his ass off to allow me to go there. We had it ok, but never went on crazy luxurious vacations because he felt that our education was more important.

I'm sure there are some families that will make sacrifices to send their kids to private school but the vast majority of the families in private schools are pulling in $250k plus per year vs $80k. We were looking at some private school options (the big guys like Webber, Rundle College, Calgary Academy) and the general impression that was received during open house events and meeting with other parents is that pretty much all of them had lots of money to burn.

We also looked at a number of charter schools and those seemed to offer a much better value. Lower tuition costs with a slightly better education experience. The major issue that held us back from private or charter schooling, aside from waitlists, was location and transportation. It just didn't make sense to bus a kid to and from school for upwards of an hour each way. We ended up going with a public school that is just three blocks away but it is a lower enrollment school because it is early French immersion. Classroom sizes, which is pretty important, are only around 20 students and the school has a lot of good teachers that have been there for many years.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm sure there are some families that will make sacrifices to send their kids to private school but the vast majority of the families in private schools are pulling in $250k plus per year vs $80k. We were looking at some private school options (the big guys like Webber, Rundle College, Calgary Academy) and the general impression that was received during open house events and meeting with other parents is that pretty much all of them had lots of money to burn.

Your own experience with this is fine but the reality is probably different. Not to mention you never know what people own, rent, or have borrowed. But anyway, the AISCA says otherwise...

22. Do most children who attend private schools come from wealthy families?

No, more than seventy percent are from families whose household income falls below the national average.

http://www.aisca.ab.ca/faq.html


My own experience with cousins who go to Weber is that Mom drives them, "volunteers" for stuff that lowers their tuition costs, raises a wack of money to pay for extra curriculars and then applies every year for bursaries and scholarships. And they have worked hard and paid off a modest house, done all the thing needed to get themselves in this position. But that doesn't mean there aren't people writing tuition checks cashed from the interest on the change in their pockets.

[BrownDrake]

My kids both spent first 3 years, Grade 1 to 3, full time Kinder to Grade 2, paid approximately 12 to 15K per year for each, very good idea especially if your kids are struggling and even if they are not, those are important foundational years for learning.

In my opinion if it costs $8K per year for a student to attend public school why shouldn't the private school get the full 8K, its not like our public schools are empty and short students?

My wife is asian, you would be surprised to see how far our education and learning is behind those in asian countries, its quite embarrassing.

Our largest class size was 16, all classes had primary and secondary teachers full time. Before and after school care, expanded curriculums where they were allowed to pick options. Very good teachers, paid very well and easy to get rig of for under performing or not meeting the expectations of the manager and parents. As you would expect, there is a tremendous amount of volunteering and parent involvement in these schools, creates a very nice learning environment and a level of accountability by the school that is second to none.

We are in public school right now as that was our plan but our kids now get an in home tutor 2 nights per week for an hour each. Would recommend this path for anyone who values this type of kick start, many ways to pay for it without too much sacrifice (we didn't buy any new vehicles over that period and did vacations close to home).

Private schools also create competition in our school system which we need more of in my opinion, options shouldn't scare anyone if they cost the same or less to the system. If you don't see value in it, use the public system that's why its there.

[Flamesoholic]

Most of the comments here really upset me. I have one of my kids in a private school. He's there because we felt to put him in the public system would be a detriment to him AND to the other kids in his class should he attend a public school.

We are not rich.

We are sacrificing everything to put him in a school that will accept him and his issues, but still provide him with a quality education.
Why doesn't my child deserve to learn and be educated the same as every other kid just because he has medical and mental issues beyond what would benefit him and the other "normal" kids in the system? I could absolutely put my child in the public system. I could, and if I did, other kids would lose out. Those kids that are smart, that listen, that follow the rules, they wouldn't get the attention that might benefit them all because MY kid, the special needs kid, would get far more attention than the average kid.
I could put my kid in a public school, I could, it would be so much easier on my family, but I'm not because I know my kid needs more attention and more challenge than most kids. I could put him in public school and get the normal 100% public tax funding that all public kids get, or I can choose to sacrifice much of our lives to pay 40% of that portion to send him to a school that not only helps him, but helps keep him out of YOUR kids classrooms.
Do you really want my kid in with your kids? Is it really that bad for me to keep him out of your classrooms?
If private school wasn't partially funded, there is no way I'd be able to do this. I don't think I'm special because I have a kid in private school. I don't like that we have to do this, but this is my reality. My kid can be a benefit to society if he gets an education, don't my tax dollars count for anything? I still pay too, on top of what I'm paying extra.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Cain

I understand that there is a whole spectrum of outcomes/benefits to consider, but hasn't the desire for equality proven to be a pretty decent thing to strive for? Especially in the domain of preparing children for the future?

No, not even a little bit. The desire to improve and improve everybody has proven to be a pretty decent thing to strive for. Fairness has proven worth striving for, but there is no reason to strive for equality for the sake of equality.

Fairness dictates that people shouldn't be starving in a rich country Fairness is why we have education standards that everyone has to meet. However, if it was equality that we strove for instead, a great number of innovations could not have come about, whether in education, medicine or otherwise. Is it fair that the inventors of medicine have the first access to it? Yes. Is it equal. Not at all.

Certainly, there are times that fairness dictates equality. It's only fair that you get paid the same for the same work regardless of gender, age, and skin color. It's not fair that you get paid the same regardless of how much you contribute to the production of the goods, but that would be equal.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Flamesoholic

Most of the comments here really upset me. I have one of my kids in a private school. He's there because we felt to put him in the public system would be a detriment to him AND to the other kids in his class should he attend a public school.

We are not rich.

We are sacrificing everything to put him in a school that will accept him and his issues, but still provide him with a quality education.
Why doesn't my child deserve to learn and be educated the same as every other kid just because he has medical and mental issues beyond what would benefit him and the other "normal" kids in the system? I could absolutely put my child in the public system. I could, and if I did, other kids would lose out. Those kids that are smart, that listen, that follow the rules, they wouldn't get the attention that might benefit them all because MY kid, the special needs kid, would get far more attention than the average kid.
I could put my kid in a public school, I could, it would be so much easier on my family, but I'm not because I know my kid needs more attention and more challenge than most kids. I could put him in public school and get the normal 100% public tax funding that all public kids get, or I can choose to sacrifice much of our lives to pay 40% of that portion to send him to a school that not only helps him, but helps keep him out of YOUR kids classrooms.
Do you really want my kid in with your kids? Is it really that bad for me to keep him out of your classrooms?
If private school wasn't partially funded, there is no way I'd be able to do this. I don't think I'm special because I have a kid in private school. I don't like that we have to do this, but this is my reality. My kid can be a benefit to society if he gets an education, don't my tax dollars count for anything? I still pay too, on top of what I'm paying extra.

Thanks for that.

I'm pretty passionate about this issue as well, but I see it slightly differently.

Whereas you are able to pay (through hardship, as you say) for your child to attend a school tailored for him, many others in a similar situation simply would be unable to.

In these cases, wouldn't it be better to subsidize a higher proportion of your education costs - and other children with special needs - and fund "regular" students at private schools very little to not at all?

As you point out, for some it's a luxury, but for others like yourself it is a necessity.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Thanks for that.

I'm pretty passionate about this issue as well, but I see it slightly differently.

Whereas you are able to pay (through hardship, as you say) for your child to attend a school tailored for him, many others in a similar situation simply would be unable to.

In these cases, wouldn't it be better to subsidize a higher proportion of your education costs - and other children with special needs - and fund "regular" students at private schools very little to not at all?

As you point out, for some it's a luxury, but for others like yourself it is a necessity.

But the point is this isn't a rich v. poor debate but I suspect someone has run the numbers and having a certain number of private schools being subsidized at 60% is better than having no funding and having a significant number of those private school kids in public school at 100%.

I can assure you that even if you are a 1%, increasing someone's 15,000 tuition to 30,000 (after tax) per child will significantly impact enrolment in the public system.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

No, not even a little bit. The desire to improve and improve everybody has proven to be a pretty decent thing to strive for. Fairness has proven worth striving for, but there is no reason to strive for equality for the sake of equality.

Fairness dictates that people shouldn't be starving in a rich country Fairness is why we have education standards that everyone has to meet. However, if it was equality that we strove for instead, a great number of innovations could not have come about, whether in education, medicine or otherwise. Is it fair that the inventors of medicine have the first access to it? Yes. Is it equal. Not at all.

Certainly, there are times that fairness dictates equality. It's only fair that you get paid the same for the same work regardless of gender, age, and skin color. It's not fair that you get paid the same regardless of how much you contribute to the production of the goods, but that would be equal.

This feels like semantics to me. You don't feel like equality of education access is worth striving for? Sure, some students are brilliant and should be catered to and some need some extra help, but everyone should have the ability to attain it. Maybe I just feel strongly that education should be one of the things we focus on the most, and if private schools are above and beyond our basic system then we should be worried about that and looking to improve the basic system instead of just going on as is and providing a subsidy to those who can afford it.

BTW I am coming at this from the perspective of having family members that are not brilliant, and do need that extra help and cannot get it from the public system. They are similarly not in a position to pay for a private school and as such...are somewhat left in limbo. I sympathize with a lot of people here but truly think that it seems like a tiered system in one that ideally is equal access. I don't care if rich people can afford it without breaking a sweat. Doesn't concern me. It does bother me though that our public system is not up to par and those without other options are stuck there when some kids need more.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Interesting that the fascination with 'data driven' decisions goes out the window when the perception is somehow a rich person is somehow benefitting.

Better outcomes? Who knows. Better for parents. Doesn't matter. Cheaper? No clue. No one even asks.

The perception that rich #######s might be snubbing the masses and getting something better - well that crap has to get shut down.

This has been an interesting discussion. However, I'm not sure why you think that people with concerns about the level of public support for private schools have abandoned "data driven" decision making? It seems to me that there are some legitimate questions to be asked.

For example, one of my concerns (admittedly I don't know a lot about the education system) is the potential "two tier" consequences of higher teacher salaries at private schools. Do private schools siphon the best teachers from the public school system? If so, that would be one negative consequence to consider, no?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This has been an interesting discussion. However, I'm not sure why you think that people with concerns about the level of public support for private schools have abandoned "data driven" decision making? It seems to me that there are some legitimate questions to be asked.

For example, one of my concerns (admittedly I don't know a lot about the education system) is the potential "two tier" consequences of higher teacher salaries at private schools. Do private schools siphon the best teachers from the public school system? If so, that would be one negative consequence to consider, no?

Actually, although my evidence is anecdotal, private school teachers make less money but they prefer the smaller classrooms, increased technology etc... and lack of "bull***" politics of the public system.

[OMG!WTF!]

I was just reading that the government funding at Strathcona Tweedsmuir covers 19.5% of the annual school budget. So if they received the entire 100% grant instead of the 60% that brings them up to about 35% funded. And that makes me think that simply cutting their funding and adding that funding to the public school mix would not even come remotely close to recreating the environment of a private school for those who need or want that.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Cain

This feels like semantics to me. You don't feel like equality of education access is worth striving for? Sure, some students are brilliant and should be catered to and some need some extra help, but everyone should have the ability to attain it. Maybe I just feel strongly that education should be one of the things we focus on the most, and if private schools are above and beyond our basic system then we should be worried about that and looking to improve the basic system instead of just going on as is and providing a subsidy to those who can afford it.

BTW I am coming at this from the perspective of having family members that are not brilliant, and do need that extra help and cannot get it from the public system. They are similarly not in a position to pay for a private school and as such...are somewhat left in limbo. I sympathize with a lot of people here but truly think that it seems like a tiered system in one that ideally is equal access. I don't care if rich people can afford it without breaking a sweat. Doesn't concern me. It does bother me though that our public system is not up to par and those without other options are stuck there when some kids need more.

I think universal access to of education that is sufficient to prepare students either for work in the trades or a university/college education depending on the student's aptitude should be provided, with the option for parents, teachers, and students to improve, expand, and innovate on it.

I believe every student should have access to a quality education. Not only is it fair, it makes everyone better off. That being said, I don't think that it should have to be at a public school. If I had it my way, private schools that provide better services for students that have special needs or unique learning styles would receive 100% funding for those students.

In my mind, while the public system should try to accommodate those with special needs as best it can, given how monolithic and large it is, it's unlikely to every do a consistently good job of it, or do so in a cost effective manner. I think independent private or charter schools dedicated to providing services for those that need more help or learn differently than that majority will likely do a better job most of the time.

You are providing a smaller subsidy to the "rich" when they send their kids to private schools than if they sent them to public schools. Should rich people have to pay to send their kids to public schools too?

Finally, if this subsidy was eliminated, a great percentage of private schools would simply sign up to become charter schools at which point they are fully funded. They lose a bit of freedom in the process, which is why so many choose to remain private, but they would switch at a moments notice if the funding was eliminated.