missing the mark
DESCRIPTION
Funding shortfalls in Alberta's public education systemTRANSCRIPT
Missing the mark Funding shortfalls in Alberta's public education system
Alberta School Boards Association
Suite 1200, 9925 - 109 Street, Edmonton, AB T5K 2J8
Phone: 1.780.482.7311 Fax: 1.780.482.5659
www.asba.ab.ca
Pro
mo
tin
gE
xc
ell
en
ce
inP
ub
lic
Ed
uc
ati
on
Purpose 2
Background 2
Data Collection 3
Alberta’s Renewed Funding Framework 4
Funding Sufficiency Measures 6
A. Overall Financial Position Measures 6
B. Instruction Measures 6
C. Transportation Measures 6
D. Plant Operations and Maintenance Measures 7
E. Accountability Pillar Outcome and Satisfaction Measures 7
Presentation and Discussion of Measures 8
A. Overall Financial Position Measures 8
B. Instruction Measures 12
C. Transportation Measures 19
D. Plant Operations and Maintenance Measures 21
E. Accountability Pillar Outcome and Satisfaction Measures 23
Discussion of Trend Lines 28
Recommendations 30
Conclusion 32
Table of Contents
This report was written by Sig Schmold for the Alberta School Boards Association.
For more information contact the ASBA office at 1.780.482.7311.
Published May, 2006
“I wouldn’t give a whit for simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my right arm
for simplicity the other side of complexity.”
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
2
Purpose
The purpose of this report is fourfold:• To broadly examine the question of funding adequacy for Alberta’s public
and separate school boards
• To propose some measures through which funding adequacy can beconsidered
• To recommend solutions to gaps or imbalances in funding
• To use the evidence outlined in this report as part of ASBA’s advocacyefforts
Background
The Alberta School Boards Association, in response to its concerns about thegrowing funding adequacy gap evident in the operating and capital needs ofschool boards, commissioned this study in the spring of 2006. The ASBA’s goalis to provide a report to members that provides evidence of the fundingadequacy issues faced by Alberta’s school boards. This evidence, in turn, will beused by the ASBA in its advocacy efforts on behalf of boards.
The question of funding adequacy is complex in that the allocation of resourcesis largely a political process driven by community priorities, needs and desires. Inthis crucible of public opinion government MLAs and school board trusteesattempt to reach agreement about the sufficiency of funds to provide services toAlberta’s 590,000 students. Given the high priority placed on education byAlbertans, combined with differing community characteristics and needs, it issmall wonder that the question of funding sufficiency is a perennial source ofdebate and advocacy.
Alberta has one of the best-funded and top performing education systems in theworld. Alberta’s students consistently outperform their national and internationalcounterparts on international assessments of student achievement. Alberta’steachers, on average, are the highest paid in Canada.
Despite these encouraging statistics, questions about funding sufficiency forAlberta’s school boards continue to surface. The ASBA May 2005 Metro SchoolBoards Study, for example, made a strong case for a needed increase in fundingto Alberta’s metro boards. A March 2005 ASBA study, The Funding and Costsof Plant Operations and Maintenance in Alberta’s Schools, concluded thatfunding for operating and maintaining Alberta schools has not kept pace withreal costs. At the same time, the ASBA-sponsored Small High Schools –Programs and Funding study recommended additional resources to supportapproximately 30,000 students in Alberta’s 120 small high schools.
At the heart of the question of funding sufficiency lies the issue of measures orindicators. What measures do we use to help us understand whether funding toAlberta’s school boards is sufficient to meet the needs of their students?
3
This report presents some broad measures and recommendations that addressthe issue of funding adequacy. These measures provide useful insights into thequestion of funding sufficiency for Alberta’s school boards. In addition, themeasures used in this report will hopefully add to the dialogue that is currentlyoccurring in Alberta about the Renewed Funding Framework.
Data Col lect ion
Data collected, displayed and discussed in this report comes from a number ofsources:
• Provincial roll ups of school board audited financial statements (AFS)
• Alberta Education website
• ASBA Labour Relations Department
• Prior ASBA studies, namely: Metro School Boards Study (2005), TheFunding and Costs of Plant Operations and Maintenance in Alberta’sSchools (2005), A Review of School Board Operating Revenues andExpenditures – 1995/96 to 2002/03 (2002) and the ASBA directive foraction 4.D.18: Small High Schools – Programs and Funding
In addition, a focus group meeting of school jurisdiction secretary-treasurers washeld on March 16, 2006. The focus group consisted of six participants whorepresented the geographic regions of the province, from Zone 1 to Zone 6, andjurisdiction size and type (metro, urban, “rurban” and rural). The focus groupwas used to help make meaning of the data and to assist in the formulation ofrecommendations. Focus group representatives were asked to speak from apurely personal perspective and not necessarily represent the positions of theirjurisdictions or association.
A key point made by the focus group was that care must be taken whenanalyzing data from the AFS because school jurisdictions follow differingreporting practices. As well, school boards make a number of managementdecisions that impact data reporting. As such, a simple analysis of bottom linerevenue and expenditures for Operations and Maintenance does not present atrue picture of provincial support or the difficulty boards are facing operatingand maintaining their school facilities. Some boards, in order to meet operatingexpenditure pressures, are using their reserves to fund current operations or areplanning surplus positions to deal with an accumulated deficit. Still others, as amatter of board priority, are choosing not to achieve provincial class sizeguidelines at the expense of losing specialist support positions like certifiedlibrarians and school counselors.
In short, focus group participants emphasized that many times, AFS bottom linedata does not tell the true story of the financial pressures and issues faced byschool jurisdictions. Individual analysis of school jurisdiction issues, financialpressures and goals is required to get an accurate picture of its financialoperations.
4
Given the advice provided by the focus group, the emphasis of this report is ontrend line data rather than on a particular number in a particular year. Trendlines, in turn, provide the rationale and background for the recommendationscontained in this report.
Alber ta’s Renewed Funding Framework
Alberta Education, after significant provincial dialogue and discussion,introduced the Renewed Funding Framework allocation model, effective thebeginning of the 2004/05 school year. The Renewed Funding Framework isbased on eight principles and three pillars: flexibility, accountability and fundingformulas.
The flexibility pillar is intended to provide school jurisdictions with “theflexibility to allocate funds to programs as they choose, in order to meet theeducational needs of their students and address local priorities” (AlbertaEducation Funding Manual, 2005). While there continue to be some limitationsto this flexibility, such as the cap on expenditures for system administration andboard governance, the net effect of the new allocation model is increasedflexibility and decision making for boards.
The accountability pillar “places increased emphasis on achievement ofoutcomes, reporting of results and targets, and using results for informeddecision making…with a focus on improvement” (Alberta Education FundingManual, 2005).
The funding formula pillar provides funding to school boards through acombination of per student base funding, which is equal across the province,and equity funding distributed differentially through allowance for studentdemographics and characteristics. Specific student populations include:
• Children and students with a severe disability
• English as a Second Language/Francisation students
• First Nations, Métis and Inuit students
• Early Childhood Services children with mild or moderate disabilities andthose who are gifted and talented
• The percentage of the student population of a school jurisdictionexperiencing low socio-economics
The distribution model also addresses variable jurisdiction cost factors such as:• Small schools by necessity
• Year-to-year enrolment fluctuations
• The enrolment size of school jurisdictions
• Schools located in the north
• The cost differences among local school jurisdictions for purchasinggoods and services
5
• Resources for daily physical activity in Grade 1-9 schools
• Support for Hutterite colony schools
• Support for Francophone students
In addition to base per student funding and differentiated funding factors, theRenewed Funding Framework also provides financial support for provincialpriority initiatives, namely: the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement,student health initiative, high speed networking, class size initiative and childrenand youth with complex needs.
The ASBA Metro School Boards Study supports the essential principles of theRenewed Funding Framework as sound but recommends that the framework beamended to incorporate additional allocation factors, appropriate dollar amountsand student weightings supporting some factors, and the deletion of somedifferentiated factors that do not necessarily support the principles of theRenewed Funding Framework. The Small High Schools Study also generallysupports the principles and factors of the Renewed Funding Framework butrecommends adjusting the “small schools by necessity” factor with the goal ofensuring access by all of the province’s students to a basic university entranceprogram. The March 2005 Plant Operations and Maintenance Studyrecommends both a change to the existing funding formula and a substantialincrease in operations and maintenance funding to school jurisdictions.
The intent of this report is not to repeat the points and recommendations ofthese prior studies but rather, to use the reports as a supporting rationale for therecommendations made in this report.
It must also be noted that the Renewed Funding Framework, in addition tochanges in funding allocation, has spawned changes to how financialinformation is reported in the audited financial statements (AFS) by boards andby the province. This is particularly evident in the various schedules to the AFS.The AFS, beginning with the 2004/05 fiscal year, contains significantly lessdetail regarding specific “sub” program spending. Prior to the 2004/05 fiscalyear, for example, the AFS provided both revenue and expense detail regardingfunding for sub programs such as Severely Disabled, English as a SecondLanguage and Native Education projects. Beginning with the 2004/05 fiscalyear, this level of program revenue is rolled up under the general heading ofDifferentiated Cost Funding. This roll up of information was a conscious choicemade by Alberta Education, on the advice of the Association of School BusinessOfficials of Alberta (ASBOA), to discourage direct comparisons between subprogram revenues and related program expenses. The rationale for this decisionis based on the flexibility pillar of the Renewed Funding Framework. The keyprinciple of this pillar is that the framework is an allocation model only and, assuch, does not require that funds received through the differentiated factors ofthe framework be expensed against specific students or student programs.
6
The result of this change in AFS reporting is that sub program revenue andexpense tracking, as occurred in the November 2002 ASBA commissionedreport titled, A Review of School Board Operating Revenue and Expenses –1995/96 to 2002/03, is no longer possible using information that is publiclyavailable. While this change in practice supports the flexibility pillar of theRenewed Funding Framework, it essentially closes a data trail that some schoolboards found useful for their decision-making purposes.
Funding Suff ic iency Measures
Given the difficulty tracking sub program revenue and expenses because of thechanges made in AFS reporting requirements, the following broad measureswould provide useful trend lines to inform a discussion about fundingsufficiency to Alberta’s school boards.
A. Overall Financial Position Measures1. The number and percentage of Alberta’s public and separate school
boards posting a deficit, by year, for the past five years.2. The number of school boards, by year, over the past five years, in an
accumulated deficit position.3. Accumulated operating surplus expressed as days of operation.4. Total metro board funding as a ratio to total provincial public board
funding, compared to the ratio of metro school board student count tototal public school student count.
B. Instruction Measures5. The per cent of provincial annual funding increases compared to
average teacher salary settlements since 1995.6. Annual average year-to-year consumer price index (CPI), for the past
five years, compared to average teacher compensation increases andbase funding increases.
7. Provincial class size averages.8. Total instruction resource fees, by year, for the past five years.9. Total school generated funds, by year, for the past five years.10. A comparison of revenue and expenses for severe special needs students,
by year, for the past five years.11. Special education expenditures for programs for the mild to moderate,
by year, for the past five years.
C. Transportation Measures12. Total transportation surplus/deficit, by year, for the past five years.13. Total transportation fees, by year, for the past five years.
7
D. Plant Operations and Maintenance Measures14. Operations and maintenance surplus/deficit, by year, for the last five
years.15. Total O&M revenue and expenses per square meter of school facility
space for the last three years.
E. Accountability Pillar Outcome and Satisfaction Measures16. Provincial results and trends on accountability survey questions that fall
short of the 80 per cent standard.
• Percentage of students, parents, teachers, school board membersand the public satisfied with the overall quality of basiceducation.
• Percentage of students, parents, teachers and school boardmembers satisfied with the opportunity of students to receive abroad program of studies.
• Public satisfaction that high school graduates are well preparedfor citizenship.
• Percentage of parents, teachers and school board membersindicating that the Alberta K-12 education system has improvedor stayed the same in the last three years.
• High school completion rates/annual dropout rates of studentsaged 14 – 18.
• Parent, teacher, stakeholder and school board membersatisfaction that the leadership at the provincial level effectivelysupports and facilitates teaching and learning.
8
Discussion:Alberta has 62 operating public, separate and Francophone school boards.During the 2004/05 school year, 28 of 62 (43.5 per cent) of these boards posteda deficit. The number of boards posting a deficit ranged from a low of sevenboards in 2001 (11 per cent) to a high of 35 boards (56 per cent) in 2003. In2004, 30 boards (48 per cent) incurred a deficit. There appears to be noparticular pattern amongst the boards that ran deficits with regards tojurisdiction type although the percentage for metro boards of 50 to 75 per centis higher than for non-metro boards. Of the 28 boards that ran a deficit in theyear ending August 2005, three were metro, five were urban, one wasFrancophone, four were rural Catholic, one was suburban and 14 were rural.
The trend line since 2001, illustrated in Figure 1, provides evidence that toomany of Alberta’s school boards are having difficulty balancing service deliveryrequirements against available funding. While one could not reasonably expectthat all boards could run a balanced budget every year, the standard establishedin 2001 of approximately 10 per cent of boards posting a deficit presents areasonable and achievable target.
Measure 1The number andpercentage ofAlberta’s public,separate andFrancophone schoolboards posting adeficit, by year, forthe past five years.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Nu
mb
er
of
Sch
oo
lB
oard
s
Deficit Surplus
Data Chart: Figure 1
Number of School Boards Posting a Deficit or Surplus - 2001 to 2005
Presentat ion and Discuss ion of Measures
A. Overall Financial Position Measures
9
Measure 2The number ofschool boards, byyear, over the pastfive years, in anaccumulated deficitposition.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Nu
mb
er
of
Sch
oo
lB
oard
s
Data Chart: Figure 2
Number of School Boards in an Accumulated Deficit Position - 2001 to 2005
Discussion:Figure 2 presents the trend line with regard to the number of school boards inan accumulated deficit position. While the number of boards in an accumulateddeficit position is not large (four in 2005), the trend line is worrisome,particularly given the reality that school boards are required to operate withbalanced budgets.
10
Measure 3Accumulatedoperating surplusexpressed as days ofoperation.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Days
of
Op
era
tio
n(r
eserv
efu
nd
s)
Data Chart: Figure 3
Accumulated Operating Surplus Expressed as Days of Operation
Discussion:Figure 3 shows the number of days Alberta’s school boards could operate basedon their accumulated operating surplus (unrestricted net assets and operatingreserves). The trend line indicates a decrease in the ability to operate on reservesfrom approximately 10 days in 2001 to 7.5 days in 2005.
11
Measure 4Total metro boardfunding as a ratio tototal provincialpublic boardfunding, comparedto the ratio of metroschool boardstudent count tototal public schoolstudent count.
Data Table: Figure 4
Ratio of Metro Board Revenue to Total Public School Board Revenue
YearTotal provincial
revenueMetro
revenue
Per cent metrorevenue to total
provincial
Ratio of metro to provincial
enrolment (%)
2005 4,463,242,665 1,967,071,103 44.07% 46.25%
2004 4,187,785,303 1,845,114,380 44.05% 47.6%
2003 4,072,526,002 1,790,479,305 43.96% 46.4%
2002 3,815,053,280 1,672,637,428 43.84% 46.5%
Discussion:Figure 4 supports the position taken by the May 2005 Metro School BoardsStudy. In this study, metro boards expressed the opinion that the RenewedFunding Framework has not treated them as favorably as other provincial schoolboards and that the framework failed to recognize those factors “inherent inlarge metro school boards serving the needs of a large and diverse community.”Figure 4 demonstrates that metro board funding, as a ratio to non-metro boards,is trending upward slightly but not to the extent of the ratio of the metrostudent count to the non-metro student count. For example, in 2002, metroboards received 43.84 per cent of provincial revenue with 46.25 per cent of theprovincial student population. In 2005, metro boards received 44.07 per cent ofprovincial revenue with 46.5 per cent of the provincial student population.
12
Measure 5The per cent ofprovincial basefunding increasescompared to averageteacher salarysettlements since1995.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07 To
tal
Year
Percent
Funding Salary
Data Chart: Figure 5
Funding Levels Compared to Salary Increases
Discussion:Teacher compensation costs represent approximately 72 per cent of totalinstruction expenses. As such, teacher compensation and its relationship to baseper student funding represents the largest instruction variable that school boardsdeal with. The teacher compensation settlement trends, outlined in Figure 5,reflect a consistent provincial pattern of teacher salary settlements exceeding baseschool board funding. In addition, teacher benefit costs are growing annually,particularly with the recent introduction of Health Care Spending Accounts. Inthe 2004/05 school year, for example, nine boards had Health Care SpendingAccounts as part of the negotiated benefit package for teachers. With 39contracts settled for the 2006/07 school year, this number has already grown to25. Given that salary settlements have exceeded base level funding and arepredicted to continue to do so, and given the rapidly increasing costs related toHealth Care Spending Accounts, the ASBA is predicting that approximately 700teachers will need to be reduced in the 2006/07 school year to cover the cost ofsalary and benefit settlements, unless provincial funding matches this increasedexpense.
B. Instruction Measures
Source: ASBA Labour Relations Presentation to Trustees, March 9, 2006. The 2005/06 and2006/07 data assumes provincial funding of 2.5 per cent and a continuation of current salarysettlements of 3.06 per cent and 3.04 per cent.
13
Measure 6Annual averageyear-to-yearconsumer priceindex (CPI), for thepast five years,compared to averageteacher salaryincreases and basefunding increases,expressed aspercentage increases.
Measure 7Provincial class sizeaverages.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Percent
CPI Base Funding Teacher Compensation
Data Chart: Figure 6
Percentage increases in: CPI, Base Funding, Teacher Compensation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2004/05 2005/06
Year
Stu
den
tsp
er
Cla
ss
K–3 4–6 7–9 10–12
Data Chart: Figure 7
Average Class Size for Core Subjects
Discussion:Figure 6 supports the trends illustrated in Figure 5. It demonstrates that teachersalary increases have consistently exceeded base grant increases, that base fundinghas fallen short of CPI increases in two of the last five years, and that salaryincreases have exceeded grant increases. It should be noted that the 2002 salarysettlements reflect the arbitration award following a number of teacher strikes.
Source: Alberta Education website
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2005 2006
Year
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
den
ts
K–3 4–6 7–9 10–12
Data Chart: Figure 8
Metro Average Class Size - Core Subjects
Discussion:Beginning with the 2004/05 school year, Alberta Education provided targetedfunding for Alberta school jurisdictions to reduce average class sizes to meetLearning Commission guidelines. These guidelines are:
K – 3 = 174 – 6 = 237 – 9 = 2510 – 12 = 27
While progress has been made towards achieving the commission guidelines,particularly in Grades 4 to 12, additional and continued funding is required toachieve commission class size targets and sustain them. The other trend evidentin Figure 8 is that metro jurisdiction class sizes are larger than non-metrojurisdiction class sizes. The trend illustrated in Figures 7 and 8 supports theclaim made in the Metro School Boards Study that the Renewed FundingFramework has not resourced metro boards equitably.
Measure 7Provincial class sizeaverages.
Source: Alberta Education website
15
Measure 8Total SchoolInstructionResource Fees, byyear, for the pastfive years.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Fees
($m
illio
ns)
Data Chart: Figure 9
Instruction Resource Fees
Discussion:Instruction resource fee revenue remained fairly stable between 2000 and 2003at approximately $31 million. Instruction fees have been trending upward since2003 and now represent approximately $40 million of instruction revenue.
16
Measure 9Total schoolgenerated funds, byyear, for the pastfive years.
0
40
80
120
160
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Sch
oo
lG
en
era
ted
Fu
nd
s($
millio
ns)
Data Chart: Figure 10
School Generated Funds
Discussion:School generated revenue has been trending upward since 2001 and nowrepresents a total of approximately $142 million. On a per student basis, thisrepresents approximately $258 raised per student in 2005 as compared to $213per student in 2002, an increase of approximately 17 per cent per student overthree years.
17
Discussion:Figure 11 illustrates the fairly steep upward trend line for both revenues andexpenses for programs for severe special needs students. Revenue figures were notavailable for 2005 as the AFS, modified to reflect the Renewed FundingFramework, no longer reports specific revenue for differentiated funding factors.Expenses for 2005 indicate a 60 per cent increase in program expenses for severespecial needs students since 2001. Figure 11 also illustrates the gap betweenprogram revenue and expenses since 2001.
Measure 10Revenue andexpenses for severespecial needsstudents, by year,for the past fiveyears.
0
50
100
150
200
250
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Reven
ue/E
xp
en
ses
($m
illio
ns)
Expense Revenue
Data Chart: Figure 11
Severe Special Needs - Revenue and Expenses
18
Measure 11Special educationexpenditures formild and moderateprograms since2001.
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Sch
oo
lB
oard
Exp
en
dit
ure
s($
millio
ns)
Data Chart: Figure 12
Total School Board Spending on Mild and Moderate Special Education Programs 2001 - 2005
Discussion:Revenue for mild and moderate special education programs is part of the baseper student grant. As such, it is not possible to track both revenue andexpenditures for programs for mild and moderate special education students.Figure 15 illustrates the steep upward trend line in program expenses since 2001.
19
Measure 12Total transportationsurplus/deficit, byyear, for the pastfive years.
Data Chart: Figure 13
Transportation Surplus/Deficit - 2001 – 2005
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
Su
rplu
s/D
efi
cit
($m
illio
ns)
Discussion:Figure 13 illustrates the steep reversal of fortune for the transportation expensesof Alberta’s school boards. In 2001, school boards had an excess of revenue overexpenses of approximately eight million dollars. Since 2001, the trend lineshows a closing of the gap between revenues and expenses and, in the past twoschool years, illustrates the overall deficit position of school boards with regardto their transportation operations.
C. Transportation Measures
20
Measure 13Transportation fees,by year.
Data Chart: Figure 14
Transportation Fees
0
4
8
12
16
20
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
Fees
($m
illio
ns)
Discussion:Transportation fees were generally stable between 2000 and 2003, accounting forapproximately 6 per cent of total transportation revenues. Transportation feeshave risen sharply since 2003 and now account for approximately 8 per cent oftotal transportation revenue. The shortfalls in revenue illustrated in Figure 13appear to be recovered through an increase in transportation fees. The exampleof Calgary Catholic illustrates the upward trend line of transportation fees. Inthe 2004/05 school year, students in Grades 7 to 12 paid $21 for a subsidized$40 bus pass. In the 2005/06 school year, students paid $32 for a subsidized $47bus pass. In Kindergarten to Grade 6, transportation fees to an alternativeprogram or program of choice have grown from 0 in 2003/04 to $85 in the2004/05 year to $135 in the 2005/06 year. Transportation fees for regularKindergarten to Grade 6 passengers and special education (all grades) hasjumped from no fee in 2004/05 to $135 in the current school year. Even withthese dramatic increases in transportation user fees, Calgary Catholic isprojecting a million dollar deficit in its transportation services.
Focus group representatives provided numerous examples of growing parentaldemands for improved service standards for transportation. Parents want shorterbus ride times and door pick up and delivery. In addition, the issue of escalatingwage rates across the province has created significant upward pressure for busdriver wages. Many jurisdictions are having significant difficulty finding andkeeping bus drivers at current wage rates. Improving service standards andproviding competitive wages for bus drivers will add substantially to existingtransportation costs.
21
Measure 14Operations andmaintenancesurplus/deficit, byyear, for the pastfive years.
Data Chart: Figure 15
Surplus/Deficit for Operations and Maintenance
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
O&
MS
urp
lus/D
efi
cit
($m
illio
ns)
Discussion:As Figure 15 illustrates, school boards have been incurring deficits in theirO&M operations for the past four years. A variety of factors, including spikingutility and heating costs combined with low utilization in some areas of theprovince, undoubtedly account for the financial squeeze faced by board O&Mdepartments.
D. Plant Operations and Maintenance Measures
22
2003 2004 2005
School Buildings(m2)
7,599,901 7,070,876 7,108,869
Revenues per m2 $77 $83 $83
Expenses per m2 $79 $85 $86
Measure 15Total Operationsand Maintenancerevenue andexpenses per squaremeter of schoolfacility space for thelast three years.
Data Table: Figure 16
Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenses per Square Meter fromSchedule A and F to the AFS
Discussion:The data in Figure 16 supports the trend line in Figure 15. It translates theannual O&M deficit to a per square meter shortfall of revenue to expenses.Figure 16 illustrates that in the last two years, school building space has beenreduced by school boards by approximately half a million square meters(491,032).
In addition to the 7.1 million square meters of school space boards are requiredto operate and maintain, school boards also maintain 336,546 square meters ofnon-school buildings with no provincial funding provided. At the rate of $86per square meter, as illustrated in Figure 16, school boards spend approximately$29 million for non-instructional buildings for which they get no financialsupport. This money must be squeezed from other areas of board operations.
Figures 15 and 16 also provide evidence in support of the key findings of theMarch 2005 ASBA study regarding the gap in funding for plant operations andmaintenance. These findings were:
• Funding for operating and maintaining Alberta schools has not kept pacewith real costs.
• In the 2004/05 year, school boards faced a $21.3 million shortfall ontheir electricity and gas bills.
• Municipalities are starting to charge school boards directly for servicespreviously covered by property taxes (i.e. land drainage, localimprovements)
• Alberta’s $9.6 billion investment in school buildings is at risk, as schoolboards shift dollars from ongoing maintenance to pay the light and heatbills and keep schools clean
23
The points raised in the 2005 ASBA study have become a matter of mediaattention. On March 17, 2006, the President of the ASBA was on a provincialCBC radio program discussing the deteriorating quality of Alberta’s schoolbuildings. The program was sparked by a highly visible evacuation of a Calgaryschool due to concerns about the structural integrity of the school’s roof. TheASBA President also referenced a rural Alberta school that needed its roofsupported with beams to avoid an imminent collapse. Examples like this presenta graphic picture of the clear gap between O&M funding and O&M expensesand the resultant risk to the province’s schools that this gap represents.
E. Accountability Pillar Outcome and Satisfaction MeasuresThe new Funding Framework is part of an Alberta government accountabilityinitiative that includes measuring performance on a number of outcome andsatisfaction measures. Performance results on these measures are influenced by anumber of factors including funding levels to school boards. The link betweenperformance and funding is made in the 2004/05 Ministry of Education AnnualReport. Alberta Education writes that “rather than relating only to funding forthe 2004/05 fiscal year, achievement of results on the seven performancemeasures reflects the cumulative impact of years of provincial funding and efforton the part of students, parents, teachers, and administrators as well as theMinistry” (p. 16, 2004/05 Ministry of Education Annual Report). Given thedirect link between funding and performance, performance on all provincialaccountability measures is impacted positively or negatively by the issue ofsufficiency of funds.
The literature on leadership and student performance speaks to the importanceof setting high expectations and standards for students, schools and schooljurisdictions. Simply put, if we want honours standard performance, we mustexpect and target honours performance. As a world leading education system, itis not unreasonable to expect that at least 80 per cent of education stakeholdersin the province should express satisfaction with the various factors measured bythe accountability pillar. If one looks at current accountability pillar surveysatisfaction levels, one concludes that a number fall far short of the 80 per centor honours standing. Bold strategies with supporting resources need to beimplemented to begin moving the satisfaction and performance bar upwardtowards the 80 per cent standard.
The following measures, extracted from the 2004/05 Alberta Education AnnualReport, illustrate the measures that fall short of the honours or gold standard.
24
Percentage ofstudents, parents,teachers and schoolboard memberssatisfied with theopportunity ofstudents to receive abroad program ofstudies.
Data Chart: Figure 18
Satisfaction with the Opportunity of Students to Receive a Broad Program of Studies
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Students Parents Teachers Trustees
Stakeholder Per Cent Satisfaction
Per
Cen
t
2003/04 2004/05
Discussion:For the 2004/05 school year, parent, teacher and trustee satisfaction regardingthis important measure has trended downward. As equitable access toeducational opportunities is a key goal of the Alberta Education Business Plan,this slippage presents a concern that needs to be addressed.
Measure 16Note: These provincialresults and trends onaccountability surveyquestions fall short ofthe gold standard.
Percentages ofstudents, parents,teachers, schoolboard members andthe public satisfiedwith the overallquality of basiceducation. (Newmeasure starting in2005/06 – chartmeasures “publicsatisfaction”)
Data Chart: Figure 17
Public Satisfaction with the Overall Quality of Basic Education
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Per
Cen
t
Discussion:While the trend line indicates improving public satisfaction with the overallquality of basic education, it raises the question of an appropriate target. A targetof 80 per cent is achievable and reasonable and should be the Alberta Educationgoal.
25
Public satisfactionthat high schoolgraduates are wellprepared forcitizenship.
Data Chart: Figure 19
Public Satisfaction that High School Graduates are Well Prepared for Citizenship
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05
Year
Per
Cen
t
Discussion:ASBA has long advocated for the importance of citizenship education. A publicsatisfaction rate of 60 per cent for this important measure is simplyunacceptable. Active citizenship is a cornerstone of our democracy. Our studentsneed access to an education that helps them become productive citizens and ourpublic needs to see and believe the results of this education. A target of 80 percent is achievable over time.
26
High SchoolCompletion Rates.
Data Chart: Figure 21
Five Year High School Completion Rates
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02
Year
Per
Cen
t
Discussion:Results for this important measure are trending upward but are short of the goldstandard.
Percentage ofparents, teachersand school boardmembers indicatingthat the Alberta K-12 educationsystem hasimproved or stayedthe same in the lastthree years.
Data Chart: Figure 20
2004/05 Satisfaction Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Parents Teachers Trustees Overall
Respondents
Per
Cen
t
Discussion:An overall satisfaction level of 66 per cent on this measure is low. Again,education stakeholders need to believe that the education system is improvingyear by year.
27
Parent, teacher,stakeholder andschool boardmember satisfactionthat the leadershipat the provinciallevel effectivelysupports andfacilitates teachingand learning.
Data Chart: Figure 22
2005/06 Satisfaction Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Stakeholders Parents Teachers Trustees Overall
Respondents
Per
Cen
t
Discussion:The disturbing result illustrated by Figure 22 is that those closest to theclassroom (teachers) have the lowest satisfaction.
28
Discuss ion of Trend Lines
Discussion of the evidence regarding the question of funding sufficiency
Evidence from three ASBA-sponsored studies completed in 2005, namely:• Metro School Boards Study, May 2005
• The Funding and Costs of Plant Operations and Maintenance inAlberta’s Schools, March 2005
• Small High Schools – Programs and Funding, March 2005
combined with trend line data contained in this report supports the contentionthat school boards in Alberta are facing a significant funding sufficiencyshortfall.
The ASBA-commissioned reports provide evidence that Alberta’s metro boardshave not benefited equitably from the implementation of the new FundingFramework. The Plant Operations and Maintenance Study paints a bleak pictureof Alberta’s $9.6 billion investment in school facilities being at risk unlessbuilding preservation funding increases to approximately 2 per cent of the valueof building assets. The Small High Schools Study makes a strong case, based onthe principle of student access, for an increase in the “small schools by necessityfactor” for small high schools. Trend line data in this report indicate that thefinancial position of school boards is deteriorating, that expenses for teachercompensation increases have consistently exceeded base grant level increases, thatuser fees in instruction and transportation are growing rapidly in an effort to fillthe funding gap, that student transportation services in the province haveoperated at a deficit for the past two years and O&M for the past four years, andthat a number of outcome and satisfaction measures of the accountability pillarshow mediocre results at best.
The March 16, 2006 focus group participants were asked to identify theirjurisdiction’s top needs with regard to funding. The six participants wereunanimous in identifying the following:
• Flexibility in order to address local community demographics, needsand priorities. Focus group participants noted that loss of access to thelocal tax base has significantly reduced the ability of their schooljurisdictions to deal with local needs and priorities. They noted thatalthough the Renewed Funding Framework attempts to provideflexibility, it is a hollow concept unless accompanied by fundingadequacy.
• Teacher Salary Pressures. Focus group participants were very concernedabout the costs of teacher compensation packages outstripping base levelgrant increases and that this trend, more than any other, is putting severelimitations on their ability to deliver instructional programs to a studentpopulation that presents with increasingly diverse and complex needs.
29
• Plant Operations and Maintenance. Focus group participants noted theincreasing difficulty in keeping up with school facility and maintenancecosts, the hidden costs of community usage, and the difficulty inmaintaining necessary non-instructional facility space withoutcorresponding funding.
• Long Term Capital Plans. Focus group participants made a strong pleafor provincial consideration of their long-term capital plans. Rapidlyexpanding cities require new schools and all jurisdictions require fundingto upgrade existing ones.
• Transportation. Focus group participants were concerned about theshortfalls in revenue occurring in their transportation services and thegrowing need to rely on user fees to meet this shortfall. Metro and urbanrepresentatives reiterated the need to completely revamp the metro andurban transportation funding formulas.
• Service and Legal Pressures. Focus group participants noted the growingdemands for improved service for transportation to a school of choice,improved transportation standards such as ride times and pick-up anddrop-off times, program expectations for special education, ESL andAboriginal students and the increasingly litigious nature of staff andparent relationships.
• Unfunded Mandates. Focus group members noted that schooljurisdictions must deal with a growing number of unfunded mandates.Examples given of unfunded mandates were:
- The expectation that all parents have access to programs orschools of choice
- Implementation of curriculum and program changes
- Health and social services provided to students
- Meeting legislated changes related to implementing newOccupational Health and Safety (OH&S) and “working alone”requirements
- The need to keep pace with rapidly expanding technology andinformation systems
30
Recommendat ions
Given the trends illustrated by the measures used in this report, the conclusionsreached by recent ASBA studies and the needs identified by focus groupparticipants, this report recommends the following to help address the issue offunding sufficiency:
1. That, as a long-term measure, Alberta Education, in consultation withstakeholders, develops and keeps current an Education Price Indexsimilar in nature to the consumer price index. This index would havean overall Alberta index and specific regional indexes. The EducationPrice Index would be used to establish annual base level grant increasesto school boards. The Education Price Index would more directly linkcost of service with the revenue to provide the service.
2. That some ability to access the school jurisdiction tax base be restoredto school jurisdictions to provide the needed ability to respond to theneeds of communities as diverse as Fort McMurray in the north andLethbridge in the south. This has been an ASBA policy position for anumber of years.
3. That base per student grant increases be sufficient to cover the cost ofteacher compensation packages. ASBA labour relations estimates thatbase funding is short of compensation increases by:
2004/05 = $18.624 million2005/06 = $15.973 million2006/07 = $13.507 millionTotal = $48.104 million
(funding to support approximately 700 teachers)
4. That the new Funding Framework includes a factor that addressesfunding for Alberta’s mild to moderate special needs students. Severespecial needs students are currently funded on the basis of a jurisdictionprofile. A similar approach could be used for mild and moderate specialneeds students.
5. That the new Funding Framework revise the student factors for ESLand Aboriginal students to more accurately reflect program costs, andthat the small schools by necessity factor be enhanced to provideadditional support for small high schools pursuant to therecommendations of the Metro School Boards Study and the SmallHigh Schools Study.
6. That funding for Plant Operations and Maintenance be extended toinclude needed non-instructional space such as administrationbuildings, transportation buildings and maintenance buildings. Duringthe 2004/05 school year, school boards maintained 336,546 squaremeters of non-instructional space with no funding support.
31
7. That funding for Plant Operations and Maintenance for school spacebe linked to private industry standards for operating, maintaining andpreserving facilities. An example of this standard, referenced in theprovincial government’s 1999 Report on a New Facilities Capital Planis that school facility preservation should be funded at two per cent ofbuilding replacement cost.
8. That transportation funding be driven by current cost models thatreflect the unique circumstances and service standards of Alberta’smetro, urban and rural environments.
9. That Alberta Education study the cost to school boards of theunfunded mandates that currently exist, such as the provision of choiceand compliance with Occupational Health and Safety standards, and reflect the cost of delivering these mandates in the basefunding for school boards.
10. That Alberta Education commit to funding the new facility capitalrequests outlined in school jurisdiction three-year capital plans.
32
Conclus ion
Alberta has a sound educational system that produces some excellent studentresults. The new Funding Framework, introduced in September 2004, has thesupport, in principle, of the ASBA. With the implementation of some neededrevisions, the formula should serve Alberta’s students well for years to come.
While the new Funding Framework is an allocation model, its principles arehollow without overall funding sufficiency for Alberta’s school boards. PriorASBA - commissioned reports and the trend lines contained in this reportprovide evidence of the lack of current funding sufficiency. The result, asassessed in part by the accountability pillar outcome and satisfaction measures, ismediocre performance on some key indicators of student performance. Schoolboards, given overall adequate funding and the flexibility to respond to localpriorities, will be able to move performance level results, in the words of JimCollins, “from good to great.”