1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5673 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5673

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Davis

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mr. Rose

Mr. Mitchell

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1985

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: There being no quorum, the Chair will leave until such time as there is a quorum.

The House took recess at 10:04 a.m.

The House resumed at 10:10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, usually we have introductions

first. We seem to be digressing from the I would remind hon. members

that it is a courtesy of the House for members to be in their places at

the appointed time.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to make an introduction on behalf

of my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), who is

unavoidably away today. In the precincts are members of the grades 5

and 6 classes of Kitchener Elementary School, together with their

teacher Margaret Lemon. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 17: minister's office, $179,543.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thought we were getting to 18. Oh dear.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the House Leader is in a bit of a

hurry, but we do have a few other things we'd like to have a chat with

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) about. I'm not going to

prognosticate how long it will last, but I do say on behalf of the New

Westminster situation that we also agree with many of the remarks of

opposition members with respect to autonomy. When the whole education

system in our province was set up, it was not set up as a situation

that demanded full control from Victoria. It was set up in such a way

that there were elected people at the local level who were provided

responsibility, and that responsibility was to run a very efficient

education system within their own school district.

[10:15]

Knowing the work that's been done over the years in New Westminster....

If any jurisdiction in this province pays its way, New Westminster is among

the foremost. Until the time when the Ministry of Education confiscated the

commercial and industrial tax base, it was quite evident that our tax base

was over the amount required in our budget. Now the figures have been distorted

because our industrial and commercial tax base is part of the Ministry of Education's

contribution. That doesn't fool any of us that have been around for any

length of time at all. We know perfectly well that we're paying our way,

and as a result of that, we contribute to less fortunate areas in terms of their

tax base. We're not unique in this regard, and as a matter of fact we don't

put up opposition to that. What we do put up opposition to is the fact that

the Minister of Education now dictates all of the parameters and gives absolutely

no leeway.

Mr. Speaker, I've looked over the presentations both ways — that

is, the presentation from the Ministry of Education to New Westminster

School District and their presentations to the ministry — and it's

obvious to me that the ministry is not sensitive to what's happening in

our town. For just one small example, they're not sensitive to the fact

that we have a very old school district and a very stable population,

and as a result of that many of our teachers have seniority beyond that

which you would find in any other jurisdiction in the province outside

of Sooke.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sooke. I maybe misread it — but I'll go over it

again — but I believe that our average salary is higher than any other

except Sooke because of the seniority of the school teachers.

What does one do? In New Westminster, of course, there has been —

just like in other jurisdictions encouragement for those who wish to

retire. But in a free society like ours, we certainly don't force

people to retire, nor do we force them to move to other school

districts. They have their homes there, and they are running an

efficient school district, in my opinion.

There is a disparity of virtually $1 million between what is termed

the needs budget in New Westminster and the minister's budget, fiscal

framework, or whatever the new jargon is; it changes from time to time.

Even under those circumstances, even with the school district saying

that their needs budget is $12 million or whatever, they still have a

list of areas that are not even covered in their needs budget and which

in my opinion are very important. But they recognize, as do I and

everybody else in this province, that there are only so many dollars,

so they're prepared to pull back. Items such as speech therapy,

$63,000; adult crossing guards, $21,000; health services, $22.800; and

on and on it goes — very special needs for very special people. And the

very special people are the children, in this particular instance of

New Westminster, but the children of our whole province.

If we don't think that the children of this province are our most

important resource, then we are on the wrong track. This Legislature

should be addressing itself to that very fact. We think of our

minerals, of our forests, of all the material things, and at the

present time this government has come to the conclusion that they're

going to divest themselves of their responsibility toward the most

important resource in this province. That, Mr. Chairman, speaks for

itself. It's not as though I'm a lone voice crying out in the

wilderness. I'm a voice that is being echoed, and I'm echoing other

voices all over this province. People take this question of education

seriously, and so they should.

There are organizations now that I didn't dream possible a while

ago. As you recall, the home and school association, which used to be

the parent-teacher association, was in limbo for some time. There are

organizations springing up now in response to this government's

determination to cut beyond the bone of education funding. They're

speaking in outrage,

[ Page 5674 ]

and so they should. The minister should listen, and so should his colleagues.

When I say the minister, I'm not dealing specifically with the

minister. We know perfectly well that he goes to Treasury Board, as do

all the other members of cabinet, seeking his budget. He was handed a

budget by Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis),

who is off jaunting around the world — to London and then to Tokyo, I

presume trying to borrow some money.... He got that budget, and it's

inadequate. He knows it, we know it, and even the heckler from

Vancouver South knows it. He knows it, because I think he has attended

one or two meetings where people have told him rather strongly their

opinion of this whole question. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I feel very

frustrated because of the fact that there hasn't been the kind of

dialogue between my school district and the Ministry of Education,

particularly the minister himself....

Later on in the day or later in the debate I would like to discuss

the question of Douglas College. I would like to know whether the

minister is drawing some conclusions from this debate that might make a

positive difference respecting those school districts that are hurting

badly. Now we have cut back on services to our children; for instance,

one I gave you which is an obvious service that I think is absolutely

necessary is school crossing guards. It is such a piddling amount, and

yet that isn't even in their needs budget. We mustn't endanger children

on their way to school and on their way home, and once they get to

school we must afford them the level of education that is necessary.

If there is anything we should be putting our money into today it's

education, because eventually we're going to live through this

recession/depression, or however you want to describe it, and once

having done that, we had better have our human resource as well

educated and as well trained as is possible. Compared to the rest of

this country, we don't look good at all. Compared to the United States

and other jurisdictions, we don't look good at all. How then can we

compete in the future with a world better educated than we are? And,

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that if this kind of thing

persists, we will slowly but surely reduce not only our ability to

compete in the world markets without heavy immigration but our ability

to think. And that is a very important aspect.

Mr. Chairman, the green light is on. I would just like to hear a few

words of encouragement from the Minister of Education respecting our

school district.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, the member for

New Westminster rose in his place during my estimates last year and

raised the same question with respect to the commercial and industrial

tax base. That point is true not only in his school district but also

in some other school districts in the province, where we have in fact

found that the total residential and commercial levy would handle the

cost of public education. But we all realize, and it is a matter of

government policy, that the object was to share that base provincewide.

I think there are some pretty good reasons for it. I don't really think

the member is disputing the reasons for it when he considers the

revenues from a number of other sources which make contributions toward

the other social schemes in place.

Another item that was raised involves the average salary. I

recognize New Westminster is probably one of the oldest, if not the

oldest, communities in the province. I recognize that it is a very

stable community. I recognize that the age of the teaching force is

probably among the highest in British Columbia. In the school district

in 1984, the average wage was just under $37,000. What it is for 1985,

I can't tell you, but that puts it at at roughly $1,700 above the

provincial average. I believe Vancouver has a higher average, if I'm

not mistaken.

One thing we did do was acknowledge the actual salaries paid within

the entire funding system. That's why we often find a discrepancy

between the services provided when we compare one school district to

another. Even though they are providing identical services, it may very

well be that the cost per student will be higher in one area than

another. One cause of that differential is the average teacher's

salary. The important point is that it is recognized within the funding

framework, and it's acknowledged.

Recently I made a policy statement — within the last ten days —

saying that we would agree to the floor for average teachers' salaries

within the districts so that if in fact school boards, together with

their local teachers' associations, wish to make any variation with

respect to income, it would not result in a reduction of the average

salary. The only time this will ever come into place, I would think,

would be where there would pretty well be a wholesale transfer — and I

don't think that's about to take place in any school district in

British Columbia — and the majority would be younger members of staff

as compared to those who are at the top of the grid.

[10:30]

I cannot make any specific comment on the item on crossing guards,

because I do not know. I received a telegram from the New Westminster

School District within the last 24 to 36 hours expressing a concern on

the needs versus the compliance budget, but everybody does know that

I'm expecting, and I have every reason to expect, a compliance budget

from all districts.

In New Westminster it's interesting to note that even over the last

several years the variation in the number of teachers involved is very,

very small. In 1982 there were 205 teachers; in 1983 there were 193; in

1984 there were 189; and funded under the 1985-86 framework are 190.5.

So what I'm seeing is a school district which is at the funding level.

There seems to be some consistency, certainly in 1983, 1984, and what

will be generated under the framework for 1985-86. Again it's 193, 189

and almost 191. So I see some consistency here. Also, when I look at

the average PTR in New Westminster — for what that's worth — it is

projected to be 17.9 for 1985-86, compared with a provincial average

of, I believe, 18.28.

I think with respect to the comments that have been made involving

the interest of the community, certainly I recognize those concerns. I

think that they have been evident in a number of school districts in

British Columbia. They have been evident as a result of the control of

public expenditures in public education, and I concede that as well.

Government is not at all unsympathetic to what the people are saying.

I will always maintain that we have a first-class system in British

Columbia, but we have to produce it at a reasonable cost. Now we're

into the third year of a three-year program. Once that equity has been

established between districts, we have an opportunity to proceed the

way we have, certainly to a degree in the past prior to the advent of

the interim education finance act and particularly with the capping of

budgets as provided in Bill 6. I'm as interested as any other member of

the House — I would venture to say on both sides — in concluding the

program which was set out over a period of three years.

[ Page

5675 ]

I notice the revival of interest has risen, but I don't think it's

just due to the fact that constraints were placed on budgets. I think in many

cases it's a matter of a genuine interest in education and in some degree

of change. That became evident when there was discussion on curriculum. It became

evident when there was discussion on external examinations.

I know the reading assessment test.... When we start talking about

quality of education, I presume everybody has his own definition of

quality, but probably results are one indication of that quality. The

assessments in both reading and mathematics have shown an increase in

performance. The increase in performance in the last one was in excess

of 2 percent. I am told by people in the education field, both within

and without the ministry, that that was a very significant increase.

This all occurred during the period of time when we have been

exercising some degree of control over expenditures. Without any doubt,

those results compare favourably with, and I would venture to say

probably exceed, the performance in neighbouring provinces, and I have

no question about the results in comparison with U.S. studies.

Let me digress for a moment. Last night on public television there

was one of the most fascinating programs I have seen for some time. It

lasted an hour, and it was a U.S. program involving schools and the

concerns about the dropouts. The conclusion they came to was that there

were four reasons for it. I think the biggest concern really reflected

a concern which the schoolchildren themselves had as to whether anybody

really cared. They attributed the huge dropout to four major items:

lack of parent involvement or parent concern at all — a number of

single-parent family situations; pregnancy — it almost staggered me

when I found out the figures they are putting forth in the U.S., which

are that one out of every four teenage girls has her school program

interrupted as a result of an unwanted pregnancy; fear of failure or

achievement within the school system; and alcohol and drugs. As a

result of this the big push was occurring in what they called cities

within cities, in the inner-city schools. I point that out because when

I look at the items involved I don't think that they are all related to

cost — when we're talking about pregnancies, parental involvement, the

use of alcohol and drugs, and the fear of failure to achieve.

I raise that because I think the concern which the member raised is

that we have obviously got to be prepared for the future. The numbers

involved, at least south of the border, were very significant. It

wouldn't surprise me to see some of that evidence spilling over and

being found within parts of British Columbia, particularly in densely

populated areas. I assure the member that 1985-86 is the last fiscal

year under the program. After that, it is the desire of government to

bring in a new bill and restore.... The method of restoration I cannot

be sure of. I'm most interested, as I've said repeatedly, in the views

of the public; and the views of the public have been very significant.

I will take note of the item with respect to the crossing guard in

New Westminster. I'm just wondering if the member could tell me the

location. Do you have one in mind — or would you like to send me a note

on that? There are a number of guards, and these are heavily traveled

areas, from Surrey over through....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, regarding the average salary figures

and so on, Vancouver is only $36,076, according to the table that the

minister recently gave out. That's their estimate for 1985-86 fiscal.

New Westminster is $36,621. So that's $600 higher. Sooke is the only

one that's higher, and it's less than $100 higher; it's $36,748.

Victoria, which the member from South Vancouver talked about, is only

$35,810.

You know, the minister talks about the number of teachers and so on,

and says that we've been able to manage. Now he knows perfectly well

why we've been able to manage. They've dried up all their surpluses.

We're now faced with the dark reality of having to grind it in on the

minister's fiscal framework. We got by in the past because we had been

a very conscientious, hard-nosed school district. They're the ones that

get beaten up. They're the ones that get taken to the cleaners by this

sort of thing. It's always the best-run that wind up at the bottom of

the heap in the kind of world the minister has before us.

Anyway, I'm delighted that this is the third and last year of this

kind of program. But, Mr. Chairman, we've heard that before. We've seen

sunset clauses come and go, reintroduced, and so on and so forth. I

have a grave concern.... But meanwhile, back at the ranch, we've got to

live through this year, and if we live through this year — routing more

programs — then as far as I'm concerned.... You know, looking at a new

dawn tomorrow doesn't undo the damage that's done today. So that's my

whole proposition.

When I talked about crossing guards, I was talking about a number of

programs that we haven't even got in our needs budget any longer. I

just mention crossing guards as $21,000 that they've taken out of their

own budget because they haven't got it. But they've got other programs,

such as speech therapy, which is $63,000, and that's being divested by

themselves, and on and on it goes. A number of what I consider to be

very important programs have already gone down the tube, and we're not

asking for that one in particular. I just used them as examples of

what's been going on there in order to get the cost down as low as

possible. When I say they've dug into the bone, that's precisely what

has happened. So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that that's the kind of

thing that will give the minister cause to respond in a more positive

way than we've seen heretofore.

[10:45]

MR. DAVIS: The hon. Minister of Education has asked all the

people of B.C. to "talk about schools." That's an important topic. I

think it even more important to talk about the recipients of education,

about how they receive education — in other words, to talk more about

those who consume the product of education rather than about the

schools themselves, the bureaucracy and the professionals who deliver

education as a very useful commodity.

The tendency increasingly is to look at education from the top down

rather than from the bottom up; to centralize the administration of the

educational process rather than to leave it to the individual, to the

family head, indeed even to the students, to decide what they want to

receive in terms of an education. We've seen the top-down system taking

shape and form more and more in this province, and it's no exception.

It's happened increasingly in other provincial jurisdictions. It's

happened generally around the world. Now we have budgets, school

district by school district, substantially determined here in Victoria,

not by the school boards in individual districts. They basically are

being told what the total amount is that they can spend in any given

year. Admittedly, they've been given an opportunity to use a local

referendum, but that would be used in a limited way, if at all.

[ Page 5676 ]

So we have centralization occurring, and it's understandable. The

opposite approach would of course be, in the extreme instance, the

adoption of a voucher system: the equivalent amount of money that's now

spent on, let's say, primary and secondary education would be turned

over to the parent or parents responsible for each child's upbringing,

and they would decide. They, along with the child attending school,

would decide which school to attend, even what classes were preferable,

and certainly what subjects they wanted taught.

If we had a voucher system in universal application in British Columbia, each

parent or family would receive the equivalent of some $4,000 a year per child,

and they would shop around and buy the educational service of their choice

— the quality and nature of their choice. Let's say $1,000 a quarter. It

would have to be in the form of scrip; in other words, it would only have a

purchase value at a recognized school which qualified in every way according

to strict Ministry of Education standards. The teachers would have to be fully

qualified. Basic courses would have to be taught, and the standards would be

measured through periodic examinations or otherwise. There would have to be

an overall supervision of the system, and the moneys would have to go for educational

purposes. They would have to be spent at the schools, but at the schools of

choice of the parents and the children involved.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

That is the bottom-up system. The user or consumer of the

educational service would make the choice. It would be a system that

would have to respond to the evaluation by parents of the teachers, the

principals, the excellence and suitability of the school and its

teaching capability, and in some measure by the students, who would be

reporting back home to their mothers and fathers as to what kind of

education they were getting, what the discipline was like, how good a

teacher was at getting his or her message across, and so on. The

consumer would have a substantial say in the production of that service.

Admittedly, it would be an uncomfortable system for many in the

profession in that they would be continuously judged as to their

ability to teach or at least to get their message across and through to

the family heads who had this scrip at their disposal. The voucher

system is a bottom-up system. It's basically a democratic system. It's

basically a system which gives the end-user a choice.

The voucher system has been much discussed but little implemented on

this continent. There have been attempts, I think, in California, in

New York state and in several other areas of the United States to put

it into effect. I think it's operating in a few cases but certainly not

generally, and not statewide anywhere in the U.S.A. It's employed in

emerging — in fact, in highly successful — economies like Hong Kong and

Singapore; but there, of course, education has been at a premium;

educational facilities are limited. Perhaps it was the simplest and

most effective approach to use in the early stages of the evolution of

the educational systems in those countries. But it is being used in

some parts of the world.

It is basically democratic. It takes the principal decision-making

function away from the professionals and the bureaucrats, and puts it

in the hands of the individual parent and, in some measure, in the

hands of the individual recipient of the education, the child itself.

In British Columbia, and indeed throughout much of Canada, there has

been a conviction that education should not be a charge on property

but, indeed, that it should be a charge on ability to, pay; that

education should not be funded through the property tax, even in part,

but should be funded out of the general revenue of the state or, in

this case, the province — in other words, that those who have benefited

from the economy at large should basically pay for the education of the

young, and they in turn, when they grow up and begin to earn, should

begin to pay for a system which has benefited everyone; that property

is not a good measure of ability to pay; and that property is a very

narrow base on which to levy exceptional charges of this kind. These

charges are becoming exceptional, because we are spending more and more

on education. In this province we are now spending $4,000 per student

in our primary and secondary schools. If you look at many family

budgets, that's a big item. Obviously others, in addition to the

family, have to pay.

The McMath commission of some years ago recommended, among other

things, a shift away from property as the principal base for generating

income for the educational process. The McMath commission recommended

that 75 percent of the cost of primary and secondary education be met

out of the provincial treasury, the general revenue of the province.

We've reached that stage today: 75 percent of the total cost of primary

and secondary education in this province is funded by Victoria.

Admittedly, a part of that comes from a property tax levied on

commercial and industrial property owners, but well over half comes out

of the otherwise general revenue of the province.

Refining the 75 percent figure somewhat, 60 percent comes out of

general revenue — income tax, sales tax, and so on; some 35 percent out

of property tax, of which 25 percent is commercial-industrial and 10

percent is residential. The residential contribution, in other words,

is of the order of 10 percent currently; and there's a remainder of 5

percent, and that 5 percent is provided by the province, federal

government otherwise, for special needs, including the educational

services to our native people and so on. Clearly the residential tax is

now a minor contributor –– 10 percent out of a total of 100 percent.

It's not a big item, relatively speaking.

I think the province was right in taking over property taxes on

industrial and commercial concerns, because they tend to be located in

some communities and not in others. By the province taking over

property tax in that area, it has in effect been redistributing that

wealth more generally — some might say more fairly — across the

educational spectrum.

I want to make my point again. We're at that 75 percent point. I

know some in opposition they wouldn't argue this way if they were in

government ignore the homeowner's grant. But the homeowner's grant does

come out of the general revenue of the province, and conceptually, at

least, I think there are other arguments that support this. The

homeowner grant goes to the individual so that the individual

homeowners can pay their municipal taxes. So you could have a system

whereby the homeowner grant was done away with and the equivalent

amount of money was paid directly into the school districts. That's the

kind of calculation I would make if I were arriving at a conclusion as

to how much of the bill the province pays. It pays 75 percent because

it collects the money, it distributes the money, in some instances

directly to the school district, and in the case of the homeowner grant

through the individual homeowner and back into the school system in

order to defray the cost of education.

[ Page 5677 ]

Now I have a particular bone to pick with the ministry when it comes

to North Vancouver School District. We have a weird and wonderful

formula for calculating grants to school districts, and the formula

does take into account the assessed value of residential properties.

Municipalities with expensive homes or certainly high average home

assessments are deemed to be better able to pay. The provincial grant

to the school district in question is therefore less than to another

school district where the average assessment is lower.

I'll have to return to this subject, because it's an involved one,

Mr. Chairman. North Vancouver happens to be at the apex of a weird

formula which somehow enables even richer municipalities like West

Vancouver to get a special break and just because of the odd nature of

the formula puts North Vancouver in the position where even though it

has lower average assessment, it has to pay more out of local taxes in

order to keep the system going. I'll return to this topic at the first

opportunity.

[11:00]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, the voucher

system has been raised on a number of occasions. I gather it may be

appealing to some, coming from the bottom up instead of the top down,

but I think that the administration of that system would cause a great

many problems. It seems to me that if it really does have value, it

would have been in place somewhere on a permanent basis. The member for

North Vancouver–Seymour makes reference to, I think, the state of New

York and perhaps two or three others. I am told that in special needs

it may be used in the state of California, but it has been fraught with

problems. While it is an interesting concept, I have to advise you that

I don't have that on my priority list.

With respect to the statements on allocation of funding for public

education, the figures for 1984 were about 51.5 percent from

consolidated revenue, about 34.5 percent from commercial and

residential, and about 8.5 percent from residential. The vast majority

of residents in school districts in B.C., on average, after deduction

of the homeowner grant, do not make any real contribution toward the

education tax. As a matter of fact, it is reduced over four years: it

has gone down from $187 million to $157 million. I don't know what it's

going to be this year, but I suspect that it will probably be somewhere

in the category of — I'm guessing — $160 million, and probably because

of the expanded tax base as a result of new construction.

You know, I have had the argument put before me dozens of times and

the suggestion of the opposition with respect to.... I believe that

report was commissioned by the opposition when they were government, if

I'm not mistaken. Seventy-five percent, yes. But if you'll note, the

increase and the drift towards heavy taxation in the

commercial-industrial area, and in particular of machinery and

equipment, has now been checked. It's to be phased out over a very

short period of time. The revenue generated from machinery and

equipment, as I recall, is something in the order of $180 million, and

the first phase alone of deleting that portion is going to increase the

contribution from consolidated revenue by something in excess of $80

million. So I think we're moving in the right direction. The sums of

money are so staggering that it would be almost impossible to bring in

overnight what everybody may think desirable.

I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile considering the other side

of the coin as well. As far as the residential taxpayer is concerned,

when you look at what the net is on average, the contribution made by

property owners and the residential base in British Columbia is really

not all that significant. When you take the average amount paid....

When you look at it, it seems to me that the total removal of the

residential tax for school purposes might often place school districts

in a very difficult position — where the demands being made by the

public on school boards.... "They're not our costs. We don't have to

worry about it at all." It might in fact make the demands almost

unbearable. So I'm not so sure it's such a bad thing that the

residential property tax payer should be paying something towards

schools.

The last item, though, which the member raises — which I understand

is a bit of an anachronism as far as North Vancouver School District is

concerned — is the amount of taxation paid there. We in the ministry

are aware of that particular problem. I just asked one of my officials

whether or not it is being addressed, and there is one particular

person looking at it. His name is Mr. Barry Anderson. If the member

wishes to discuss that issue with him, he should take that name. You

might be able to make some suggestions which will assist us in

clarifying that problem, because we do know that the difference between

property values in the two school districts on the North Shore, North

Van and West Van — at least from my observation, anyway, if my eyes do

not deceive me.... I would think that the significant value would be in

the area which is apparently not the recipient of the problem. But the

area where I would expect to find a lower level of assessment is the

area from which the member is elected.

So I leave that name with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. We

are aware of it, and he may wish to add some more to it. But we are

looking at it.

MR. DAVIS: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I would not

argue for the total elimination of a local property tax for educational

purposes, paid locally, with the funds going from the local property

owner into the school board budget and spent within the school district

in question. The main reason I would argue for some local property tax

being used in this way is that when school trustees are elected they

should have certain responsibilities. One of these responsibilities

should be to account to the local taxpayer for the manner in which the

funds were administered. Those who are taxed locally would take a

particular interest because those funds would be administered locally.

In a system in which there was greater local autonomy, that

discretionary element in the system would foster accountability, would

make the election of school trustees more meaningful and would give

them a job to do.

I think, more important still, that, instead of their present role,

in which they basically throw up their hands and say: "We're not

responsible for taxation. We're not responsible for the gathering of

funds from you, the taxpayers. We're merely the distributors of the

funds...." There is a great temptation to talk only about needs and not

about how the needs are met. In the evolution of our system, in which

centralization in Victoria has become the fact, the school trustee now

mainly has the role of distributor of provincial.... I won't call it

largess, but provincially dictated sums of money.

I would argue that there should be some local taxation, and, because

municipalities are limited by their tax base to largely taxing

property, that means taxing property in some

[ Page 5678 ]

degree — but, I would say, taxing in a

discretionary way, and taxing for what I would loosely call extras in

the system rather than for the core curriculum, which I believe should

be funded provincially, largely out of income, sales and other taxes.

To return to the plight of School District 44 — the city of North

Vancouver's district — I'm quoting from figures supplied by the

ministry. I see first that North Vancouver School District, along with

a dozen other school districts, actually net pays into the school

system. Otherwise, the remainder of the 75 school districts, net, don't

pay anything in the form of residential tax. Admittedly, I am including

the homeowner grant in my calculations. If you include the homeowner

grant as a grant going substantially to schools and school districts

for their administration, the vast majority of school districts in this

province don't pay any property tax. They don't pay any tax levied on

the local property owner. But North, Vancouver, West Vancouver, Delta,

Richmond, Burnaby, Saanich and one or two others do in varying degrees.

Those with the highest average residential assessment pay the most.

But lo and behold, a couple of years ago, because West Vancouver

school tax, as dictated by Victoria, produced more revenue than was

needed to finance their total primary and secondary school system, and

because they were required to turn the surplus over to the province, it

was decided to eliminate that particular nonsense. So a special formula

was developed to somehow reduce the tax in West Vancouver. So today,

where the average assessment in West Vancouver is 50 percent higher

than in North Vancouver, the net cost of primary and secondary

education in North Vancouver is $285 per home, and it's only $181 in

West Vancouver.

So clearly a formula was developed to look after the very rich

communities a couple of years ago. It's a formula which allows that

sort of thing to happen; indeed, it is devised in order to make it

happen. It is not equitable, not sensible and not rational. It's about

time that formula was eliminated. I'm arguing on the one hand that

there should be some property tax paid. I would argue for a system

going back to square one, where the province paid so much per pupil to

every school district and stood back. If the school district wanted to

raise residential property taxes in order to supplement the educational

system in that particular school district, so be it, but at least give

the local school trustees that much autonomy and treat all school

districts equally.

I think that the first thing we have to do is make sure that North

Vancouver is treated at least as well as wealthy West Vancouver. Better

still, let's treat all school districts the same and not have a very

elaborate financial formula in place which very few people understand.

I doubt if any of the MLAs in this House understand it, and I doubt

very much whether many of the school trustees across the province

understand it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the comments made recently

with respect to the minister's estimates have been very far-reaching

and quite interesting. It's an extension of the soap opera that's been

going on for some months. There is a great controversy over education,

always centering on dollars, always coming back to dollars. The

arguments put forward by the school boards and by the self-interest

groups always centre around dollars. According to them, dollars

translate into quality. You can solve any problem in the world,

apparently, with respect to education, if you pour more money in. That

always seems to be the problem. The conversations I've had with

self-interest groups in the educational field are primarily almost

exclusively to do with the amount of money being allocated for school

functions.

I had the opportunity of speaking with my school board in Richmond

about their budget for 1985-86. We had some very interesting meetings

with representatives of the school board, the trustees, representatives

of the Richmond teachers' association, CUPE and people from the school

district itself about the budget for 1985-86. Richmond School Board, in

its stupidity, sent the Minister of Education what they referred to as

a needs budget. I've heard different reasons as to why they agreed to

that particular silly idea of submitting what they called a needs

budget. It was about $59 million for Richmond.

[11:15]

The needs budget had a relatively short lifetime. I think it was a

matter of ten days later, when I had the opportunity of meeting with

them, that the budget had been pared to about $54 million. So $5

million had been found or eliminated during that period of time. A

couple of highly capable people in Education reviewed the budget for

me. The Richmond School District felt it still needed $1.975 million to

meet its needs, and I had a very capable person in that field review

the budget on my behalf. It took him about an hour to find the $1.975

million — no problem at all.

I again met with the senior representatives of the district a week

later on the Tuesday morning and was advised by the superintendent that

the previous night the school board had approved a budget of some $52

million, in compliance with the Ministry of Education's budget. So in

about two week's time $7 million was identified, found or otherwise

eliminated. It was most interesting to go through the exercise with the

school district.

Mr. Chairman, I might add that the quality of education in Richmond

is very high. Richmond has always been a leader in the education field.

It was one of the first districts to introduce some very progressive

concepts with respect to the education of the mentally and physically

handicapped, and some other programs. Richmond is not a poor community.

The budget has been high. It is somewhere in the middle, I know, on a

per capita basis and per student expenditure, and has attracted a high

level of educator for many years. But it was most interesting to look

at some of the numbers, because we are constantly being told by the

ill-informed that the system is underfunded. Everything is underfunded.

So we looked at some of the numbers as supplied by Richmond School

District. The superintendent, who is a very capable man, receives a

salary of approximately $74,000 a year. That doesn't seem to be out of

line with the average for superintendents throughout the province —

that is, if, you require the position at all. But in Richmond we have

three assistant superintendents, and they're in at about $71,000 each.

I have yet to find anyone in that system who agrees that we need three

assistant superintendents in Richmond. Richmond is only 50 square

miles. It has about 40-odd schools. I cannot believe that we need — and

I can't find anyone who agrees that we need — three assistant

superintendents for Richmond. In fact, I would argue that we could get

by with a superintendent. I doubt if we need any assistants at all. I'm

advised they're under contract till 1989, for some reason.

Other interesting numbers were provided to me. In conversation,

again with educators in Richmond, I said: "Would you please let me know

what a district curriculum coordinator does?" A couple of years ago

they had ten of them.

[ Page 5679 ]

They now have five, and they're going to reduce it to three. I'm

told they don't need any. They only cost $44,000 each a year. They used

to have ten; now they have five and they're reducing it to three.

There's a question of whether they're required at all — not that when

they are working they're not performing a service, but whether they are

required to be on permanent staff is a very real question.

Those are the district curriculum coordinators. In addition there

are three part-time district curriculum coordinators who also teach.

But then we have 68 curriculum coordinator teachers. That was very

difficult to define. In effect, they suggested that these people are

what you might refer to as a head teacher in that specific subject at a

school, but it's a little difficult to define precisely what the added

responsibility is that would provide those instructors, on average,

about $4,000 a year. There were 68; the salary, $2.751 million. They

are also teaching. So that money is not just for curriculum

coordinators.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, they are also teaching.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, I don't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Comments should be directed toward the Chair.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have no doubt that in the school system there is a tremendous waste of money, as there is in almost every system.

Mr. Chairman, what annoys me somewhat, in speaking to the

self-interest groups in the education system — that certainly is not

the students — who are constantly complaining about lack of money, is

that they're telling me, although not necessarily directly, that it's

not lack of money in the system, it's lack of money in their pocket.

I'm told by some educators in Richmond that they would agree to the

layoff of 68 teachers if that translated into an increase for the rest.

That's not the official line; I recognize that. That's the information

given to me. Sure, lay off a few, then dump on the government and blame

the minister for layoffs. But that's preferable to not getting an

increase in salary across the board.

Increases in salary across the board: in Richmond we have 780

full-time equivalent teachers — average salary approximately $36,000 a

year; our curriculum coordinator teachers — average salary

approximately $40,500 a year; assistants to principals, of which there

are 21 — $43,000 a year on average; vice-principals in junior secondary

— $47,000 on average; vice-principals in senior secondary — an average

of $55,000; elementary principals — an average of $55,000; district

curriculum coordinators — an average of $44,000 a year; and as I said

previously, the assistant superintendents — an average of $71,000 a

year.

Obviously there are many other employees in the system who are not

teachers. There's a great list of those people who are not employed as

teachers, and the salaries vary: the secretary-treasurer as an example

— $69,000 a year; the comptroller — $54,000; the assistant managers

(maintenance), and there are two of them — approximately $40,000 a year each.

Mr. Chairman, I would argue that there is plenty of money in the

system. I would very seriously question the manner in which it is spent

— the priorities. I'm told by the teachers in Richmond and others that

they are interested mainly in the in-classroom situation. The money

should go to teachers in the classroom, and I wonder why, then, so much

is going for non-classroom expenditure. I don't mean the maintenance

men, and I don't mean those people who work in the Taj Mahal offices

they have in Richmond — they're trying to rent out the top two floors

now to somebody — but they spend lots of money, I can assure you, in

Richmond and in other school districts.

Speaking of that, I'm sure the Minister of Education very soon will

have a look at that ridiculous situation of having 75 school districts

in a province of less than three million people. Cute little districts

out there are fully staffed, with probably fewer students than in a

major high school. However, it's jobs for somebody, I guess.

MR. ROSE: Now you're being silly.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, no. I know the Ministry of Education is

moving on it, because there are rumours that there could be an

amalgamation of Mission and Harrison, two of the larger school

districts.

MR. ROSE: Mission impossible.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mission impossible is right.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of the noise that's happened over the past

while, very carefully orchestrated — well, not cleverly orchestrated

but carefully orchestrated — has come from certain school districts in

the province who are highly motivated, not for educational purposes but

for political purposes, and they are right in there making lots of

noise. I'll tell you, I would very much like — and I can identify

individuals I would select — to go in and have a good look at the

manner in which some of these districts are operated. Not presupposing

they're not operated properly, but, boy, I'd like a couple of people I

could think of to go in and have a really good look at what's going on,

to find out if there are any horses on the payroll and to find out if

there are expenditures which are really not required, or whether there

are a few little bits and pieces of accounts here and there that may be

located, found or utilized — a really clear picture of what it's really

about.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We have these critics who come out and talk about British Columbia's

relative position on a percentage of provincial product or on this,

that and the other thing, ignoring constantly the amount of money spent

per pupil in the province. B.C. ranks very well. We have people on the

other side who say that teachers' average pay is the sixth lowest, and

someone says no, they are the second highest — that must be Iona

Carnpagnolo figuring out those relative positions.

The people in Richmond, I can assure you, after being advised of

what money is being spent, where it's being spent and and how, are

quickly running out of patience with that constant bellyaching about

more and more money being required to be tossed into the education pot

just so we can maintain this very high standard of living that some of

these people enjoy.

[ Page 5680 ]

Richmond School Board is not that much different than any other

school board in the province. When it comes down to cutting budgets,

they go right where it's at. One of the first things they decided to

cut last year was health services — the nurses within the school

district. Now they've dumped the dentists, which is fine. But they go

for where the real waste and heavy money is: the crossing guards, the

speech pathologists or others, who have been providing good service to

the students of Richmond. Because, I was told by a school trustee, they

do not wish to affect teachers' salaries or the numbers of teachers. To

them that was forbidden; they couldn't do that. They stripped down

everything else. Don't pay any attention to reality, to numbers, and

what's being paid.

There's a very carefully orchestrated network of complainers

throughout the province, but they're not as effective as they thought.

I wish every school district would provide to their local media a

breakdown of what the costs actually are and then have the average

income-earner in B.C. be asked how sorry they feel for all these people

in the education system when they have a look at what kind of

compensation they're receiving, and the person who's grossing perhaps

$24,000 a year is being asked to pay more and more taxes to pump up a

system which is already thick, not at the head but at the shoulders —

in some instances, perhaps, at the head.

Mr. Chairman, I think we've worked well with our Richmond School

Board. They've come in with a compliance budget, and I think every

school district in the province probably could identify a tremendous

amount of what otherwise could be considered surplus dollars.

MR. ROSE: Just briefly, because I have another speech to make

on television, so I'll have to go and get my makeup on. I wasn't

intending to speak, but I get provoked from time to time, especially by

the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Neilsen), who I think might live to

regret some of his remarks and his teacher-bashing, as if there's a

great conspiracy here. Justified criticism of policies is considered

self-interested bleatings, and the great conspiracy theory. It sounds

like the theory of the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world that

got Keegstra in so much trouble.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that demands have been excessive in the

last three or four years in terms of teacher salaries. They've been

effectively frozen, there's no question about that. If you want to know

the per-pupil cost, we are sixth. I'm not suggesting that there's any

reason why we should be first, but there's no reason why we should be

last either. We have the same ability to pay as any other province, and

more than some. Here's where we are. Number one, per pupil cost — this

is also directed to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

— $4,695 per pupil per year in Quebec. Second is Alberta, our

neighbouring province, a good right-wing province — $4,616; third is

Saskatchewan, another Conservative province — $4,390; fourth is

Manitoba — $4,301; fifth, Ontario — $4,027. So I don't think that we're

out of line at all there.

If it's helpful to suggest that those employed as curriculum

coordinators to organize and plan the math or music or other curriculum

areas are somehow not valuable because they are not in the classroom

every day, perhaps we might say the same thing about a lot of other

people, including the members of the bureaucracy over there. They're a

cost to education as well. They get handsome salaries, I'm told, far

outstripping that of any MLA and maybe even competing with some cabinet

ministers for the public buck that that poor average bloke making

$24,000 a year is going to be so envious of.

But that doesn't mean that their work is not valid. It doesn't mean

that they're not useful. Is it wrong to suggest that somebody should be

coordinating the math program or the learning assistance program or

some other program in an elementary school? I think that is ignorant

criticism. It's close to demagoguery, and I don't think we need to

accept it.

I hadn't intended to speak about this, but I did want to respond to

the former minister from North Vancouver–Seymour on a couple of other

things.

[11:30]

We do need choice in the public system. But I think it needs to be

in the public system. I don't think we should be going outside of the

public system for a lot of voucher-related privatization of the school

system. It might work in Vancouver, where you've got a reasonable

transportation system. How would a voucher system for various little

schools work in Osoyoos? Under the present financial conditions, they

can't even keep their high school open in Osoyoos. It was a full

system; it no longer is.

Again, we have the independent school situation. We have their lobbyist in

the gallery. There are all kinds of other suggestions about independent schools

and criticisms by them of double taxation. Perhaps instead of giving them

30 percent of their average per-pupil cost, we could just return their taxation

to them if they're complaining about being double-taxed. That would amount

to about 8 percent of the costs of the schools, not 30 percent. So there are

other ways of dealing with this.

Mr. Chairman, again, I have other fish to fry, but I agree with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis) when he says there should be a formula that applies

throughout in terms of taxation. The average West Vancouver homeowner

pays 46 percent less school tax than the average homeowner in North

Vancouver. That's unfair, especially when you have the higher assessed

values in West Vancouver. I agree with what the minister says: we've

got a centralized system. We've got an inequitable system, and he

suggests that we should have a per-pupil grant and let the other be

raised locally. There'd be some problems with that, perhaps, as well.

But those are really my few remarks. There are others I could make,

and I will make them. But I think that uninformed criticism of the kind

that is being levelled is just making the educational debate far more

political than it needs to be. I don't know that we're going to gain a

lot by that. I think that by all comparisons B.C. is not excessively

extravagant in rewarding its staff or its teachers.

We're reaching a point where we're going to offer a limited fare,

and I would have liked to ask the member, if he had stayed here.... Oh,

here he comes. He's gone for his notes. He's back. I would have liked

to have been able to ask him if he feels that learning assistants, who

perhaps don't teach regular classrooms, are not a valid kind of

service. We could go through the whole thing: programs that are being

cut, planning and coordinating that's being diminished. I can go

through a lot of those things, but I don't intend to do that now.

I did want to make those few points before I sat down. I'll probably

be able to expand on some of them a little bit later, but I have

another appointment. I'm sorry I have to be away for a minute or two,

but I'll stay until the minister replies.

[ Page 5681 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Are you back this afternoon?

MR. ROSE: Yes. You want to reply then?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes.

MR. ROSE: All right. Thank you.

MR. MITCHELL: I find it fascinating when I sit here and I

listen to two of the previous speakers, who tend to want to attack

individuals. I think our NDP education debate leader was correct when

he said that we can't afford this attack, this attitude that it's

individuals who are causing all the problems. What I find so

fascinating is that, if the education system is in the state that the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) indicates, it's from 32 years of

Social Credit administration. I think these are the facts that we have

to recognize, plus the difference in priorities of this government. The

government can find a billion dollars to build an ALRT in the lower

mainland; that's a priority. But the education of this province is the

most important function of this society.

It's not only we in the opposition saying that. I'd like to read you

a part of a speech made by Bruce Howe, chairman of B.C. Resources. He's

not one who could be considered as a left-wing person or a strong

supporter of the NDP; he's a businessman. If there are any more

right-wing businessmen who are not sitting on the other side of the

House, I would say that he falls in that particular group. He says:

"Business should be talking about the need to maintain a quality

education system in British Columbia. The days are long gone when a

grade 8 education and a will to work were enough to get you by. Today's

business world already demands a high level of expertise and the

intellectual flexibility to cope with constant change. Tomorrow's

business world will make even heavier demands." This is what we are

trying to get through to the government and the minister. The future of

British Columbia depends on our education system.

We can't afford the pleasures of taking pot-shots at individuals. If

any individual in the school system or any individual in the rest of

the province is getting a wage that the Minister of Health feels is

exorbitant, then you have an income tax system to level it off. But you

can't keep picking out one group. We could pick out doctors who are

getting exorbitant fees, we could pick out lawyers who are getting

exorbitant fees and we could pick out politicians who are getting

exorbitant fees, but the way of correcting the education system or the

legal system or the political system is not by attacking individuals.

We have to build up from the ground. You know, we have to look at

the total picture of where we are going to go in British Columbia.

We've got to look at the new technologies we have. We have to plan and

develop the people who are going to live in our societies. The Minister

of Health attacks the needs budget as if it were some dirty word. What

is a needs budget as defined by the B.C. School Trustees' Association.

The metro branch of the BCSTA has defined a needs budget as follows:

"...that the January-June 1985 budget be set at least at 1984 service

levels plus an inflation factor." What is that? Was the education in

1984 so expensive? We don't even recognize that there is an inflation

factor in the system.

If you are going to freeze teachers' salaries or if you are going to

freeze school board funds, then are you going to freeze inflation and

are you going to freeze the cost of living that is built into the

system? Are you going to freeze prices that various companies put on

the supplies that the school boards have to buy? I would like to get

into a long legal discussion on the directives that are coming from the

minister. Are they legal?

We have so many sections of the School Act that school boards must

conform to in negotiations. There are certain other parts of different

legislation that set a certain standard of costs. But above all that,

when the school boards have to go through the hoops, they have to go

through discussions and negotiations. They have to buy on the open

market, they have to look at all the outside influences, and they have

to set a standard of education that is needed in their area. But what

happens? From the centralized office in Victoria the Minister of

Education keeps on cutting the basic budget. He keeps changing the

goal-posts. When you have this situation, you are going to have chaos.

You are going to have the chaos that has evolved after 32 years of

Social Credit mismanagement and trying to find a simple answer. The

simple answer of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) or

the simple answer of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen),

attacking individuals, is not the way to do it. There is no simple

answer. There is a need to look at education for what it is.

I would like to discuss what's happening to the major school

district in my riding, Sooke School District. What is happening is

erosion, and I say there is no other word for what is happening to the

standard of education in Sooke School District. I know the first member

for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) and the Minister of Health are going to say

that I am using figures that may have been prepared by vested

interests. I say that we in this House.... The minister has set his

figure of 19-some-odd for the teacher-pupil ratio. The minister says

that that figure really doesn't mean anything, because it takes in

administrators and all kinds of other groups. If we are going to use a

real teacher-pupil relationship, we should taake wht the real facts are

in the schoolroom. That's the only place you can look. That is where

the teachers and the pupils are together. That's the only relationship

that you can use. You can't use some mythical figure that is pulled out

of the air. When you take the schoolteachers who are in the profession,

when they are dealing with it and they have studied it.... They're not

a bunch of dummies, wasters or anything else; they're fellow British

Columbians, fellow Canadians.

[11:45]

When they set a figure for grades 4 to 12 of 30 students per

teacher, would the minister say that it is too low? When they say that

for primary grades the ratio should be 25 students to every teacher,

when they set a figure for kindergarten.... We all recognize, all of us

who have been parents, who have watched our children start their

education, that the kindergarten level is the most important

section of

a child's start in education. How he gets to learn to associate with

fellow students and to relate to the teacher, to classroom discipline

and to learning skills — all this starts in kindergarten. They have set

a figure of one teacher to 20 students.

Special classes. I talk about special classes because I worked as a

police officer with the people who copped out of special classes; the

people who 10 or 15 years ago were the dropouts, because there was not

special education for some of those who had problems. The end cost to

society was far more than one teacher to every ten children in a

special needs class. The end cost when they became criminals, or when

[ Page 5682 ]

they entered the criminal justice system, was far

more expensive than the one to ten that.... I know certain people in

the right wing would make broad statements that they're not needed. I

say these are sound figures from people who work with students. They

are part of the evolvement of the education system. The education

system that I went through, or many people in this House, is not the

same education system that we have today in British Columbia. We have a

whole different economic development, job situations, technology. As

Bruce Howe said, there was a time when, if you had a grade 8 education,

a strong back and a will to work, you could get a job. But it's

changing; I think we all recognize that.

What's happening in the Sooke School District? Certain standards

have been established. They weren't pulled out of the air; they're not

something that I think any one of us can get up and pick holes in. When

you look at what's happening because of the cutbacks that have taken

place in education in British Columbia, you find that the overall

increase in class size is approaching a dangerous level. Classes over

30 are now common in 120 classes in the Sooke district. In the

elementary classes, 48 percent, or 82 classes, are in excess of the

guidelines set down by the education fraternity. It's easy to say 82,

84, 81, but there are students in every one of those classes who are

not getting a fair, proper exposure to education. I mentioned

kindergarten. This is where you start off to get your basic training

for education, Forty percent of the kindergarten classes in Sooke are

oversized. This is what's happening. It's easy to pick out somebody who

is getting $40,000 and say he's to blame, but it's not.... It's the

students who are the victims.

I see, Mr. Chairman, that the green light is on. I have a lot more

to go through, but I would like the Minister of Education to give some

answer on what he really feels the classes should be. He has a figure

of 19-point-some-odd. Is that a correct figure? What does he really

think the size of kindergarten classes and secondary classes in the

school system should be?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Perhaps I could relate to some of the

concerns the member has raised. I agree with some of your opening

comments, if you know what I mean.

In Sooke the average elementary class is 24. In secondary it's 23.4.

Now those are figures which I've made available; I'm sure all members

have it for their classes. I don't think there should be any problem

with 19.1. I've advised on innumerable occasions that that was a

financial equivalent. It was the only service level available when we

first started. It looks to me like the overall provincial average will

be something in the order of about 18.28. Now this varies from district

to district all over the province, and we know the reasons why.

Now I gather the House Leader would like to conclude this morning's session,

but I would like to make one reference to the service levels to which the member

has referred. The service levels under the framework are very clear. When it

was under preparation.... I can tell you that after being assigned the portfolio,

one of the items that I insisted upon in the preparation of the funding system

was that the service levels prescribed for funding would be at least as good

as or better than those which are prescribed by the BCTF, with one exception.

That exception was kindergarten. There has been a view that the number of students

in kindergarten should be 20. My position was 22.

With respect to secondary funding, for every 22 to 24.... It varies,

you know, for the first 1,500, from then on up to a maximum of 24 for

funding purposes. For elementary, including primary from 1 to 7, it is

25 to 27. Now, that's the funding which is made available. How the

school districts wish to allocate that funding is entirely up to them.

If you wish to have an examination of the timetables in each of the

schools, you will no doubt find that by design — I repeat, by design —

many school districts intentionally develop classes which have 30 or

more students, because that is their choice and that's the way they

want it. This became clear to me when I met with a number of boards.

Many school districts have already set their own policy as to what they

think is the adequate number of students in a class. So we've really

got a classroom teacher-student ratio. That's what they're talking

about. That's the one that I subscribe to.

The other reason for the PTR and the average which we use is the

different ways in which school districts approach the administration of

their own schools. That's why we have to go back to that overall PTR.

Many school districts may turn around and say: "Just a minute. We would

much prefer to have 28 to 32 in a particular class." Others would say:

"No, we want 24 to 27." So I have got to fall back on one constant.

That's all that means. There's nothing else to it. The point was made

Tuesday, when we started talking about the staff-student ratio. Your

colleague, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), raised it, as well as

other colleagues. I recognize it, but I think the important thing is

that when we look at classroom averages they seem realistic. I know

that when you go into a school you're going to find considerable

variations. Some of that — probably most of it — is done by design.

The only area that gives me some concern is where I find them

swelling to some degree in grades 8 and 9. That's the real problem that

gives me some concern. The other one involves the splits in some school

districts, in grades 4 and 5 particularly.

So those service levels were set, and they're within the funding

framework. How the school districts wish to allocate their funds is

entirely up to them.

MR. ROSE: That's not entirely true.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As far as I'm concerned it is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes.

I can hardly wait for your response, but I think we're going to have

to wait until this afternoon, because I've got a direction from the

House Leader.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada