Opinion: Schism with Sask. teachers stems from neutering school boards

Article content

The escalating tension between the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation and the provincial government on class size and composition reveals a deeper issue that reaches back to misguided education policymaking in 2009.

When the provincial government seized control over local school divisions’ powers to set property tax mill rates, it severed a century-old, foundational connection between local communities and their schools, and it curtailed a key democratic mechanism that communities held in shaping provincial education.

Article content

Article content

This misstep has left the education system in Saskatchewan reeling.

It is unsurprising that recent op-eds and social media commentaries have increasingly called into question the role of the Saskatchewan School Boards Association.

The association traditionally served as a conduit between local school boards and the provincial government, advocating for funding stability and local education priorities.

However, since 2009, the association’s influence and effectiveness have diminished significantly, to the point that teachers feel a need to address funding stability through contract negotiation.

Given that, and the perception that the association is making short-term deals and siding with the government on the issue of class size and complexity, the association is now regrettably — and dangerously — perceived more as an advocate for the provincial government.

Local trustees, who were once strong and direct representatives of their communities in education governance, have also seen their roles greatly diminished.

Stripped of several strategic financial decision-making powers, though still elected by their communities, trustees now lack meaningful capacity to engage community and directly address their divisions’ educational needs.

Article content

Article content

The provincial government’s insufficient response to requests for stable support for class size and complexity demonstrates a concerning lack of appreciation of the roles and responsibilities of various levels of government in education.

This is particularly surprising, given that the same government frequently opposes the federal government assigning them responsibilities without providing sufficient resources or intervening in matters that overlap with provincial jurisdiction (take carbon pricing, health-care funding and equalization payments as examples).

The education minister’s repeated commentary attempts to shift the burden to local boards, while denying them stable means to raise necessary funds. This makes disingenuous his government’s recent billboards proclaiming commitment and care in the context of classrooms.

That it is taking the Saskatchewan provincial government so long to figure out that this is a policy problem — the solution to which is directly within their control — is disconcerting.

The centuries-old, tried-and-true (not to mention, ethical) local benefit principle of taxation isn’t being followed. This principle, which ensures that revenue collected locally is spent locally to meet specific community needs, has been slowly eroding since 2009.

Article content

In fact, since a 2012 funding policy change, all education taxes collected locally are required to be remitted fully to the provincial government to be absorbed into its centralized funding formula.

In addition, since these policy changes, Saskatchewan’s per-student spending rankings have plummeted, though obscured by a provincial budgetary shell game claiming increased investment in education.

In addition, local property tax funds now primarily support municipalities rather than local education, undermining school board trustees’ ability to effectively respond to evolving community demographics, rising costs and shifting student needs.

Instead of repeatedly insisting on what will and won’t be discussed at the bargaining table, despite the overwhelming message of discontent from overworked teachers, the minister would be better served rethinking the failed policies from 2009 that have brought us to this point.

Now is the time to redevelop policy by creating a hybrid governance and funding model that combines the strengths of centralized control with authentic localized decision-making.

Article content

Properly implemented, centralized controls would establish baseline education standards and ensure equitable resource distribution, protecting students from disadvantages related to geography or socioeconomic status.

At the same time, reinstating real fiscal autonomy to school division boards would empower them to address local needs like class size and complexity, which the minister has acknowledged is best determined at the local level.

Michelle Prytula is an associate professor and graduate chair at the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan, who has spent nearly 30 years in education, including as dean of the U of S College of Education and as a school teacher and principal.

Share your views

The StarPhoenix welcomes opinion articles. Click here to find out what you need to know about how to write one that will increase the odds it will be published. Send submissions to letters@thestarphoenix.com or ptank@postmedia.com.

Our websites are your destination for up-to-the-minute Saskatchewan news, so make sure to bookmark TheStarPhoenix.com and LeaderPost.com. For Regina Leader-Post newsletters click here; for Saskatoon StarPhoenix newsletters click here.

Article content