It’s time to merge public, separate schools

Move will save money, protect students from repercussions of ‘transformational change,’ writes Ailsa M. Watkinson.

In the spring, the minister of education and labour, Don Morgan, called for a review of all education spending. This was to meet the provincial government’s goal of “transformational change” so as to ensure the sustainability of public services. But what if the transformational change undermines public services rather than sustains them?

The government began the process of transformational change with gusto — coming on the heels of a muchdelayed budget that kept us all in the dark until well after the April provincial election. That budget brought significant cuts, eviscerating many well-established and worthwhile public services.

We saw cuts to the environmental assessment program, community based organizations, the aboriginal court worker program, cuts to funding for urban parks, including the Meewasin Valley Authority, cuts to the SAID program aimed at ensuring the equality rights of persons with disabilities. Even seniors, on fixed incomes, saw their drug plan cut.

Cuts to education funding have been consistent throughout the tenure of the current government. From 2008-2014 the Saskatchewan Party cut K-12 public education funding from 3.08 per cent of the province’s GDP to 2.6 per cent. According to one researcher, if the funding level of 3.08 per cent had been maintained throughout that time there would be $2.4 billion for public education.

Morgan, in his role (ironically) as minister of labour and education, blindsided both sectors when he broke a promise — bargained in “good faith” — concerning teachers’ salaries. Teachers and the government had bargained for a salary increase of 1.9 per cent. Morgan announced after the settlement had been signed, sealed and delivered, and well after the election was over, that the government would only cover half the cost of the agreement and the school boards would have to cover the rest.

As a result, school boards were sent scrambling. This has meant reducing the number of teachers and special education personnel, increasing student teacher ratios and cutting programs. As one critic tweeted, “Don Morgan orders a pizza. Makes delivery boy pay for half.” And I might add, makes students pay for the whole thing.

If the government is serious about bringing in transformational change to help save money, there is one very costly and unnecessary duplication of services that it could deal with right away without undermining one of our most cherished public services: that is the amalgamation of the public, separate and associate schools into one public education system.

Currently, associate schools (formally private schools that are receiving public money on top of tuition charged to families) receive $19 million in public funding. A 2011 study undertaken in Ontario estimated that by merging the public and separate school systems, the total estimated annual savings would be between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion. The savings would come from the elimination of school boards and administration funding, savings on transportation and capital programs.

The right to establish separate schools throughout Canada was established at the time of Confederation through the 1867 British North America Act. By the time Saskatchewan and Alberta became provinces in 1905 the constitutional provision allowing for separate religious schools (Roman Catholic) was enshrined in the Saskatchewan Act.

Some argue the constitutional provision makes it impossible to do away with denomination schools. Not so. The provision has been removed in other provinces and we can do the same. In doing so, we would be catching up with Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador, which have all removed their previous constitutional right to separate schools.

When Morgan was chair of the Saskatoon Public School Board he acknowledged that amalgamation would not proceed voluntarily and that it needed to be mandated by government.

Amalgamating public education into one educational service would save money and enhance the sustainability of a vital public service while ensuring that students would not be made to suffer any more negative fallout from “transformational change.”