Myths versus realities in the teachers' dispute
The problem with the deadlock in the dispute between the government and Saskatchewan teachers is that it now requires sorting through the myths and realities that have swamped this discourse.
So let's attempt today to sort a few of them out.
■“Saskatchewan spends more per capita on students than anywhere,” says the Saskatchewan Party government. “We're eighth in the nation,” argues the Saskatchewan Teachers Federation (STF).
Saskatchewan did have the highest school board operating spending per student in the country as recently as 2015-16, according to Statistics Canada.
By 2021-22, “school board operating spending per-student” had fallen to eighth place — a reduction of 20.7 per cent or $3,362 per student after adjusting for inflation, says the STF in its post-budget analysis that contends Saskatchewan is about to fall even further, even with the pre-budget announcement of a $180-million increase in education spending.
So why the different numbers?
While most provinces, the Fraser Institute and even the Council of Canadian Ministers of Education use “school board operating spending per-student” as the comparative standard, our government has recently been using “per capita” numbers that sound more favourable to a province with a lot of seniors.
■ “Saskatchewan has been hiring more teachers than ever,” says the government. “Saskatchewan has among the highest ratio of students per teacher,” says the STF.
Again, it's another case of how two things can be true at the same time.
Saskatchewan has more teachers and has built more
schools to accommodate increasing enrolment, as the government suggests. (Frequently, the government throws capital spending into this debate.) But while some other provinces currently have even higher student-to-teacher ratios, Saskatchewan's once-low ratio has increased and has surpassed comparable provinces. For example, the STF notes that while Manitoba has an estimated 16,500 K-grade 12 teachers, Saskatchewan has between 13,300 and 13,500. However, Manitoba only has about 15,000 more K-grade 12 students. Saskatchewan's student-per-teacher ratio is much higher — odd, in a province with more small town schools.
Also, the government has occasionally counted every adult in a classroom, including teaching assistants — accounting for the “average” classroom size of 21 students it's been occasionally using since the last labour dispute four years ago.
This, too, is ironic because one reason the STF wants classroom composition and complexity addressed in the contract is Saskatchewan's disproportionally low number of teaching assistants, English as an Additional
Language (EAL) specialists, speech pathologists, psychologists and social workers in classrooms.
■“School boards — not unelected unions — should be determining how taxpayers' money is spent on classroom size,” says the government. “Classroom size and complexity is being addressed in teachers' contracts in other provinces,” says the STF.
Other provinces have implemented mechanisms to address classroom size and complexity, but there have been bumps along the way. In B.C., for example, there have been disputes over students having to move schools to accommodate classroom size requirements.
The problem in Saskatchewan is a nine-per-cent increase in students between 2013 and 2022 — a jump to 188,084 students from 170,582, compared with only a 1.1-per-cent or 130-person increase in full-time equivalent teachers.
That said, any contract in which a specific number of workforce employees is required will be difficult.
It's virtually unheard of in the private sector. And it's problematic for a government about to negotiate with other unions who might soon
demand the same thing.
“Sask. Party MLAS are
■ moving toward privatized education and don't even send their students to public schools,” say critics. “The government is committed to public education,” says the government.
This is nebulous to measure. In regard to where MLAS' children go to school, the government says it “does not collect or release personal information regarding minors.” Why the question of “how many MLAS send their kids to private schools” is “personal information” is puzzling. Possibly because they don't want to remind their rural constituents who don't live in city ridings where such schools are located.
Where you send your kids isn't necessarily indicative of funding support for public schools, where operating expenses have increased to $2.2 billion from $960 million in the Sask. Party government's first budget in 2007-08.
However, in that same period, public dollars going to private religious schools has increased dramatically.