In attending this years budget process meetings, the BTA has noted a - - PDF document

The Town Center, Unit D4, 800 Rosser Avenue, Brandon, MB R7A 6N5 204 729-3141 www.btateach.com

26 February 2018 1

date: 26 February 2018 subject: BTA presentation to the Brandon School Division Board of Trustees

• n the 2018-2019 BSD budget

In attending this year’s budget process meetings, the BTA has noted a number of things to be thankful for. We recognize the continued hard-work it takes to prepare and set a budget, and we are grateful for it. We know that trustees do not take these decisions lightly because they are aware of the impact they can have. The Association believes firmly that it is here to work collaboratively with trustees during this challenging process. The Association is happy to learn that the board is advocating for seven badly-needed modular classrooms in the division. The Division’s own analysis predicts that by 2021 – in 2 planning years – Brandon public schools will need a minimum of 20-25 new classrooms. The Brandon Teachers’ Association has concerns that arise from the preparation of the 2018- 2019 budget, including concerns about the budget process. It was a surprise that the provincial funding announcement did not occur until February 8. Until recently, the announcement has come much earlier, sometimes even as soon as early January. The earlier announcement allows the division to prepare a detailed preliminary budget document, with funding scenarios and comprehensive information about budgeted expenditures and expected revenue, and to share the document publicly. This year, a 26-page document was prepared and distributed on February 12, 3 days ahead of the public budget consultation. It did not include the level of detail made available in earlier

• years. With a lesser amount of information in hand, the Association set about studying the

document and preparing questions to ask at the public consultation. However, at the public consultation on February 15, additional information was presented, including details we would have wished to have sooner, in order to reflect and prepare. In the end, our questions had to be reworked on the moment. Instead of being prepared with helpful notes and the most useful questions, questions helpful to our membership, to the public and to the division, we were to a degree less effective than we would prefer. What matters most in this is that late delivery of information upsets the consultation process itself. Based on BSD Policy 1021, a consultation is a two-way flow of information. It is a process of practicing joint-ownership so as to share advice and work towards better solutions together. For consultation to have occurred, comprehensive background information must be provided to the public.

The Town Center, Unit D4, 800 Rosser Avenue, Brandon, MB R7A 6N5 204 729-3141 www.btateach.com

26 February 2018 2

The public was not provided with the comprehensive information it needed prior to this

• meeting. In fact, the more meagre 26-page preliminary budget document was the only one

provided online even until the all-day budget meeting on February 20th. How can true consultation occur when one side is there to present, and the other largely to receive and process the newly-presented information? Our experience as teachers shows us that consultation and discussion of this sort fosters disengagement in our students, and undermines their ability to give sound, critical feedback. Such as it was, in the budget consultation process this year, some questions were not fully

• answered. There was the question about where the $230,000 of reduced expenditure had been

“found” in function 500. The response was simply “there are a lot of lines in function 500. . .senior administration probably went through all the budget lines in function 500, and looked for places where they could cut a thousand here, ten-thousand there, twenty-five thousand somewhere else.…and they went through those one-by-one until they got to $230,000.” This question was asked again, later on. The person asking wanted real information about where reductions were made, but scant clarification was given. At the all-day budget meeting, those attending finally had access to a more complete budget document—this one 58 pages long. An extra 32 pages! Should not this additional information have been made available to the public ahead of any consultation? Our committee is certain there is so much more it could have contributed to the collective sharing of ideas had the February 20 information been available before February 15. Further, how much more engaged would the public have been if the consultation night itself had been conducted in small table groups where everyone could feel safe and confident to discuss their experiences and concerns with a trustee representative? This approach seems more consistent with the goals of a true consultation than the current question-and-answer large-forum format. The small group process has been used in other Brandon School Division

• consultation. Why not conduct budget consultations this way?

The BTA understands that the funding announcement this year was late. However, the Board’s responsibility is to provide an effective consultation process and this obligation must be met regardless of how late the funding announcement happens. It is the duty of the Board to uphold all aspects of the consultation process. Our membership is also concerned about the ability of this budget to meet our students’ needs.

The Town Center, Unit D4, 800 Rosser Avenue, Brandon, MB R7A 6N5 204 729-3141 www.btateach.com

26 February 2018 3

At the public budget consultation evening on February 15, a question was asked about planning to provide for an additional 145 students in the 2018-2019 school year with only 4.84 teachers. The response to that question suggested that as the present school year’s projected enrollment increase was greater than the experienced increase, the Division is over-staffed for this school

• year. That there is no need to provide as many additional teachers for next year as the usual

staffing ratio would require. The Association would like to remind you that in the last 5 budget cycles, including this coming budget year, the Division has had an increase of 576 students, and has met that enrollment increase with 24.6 additional teaching positions. This means that over this time, our hiring ratio has been 23.4 new students per new teacher, which is 10.5 students higher than the Division’s FRAME ratio. We know what a big impact an additional 10.5 students in a classroom can have, the impact it has on the ability of teachers to deliver the highest quality individualized programming to students. Looking at this period of time, it is clear that hiring has not kept up with enrollment growth at the levels it once did. It is clear that the Division has not over-staffed, that it has not provided more teachers than needed. On the February 15, when budget scenarios were available for the first time, two were

• presented. In past years, the board has used enrolment growth plus inflation as a target for

sustainable investment in the Brandon School Division—this is Motion 93. Neither of this year’s scenarios met Motion 93’s guideline. This motion was established by the board itself. The scenarios provided were short of the guideline by at least $638,000. It is as if all those involved had decided that budgeting less than in previous years was a foregone conclusion. Options consistent with Motion 93 were not up for discussion. The province set a guideline to direct budgeting this year. Trustees were asked to try to keep the special requirement at a 2% maximum increase. Both the Division’s scenarios fall well under 2%. In light of this, the board was asked whether budgeting up to the full 2% special requirement would be up for discussion on budget day. The chair of the meeting noted that the trustees had “no appetite” to exceed or to meet the 2%. On Feb 20—budget day – the decision was made to keep the special requirement at 0.88%, well under the 2% guideline. Working up to the 2% would have allowed the division an additional $546,000 for use in providing equitable, accessible and personalized quality education

• pportunities – a fundamental goal in this division.

I would like to emphasize that we don’t come before you each year and ask for more teachers in the division because it benefits our members individually. We do this because we know how important it is advocate for students, who cannot readily advocate for themselves. Working on behalf of students is why we became teachers in the first place. We believe that high quality public education is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society. It is the responsibility of all citizens to work together support these ends. We know we have this foundational philosophy in common with you—as Ken Cameron, president of the MSBA noted in his February remarks, “Education is an investment, and a critical one.”

The Town Center, Unit D4, 800 Rosser Avenue, Brandon, MB R7A 6N5 204 729-3141 www.btateach.com

26 February 2018 4

We urge you to reflect further on the decision to be made. Why was motion 93 appropriate in the past, but not now? What are we doing to support our enrollment growth? Why is there no appetite to discuss using the full 2%? BTA members feel firmly that the time to make critical investments in education is now.