Budget & Finance

Funding Reduced Class Sizes

​Can you explain more about class sizes? How much would it cost to decrease the average class size? Is there room in the budget for this?

Alberta Education provides guidance for average class size from kindergarten to Grade 12 and provides funding to help the CBE keep class size as low as possible.

For the 2016-17 school year, Alberta Education published the following average class size information for the CBE. I have provided a second column of numbers that sets out the Alberta Education guidance regarding class size for comparison.

It is important to note that average class size is just that – an average class size. Some class sizes are smaller to best serve a group of students’ educational needs, while some classes can be larger. There is a much bigger educational piece to this question that is best addressed by others; however, I can provide guidance on the financial end.

The CBE receives money from the government to reduce class size: all of this funding is allocated specifically for this purpose. Our lowest class sizes are in the kindergarten to Grade 3 division, as we use class size funding to ensure that smaller class sizes are maintained during these years. We know that small class sizes in early grades have a significant impact on student learning.

As you can see above, average CBE class sizes are fairly close to Alberta Education’s class size guidance. However, achieving the suggested class size in every classroom would require $32 million per year for more than 300 new teachers and support staff. We would also require hundreds of additional classrooms to accommodate smaller classes. Unfortunately, we do not have the extra classrooms, and finding an additional $32 million in an already stretched budget would be difficult.

Thankfully, we did receive some additional help from Alberta Education last year and for the next year. Under a special Classroom Improvement Fund (CIF), the Minister of Education made $13 million available to the CBE for 2017-18 and we will be receiving another $13 million for 2018-19. Those dollars will be used to pay for about 130 additional teachers and education assistants in classrooms. This will help to moderate class sizes, but we would still need to find another $19 million to meet the government targets.

Is $19 million hard to find in such a big budget?

The CBE’s total 2018-19 expenditures are $1.4 billion.

Of that total, instructional programs consume $1.1 billion. This includes all school-based staff and a range of school-based and central supports to schools (psychologists, speech language pathologists, occupational therapists, curriculum specialists, etc.).

The cost of operating and maintaining (gas, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, insurance, grounds and building maintenance and custodial staff, etc.) over 250 schools rings in at $169.9 million: not much room there to assist in class sizes in an already stretched budget.
Transportation services absorb another $49 million. These dollars are required to be dedicated to transportation services, so we can’t move funds from here to assist with class size funding.

Noon supervision, international student programming, etc. consumes about $33.3 million. For each dollar spent here, the CBE recovers at least one dollar. Said another way: if we direct those dollars to fund smaller class sizes we would actually end up further in the hole, as the offsetting revenue would also disappear. This is not an option.

Finally, there are board and system administration (BSA) costs. Board and system administration pays for the cost of our elected Board of Trustees, the leadership team within the CBE, and the range of other costs associated with running a large school jurisdiction. For the 2018-19 budget year, board and system administration is forecast to be $46.3 million. Finding the dollars to shrink class sizes here would take 41 per cent of the BSA budget; meaning we would not have the staff required to hire and pay our teachers, or pay the bills to keep the lights on in schools.

I hope this has helped explain the financial piece to the class size dilemma. There are no simple solutions. Even in a $1.4 billion budget, we cannot find $19 million without affecting important classroom supports.

In all our financial decisions, we remember our values: students come first, learning is our central purpose, and public education serves the common good.​

Addressing the 2018-19 Budget Shortfall

We understand there is a 36 million dollar shortfall in the 2018/2019 calendar year and as a result there was a article the media disclosed but no further information on what made up the shortfall and what plans are underway to addres​​s it. Is it true the Alberta Government is not fully funding the Learning needs of the students in the System? What makes up the gap?

Thank you for your comments.

We have recently posted a video that better describes our planning process. I hope this is of benefit to you in answering your questions. Specifically, I would guide you to the 10:23 mark. This slide considers a scenario where the CBE does not add any students, and seeks to provide the same types and levels of programs and services in 2018-19 as in 2017-18.

We start with the deficit we are funding through reserves for 2017-18. The deficit is comprised of ongoing costs (teachers, etc.) and the reserve funding is one time. That is the $17M at the top of the page.

We then move to increased costs to simply provide the same services next year as this year; kind of a status quo scenario.

For example, 98 per cent of our staff are covered by collective agreements such as those with the Alberta Teachers Association, the Staff Association, and other unions such as our trades. Under these agreements staff move through a salary grid. The cost of this salary grid movement is more than $15M per year.

Inflation refers to the cost of operating our major computer systems. Payroll, accounting, facilities management, student information, D2L, Iris, etc. Those systems unfortunately cost more year over year as there are inflation and enrolment-related cost increases.

All of the new schools add both incremental operating costs (insurance, utilities, non-teaching staff like caretaker, principals, assistant principals, etc.) and increased amortization. The amortization costs $2.8M, and the new schools cost $2.462M: for a total of $5.262M. (The slide only references the new schools cost).

The final two numbers, the $13.022M and the $15.022M are monies flowing in and out with a two million dollar difference. The $13.022M is what we received from the government related to the ATA collective agreement. It was called Classroom Improvement Fund funding. As I write this our understanding is that the funding will not be continuing. Therefore we have removed both the revenue and the related expenses. The $2.0M difference is the cost of the math coaches that we deployed to certain schools to support our math strategy. As those coaches were funded from reserves, that was a one-time deal.

Putting it all together the CBE has to find $40.4M more just to stay the same. Nothing more, nothing less, just the same programs and services to the same number of students.

Now we add in enrolment growth. The $4.952M number towards the bottom of this slide represents what we anticipate having left over after we have provided all of the educational services and supports (teachers, educational assistants, etc.) necessary to provide service to our anticipated 2,100 additional students. Those dollars are then applied to our $40.4M gap, leaving a net gap of $35.5M. That amount represents the dollars we need to find to balance. Said another way, we are $35.5M short of being able to offer the same programs and services in 2018-19 as we are in 2017-18.

As to your question about whether government if funding education adequately, I will leave that to our Board of Trustees. I would say that this government has done a lot for public education over its mandate so far. The reality is that costs can increase at rates beyond which funding increases, especially in challenging economic times.

As the CBE administration it will be our difficult challenge to find a way to close the gap while maintaining services to students to the maximum extent possible and within the resources available to us. What that looks like in action is having each of our service units look under every rock for ways to be more efficient, be more effective, or do things differently. In some cases in may been stopping activities in preference for preserving other, more important, activities. This is challenging work as there are no activities currently performed that don’t have an impact somewhere in the system. On the school front, programs, services and supports are also reviewed to identify those which can be modified or changed, to hopefully provide the same or similar benefit for less. This is difficult work with no easy decisions. The genuine need for services and supports is almost endless while our resources are most definitely limited. Our public and our Board will get a good sense of where the CBE is headed with the submission of the 2018-19 Budget Assumptions Report. This will go to the Board of Trustees on April 10. Stay tuned.

I hope that this information is of some benefit. Thank you again for providing your thoughts via our budget feedback site.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)​

Take Pride in Canada's Public Education System

It’s not all about numbers and finances for me – it’s about the more than 119,000 students we educate each year, along with students across the city, province and country. I’d like to pass along some information that our readers might find of interest to help connect Canadian students to the world.

All Canadian provinces participate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. Canada, through the provinces, has participated in this PISA study for many years. And for the most part Canada is an above average performer on just about every measure that PISA measures.(Yay Canada!)

The attached report is from some work done by PISA in 2015. There are some timing delays given the large quantity of information that is gathered through the assessment, resulting in the reporting delay. Nevertheless, the information is hugely interesting.

CBE staff have summarized the results in the attached brief. While I will leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions, I will simply state that Canadians and Albertans should take great pride in the top quality public education system they have in place to serve the needs of our students.

Explaining the Building of New Schools

It’s not all about numbers and finances for me – it’s about the more than 119,000 students we educate each year, along with students across the city, province and country. I’d like to pass along some information that our readers might find of interest to help connect Canadian students to the world.

All Canadian provinces participate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. Canada, through the provinces, has participated in this PISA study for many years. And for the most part Canada is an above average performer on just about every measure that PISA measures.(Yay Canada!)

The attached report is from some work done by PISA in 2015. There are some timing delays given the large quantity of information that is gathered through the assessment, resulting in the reporting delay. Nevertheless, the information is hugely interesting.

CBE staff have summarized the results in the attached brief. While I will leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions, I will simply state that Canadians and Albertans should take great pride in the top quality public education system they have in place to serve the needs of our students.​

Addressing the 2018-19 Budget Shortfall

We understand there is a 36 million dollar shortfall in the 2018/2019 calendar year and as a result there was a article the media disclosed but no further information on what made up the shortfall and what plans are underway to addres​​s it. Is it true the Alberta Government is not fully funding the Learning needs of the students in the System? What makes up the gap?

Thank you for your comments.

We have recently posted a video that better describes our planning process. I hope this is of benefit to you in answering your questions. Specifically, I would guide you to the 10:23 mark. This slide considers a scenario where the CBE does not add any students, and seeks to provide the same types and levels of programs and services in 2018-19 as in 2017-18.

We start with the deficit we are funding through reserves for 2017-18. The deficit is comprised of ongoing costs (teachers, etc.) and the reserve funding is one time. That is the $17M at the top of the page.

We then move to increased costs to simply provide the same services next year as this year; kind of a status quo scenario.

For example, 98 per cent of our staff are covered by collective agreements such as those with the Alberta Teachers Association, the Staff Association, and other unions such as our trades. Under these agreements staff move through a salary grid. The cost of this salary grid movement is more than $15M per year.

Inflation refers to the cost of operating our major computer systems. Payroll, accounting, facilities management, student information, D2L, Iris, etc. Those systems unfortunately cost more year over year as there are inflation and enrolment-related cost increases.

All of the new schools add both incremental operating costs (insurance, utilities, non-teaching staff like caretaker, principals, assistant principals, etc.) and increased amortization. The amortization costs $2.8M, and the new schools cost $2.462M: for a total of $5.262M. (The slide only references the new schools cost).

The final two numbers, the $13.022M and the $15.022M are monies flowing in and out with a two million dollar difference. The $13.022M is what we received from the government related to the ATA collective agreement. It was called Classroom Improvement Fund funding. As I write this our understanding is that the funding will not be continuing. Therefore we have removed both the revenue and the related expenses. The $2.0M difference is the cost of the math coaches that we deployed to certain schools to support our math strategy. As those coaches were funded from reserves, that was a one-time deal.

Putting it all together the CBE has to find $40.4M more just to stay the same. Nothing more, nothing less, just the same programs and services to the same number of students.

Now we add in enrolment growth. The $4.952M number towards the bottom of this slide represents what we anticipate having left over after we have provided all of the educational services and supports (teachers, educational assistants, etc.) necessary to provide service to our anticipated 2,100 additional students. Those dollars are then applied to our $40.4M gap, leaving a net gap of $35.5M. That amount represents the dollars we need to find to balance. Said another way, we are $35.5M short of being able to offer the same programs and services in 2018-19 as we are in 2017-18.

As to your question about whether government if funding education adequately, I will leave that to our Board of Trustees. I would say that this government has done a lot for public education over its mandate so far. The reality is that costs can increase at rates beyond which funding increases, especially in challenging economic times.

As the CBE administration it will be our difficult challenge to find a way to close the gap while maintaining services to students to the maximum extent possible and within the resources available to us. What that looks like in action is having each of our service units look under every rock for ways to be more efficient, be more effective, or do things differently. In some cases in may been stopping activities in preference for preserving other, more important, activities. This is challenging work as there are no activities currently performed that don’t have an impact somewhere in the system. On the school front, programs, services and supports are also reviewed to identify those which can be modified or changed, to hopefully provide the same or similar benefit for less. This is difficult work with no easy decisions. The genuine need for services and supports is almost endless while our resources are most definitely limited. Our public and our Board will get a good sense of where the CBE is headed with the submission of the 2018-19 Budget Assumptions Report. This will go to the Board of Trustees on April 10. Stay tuned.

I hope that this information is of some benefit. Thank you again for providing your thoughts via our budget feedback site.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)​

Explaining the Building of New Schools

Can you explain the process by which new schools are built?

Schools, it is often said, are more than places of learning; they are the heart of a community. It is probably no surprise then that people have lots of questions regarding how and where new schools come to be. Given that interest, I thought a few words on the process that results in a school would be of interest.

It all begins with planning of course. The CBE’s Planning and Transportation department carefully monitors civic census data as well as several other factors to determine where the biggest need for a new school might be.

Using that information they create the CBE’s Three-Year School Capital Plan. This plan ranks the type of schools (elementary, middle or high)and their locations (communities) that are the CBE’s top priorities if funding is available to build them. Once it’s approved by the Board of Trustees, the Three-Year School Capital Plan is submitted to the Provincial Government.

Despite the belief held by many, the CBE does not fund new schools. Funding for the construction of new schools comes from the Ministry of Education. We do not know if or when Alberta Education will announce funding for the projects that are requested on our school capital plan.

Once announced, school capital expenditures (the funding) are governed by Alberta Education Capital Grant Agreements and all school development projects are regulated by the School Buildings and Tendering Regulation, as set out in the School Act.

At the completion of the project, the CBE will provide cost reconciliation to the Provincial Government as outlined in the Capital Grant Agreement for each school. In addition, school boards are mandated to follow the prescribed School Capital Manual. These documents regulate and prescribe the design, construction approval and planning processes between the school board and the Provincial Government. These procedures are controlled and monitored by Alberta Infrastructure and Alberta Education. Every step of the design and construction process is monitored, reviewed, and authorized by Alberta Infrastructure before the project can proceed to the next stage of development.

You may also be interested to know that the CBE does not design new facilities. We have a small team of technical professionals who supervise and oversee the appointment of professional consultants. These third-party consultant firms comprise architects, engineers, cost consultants (quantity surveyors) and project management specialists. All are from recognized firms in Alberta and are registered members of their respective professional associations. The CBE relies on third-party consultants as new school construction is not our primary facility function. We bring together new school project teams where and when required to meet the Provincial Government’s new school funding announcements.

In some cases, the CBE is not directly involved in new school construction at all. In those cases, the newly announced schools are constructed by Alberta Infrastructure. Alberta Infrastructure is another government entity charged with leading the construction of provincial government facilities. As part of our most recent budget deliberations the CBE has decided to scale back new school construction work and focus more of our time and energy on maintaining our existing schools. That means that Alberta Infrastructure will be leading most, if not all, new school construction project.

Given our expert knowledge of our existing schools we will likely remain heavily involved in any announced school modernization projects. That said, we will continue to work closely with Alberta Infrastructure to ensure we are getting the best bang for our buck.

As a publically accountable organization, the CBE is obligated to publicly tender new school construction opportunities across Western Canada under the Provincial Government rules. We must also accept the lowest priced bid subject to that bid meeting all requirements. This ensures that our new school construction activity is open, transparent, cost-effective, and efficient.

Following the tender review and approval process, award recommendations are approved by the Board of Trustees and the Provincial Government before contractors are appointed. We are required to obtain both Board of Trustee approval and Provincial Government approval prior to a shovel going into the ground.

During the 2016-17 school year, the CBE opened 17 new public schools, completed two major high school modernizations and commissioned Nelson Mandela High School. To my knowledge, this was unprecedented for a public school jurisdiction in Canada.

I hope that this summary is of some interest. Thank you for your time and please do keep the questions, thoughts and comments coming.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

More to Funding than Meets the Eye

On many occasions I am asked to compare and contrast service levels and programs between the various metropolitan school jurisdictions in the province.

Other times members of the public draw their own conclusions based on information they have gathered to support a specific position or perspective on school jurisdiction service levels and programs.

While I fully respect the right of our students and families to ask the questions and/or undertake their own analysis I find that there is always much more to the issue than can often be presented.

Each of the four metropolitan school jurisdictions (Edmonton Catholic Schools, Edmonton Public Schools, Calgary Catholic Schools, and the Calgary Board of Education) are very similar in terms of their overarching mandate to provide top notch public education. We are very different, however, in how we each achieve that end. It is those myriad of differences that make cross jurisdictional comparison so challenging.

As an example, you could ask two families how much they spend per month on food. One family may respond that they spend $1,000 while the other says $1,500. It is the context and practice in each family that really informs, however. The families may be different sizes, perhaps three people versus five. The ages of the children may be quite different. Growing teenagers eat constantly where toddlers eat relatively little. Some members of one family may have unique dietary requirements while others are meat and potatoes types. One family may eat out more frequently due to schedule restraints. All of those types of factors impact how much each household spends.

The same situation applies to the metropolitan school jurisdictions. We all take different approaches and have different contexts in which we operate. As such, it is challenging to draw meaningful comparisons between us.

That said, I did find some information that is fairly consistent across all the metro boards. This information is extracted primarily from the Alberta Education website. The information is fairly consistent as all of the metro boards are bound by the same Alberta Education expenditure reporting requirements. While it isn’t the full story, it is rather interesting to contemplate.

I will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

Questioning School Fees

Under school fees, it says “any common fees charged to an entire student body or grade cohort.” Does this mean if a school has, for example, a swimming program, outdoor school program, or inline skating program that these fees are now exempt? Can parent councils fund these events if there is no longer a school fee?

Thank you for taking the time to submit this question as part of our budget development process for 2017-18.

The short answer is that we do not know. We understand that Bill 1: An Act to Reduce School Fees will likely pass the Legislative Assembly later this month. We have also been told to expect the related regulations to be completed “later in the spring,” based on conversations with the Ministry of Education.

Your specific question should be answered by the regulations. It is possible that the regulations specific to your question won’t be delivered until later in the year. If that should come to pass, we would anticipate that the rules currently in place would continue. That is, no change at this time.

Unfortunately we are in a wait and see state.

With regard to a parent council I would offer only that parent councils are separate legal entities which can fundraise as they see fit, in collaboration with their school administration. That is within their authority and discretion.

Thank you for your questions. I hope that this information is of some value.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

Classroom Cleanliness

I continue to have to work with students in a classroom that is constantly dusty and dirty - on the floor, on the furniture, on the windows, on the blinds. This does not promote wellness or good health for staff or students. Not enough caretakers, not enough equipment and not enough major cleaning being done during holidays and summer.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and comments with us as we move through the 2017-18 budget development process.

In reading your note I thought that some additional information might be of interest to you and perhaps to others. As you would expect, we focus a lot of our resources on maintaining our 240 schools. While I am sorry to hear that you have experienced a level of cleanliness that does not meet with your expectation, this would seem to be an exception rather than the rule.

In regards to the qualitative (cleanliness level) component, 100 per cent of CBE schools achieved level two “silver” standard of caretaking and cleanliness during the 2015-16 school year. Where we become aware of practices that are below our expectations, we take corrective action to ensure our students continue to experience a safe, healthy and supporting learning environment.

With regard to the quantitative (cost) aspect, the Kinnaird report compares plant, operating and maintenance costs of some 20 participating Alberta school boards on an annual basis. The 2016 report fixed CBE custodial costs per unit area at $28.44 versus the Alberta school boards average of $30.33.

We have also evaluated the benefit, if any, of contracting out our school-based maintenance services. At this time we do not see a quantifiable benefit from contracting out those services.

Thank you again for your thoughts and I hope that this information is of some value to you and others.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

Get Back to Basics

I believe there will continue to be a gap in budget as long as we continue to offer alternate programs at no extra cost. When my children went to school, everyone went to the designated neighbourhood school. If you wanted your child to attend a French/Spanish/art school etc., then you paid for this school and were responsible to get your child there or pay for the cost associated in transportation. I firmly believe we need to get back to being great at the basics of educating students rather than trying to please everyone. I believe given less choices will not stop people who wish to make other decisions. It is evident every day in the school I work at where I see elementary students who can't read. I think having other options is great if the budget can afford it or if we have met the basic learning all children need to be responsible productive people. How will a student in Grade 3 who still can't read benefit in their future when they won't be able to fill in a job application? I think we have gone too far in one direction and need to come back to the basics of learning.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your thoughts on budget 2017-18. In reading your note I thought that you and others may appreciate some additional information related to alternative programs.

When funding becomes tight and decisions need to be made it is not uncommon to look to alternative programs. I would begin by offering that the CBE provides a range of alternative programs because our stakeholders have asked for them. We strive to listen and respond to the needs of students, parents and our community. I would also note that it has been the long-term direction of Alberta Education to support and offer choice where and when possible.

I am happy to address the cost of alternative programs.

Our largest alternative programs are language related. The two largest programs are French and Spanish. In terms of costs, there really isn’t an incremental cost to the CBE of offering these programs. Language programs are identical to our regular program, except of course for the language of instruction. We do not hire additional teaching and support staff to support our alternative programs. From a curricular perspective, alternative programs do not change what is taught; rather they tend to focus more on how the curriculum is delivered. Because of this there is very little incremental cost associated with alternative programs.

The one area where there may be some incremental costs is related to transportation. Coming up with a definitive dollar value, however, is made difficult because many of these students would have to be bused no matter if they are in an alternative program or designated school.

With regard to transportation and alternative programs, I would be remiss if I didn’t also note the extensive public engagement we conducted in 2016. Our public told us that they do not want us to differentiate our transportation fees based on the program the student attends. Based on that feedback, we have strived to charge for transportation at a rate that does not vary by program. However, we are now waiting to see what changes may need to be adopted in light of the provincial government’s Bill 1, An Act to Reduce Student Fees. Please continue to monitor our website for more information on this topic.

Thank you again for taking the time to provide your input into our budget process. I hope that this additional information is of some use.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

Focus on Teachers

​Maybe the CBE should stop spending a significant amount of taxpayer dollars on 'administrative' positions, superintendents, system principals, offices and area offices, and focus on spending on more teachers who actually are in the classroom with the 'target audience' of education. I doubt you'll post this comment, because you don't dare!

Thank you for taking the time to provide your input regarding our 2017-18 budget. As has been my practice I would like to provide some additional information that you may find of use.

Within the CBE we have more than 14,000 employees (9,971 Full Time Equivalents). This runs from the Chief Superintendent through to custodial staff, secretaries and educational assistants. Of those 14,000 employees, about 98 per cent are covered by some form of collective agreement. The largest employee association is the Alberta Teachers’ Association, which covers all of our certificated staff. The second largest union is the Staff Association, which covers a range of positions including noon hour supervisors, educational assistants, school secretaries and many others.

Out of our total complement of employees, only about 200 are exempt from union or association membership. That is less than 2 per cent of our employees. Fully 91 per cent of our staff are school based, 7 per cent are non-school-based, two per cent are exempt and only 7 staff members are superintendents. I would further note that of the 7 per cent who are non-school based, the majority are staff who provide services and supports directly to schools including psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, etc.

This spring we are expanding our area offices from the previous five to the seven that will be fully in place for the 2017-18 school year. We felt that the increase was a reasonable and appropriate step as some area directors currently have responsibility for more than 50 schools. With our new seven-area structure, each area director will have responsibility for approximately 34 schools. We believe that this is the maximum realistic ratio of schools to area director in order to provide timely, relevant and coordinated support to our schools. By any measure the CBE is administratively lean and organizationally flat.

Over the last several years of great enrolment growth, the number of staff in service units (that is, outside of school-based staff) has remained flat. However, the number of school-based staff has increased to keep pace with enrolment growth. This is reflective of our commitment to ensure that the maximum dollars available are directed to our schools. We are continually seeking ways to do more with less in order to ensure we can support students and staff in our schools.

Please see Where does school funding go? for a detailed explanation of how dollars are spent to support the classroom. You’ll see that 72 per cent of our funding goes directly to the classroom, with the remaining 28 per cent going to support the classroom.

The Government of Alberta allows metro school divisions like the CBE to spend up to 3.6 per cent of its total expenditures on board and system administration. At the CBE we only spend 2.7 per cent. That means that an additional $11.8 million is available to support students and staff in the classrooms.

Once again, thank you for your input into our budget process and I hope that this information is of some value to you.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

Financial supports for school fees and waivers

Shouldn’t public education be free? Why are you charging school fees if this is the case?

The CBE is committed to students and their learning and the choices we make are based on that sole priority. We are also committed to keeping educational dollars in the classroom. Fees only go to cover items that are not fully funded by the government. In the case of noon supervision and ISM, no provincial funding is provided so the cost is covered by fees. In the case of transportation, the provincial government does provide some funding, but it doesn’t cover the total cost of the service.

While no one at the CBE wants to charge fees, they are an unfortunate reality and we work very hard to provide good value for the money spent.

Here are a few examples.

At the CBE, the transportation fee is $335 per school year, or $33.50 per month.

For that amount a student is picked up each and every school day, transported safely to their school and dropped off at their school.  At the end of the day the process is reversed with the student being picked up, safely transported and then dropped off close to their home.  Most students travel less than 800 metres to their yellow school bus stop. 

Over our approximate 184 school days that service costs about $1.82 per day.  By way of comparison, a one way fare on Calgary Transit for a student is $2.10.  A round trip would be $4.20;  so $1.82 is significantly less.

For noon supervision the fee is $285 for a five days a week coverage.  Over the school year that amounts to about $1.55 per day.  That ensures that your child is supervised while allowing teachers the time to focus on students and their learning.

The fee paid for noon supervision is also an eligible child care expense and can be claimed on your tax return for a credit.  Just as in transportation, only users of the service pay the fee.

Then there are the instructional supplies and materials fees.  This fee provides school supplies and other important materials.  That fee ranges from $30 for the early years to $152 for a high school student.  Once again, over the course of the school year that works out to between 16 and 83 cents per school day.

We are also criticized for not offering a family maximum. A family maximum is problematic for a few reasons.  First, a maximum simply moves the burden elsewhere.  For example, to smaller families not at the arbitrary maximum.  Or, the burden moves to the learning budget which means fewer dollars to directly support all students and their learning.  And finally, just because a family has multiple children does not necessarily mean they don’t have the ability to pay.  Our waiver process ensures that those who need relief, regardless of family size, have access to the support that they need.

The CBE collects about $51 million in fees in the course of the school year.  If we were to eliminate fees, that would mean that $51 million would have to be found somewhere else in the system to cover those costs.  To give you a sense of perspective, here is what $51 million means in our system:

• $51 million pays for approximately 415 teaching positions across the system. However, we don’t consider cutting teaching positions to be a viable option because of the impact on learning.  It is, however, a choice that could be made.
• $51 million is enough to fund five high schools annually, or about 10 good-sized elementary schools. Once again, not a viable option when we want to focus on students and their learning.

That said, where else could money be found?  Here are some other options:

• Eliminate the entire budget for Facilities and Environmental Services and save $51.2 million.  While that generates the funding to pay for fees consider that no school would be maintained or repaired.  No custodial staff keeping the facilities clean and comfortable, no maintenance staff fixing the broken door or windows, no one to mow the lawns or clear the snow.
• Eliminate the total amount spent on legal services, communications and public engagement, finance, information technology, human resources, the office of the Chief Superintendent and the Board of Trustees.  In doing this you save about $48.9 million but you are still short $2.1 million. You would still need to eliminate the equivalent of about 17 teachers. If we pick this option there is no one to purchase the goods and services, pay the bills, hire and support staff, maintain the technology infrastructure, communicate and engage with you, our students, parents, and community, or provide the necessary strategic direction to the CBE.
• Eliminate the total amount dedicated to Board and System Administration (currently at a very modest 2.7 per cent of revenue and the lowest of the four metro school jurisdictions) of $37 million. You are still $14 million shy so you need to eliminate the equivalent of 114 teaching positions.  In doing this we have no elected trustees to advocate with the provincial government for adequate funding, no strategic direction or planning, and we eliminate all of the supports that are necessary to operate a $1.3 billion organization with 240 schools and more than 119,000 students.

When we do need to charge a fee we work diligently to ensure that we provide good value for the money paid.  No child is denied access to their public education by an inability to pay a fee, and we encourage families who may be struggling to apply for a waiver or to speak directly to their principal.

Teachers Getting Jobs Downtown

​Nov. 3, 2016​​

Is it true that when teachers get jobs downtown they also get big raises?

Recently a lobby group suggested that teachers get a big raise when they go “downtown” within the CBE. I thought a little additional information might be of use.

Teacher salaries are set out in the Alberta Teachers’ Association collective agreement.

There are actually no “teaching” jobs downtown; our students are in our schools and that is predominately where the teaching happens. However, we sometimes hire teachers to perform roles that support learning at a system (across the CBE) level. Teachers hired to do this work fall into the categories of consultant, specialist, supervisor, associate or strategist. The increments to pay associated with each of these roles is set out in the ATA collective agreement.

The roles of consultant, specialist or strategist are different from that of a teacher. Accordingly, those positions are compensated differently. That only makes sense: with greater responsibility and accountability comes increased pay. That is how the employment market works. The same applies to principals. Both principals and assistant principals who are hired to fulfill system level roles are compensated as system principals and system assistant principals. Again, those rates of pay are clearly set out in the ATA collective agreement.

Speaking of the collective agreement, did you know that the last ATA collective agreement was negotiated by the provincial government rather than by the local school boards? In fact, negotiation with the ATA on their collective agreement is now largely a provincial government responsibility. That includes determining the appropriate rates of pay for the various roles filled by ATA members.

There is one last factor that creates a differential between the average compensation for school based teachers as opposed to teachers filling roles at the CBE’s Education Centre: experience. The average teacher salary in schools would be impacted by the relatively large number of new teachers. Given their limited experience, they are compensated at a lower level as per their collective agreement. As they gain experience their salary increases. As a general rule, teachers brought into system level roles will have many years of experience in the teaching profession. As a result, their salaries are higher than that of a teacher new to the role.

Thank you and I hope that this information provides some additional context.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

Shorting of School Funds

Nov. 3, 2016​​

I’ve heard that other school boards have much more of their budget going to the classroom. Why is this?

There are a wide variety of ways in which school jurisdictions organize their operations in support of students and their learning. While it would be nice to think that there is a “right way” and a “wrong way” to structure a school district, the reality is that each approach has both pros and cons. Regardless of the model chosen, the approach is focused on supporting students in their learning.

In Alberta, each of the four metro (Calgary and Edmonton) school jurisdictions have set themselves up differently; and yet each jurisdiction is able to consistently return strong student learning results. It can be quite difficult to draw cross-jurisdictional comparisons because they are structured differently. Recently, for example, a Calgary advocacy group has suggested that the CBE, in comparison to another district, shorts funding to its schools to the tune of $160 million. The inference being that the other jurisdiction puts more of the resources into the classroom.

At the highest level this analysis is patently absurd. The CBE would have to be near magicians to underfund our students by an amount that exceeds 10 per cent of our total budget, while still generating above average student outcomes. If that assertion was true, our class sizes would have to be through-the-roof in comparison to other metro jurisdictions. Obviously that is simply not the case.

Peeling the issue back further, the core issue is related to where the funding sits versus where the funding is used. Broadly speaking, school boards operate on a continuum with all funding centralized on one end of the spectrum and all funds distributed on the other. The metro boards fall in-between those two extremes. At the CBE we allocate the majority of our funding out to schools through what we call the Resource Allocation Method, or RAM. These dollars are provided to schools and can be used to purchase all the in-school resources necessary to provide a high quality education to students. Other dollars are maintained centrally so that we can maximize the benefit to schools while at the same time minimizing the administrative burden placed on the school-based administration.

As an example, consider psychologist supports. The CBE could allocate dollars to each and every school to allow them to obtain required psychologist supports. That is certainly a viable option. The challenge, of course, is that every school has different student populations that require different psychologist supports. To address this variability across the entire school system, the CBE has chosen to centralize the provision of psychologist supports. By doing this we can aggregate dollars to ensure we maximize the available resources. Purchasing bits and pieces of psychologist time at a number of schools is more expensive than purchasing a full psychologist centrally. Centralization also allows us to send the psychologist where and when required to best meet the needs of our students. It is not hard to imagine how a school’s need for psychologist supports will ebb and flow over time as the student population changes over the course of the year. Centralizing the support allows us to provide maximum flexibility.

Back to the criticism that the CBE shorts its schools by $160 million: it is those centralized services that make up the vast majority of that amount.

Using an analogy, think about your home. You need to purchase food. One approach would be to provide some dollars to your daughter, your son, your spouse, and yourself. Each person could then take their resources and go purchase the groceries for the week. Your son might buy bananas and your daughter pies. The benefit of this approach is that they can get exactly what they want. Of course, a down side is that they would both have to buy milk. Due to limited funding though, they might actually end up buying the more expensive one liter carton rather than the cheaper four litre container. The alternative would be to hold the grocery budget centrally and assess the nutritional needs for the entire family. You can then go purchase the necessary food to meet everyone’s needs. You can probably also purchase more as you can access more quantity discounts (such as the four liters of milk).

To suggest that your son and daughter are short changed because they don’t get the dollars directly is obviously false. In reality it is simply a different approach to feeding your family.

Perhaps a better measure of school district’s, at least in terms of funding flowing to students and their learning, is to look at the percentage of the budget spent on board and system administration. Board and system administration is clearly defined by Alberta Education. Because of that, it is a measure that is directly comparable across the four metro boards. Alberta Education has also capped board and system administration costs at no more than 3.6 per cent of total revenue. If you go to the Alberta Education website you can find this information for each of the metro districts. What you will no doubt note is that every metro board spends well below that cap and in fact are generally at or below three per cent. That means each jurisdiction is maximizing the dollars available to support students, notwithstanding how they are organized and structured to do it.

Thank you for asking; I hope that this information might be of some use.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

June 13, 2016​​

Just a suggestion I have been thinking about for a long time. Whenever we hear about cuts to the budget, immediately staff at the school level is laid off, teachers as well as support staff. We never hear of cuts being made to staff at the head office level. I know that there are many questionable positions at head office that could easily be eliminated without effecting the way things run. If the board was really concerned about how budget cuts effect education the cuts would be made at the top first instead of in the classrooms. Just my opinion which you did ask me for.

Thank you for taking the time to submit your thoughts and comments.  We welcome and appreciate all feedback.

I would like to provide you with some additional information regarding head-office staff. 

Between Sept. 1, 2013 and Aug. 31, 2016 the CBE added about 398 full time equivalent positions.  Think of a full time equivalent as one person in a job for an entire year.  Of those 398, 386 or about 97 per cent were school based staff.  Of that 386 school-based staff, 68 per cent were teachers and 29 per cent were non-teaching staff (library assistance, school administrative assistants, education assistants, etc.) who were working in our schools.  The remaining few (12) were deployed to our Area offices, which work daily with our 227 schools.  Finally, we added 12 certificated teaching staff to Chinook Learning Services, where they work directly with our students.

Over that same period of time the number of staff in our headquarters remained even.  While some staff did move between our various service units, there were no net new positions in headquarters.  And keep in mind, during that same period the CBE added thousands of new students and hundreds of school based staff.  Generally speaking, with more students, more schools and more teaching staff comes more work for the system. From hiring and payroll, to communicating, to keeping the lights on in schools.  Many of our head office staff are integral to the operations of our school system.

For 2016-17 (which begins in September of 2016) we are looking at adding 273 staff to our schools and Areas.  121 of those are teachers and another 97 will be school-based support staff.  With a number of new schools coming into operation (15 new schools plus the Aboriginal Learning Centre) we also added about 50 custodial staff to maintain those new facilities.  For 2016-17 we are also going to add 16 non-school based staff.  That means over 94 per cent of the 289 staff (273 school and area staff plus 16 non-school based staff) we are adding are in our schools. 

Putting it all together, between Sept. 1, 2013 and Aug. 31, 2017 we will have added a total 687 staff.  Only 16 or 2.3% of all additions were not directly in our schools and Areas.  While we may have to agree to disagree on this point, we think that our hiring pattern shows a strong commitment to our values of students come first, learning is our central purpose, and public education serves the common good.

To your comment about cuts to school based staffing.  While I don’t have any specifics I did speak to our budget staff and they don’t think there has been any overall reductions in school based staffing in at least 30 years.  As long as our student enrolment continues to grow we will continue to add school based staff.  Students and their learning are what we are all about and our hiring will continue to reflect that fact.

Thank you again for your thoughts and I hope that this information is of interest and use to you.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

April 20, 2016

​1. Do not open new schools in the middle of the year. I can imagine that the cost of just keeping the doors shut until the natural September school year start date would save enough money to help with our transportation issues.
2. Quit catering to the urban sprawl. We moved where there was a school. People keep moving further and further out and expect a school to be build for them. Meanwhile we close the inner city schools.
3. Quit having contractors that abuse the system and overcharge the CBE. An average person can get what the school has done for almost half the cost in most cases. it is such a joke if you can be a contractor for the CBE you can make way more money then other places.
4. Teachers are the most important factor in a students classroom, but computer technology is also important for the kids. My child ends up bringing his own laptop to class because their are not enough to go around.
5. I think the biggest thing is to quit wasting money if you don't have the funds to open a new school - don't do it. Opening 16 schools a year is not smart.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with input on our upcoming budget. We do very much appreciate the feedback.

In response to the points in your note, I would provide the following information as additional context.

Once a new school project has been announced and funded by Alberta Education, we begin a comprehensive process to plan and prepare for the opening of that new school. Part of our process involves working with the local school community on options and preferences related to when and how the new school is brought into operation. As an aside, we also begin the process of working with the schools from which the students will be coming as impacts on those “feeder” schools can also be quite significant. Communities are generally keen and eager to have their long awaited school opened as quickly as possible. As much as we can, we aim for natural breaks in the school year to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the impacts on families and students and to manage our costs.

With regard to urban sprawl, we work with our Calgary Catholic colleagues and the City of Calgary to identify school sites in planned communities. Until new schools are approved, however, we work diligently to accommodate our students within our existing facilities located across the city. One objective amongst many is to minimize, to the extent possible, travel for students. At the same time, we try to maintain an 80 per cent utilization rate in our schools to ensure we can offer the programming our families expect.

On the contracting front, as a public sector entity we are obligated to use open, transparent and fair procurement processes to acquire our goods and services. In most cases we get multiple bids which ensure to a large extent that we receive good value for money. Keep in mind that as a public sector entity with responsibility for over 117,000 students, we do have some stringent requirements to which our contractors must adhere. This can made direct comparisons between the work that is done in our schools and the work done elsewhere a challenge. Our larger contracts are vetted by third-party cost consultants to help us in achieving value for money. Finally, if anyone is aware of any fraud or inpropriety on behalf of contractors working for the CBE I would encourage them to contact our Chief Legal Counsel who administers our whistle blower program.

On point 4, we would agree that the most important factor affecting students and their learning outcomes is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. Accordingly, we have extensive processes to ensure that we recruit, train, support and develop the best teachers possible. We believe the results of our students speak for themselves as we are equal to or exceed the outcomes of the province on most measures.

And lastly, while we appreciate the funding we receive for new schools, we agree that opening 16 new schools is a huge logistical, operational, and financial challenge. We are, however, subject to school funding and building decisions made by our provincial legislature. You may be interested to know that over the 25 years up to 2013, the CBE opened approximately 1.84 schools per year on average. Over the next 18 months we anticipate opening 24 new and replacement schools. For more information, we would direct you to the April 2016 Auditor General of Alberta report titled “Education and Infrastructure – Systems to Manage the School-Build Program” which speaks, in part, to this issue. That report can be found here https://www.oag.ab.ca/webfiles/reports/OAGApril2016Report.pdf

Thank you again for taking the time to provide input.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

March 29, 2016

​With the upcoming short fall in both the regular school budget and transportation; why don't we just go back to the 'basics.' It's great to offer all the wonderful options like language schools, gender or cultural specific schools etc. but all this diversity is expensive. Our kids need the basics. I grew up in a small town and we didn't have all these options but we focused solely the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. I graduated from Grade 12 and went on to complete my university degree with just the basics, and I am doing just fine.

If certain families want the diversity then they need to pay for that. In a publicly funded system - give us the basics in our neighborhood schools that our kids can walk to. The private sector can offer the diversity that individual families can choose to pay and transport their kids to.

Thank you for your input.  We very much appreciate you taking the time to provide us with your thoughts.

In your note you made several references to “basics” and I wanted to provide some additional context that might be of interest to you and others. 

Alberta Education is responsible for determining the provincial curriculum.  The curriculum defines what is to be taught in all ministry funded schools and districts.  Because of that, the determination of what makes up a basic education rests solely with the Ministry of Education.  It is the role of the Calgary Board of Education (CBE) to deliver the provincially mandated curriculum.  The CBE is not empowered to modify or otherwise change the provincially mandated curriculum.  For alternative programs (the language/gender/cultural programs you note) the curriculum remains the same.  The alternative programs simply provide a different lens (language, gender, culture, etc.) through which the mandated curriculum is delivered.

Alberta Education is also supportive and encouraging of alternative programs as they align with its objectives of equity, access and choice.  Alternative programs speak to the choice objective. Given the wide diversity of students within the CBE, both the Ministry of Education and the CBE believe that alternative programs help support students maximizing their achievement.

I would also share that save for transportation, the cost of alternative programs is quite modest.  This is because the CBE would be required to provide an education to each of those students in our regular programming stream in the absence of an alternative program.  Both regular and alternative programming streams are resourced and staffed to similar levels.  As a result there is little to distinguish between regular and alternative programs from a cost perspective.  Having said that, some alternative program text books can cost more than regular program text books and that differential makes up the majority of any cost differential between regular and alternative programs.

The cost of alternative program transportation will undoubtedly be an issue discussed at the upcoming public engagement sessions on transportation.  I will defer any comments on that topic until the results of that engagement are in.  Find more information on our transportation engagement sessions and process here.

Thank you again for taking the time to provide input,

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

​March 18, 2016

STOP holding catered lunches at hotels when there is space for meetings within CBE properties. Education dollars should be going to education, not to school administration and staff meeting off property with expensive meals provided. We spend more on education per capita than anywhere else in Canada so its time someone starts looking at the expenses using taxpayer money.

Close schools that are under-utilized to save maintenance and operating costs where kids can be accommodated nearby.

Single change with greatest impact is to convince Alberta Government to deliver on Capital Plan. Standing room only for high school kids in core classes is unacceptable.

As mentioned, quit living life high on the hog. We all don't work in Oil and Gas and our companies spend appropriately but it seems the CBE wants to spend on comfort and joy over quality education.


Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your thoughts and comments. I did want to provide a bit of additional information related to one of your points. Specifically, it was suggested that we close schools that are under-utilized to save maintenance and operating costs. Our challenge is that we are currently over-capacity at the system level. Our enrolment continues to grow, and we need space for students.
 
If you visit our budget engagement presentation you will note that our current system utilization rate (the red line) is at about 89 per cent across the entire system. With the new schools that are currently under construction we should see the utilization rate drop to around 83 per cent in the 2017-18 timeframe. Keep in mind that still means we have some schools well over that utilization rate and others below.  Given the enrolment growth that we are projecting based on Statistics Canada and City of Calgary data (the black line), we do not anticipate being in a position to close any schools anytime soon. In fact, our challenge is the other way. If we cannot get our three-year capital plan funded by the province our utilization rate will once again begin to climb well above the Alberta Education recommended target of 80 per cent. With increased utilization comes the need for more transportation, more program moves and changes, and more potential over-crowding.

You also address our corporate spending. We don’t always get it right and we take appropriate steps when we see such errors in judgement. We agree that education dollars should be going to education, not to catered meals. From time to time, we require people who are very busy to come together to discuss business matters over lunch. We make every effort to be prudent and efficient with the dollars entrusted to us. Our leaders are directed that:

• The purchase of meals should be carefully considered and done only when critical meetings extend over the lunch hour.
• Superintendents have been advised that only training and professional development critical to the maintenance of professional designations and practices, or critical to advancing the Three-Year Education Plan, shall be approved.

We believe that these directions align with our values: students come first, learning is our central purpose, and public educations serves the common good. We devote the vast majority of our budget to staffing and operating our schools, and providing the range of supports necessary to meet  the needs of all of our students, including those with complex learning needs.

Our capital plan is indeed important and our Trustees advocate tirelessly for adequate funding to support all of our students in getting the high quality public education that they deserve and our parents expect. 
 
Thank you again for taking the time to provide us with feedback. We very much appreciate hearing from you.
 
Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

March 14, 2016​

Reduce class sizes (by hiring more teachers) especially where there is complexity like high ELL or high low income. If we do not attend to our learners, our workforce will suffer. In the short term it will look bad on our provincial results.

There always seems to be money for "downtown or area offices" to hire more people because "we are so busy" I have no doubt that they are busy. The reality is that we are all busy implementing all of the great ideas that people have come up with but which there is not enough time in the day to implement. However, unlike these service units, schools cannot just "hire more people." The people with the contingency will naturally take care of their own situation because that is what they know.

All areas are not the same yet we staff them the same. We have the same number of strategists in each area yet the proportion of work is not the same. Why is this? Is it because our marginalized families are easier to ignore that our hover or wealthier parents? This is not okay. Budgets should reflect these differences. We just requested support from our area office regarding a student with severe behavioural issues and have been told that the strategist's first available time is April 6! How is this helpful?

Area office spending needs to be documented and explained, and shared with principals as a minimum.

There needs to be funding that reflects the reality that in some schools everyone pays their fees, everyone can pay for multiple field trips, everyone can contribute to fund raisers, parents can pay for psycho ed or social emotional assessments (which in turn provides more funding to a school to purchase teachers or EAs to support the learner) versus that fact that in other schools partial payment or no payment of fees is the case, few can pay for field trips, fundraising is minimal and no parent can pay for an assessment. Think about the difference in these two cases and what budgets look like as a result. This is not equity. RAM needs to reflect this better as the equity funding does not come close to levelling things out.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with input on our 2016-17 budget.  In part of your comments it was suggested that we bias our hiring towards downtown or area offices, and I thought a little additional information might be informative.

Between 2013-14 and 2015-16 the CBE added about 398 full time equivalent (FTE) positions.  Of that number, 386, or about 97 per cent, were school-based staff.  Of this, 68 per cent of the increase was in school-based teaching staff and the remaining 29 per cent were non-teachers working in schools.

The remaining 12 additional positions were certificated FTE teachers who were added in Chinook Learning to support those students and their learning. 

There were some very small ups and downs in our other service units but the net change in those groups between 2013-14 and 2015-16 was zero. Mostly the realignment of existing staff.

That means that 97 per cent of the increased staffing was school-based teachers and support staff. 

We believe that this is consistent with our values of students come first, learning is our central purpose, and public education serves the common good.

I thought people might be interested in this information.  Thanks, as always, for taking the time to provide input.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

I would strongly suggest that in the upcoming negotiations that the CBE come back in line with the number of PD days granted to teachers. 10 is ridiculous and outrageous when compared to Edmonton Public's 3. If the level of innovation in all the years of teacher PD has left us with the widespread use of the worksheet, I think that PD is a waste of effort.

Further that most "PD" occurs in conjunction with long weekends and breaks, how does the public not see these days as just extended holiday? Friday afternoon, early dismissal is another waste of PD... having been a teacher, and being a parent I see well enough that this is an excuse for most teachers to leave early Friday... so every weekend is an extended weekend. Unbelievable.

As the employer, for heaven's sake get your monies worth. If you have to have 1/2 day PD do it on Wednesday NOT Friday. Cut the PD days from 10 to 3 and increase the number of contact days by an additional 7 per student... THAT puts the student first.

I would add that the cost to families for lost work and child care to coddle teacher who's PD is at best questionable and at worst, a holiday - is too much in the best of times and with the current economy is unbearable.

If CBE continues 10 PD days per teacher, you clearly do not have a resource shortage.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your feedback.  The more input we have the better we are able to reflect the expectations of parents and students.

You mentioned upcoming negotiations related to the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA). I’d like to provide you with some additional information. The ATA collective agreement is up in August 2016. The Provincial Government is developing a new collective bargaining process which will move much of the bargaining to a centralized, government controlled process. Bill 8, the Public Education Collective Bargaining Act that provides some of the details of this new approach.  We do not yet know what impact these changes will have on our ability to bargain items like teacher professional development at the local level. Stay tuned for more information.

Thank you again for your input,

Brad (Chief Financial Officer)

​In my opinion getting education in nearby residence is the basic human rights which CBE is not fulfilling. That’s why the Kindergarten students have to walk almost 2 kilometer for getting school bus stop in the extreme cold weather and then they have to spend another 30 minutes on the bus which is not justifiable and fair to them. Moreover parents have to be penalized in paying transportation fee.

There is a elementary and junior high school within 5 minutes of my residence. We have been living this address for 3 years. I have applied in this school from the beginning. My elementary and junior high school kids are not able to get admission over there and they are compelled in riding CBE bus. Which is not my interest and our kids do not like to ride school bus. They hate it. The funny things is that CBE is made compelled to them for riding the school bus and on the top of that they penalized to the parents for paying transportation fees which is very frustrating and illogical matters.

You CBE is not fulfilling the basic needs and on the top of that you have been penalized for paying transportation fees. My concerns is that if you are not able to give admission within nearby residence why are you penalized to parents in paying transportation fee which is not their interest for sending kids in riding bus. We are living in the most difficult situation of the life. If we have $600 which we made compelled to pay for CBE transportation fee, we would able to buy nutritious foods and able to provide extra activities to our kids which they deserve it. What would be the result if we are not able to provide nutritious foods and not able to provide extra activities to our kids in the future? What types of citizens are we raising. What would be the future expectations from the kids who are not able to fulfill their basic needs. 
 

Thank you very much for your submission. No one at the CBE wants to charge fees for public education. Fees have been, however, an unfortunate reality in public education in Alberta.

With regard to transportation specifically, I would direct you and anyone else with questions, concerns and ideas related to transportation to participate in our upcoming transportation engagement. Once again, thank you for your input.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE) 

​
The Northern Hills communities need a public high school.

Thank you for your feedback. We have received many comments stating this, and we recognize the need for high schools in Calgary’s north. However, we don’t decide when new schools are built. The provincial government determines where, when and how new schools are built. Each year, school boards submit a Three-Year School Capital Plan to Alberta Education. The plan identifies priorities for new school construction and major modernizations. When submitting our plan, we take several factors into account such as census statistics, projected community growth, travel time and more. We also include modernization requests to upgrade existing learning spaces.

Accordingly, the CBE will open Nelson Mandela High School in northeast Calgary in fall 2016. In addition, a new high school for north Calgary is also identified as the CBE’s highest high school priority (ranked 8th out of 19 new school construction priorities) in our Three-Year School Capital Plan 2017-2020. Further information regarding how the CBE prioritizes new school construction requests to the Province can be found in section 3.0 of the plan: New School Construction Capital Plan Criteria.

We encourage parents and interested stakeholders to let their local MLAs know of their concerns related to adequately resourcing the CBE with new and modernized schools.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

​Special education funding from Alberta Education should be allocated to the student for whom it is designated, rather than going into the school's general budget. Although my child with autism is PUF funded in her kindergarten year, she receives very few services. It confuses me as to how in preschool, with the same amount of funding, she was able to receive Speech or Occupational therapy daily, but now she has received only a handful of Speech services that are not individualized for her needs. It seems that unless your child acts out, she is deemed to not require supports/services and those who internalize their struggles seem to be overlooked.

I would also suggest spending less money on technology and more on direct teacher-student interaction and hands-on tactile learning experiences for the younger students. Although it is important to keep up with technology, I think that having an educational assistant in a class is more beneficial in kindergarten than having new flat panel TVs, iPads, Apple TV, etc. With resources being so scarce and too much "screen time" for young children, it seems odd that money is being spent on more screens.

Thank you so much for your budget comments.  For your information I would like to provide a little bit of additional information.  You commented that the “Special Education funding from Alberta Education should be allocated to the student for whom it is designated.”  You may be interested to know that Alberta Education does not provide funding specific to a particular student.  Rather, the provincial funding framework allocates dollars to a school jurisdiction such as the CBE for what they call inclusive education.  The manual can be found here. The process is a little different for Early Childhood Services Program Unit Funding but the result is basically the same. The ECS-PUF funding has to serve the needs of all qualifying students and dollars do not attach to one specific child.

Within the CBE, funds are allocated via our Resource Allocation Method (RAM) to schools. School principals are then responsible, with input from the staff, students and the public, for the allocation of those dollars to meet the needs of all the students in their care. Note, the RAM funds schools based on enrolment and student population complexity. As with the provincial funding framework, the RAM does not provide funding for a particular student. In addition to school-based funding and resources, the CBE funds resources at both the Area office and central levels that are available to support the unique learning requirements of students with special needs. Having resources at the Area and central level allow for a better matching of resources to needs.

Finally, I would note that the dollars spent across the CBE in support of students with special needs far exceeds the amount of funding that comes from the inclusive education funding. This information is included in the CBE’s 2014-15 financial results submission to Alberta Education and is available on our website . This information is also available directly from the Alberta Education website.

Once again thank you for providing your thoughts and I hope that the additional information is of some use.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)

​Feb. 26, 2016

I would like to see classes restructured by learning ability. We are now seeing children sitting in the classes doing nothing because the teacher spends most of their time on the slower learning children. There can be larger classes of faster learning kids and smaller classes of slower learning ones. We do not need smaller classroom sizes. I would also like to see no computers (unless its a computer class) and no cell phones in any class. Children should learn how to do the basics without mechanical help. I would also like to see no 'graduation' ceremonies for each and every grade. What is the point? Everyone passes so there is no big accomplishment and its a waste of time and money. Is this what we pay teachers for? Less time off for the teachers, seems like every Friday before a stat Monday is off, lots of 'professional days' etc. They can have these during the summer vacations breaks where they are already being paid for not working. Perhaps we should pay teachers by the hour since they work far less per day and per month than the average person yet make full time wages. Kids are spending far less time in the classrooms and why every Friday afternoon off?

Children are graduating without the proper abilities. This is a public system and should be available to everyone and not just a few. We are pandering to parents perceptions of some children 'feeling bad'. The system is to teach our children, to educate them and prepare them for the future. It has now become a glorified daycare that taxpayers are paying for. Public systems are just that, public. Why do people have to pay fee's? For what?

I would also like to see an end to these school sponsored trips out of the city, province and even the country. It is not the schools job to provide vacations to the some of the children (if your parents can't afford it, you can't go). The teachers are still paid and extra teachers are needed to replace them while away to teach the children that cannot go. Field trips are fine, during the day. Not these that we see now. Once again, its a public system and not only for some children. School sponsored? How does that work? 
 

I appreciate your perspective and would like to provide some information regarding a few of your suggestions.

You indicated a desire for ability grouping of students. While this may seem efficient, research continues to reinforce that eliminating grade repetition and avoiding early tracking contributes to success and high school completion (Equity and Quality in Education, OECD 2012). Some research would support your suggestions that we do not need smaller class sizes, however what cannot be underestimated is the impact of the teacher. Quality teaching is influenced from professional learning of staff regardless of when the time is provided. There are contractual obligations that determine the assignable time of a teacher as well as expectations for professional learning. You are correct that, at times, this might occur on a half day in the week but be assured, the number of hours students spend in school is actually determined by Alberta Education. Students in Grades 1 – 9 receive a minimum of 950 hours of instruction and high school students receive a minimum of 1000 hours of instruction annually.

​Feb. 26, 2016 

 

Thank you for your note.  I thought a bit of additional information might be of use to you and others related to your comments.

There are indeed some certificated (teachers) staff who are not directly in the classroom.  I think it is important to note that those centrally hosted teachers are a resource to the whole system and are sent to specific schools when those schools are facing unique and different situations.  For example, a school might have a new student with unique learning challenges which are beyond the knowledge of the school-based staff.  By having expertise available centrally we can send that expertise where and when required to support our students and their learning.  We believe this model is both cost effective and supports student outcomes.

With regard to Learning Leaders, those are individuals, in schools who take on additional responsibilities in addition to their teaching responsibilities.  We know that the quality of teaching that takes place in the classroom is one of the biggest contributors to student outcomes within the school system. Our learning leaders work with their teacher colleagues to improve and grow teaching practice. This too we feel is good for our students.

With regard to students with unique learning challenges, our Resource Allocation Method is how we allocate our scarce resources to our schools. It was not the intention within the RAM that dollars would be specifically attached to one child. Said another way, we use the coding attached to students as an indicator of the complexity in the school community. A school community with a more complex student population tends to attract more dollars than a school with a less complex school community. Through this approach we attempt to ensure that the RAM allocation will meet the learning needs of the entire school community. If some students require additional supports the principal can provide those supports through their RAM allocation. Other students may require few supports. With scarce resources it is always a balancing act between needs and funding. We believe that each principal is best positioned to make those decisions related to how the resources provided to them are best deployed in support of students and their learning. To reiterate, no dollars in the RAM are specific to a particular student.

You may also be interested in knowing that the funding we receive from the province is not attached to specific students. Rather, the provincial allocation is designed to meet the needs of all students within the system.

Thank you again for taking the time to provide input and comment. I very much appreciate it.

Top priorities??? If ANY business were run the way the CBE runs, it would go bankrupt.
Get rid of administration personnel. 0 based budgeting. But that wont happen since it's tax dollars.
Whats your biggest expense? Come on, you know. Salaries!
If CBE employees are not IN the schools, teaching sweeping etc, they are BLOAT.

Seriously... The people (like me) are putting their hard earned money where their mouth is, and voting with their feet. Ever hear of charter schools?? They LISTEN. Why does the CBE have schools that need to run on a lottery system? Hmm, Perhaps the CBE and their BLOATED bureaucracy, are incapable of teaching the "basics" the way parents want their children taught. But instead of changing, they figure out, even more ingenuous ways to squander money. Like busing kids all over the city.

Be Practical! If a school is below capacity, CLOSE IT! Move those resources to newer communities that need one. Stop busing kids to support your broken model.

END school lotteries! If it's been over subscribed, put more resources and budget towards it! If it's at "capacity" get it MORE. Folks it's really that simple.

CBE budget = 1.3Bil. / number of students 115,000 = $11,304 per child / year.
If that money was given to parents, who in turn gave it to the school of THEIR choice, how quickly would the "system" respond? It would change overnight.

Another fun fact, 115,000 students / 13,000 CBE employees = 8.8, ok make it 9. Do we have class sizes of 9??? Nope. Heck, do we have a class size of 18? (Half the staff could be non student facing at that point). Nope. It's obvious where the BLOAT is.

Will it change? Nope. The "system" is only interested in keeping the system going.

Good luck with your propaganda campaign.

Thank you for your thoughts and comments.  For your information and perhaps in the interest of others I would like to add some additional information to your thoughts.

A reality of public education is that schools are built in communities and the size and composition of communities change over time.  When we have a lottery system in place at a school it means that we have significantly more students seeking to attend the school than the school has capacity.  To manage that unfortunate reality we have implemented some rules related to who can get into the school as well as the lottery mechanism.  Everyone in the CBE acknowledges that a lottery is not ideal but we do not control where and when new schools are built.  That responsibility resides with the provincial government.  Our responsibility is to use the facilities available to us to the maximum extent possible.

You mention busing.  Busing is in large part due to the number of schools that we have that are full to the brim and bursting at the seams.  Rather than looking to close schools, we are challenged with efficiently using the facilities that we have available to address the fact that many of our community schools are well above the provincially mandated utilization maximum of 80 per cent.  Some are well above.  That means we have to bus students to where the spaces are.  This is not our preferred model but it is a reality given provincial funding decisions related to new schools and modernizations of existing schools.  If new school construction does not keep pace with our enrolment growth, our busing challenges will only grow.

You mention getting more resources.  Once again, funding for public education is the responsibility of the provincial government.  Like you, the CBE is committed to an adequately funded public education system and we advocate regularly with the province related to education funding.  We would love to have your support in assisting us in our advocacy efforts and would very much encourage you to contact your local MLA to talk about the importance of public education in the future of the province.

A point of clarification on your numbers.  Our budget is $1.3 billion as noted.  I would clarify however that the number of Full Time Equivalent positions is about 9,650.  Said another way, the 13,000 staff share only 9,650 staff positions.  And we will have more than 117,000 students in 2016-17.  That is about 12.12 students per FTE.  I would also note that the vast majority of our staff are school based.  In addition to teachers a schools needs library support, a caretaker, a principal, an administrative assistant, etc.  We watch those numbers closely to ensure we maximize the positions available to support students in the classroom.  Also, we need to do the payroll, pay the bills, order supplies, maintain the facilities, etc.  I think we can all agree those are not tasks that we should burden our teachers with.

While I take your point about staffing I would want to point out that the CBE has Board and System Administration costs of less than three per cent.  This is among the lowest across the entire province, including charter schools and private schools.

With regard to charter schools and private schools specifically, I would further note than unlike those institutions the CBE is legally obligated to take every student.  We do not pick and choose.  We do not turn students away who do not meet an eligibility criteria.  Everyone who registers with the CBE gets a top notch education and our student achievement results back that up.

I imagine that we will agree to disagree on a number of points.  Nevertheless, I trust that this additional information is of interest and use.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.

Brad (Chief Financial Officer, CBE)