The September 4th edition of the Toronto Star mentioned that "teachers’ compensation has increased by 25 per cent during the McGuinty government."
To the general public, this would seem like a pretty cut and dry argument and it goes like this:
One reason why Ontario has a deficit is because they are spending more on education and this is mainly due to an increase in teacher salaries.
But according to Stats Canada, this simply isn't true.
Take a look at the chart below, focussing carefully on Ontario
According to this chart, the percentage of the education budget that is going to educators, which Stats Can considers to be teachers and administrators, has gone up by only .7 of a percent since 2005 (It started at 46.6 and ended at 47.3).
Also note that it is on a downward trend (48.6 - 47.3)
Thus, while the education budget has increased by nearly 3 billion dollars in the same period (Ontario Ministry of Education) only .7 percent of this increase is due to teacher salaries.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/0506/funding.pdf
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/0910/funding09.pdf
Even though this is NOT about the money, the government has made this situation sound like it is. Let's look at salaries and gratuities for a minute:
ReplyDelete(originally posted by Val in response to another blog)
It’s the do as I say, not as I do. Teachers' gratuity after 30 years is a factor of length of service, unused sick days and salary to a max of $46,000.
MPPs get:
Four years or less of service – 50% of salary*
More than four years, less than eight – 100% of salary
More than eight years – 150% of salary
*the average salary over the last 36 months prior to retirement or resignation. Eligibility examples right now:
McGinty – $313,000 (21 years),
Dwight Duncan- $249,000 (17 years),
Laurel Broten- $246,000 (8.8 years),
After 10 months – $48,000.
REALLY? After 10 months MPPs collect more than a teacher after a full teaching career? Year after year these payouts are being handed out. After less than 9 years, Ms. Broten’s payout could pay more than 5 teachers at full payout. Multiply that by the number of ministers that ‘retire’ each year. AND they can continue to work for full wages elsewhere.
The public should be aware that the government is using money as an issue to sway public opinion against teachers - when what it is really about is good old-fashioned rights!
I think that you might need to check your math on this one. The numbers I have grabbed might be a bit incorrect, but total expenditures in 05-06 from the PDF you post is $1690MM. At 46.6% of budget, the salaries account for $7875MM. After the $3000MM increase, the salaries (at 47.3% of budget)account for $9413MM, for an increase of $1539MM. This means that salaries make up 51.3% of the $3 billion increase, not 0.7% that you have stated. Had salary expenditures stayed the same, we would expect that they would account for ~47% of this increase, same as previously, but they accounted for more than that (~51%). Looking at it as a percent increase of expenditures, this results in an increase of ~10% over the expected percentage (51.3%/46.6%). The .07% only reflects the fact that the budget has increased a relatively small percentage, 15% (16.9 vs 19.9), minimizing the overall affect of the increased salary.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the writer's math is sketchy, but I also believe that the government has WAY over-stated the education system's influence on the money situation.
DeleteIs the number of teachers needed increasing with population size? Probably. Total expenditure will go up there, then. It's not greedy teachers. The same stats which they use to describe how greedy teachers are would look VERY ugly when applied to MPPs.
I agree that the writer's math is sketchy, but I also believe that the government has WAY over-stated the education system's influence on the money situation.
DeleteIs the number of teachers needed increasing with population size? Probably. Total expenditure will go up there, then. It's not greedy teachers. The same stats which they use to describe how greedy teachers are would look VERY ugly when applied to MPPs.
The math is not sketchy at all if you consider the common denominator. The budget increased by 3 billion dollars, but services/costs did not stay the same across the board.
DeleteCuts were made. So if 2B in cuts were made in areas, the increase in the budget is actually 5B and thus this lowers the percentage of the increase that was given out to teachers.
We must look at the portion of the pie argument, because most other provinces in Canada have virtually the same break down (within a few percentage points).
Now, if the Liberals did not give such raises, the "portion of the pie" of Ontario teachers would be significantly lower than other provinces with Canada.
While I appreciate the numbers you have come up with and the time it took to look at the math, we must read the graph as it is.
ReplyDeleteThe title of the PDF is the percentage of the overall budget that goes to teachers and administrators. That percentage has only increased by 0.7 percent.
So while the budget has increased, the teacher "percentage" of the pie, has not (0.7% more pie).
This means that the media is not portraying the facts correctly, because they are reporting that it is teacher salaries that are causing massive increases in the education budget.
But if teachers are receiving only a small increase in the "pie" where is the rest going?
Teachers AND ADMINISTRATORS. Not Teachers alone.
DeleteI agree with the blogger and Elayne. You cannot look at the fact that the budget was increased by 3 billion dollars and calculate the % increase of the teachers because this does not consider that cuts were made to areas of the budget in order to be cost-effective.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is suppose 2 billion was cut in other areas first. That would mean that the denominator you would use would be 5 billion, instead of 3.
This makes perfect sense because despite saying the budget only increased by 3 billion, we know that all day kindergarten costs 3 billion dollars.
According do that logic, the teacher salaries and kindergarten costs would be more than the increase.
Percentage calculations allow for both increases and cuts in bugets. What is missing is how this is broken down. Who are they including in administrators? Principals, VP's and Secretaries, Receptionists? Who are they including as Teachers? Teachers, EA's, Early Childhood Educators (re: kindergarten) This isn't teachers alone. Teachers salaries have simply kept pace with inflation. Any teacher who has had more than a 2% raise has done so because of additional qualifications that they have paid for out of their own pocket and EARNED.
Deleteso the percentage of the pie argument is a good one because it considers cuts and increases to the budget. Teachers are given around the same portion of the pie.
ReplyDelete1) MPPs passed bill 173 in 2007 giving themselves a 25% raise (front loaded) and ties their wages to their federal counterparts. So their wages have continued to rise over the last 5 years. Since the average was 22K right up front the total cost on average per MPP is 22K x 5years = $110,000. In the same time the teachers salaries have risen a total of 3k at the lower end and 7k at the upper end of the grid. This is an average of 5,000 over 5 years or using the half time calculation 5k x 2.5 = $12,000 total increase on average per teacher. So whose greedy really? Furthermore, take a look at the 100k club disclosure for the public sector and you will notice it isn't teachers on the list. It is administrators, ministers, and employees of crown corporations. The waste is horrid. Here is a link to the 100k disclosure http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2012/ and another link for bill 173: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=521&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill
ReplyDeleteThe public should be aware of both of these issues. If Mr. McGuinty is really concerned with the 'children' then he should put his money where his massive mouth is.
114838508492924427107 is right. The budget has increased by $3 billion and educators' salary expenditures have increased [slightly more than] proportionally. It's true that the salaries of administrators, EA's etc may account for some of this increased spending, but because teachers make up the bulk of 'educators' it seems pretty clear that the increased spending has gone to us.
ReplyDeleteThe misconception is that this increase has gone to big raises for teachers. I think that, as more teachers move up the seniority grid and fewer new teachers are being hired on contract each year, the overall salary spending increase is simply a product of our collective agreement four years ago. Following this line of thinking a pay freeze does not seem like the worst strategy in order to avoid increases to the education budget. Right now teachers have a lot of things to fight and a lot of criticism to defend against, but I don't feel the pay freeze should be our first point of contention.
114838508492924427107 is right. The budget has increased by $3 billion and educators' salary expenditures have increased [slightly more than] proportionally. It's true that the salaries of administrators, EA's etc may account for some of this increased spending, but because teachers make up the bulk of 'educators' it seems pretty clear that the increased spending has gone to us.
ReplyDeleteThe misconception is that this increase has gone to big raises for teachers. I think that, as more teachers move up the seniority grid and fewer new teachers are being hired on contract each year, the overall salary spending increase is simply a product of our collective agreement four years ago. Following this line of thinking a pay freeze does not seem like the worst strategy in order to avoid increases to the education budget. Right now teachers have a lot of things to fight and a lot of criticism to defend against, but I don't feel the pay freeze should be our first point of contention.