The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Education is taxing All money for public education is tax money, whether gleaned from the province or property owner. The system is quite simple in theory; every worker/ landowner pays taxes to educate children in the province whether or not they have children in school and pay as long as they have an income or own property. One northern community leader told "the Corner" that he was still ahead as he had sent three youngsters through school for twelve years each, at an estimated cost of $7,000 per child per year. He figured at today's costs it would take more than a lifetime of education taxes to reach $252,000. A lot of workers may not agree, and many complain about the constant increase in school taxes, coming again this year in most school divisions including Flin Flon's. At the end of January, education minister Peter Bjornson announced a 2% increase in funding, the lowest increase since the NDP took over in Manitoba. He also said school boards should not increase taxes by more than 2%. He defended the small increase claiming that the $18 million more in new money meant that $105 million has been the increase in the past five years. At first blush the increase would seem to be substantial, however the amount includes $3.2 million for special needs, $1.2 million for guidance/counseling, $850K for vocational education, $400K to promote aboriginal academics and $300K for libraries, which doesn't leave a lot for other expenses. School trustees and the Manitoba Teacher's Society are complaining loudly that their only alternative to substantially raising taxes is massive cuts in staff and programs, especially if the tax increase is held to 2%. Trustees point out that many divisions have signed 3% contracts with staff and that over 80% of costs are salaries. Further, they claim the province's share of costs has been dropping each year and is not even the 56% which is the supposed average in Manitoba. In Pembina Trails, which is proposing a 7.4% increase they are really only getting an increase of .8%, and the province with its complex formula is covering only 44% of its costs. This is the case in many school divisions, particularly those with a higher tax base. In Manitoba we have what one prominent superintendent calls a "Robin Hood tax policy"Ñ rob from the rich and give to the poor. The amount they get depends on their local tax assessment. The province also taxes an educational support levy on all property except farms which covers 20% -30% of a school division's expenses. If readers check their tax bill they will see three taxes Ð municipal, ESL, and local levy (the amount taxed by the local school board) The NDP is on record as promising to eliminate the ESL, but where they will they replace the money from? Quite naturally, teachers' salaries are the target of many school boards and taxpayer groups. The chairman of River East-Transcona claims that the NDP government will have to control teachers' salaries if they want school boards to hold down tax increases. His division first proposed an 8.5% increase, later pared to 7.5% to avoid staff layoffs. He also stated that you can't pay salary increases of 3% if you get 2% increases. Even the head of the Teacher's Society agrees, but claims the solution is province-wide bargaining and a need to change the system of funding education, with the province taking over the financing. Brian Ardern's claim that "we need a new deal" is so hypocritical and shows the teachers' union is singing a different tune than they did in last spring's provincial election. His "new deal" is exactly what Stuart Murray and the PC's offered Manitobans. It was to eliminate school taxes on homes and farms, and have the province totally finance education costs, and conduct province-wide bargaining with teachers. Mr. Ardern joined the NDP in rejecting Murray's plan as unworkable and supported the NDP's no change policy. One may ask what is different now? Could it be the realization that massive tax increases are not as acceptable to the public as cuts in staff and programs? Ardern defends the salary increases, claiming 3% is not unreasonable, also pointing out that some trustees raised their own pay by 30%. However Bruce Alexander, a retired teacher and chair of St. James-Assiniboia School Division said it best: "It's clear that salaries are really not sustainable, if people are going to make significantly larger salaries, there'll be fewer of them employed." He points out that cutting programs, closing schools and employing fewer people is the only way trustees can reduce costs under the current system. Could it be that education will turn out to be the "Achilles' heel" for this NDP government?
