Post WW II Generations had it Easy

[kimmy]

I also don't see any less money coming into the education system, but I do see it allotted differently. There seems to be more money put into the local boards adminstrative complex, more padding of the board bureaucracy and dealing with some questionable wage increases. It seems to me that maintaining school service levels while building the castles has actually increased the amount of money being alloted to the local public education system. But I am not sure if this is typical everywhere.

Can I ask which province you're in? Here in BC it seems like there's non-stop news about school boards coping with budget cuts, and health authorities trying to deal with budgets that have been slashed drastically. Alberta was similar in the 1990s. I think most provinces were probably similar in the mid-to-late 1990s as the federal budget was balanced.

-k

[Shwa]

Can I ask which province you're in? Here in BC it seems like there's non-stop news about school boards coping with budget cuts, and health authorities trying to deal with budgets that have been slashed drastically. Alberta was similar in the 1990s. I think most provinces were probably similar in the mid-to-late 1990s as the federal budget was balanced.

Ontario and my direct experience with the local board has been since 1995.

So I did a little checking at the Ontario Ministry of Education for some historical data:

School Board Projections (TOTAL STUDENT-FOCUSED FUNDING ALLOCATION) for our local board:

The previous year figures are actuals in millions

98-99 - 381

99-00 - 392

00-01 - 411

01-02 - 422

02-03 - 449

03-04 - 475

04-05 - 504

05-06 - 528

06-07 - 550

07-08 - 584

08-09 - 611

09-10 - 629

So there are significant increases just for our board alone. Which would bear out with the size of the new hi-tech castle they built in the past 5 years. :angry:

You might be able to view the same type historical funding statistics for BC here:

K-12 Funding Allocation System

[kimmy]

I think this opinion piece presents the argument I'm making (in regard to what "slaying the deficit monster" has done for education since the mid 1990s, which is pretty damning to the whole premise that "kids today have everything handed to them.")

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2009.11-policy-who-killed-canadas-education-advantage/

The editorial does focus more on post-secondary education, and does focus primarily on Ontario, but I suspect the same trends are probably similar across the country, and to K-12 school to some degree.

None of this is to say that education isn't attainable. But if your son had attended school 15 years earlier, his loans would probably be a fraction of what they are right now. So I'm having a hard time buying into the idea that young people today are given so much more than their parents were. To me, it seems like the boomers had frugal parents but entered the workforce in an era of unparalleled prosperity... while today young people may have wealthy parents, but will face challenges that their parents generally speaking didn't have to confront.

I mean, I've heard a number of times that this may be the first generation in North American history that is less prosperous than its parents, and I don't think it's just Gen-Y whiners who are speculating on that point. I think a lot of things point to it, from the burden of public debt to picking up the tab for environmental concerns to increased costs of fuel and housing.

-k

Edited December 17, 2009 by kimmy

[Shwa]

And yet here the numbers reflect an increase in spending in education in my local board. There could be several reasons for this - an overall increase, an increase at the expense of another board, an increase that is on some sort of circuit, etc. Without looking at the numbers, I believe it is an overall increase.

The author makes some good historical points - I remember that time - but I am not sure if his conclusions are all that correct. A lot of things have changes since 1992. One of those things that has changed is information technology of course and that has had a profound impact on post secondary education in the past decade which would allow for large student-teacher ratios. I suppose the real test would be the numbers of graduate and post graduate degrees handed out over the past 15 years.

Yes, my kid's debt would be lower 15 years ago, but so would his pay. So there is a relative effect to be considered too including the purchasing value of the dollar, inflation and so on...

[kimmy]

And yet here the numbers reflect an increase in spending in education in my local board. There could be several reasons for this - an overall increase, an increase at the expense of another board, an increase that is on some sort of circuit, etc. Without looking at the numbers, I believe it is an overall increase.

I don't think figures for one school board prove a point in general. Without knowing anything about the region you're in, how do I know if those increases cover enrollment increases? The increases shown in the 1990s don't even appear to cover inflation. The article does praise the McGuinty government for increasing funding a few years ago, and this appears to be shown in your figures.

Figures for one school board don't convince me of anything.

I'll spend some time later today looking for more comprehensive figures on education funding. I think they'll show the effects of balancing the budget in the 1990s.

The author makes some good historical points - I remember that time - but I am not sure if his conclusions are all that correct. A lot of things have changes since 1992. One of those things that has changed is information technology of course and that has had a profound impact on post secondary education in the past decade which would allow for large student-teacher ratios.

Improving technology? Yes, I had classes where thousands of students cram into an auditorium to watch the professor on a movie theatre screen, and you download assignments from the course website, and an army of teaching-assistants grade assignments, and exams are all multiple-choice. That doesn't actually support the idea that they're getting more for their increasing tuition fees. It kind of supports the view that they're getting less.

I suppose the real test would be the numbers of graduate and post graduate degrees handed out over the past 15 years.

No, that would be the test if I was claiming that post-secondary education was less accessible.

What I'm claiming is that it's more expensive, and the test of that would be comparing graduate debt loads.

Young people can still have all of the things their parents did... provided they're willing to borrow deeply enough. Where does that leave the idea is that young people today have more than their parents?

Yes, my kid's debt would be lower 15 years ago, but so would his pay. So there is a relative effect to be considered too including the purchasing value of the dollar, inflation and so on...

Tuition has increased far out of proportion to inflation.

The graph on this page includes an adjusted-dollars line for the University of Toronto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition (The rate of increase relative to inflation doesn't appear that steep until one realizes that the dollars scale is logarithmic, not linear.) At U of T at least, tuition has never been more expensive in real dollars than it is right now, and was never more affordable in real dollars than it was in 1980.

That's just the University of Toronto, but I'm skeptical that other public universities in Ontario fared better, or that other provinces were much different from Ontario in that respect.

-k

[Shwa]

don't think figures for one school board prove a point in general.

The reports start out with an overall view of Ontario, then broken down by board. I was just citing my board, but funding is up provincially from 13.8b in 02-03 to 18.7b in 08-09.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/funding/0809/2008_09Projections.pdf

The increases shown in the 1990s don't even appear to cover inflation.

Should they? I am not sure that all increases in funding must match inflation rates, but this could be the 'slashing' 'cut-back aspect of things.

It kind of supports the view that they're getting less.

Get less what? Information? Degrees? Or are you referring to attention from the teacher?

I am not sure what you mean here.

No, that would be the test if I was claiming that post-secondary education was less accessible...What I'm claiming is that it's more expensive, and the test of that would be comparing graduate debt loads.

Good point. But I was referring to affordability - less affordable, less degrees.

Tuition has increased far out of proportion to inflation.

Yes, for sure. There are protests about that all the time. But is there some rule of thumb that says tuition fees need to be regulated by the inflation rate?

[kimmy]

Should they? I am not sure that all increases in funding must match inflation rates, but this could be the 'slashing' 'cut-back aspect of things.

I believe that public school education has been suffering due to budgetary constraints. You disagree, and have provided information that suggest that at least in Ontario funding has increased considerably.

I don't think either of us is interested in going school-by-school and seeing whether they still have a full-time librarian, the music program was cancelled, and so-on.

So why is it important if funding matches inflation rates? It's not a direct measure, but it can help us guestimate whether funding is keeping up with costs. Of course, costs depend on some degree on the number of students as well, so it's not a complete picture.

Another reason I keep mentioning inflation is to keep some perspective that we're talking about long spans of time here and the value of dollars is not constant.

If someone tells me that tuition cost him $1200 in 1991, and I know that my tuition cost me $5400 in 2006, I need to keep in mind that I can't just say my tuition cost me 4.5 times more. I can use this handy tool...

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/inflation_calc.html

...and discover that in real terms, it's actually just 3.5 times as much.

Get less what? Information? Degrees? Or are you referring to attention from the teacher?

I am not sure what you mean here.

Value.

Things like class size and accessibility of instructors are commonly used metrics when quality of education is studied. Things like multiple-choice exams are sometimes pointed to as indicators of lower-quality education.

Students today pay a lot more money, and they receive a product that (according to the educators quoted in the article) is just not as good. To me, that just doesn't jive with the claim some people here have been making, the claim that young people today have things so much better than their parents.

Good point. But I was referring to affordability - less affordable, less degrees.

Not necessarily. Less affordable doesn't necessarily mean less degrees if loans are available. We can still get the things our parents did... if we're willing to borrow heavily enough.

Yes, for sure. There are protests about that all the time. But is there some rule of thumb that says tuition fees need to be regulated by the inflation rate?

Not that I'm aware of. However, the question isn't of "needs to" or "should". What portion of the price of education should be picked up by society as a whole and what portion should be picked up by each individual student is a complicated question, and I have no intention of getting into it here.

What we've been discussing is the premise that young people today have been the recipients of unprecedented generosity.

And that might be accurate if you view the world in terms of iPods and cell-phones and expensive clothes. But I don't think it's a complete picture if one factors in things like public investment in education.

If young people today have things so good, how come going to university costs so much more than it did? How come a place to live is so much more expensive when they leave home? How about other things? I understand that Canada's finance ministers are meeting in Whitehorse this week to figure out the future of Canada's pension system. Any bets on whether my generation is going to have better pensions than yours? I know what I'm anticipating...

-k

[Shwa]

What we've been discussing is the premise that young people today have been the recipients of unprecedented generosity.

And that might be accurate if you view the world in terms of iPods and cell-phones and expensive clothes. But I don't think it's a complete picture if one factors in things like public investment in education.

I don't think it is an accurate view nor a complete picture at all and don't make the mistake of assigning me to a particular generation. I am a 60's child with a foot with the boomers and a foot with the Gen X'ers. I remember hearing Herman's Hermits on the radio. I remember when the Sex Pistols were this 'new thing.' (heck, I listen to System of a Down, but that is neither here nor there

The only reason I picked the 'education funding' bone with you is to illustrate how relativistic this discussion really is. You can make a point kimmie, but I can counterpoint all day - especially about education funding. And where will that get us?

Let's take MH's point about choices? Are there really that many more choices for the younger generation than there were for the boomers or those previous generation? And is more choice an indicator of 'easier?'

Or let's talk about the availability of food? But is nutrition any better?

Or let's talk about medicine, but is health any better?

Or let's talk about entropy.

The only thing we can really be sure about is that things are changing and how those changes are considered is relative to the culture/sub-culture of the participants of the dialogue. It isn't really a true or false discussion. My only impression is that we have built bigger house to hold more crap. But is that any 'easier' than my Grams small little bungalow that today holds treasures?

I can say, with all the evidence I have seen thus far in life, your uncertainty about the future is wholly justified. However, we both know there are alternative views that are still yet to be explored and those views are not dependent on any generation or age. To me, that is where the real value lays.

[Michael Hardner]

Or let's talk about the availability of food? But is nutrition any better?

Or let's talk about medicine, but is health any better?

Those are all great examples.

I would say food, and medicine have all progressed markedly over the past 50 years.

Better ? Worse ?

Different.

Like the universe around us, the touchpoints of our daily lives "expand" and get better and worse.

50 years ago, Oreos arrived in my grocery store. Then in the 1970s, they came up with an innovation - Double Stuff Oreos ! Quite a breakthrough there... Today, I can choose from a Galaxy of Oreo products, including healthier 100 calorie Oreos.

I can say, with all the evidence I have seen thus far in life, your uncertainty about the future is wholly justified. However, we both know there are alternative views that are still yet to be explored and those views are not dependent on any generation or age. To me, that is where the real value lays.

The most important thing that has changed is the number of alternative views. How see discuss, analyze and view our society, collectively, is our compass to what needs to be done. 50 years ago, there was much more faith in "experts" - scientists and those-who-know-better, than there is today.

We should be discussing our media, and how we see ourselves, above other things so that we can get a better perspective.

[Shwa]

We should be discussing our media, and how we see ourselves, above other things so that we can get a better perspective.

I think that all roads will lead there eventually, inevitably, entropy-like.

With a measure of discussion around semiotics, which should be taught as a compulsory subject in grade-school IMHO.

[kimmy]

I can say, with all the evidence I have seen thus far in life, your uncertainty about the future is wholly justified. However, we both know there are alternative views that are still yet to be explored and those views are not dependent on any generation or age. To me, that is where the real value lays.

A discussion of who has it "easier" needs, I suppose, a discussion of what "easier" actually means. I'm not sure if that's very productive. There's lots of different metrics one could look at, and they often conflict, as we've seen.

I'm not sure about "easier", but I doubt that future generations will have "more". I think obvious realities and basic math preclude the possibility. I think that claiming a stake of a decreasing supply of consumables that more people than ever are vying for is going to be an increasingly difficult burden. I think that the public debt is going to prevent the levels of government from providing the kinds of service that have been taken for granted in the past, or from providing the kind of guarantees that currently exist. I think the economic cost of current ideas about the environment are going to have far-reaching impact. I think that globalization is going to increase prosperity for the majority of people on earth... but not necessarily for us in North America. None of these things give me much optimism about what the next few decades are going to be like.

If traditional economic ideas about progress are going to be the measuring stick, then I don't think the future is going to be very bright. But as you say there are other measures of "better" and "easier". People may have to alter their objectives and expectations.

-k