Paul Bowles: B.C. budget reveals postsecondary education low on list of government priorities
By Paul Bowles
Budget speeches are typically full of numbers and rhetoric, but underneath they reveal political choices. They tell us about what priorities the government has and what government thinks its role is in the economy. So what does the 2010 B.C. budget tell us?
Let’s start with the priorities and, in particular, where postsecondary education lies. The figures announced in the budget essentially show that universities and colleges will be receiving the same number of dollars in each of the next three years. The government calls this “stable” funding and “protecting” education. In fact, it is neither. It actually means cuts. Postsecondary institutions may get the same number of dollars each year, but their costs keep rising. The costs of the things that universities buy, like technology, library acquisitions, and software licensing agreements, all increase year after year and typically by more than the rate of consumer price inflation. That’s why in the United States they use a special index, the Higher Education Price Index, to more accurately measure the cost pressures in the higher education sector.
The fact that funding is frozen, but costs will inevitably go up over the next three years, means that universities will have to find savings from somewhere. This typically means bigger classes, less support for students, and fewer new faculty positions. Despite years of seeing increasing student numbers and rising costs eat away at educational quality, the belt-tightening at universities across the province will continue. And there isn’t any light at the end of the tunnel. The government has said that when it gets back to a balanced budget, any surpluses will be used to pay down the debt.
So, if you want to know what the budget says about where postsecondary education sits on the government’s priority list, it is well below deficit reduction and debt repayment. These fiscal measures are of greater importance to government than the need to preserve and increase the quality of the province’s postsecondary education.
Views on B.C. budget
Cindy Oliver: B.C. budget effectively freezes funding for postsecondary institutions
Jane Sterk: B.C. Liberal budget takes us back to the future in 2010
Bruce Ralston: B.C. Liberal budget fails to offer real economic plan
Dean Skoreyko: A budget that benefits nobody but the B.C. Liberals




Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Comments
The majority of BC's university economists are Liberal adherents federally and were particularly keen supporters of Dion's Green Shift, as well as the BC Carbon Tax. Yet since Dion left and Ignatieff officially ditched the Green Shift, they have offered no criticism of that policy change despite having vehemently excoriated the NDP and the Conservatives in the last federal election for not supporting Dion's approach. In addition, they are very vocal supporters of the HST.
And they sure don't want Carole James to become Premier and bring back the dreaded tuition freeze.
Adding it all up, even if they did disagree with some of the BC Liberals' policy measures they would be very, very reluctant to express that in a media column. Many of them are quite happy, though, to strongly ciriticize the opposition NDP in CanWest op-ed pieces that read as if they were written in the BC Govt's Public Affairs Bureau.
Rod Smelser
I wasn't thinking of Dr Shaffer, though, because he's an Adjunct Prof at the Public Policy Program rather than in the Dept of Economics.
For his troubles Shaffer has been harshly critiqued in a paper by a full-time SFU Prof (someone making well over $100K per year) who teaches in the School of Resource and Environmental Management. Economists who do criticize Liberal Govt policy are likely therefore to be shunned and ostracized. Incidentally, the paper denouncing Shaffer was paid for by, ... you guessed it, ... the IPP industry association. Neat, eh?
Rod Smelser