December 12, 2012 at 7:44 am #1103adminKeymaster
Monday, December 10, 2012
In response to the Ministry of Education proposals for International Education, the following items were identified by IPSEA participants as requiring more discussion among stakeholder groups. As requested by the members today, here is a list of items that you may wish to discuss with your Superintendent.
Many items that were discussed today generated a wide variety of opinion. The comments below are intended as a reminder only for discussion purposes with your superintendent.
IPSEA also recognizes the importance of the BC Brand and the development of core principles that protects the integrity of International Programs. It is important to ensure that you review the documents that were sent to you and discuss the items that are of particular importance for your district.
– Increasing fees at this time is not a good idea due to current market and world economies. There is resistance to monies being deducted from district operating budgets. Fees (for the next 2 years) have already been sent abroad by many districts.
– This may impact negatively on students going to rural locations as, for the same price they can have the lower mainland. Rural district have a marketing advantage with lower fees.
Distribution of money collected:
– Concern over the distribution of funds as currently suggested. 1.8 million dollars is already collected in taxes from International students. Why more?
Limit percent of students:
– Districts believe this should be a board decision on who attends their schools and any imposition of quotas could be viewed as racist by some countries/clients.
Cost of auditing the program:
– Any at random auditing/investigating of home stays contractors or other parts of the program is expensive and costly. Who will take this on?
More time to consult, process, more stakeholders represented:
– With wide sweeping changes, process and consultation should be considered a high priority
Constraining districts revenue generating ability:
– Districts were encouraged to be entrepreneurial and funds from IE provide a wide variety of services, resources and staffing across each district.
Members should be able to speak to our reps:
– Concern over why confidentiality is being imposed on committee members
Ministry reporting, time and amount of reporting:
– There is concern that there are already enough reporting mechanisms at the district level; why do we need more?
Who does this impact, just K-12:
– Is it the intent of the ministry to collect funds from post secondary and language institutions or just K-12?
Is this money going to support offshore schools:
– The issue of offshore schools is being muddied with onshore programs which have a history of success and working well for the most part.
– There is support for the improvement of offshore school programs.
The transparency of these taxes:
– We would have to tell families where this money is going. Districts would have to recoup the money somehow from clients and some indicated they would use a line item on student fee statements which indicated this was a ministry /government surcharge. What is the collection option being discussed by the Ministry? When is this supposed to impact school district budgets if there is a claw back from 1701 data?
IPSEA not being seen as a valued partner in these discussions:
– IPSEA has already been acknowledged by the Ministry as having a Best Practices Manual. Why is there not more value placed on the work done by this group?
– ELL is already funded in many districts from International Funds.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.