When a government says it wants to make education more efficient, it rarely means more just. The language of improvement—streamlining, restoring greatness, rebalancing budgets—is often the first sign that something vital is about to be stripped away. In both the United States and British Columbia, public education has weathered cycles of disinvestment cloaked as reform. This essay traces the shifting winds of policy across two jurisdictions, not to declare a winner or assign proportional blame, but to understand the mechanisms by which public goods are eroded, restored, and contested. What emerges is not a single narrative, but a pattern: when education is treated as an expense instead of a right, the losses are always greater than the savings.
Trump’s “efficiency” cuts: decimating U.S. education research
The Trump administration’s recent cuts to the U.S. Department of Education have had drastic consequences for educational research and oversight. In early 2025, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced “sweeping reductions” as an efficiency drive, claiming the cuts were a “significant step toward restoring the greatness” of America’s schools theguardian.com. In practice, these cuts have eliminated roughly half of the department’s workforce, with over 1,300 staff fired and nearly 600 more taking voluntary resignations, effectively gutting offices responsible for research, data, and statistics theguardian.com. Insiders describe the atmosphere as “like a funeral,” as highly skilled staff vital to improving educational outcomes were abruptly shown the door – “death by a thousand cuts,” as one employee put it theguardian.com.
The most alarming impact is the termination of research programs mid-stream, wasting years of work and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. Nearly all employees at the department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) were let go, and over 160 research grants and contracts – worth about $900 million – were canceled theguardian.com. Many of these studies were in their final stages (year 4 of 5), meaning their findings will now “never see the light of day,”yielding nothing for schools or students theguardian.com. Projects ranging from early literacy interventions to data on “what’s working in classrooms” have been halted without conclusion theguardian.com theguardian.com. Education experts warn that evidence-based improvements are being lost, undermining progress in student achievement. “When states use evidence-based practices, student achievements improve… I think we’re unwinding… those goals,” said one non-profit education leader in reaction to the cancellations theguardian.com theguardian.com.
These federal cuts mark a sharp reversal in U.S. education policy. Since the Department of Education’s creation in 1979, national reading and math outcomes had steadily improved (aside from recent COVID-19 disruptions) theguardian.com. In contrast, President Trump has openly signaled a desire to abolish the department entirely theguardian.com, shifting responsibility to states. It’s a stark ideological move: scaling back federal investment in public education even as other leaders have sought to increase it. (For instance, the previous Biden administration had pursued historic investments – including $130 billion in pandemic relief aid for schools and a $2 billion boost to Title I funding for high-need districts theschoolleader.org – a very different approach to supporting public education.) By slashing the federal role, Trump’s cuts have created what staff call an immeasurable loss: “You can’t even quantify the loss,” said one veteran, noting that most money spent will now “yield nothing for the taxpayers, nothing for schools, nothing for students” theguardian.com. The long-term fallout remains to be seen, but educators fear these cuts will set back America’s public school system for years to come.
Christy Clark’s legacy in BC: a generation of underfunding
British Columbia experienced its own “death by a thousand cuts” in public education during the era of Premier Christy Clark (and the BC Liberal government, 2001–2017). Clark’s approach, much like Trump’s, was driven by fiscal restraint and a diminished role for public education – with deep consequences for schools. Despite government claims of “record” education budgets, funding in B.C. shrank as a share of the economy and fell to almost $1,000 per student below the Canadian average during the BC Liberal years policyalternatives.ca.
In fact, over 15 years of Liberal rule, B.C.’s ranking in per-student funding plummeted from second-highest to second-lowest in Canada bcndpcaucus.ca. This underfunding was a deliberate policy choice, not just a byproduct of enrolment changes. The BC Liberals frequently balanced budgets and even instituted tax breaks (e.g. a $230 million tax cut for top earners) while simultaneously ordering tens of millions in cutbacks to school budgets bcndpcaucus.ca. As one analysis put it, education was “at the bottom of their priority list” bcndpcaucus.ca.
The impact on B.C. schools was tangible. Over the Liberal era, more than 200 public schools were closed across the province to save money bcndpcaucus.ca. Class sizes swelled and specialist support was stripped away – the number of specialist teachers (librarians, special education, counselors, etc.) dropped by 23% under Clark’s watch bcndp.ca. Many classrooms became overcrowded and under-resourced, with parents forced to fundraise for basics and students with special needs receiving less support policyalternatives.ca bcndp.ca. The government even encouraged school districts to find alternate revenue (selling services, recruiting international tuition-paying students) to compensate for chronic underfunding bcstudies.com bcstudies.com. At the same time, public funding for private/independent schools rose to record levels – B.C. diverted $341 million to private schools in 2015-16, up from $311 million the year before vancouverobserver.com – prompting accusations that public education dollars were being redirected away from public classrooms vancouverobserver.com vancouverobserver.com.
A defining struggle of Clark’s legacy was her prolonged war with teachers. As education minister in 2002, Clark introduced legislation that stripped teachers’ contracts of class size and support provisions, igniting a legal battle that lasted 15 years bcndp.ca bcstudies.com. The government spent $2.6 million fighting teachers in court over a decade bcndp.ca, even as overcrowded classes and staffing cuts plagued schools. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016 struck down Clark’s measures as unconstitutional – a stinging rebuke that took the justices only minutes to deliver bcndp.ca. The court ruling forced B.C. to restore smaller class size limits and specialist teacher ratios that had been removed, essentially confirming that the cuts had violated students’ rights to quality education. By then, however, an entire generation of students had passed through an underfunded system. As the BC NDP (then opposition) summarized in 2017, “Because of Christy Clark’s war on teachers, an entire generation of BC kids were robbed of the public education they deserved.” bcndp.ca The Christy Clark era left a legacy of underfunded and overcrowded classrooms – a cautionary tale of how sustained cuts can erode a public education system’s foundations.
BC’s NDP era: reinvesting in public education – and is it enough?
Since 2017, British Columbia’s new government (the BC NDP, first under Premier John Horgan and now David Eby) has charted a very different course, reinvesting heavily in public education to repair the damage. A major turning point came immediately after the 2016 Supreme Court decision: the province had to hire thousands of teachers to meet restored class-size and support standards. The NDP government created a Classroom Enhancement Fund (CEF) to bankroll these court-mandated improvements – providing about $697 million in 2023-24 alone to school districts for additional teachers and specialist staff under the restored contract language adamolsen.ca. This effort reversed many of Clark’s cuts: by 2022, the average K–12 class size had fallen to 22.7 students (down from 23.5 in 2015-16) as more teachers were brought into classrooms news.gov.bc.ca. Parents noticed the difference as districts could hire back teacher-librarians, counsellors, and support teachers that had been lost.
Beyond the court-required changes, the NDP significantly boosted overall education funding. The annual provincial operating budget for K–12 schools grew from about $5.6 billion in 2016-17 to $8.05 billion in 2023-24 – a 43.5% increase in six years news.gov.bc.ca. In practical terms, this has meant 4,560 more teachers and 4,400 more education assistants employed in B.C. public schools compared to 2016-17 news.gov.bc.ca. Funding targeted for students with special needs was increased by 80% since 2017, and support for Indigenous students rose by 58% news.gov.bc.ca – indicating a focus on equity and inclusion that was lacking in the previous era. The government also began addressing long-delayed capital needs: annual school capital spending was raised by over $400 million versus 2016-17 levels news.gov.bc.ca, allowing for new school construction in fast-growing areas, seismic safety upgrades for older schools, and even an annual fund to build new playgrounds so parents wouldn’t have to fundraise for basic infrastructure news.gov.bc.ca news.gov.bc.ca. Each provincial budget under the NDP has framed education as a priority investment rather than a cost to be trimmed. For example, Budget 2023 alone added $627 million in new K–12 operating funding (on top of prior increases) to help districts manage enrollment growth and rising costs news.gov.bc.ca.
These reinvestment efforts have undoubtedly improved conditions in B.C. schools, yet debate continues over whether funding is now truly sufficient. B.C. had fallen so far behind that even with recent boosts, it still lags other provinces on some metrics. By 2021/22, B.C.’s inflation-adjusted per-student funding had climbed markedly (about 32% higher than 2012/13), but the province still ranked 8th out of 10 provinces in per-student spending fraserinstitute.org.
In other words, B.C. remains in the lower tier nationally, reflecting the legacy of deep cuts that can’t be undone overnight. Many school districts are also grappling with new cost pressures – from general inflation to emerging needs like mental health supports – and they warn that provincial funding increases haven’t fully kept pace. In recent legislative hearings, BC school officials noted that operating budgets are being “hollowed out” by rising costs, forcing districts to cut services or draw on reserves to balance budgets adamolsen.ca. Some districts facing stagnant enrollments (and thus less incremental funding) are struggling to maintain programs, even as others in high-growth areas benefit from additional dollars adamolsen.ca adamolsen.ca.
The NDP government acknowledges there is “much more to do” and faces pressure to further boost education funding in coming years to meet its goals for improved student outcomes adamolsen.ca adamolsen.ca. In summary, the NDP has substantially increased public education funding in B.C., reversing the previous cuts, but questions remain about whether it is enough to fully address past deficits and future demands.
Comparative perspectives and ongoing debates
Placing these cases side by side reveals two starkly different trajectories for public education funding – yet a common question of sufficiency. In the U.S., the Trump administration’s aggressive cuts represent a dramatic withdrawal of government support, effectively dismantling federal educational research and oversight in the name of “efficiency.” This approach stands in direct contrast to efforts by others (like the Biden administration) to infuse more resources into public education, whether through massive one-time COVID relief or steady increases to support high-need schools theschoolleader.org. The American debate, therefore, centres on a philosophical divide: one side pushing to shrink government’s role (even if it means scrapping invaluable programs), and the other aiming to invest federal dollars to drive improvement and equity in schools. Early evidence suggests that when investments are made – for example, targeted funding for evidence-based literacy programs – student outcomes can improve; conversely, the loss of those investments under Trump is feared to hamper progress and innovation theguardian.com theguardian.com.
In British Columbia, the contrast is chronological. Under Christy Clark, public education endured a slow bleed of resources, with budget restraint prioritized over growing student needs. The result was a school system stretched to its limits – larger classes, fewer supports, and infrastructure neglect – conditions very similar to what American educators fear under sweeping cuts. The subsequent NDP government effectively reversed course, treating education funding as a public investment to be bolstered. This infusion of funding in B.C. has yielded measurable improvements: more teachers and support staff, smaller class sizes, and better supports for vulnerable students news.gov.bc.ca news.gov.bc.ca. It demonstrates how policy “air currents” can shift direction, from austerity to reinvestment, when political leadership changes. Yet, even with a 43% budget increase in six years, British Columbia’s schools are still catching up – a reminder that rebuilding services after long-term cuts is a gradual process. Stakeholders in B.C. argue that funding needs to keep growing simply to meet present-day challenges (like rising costs and a need for more inclusive education services), not to mention to elevate B.C.’s funding to a truly leading position in Canada fraserinstitute.org adamolsen.ca.
Ultimately, both the U.S. and B.C. experiences highlight the critical importance of sustained public investment in education – and the damage that can occur when that investment is withdrawn. Trump’s federal cuts and Clark’s provincial cuts were driven by different contexts but a similar ideology of reducing government spending on education. In each case, the pushback has been significant: lawsuits, public outcry, and, in B.C.’s case, a voter mandate for change. On the flip side, efforts to increase funding (whether Biden’s nationwide programs or the NDP’s provincial budgets) underscore a belief that better resourcing will lead to better outcomes. The “air currents” of education funding can shift quickly with political winds, but the consensus among educators is that chronic underfunding leaves students worse off. The comparison suggests that restoring and maintaining robust funding – for research, for teachers, for safe schools – is essential to educational improvement. While philosophies differ, the experience in both jurisdictions shows that cutting support in the name of efficiency often creates more problems than it solves, whereas strategic investments in public education tend to pay dividends in student success and societal benefit in the long run.
Sources:
- Michael Sainato, The Guardian – “Revealed: Trump education cuts mean years of work – and millions of dollars – go to waste” (20 Mar 2025) theguardian.com theguardian.com theguardian.com theguardian.com.
- BC Teachers’ Federation & BC Studies – Analysis of BC Liberal education policies and Supreme Court rulings bcstudies.com bcndp.ca.
- BC New Democrat Caucus – “Christy Clark’s education neglect” (2016-2017 statements) bcndpcaucus.ca bcndpcaucus.ca.
- BC Government (Ministry of Education) – Budget 2023 Education Factsheet: Funding increases 2017–2023 news.gov.bc.ca news.gov.bc.ca.
- Fraser Institute – Education Spending in Public Schools in Canada 2024 (data on per-student spending by province) fraserinstitute.org.
- Legislative Assembly of BC (2024) – Budget Estimates debates (Adam Olsen, MLA, on school district funding and inflation) adamolsen.ca.
- American Federation of School Administrators – “Biden-Harris Historic Investments in Public Education” (Sep 18, 2024) theschoolleader.org.