School leaders and district teams are being asked to do two things at once: improve student outcomes and manage resources responsibly. That tension is not new—but it has become more visible as provinces navigate persistent deficits and rising costs across major public services.

A Fraser Institute research bulletin on the fiscal consequences of higher spending on K-12 public schools in Canada highlights a key reality for decision-makers: spending increases have ripple effects beyond classrooms. When governments spend more, the money ultimately comes from higher taxes today or higher taxes in the future (if financed through deficits). Because K-12 education is one of the largest line items in provincial budgets (alongside health care), even modest percentage changes can materially shift a province’s fiscal position.

Why this matters to school-based services like therapy

TinyEYE provides online therapy services to schools, and our work sits inside this broader funding environment. When budgets tighten, schools don’t stop needing speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, or mental health supports—if anything, needs become more visible. But districts often have to rethink how they deliver services: staffing models, waitlists, travel time, caseload coverage, and equitable access across schools.

Understanding the financial pressures described in the Fraser Institute analysis helps explain why many school systems are exploring service delivery models that are scalable, measurable, and easier to budget for over time.

What the Fraser Institute data says (in plain language)

1) Spending rose significantly over a decade

Across Canada, total nominal spending on K-12 public schools increased from $44.3 billion in 2004/05 to $62.6 billion in 2013/14. That’s a 41.1% increase nationwide over the period.

Every province saw increases. The report notes that Alberta had the largest nominal increase (70.3%), while British Columbia had the smallest (19.8%).

2) Enrolment fell in most places—yet spending still went up

A critical insight in the bulletin is that enrolment changed over the same period, and in most provinces it declined. Nationally, public school enrolment fell by 4.2% (from 5.3 million to 5.0 million students). Alberta was the exception, with enrolment increasing by 11.1%.

When enrolment decreases but spending rises, per-student spending tends to increase. That doesn’t automatically mean waste or inefficiency—schools have fixed costs and complex needs—but it does mean governments and districts face hard questions about sustainability and outcomes.

3) After adjusting for inflation, per-student spending still increased

To compare spending fairly over time, the report adjusts for inflation and looks at per-student spending in constant 2014 dollars. The result: inflation-adjusted per-student spending increased by 25.8% across Canada, from $9,876 in 2004/05 to $12,427 in 2013/14.

Provincial increases varied:

• Lowest increase: British Columbia at 18.3%

• Highest increase: Saskatchewan at 39.0%

• Canada overall: 25.8%

The “restrained spending” scenario: a useful budgeting thought experiment

One of the most practical parts of the bulletin is its comparison between actual spending and what spending would have been if per-student spending had simply been held constant (after accounting for inflation and enrolment changes). The authors call this “restrained spending.”

What would have changed nationally?

The report estimates that if per-student spending had been held constant from 2004/05 to 2013/14, total K-12 public school spending in 2013/14 would have been 20.3% lower: $49.8 billion instead of $62.6 billion. That’s a difference of about $12.7 billion in a single year.

Why it matters: deficits and surpluses shift quickly

The bulletin connects that “extra” spending to provincial fiscal balances. In 2013/14, eight out of 10 provinces ran deficits. Under the restrained-spending scenario, the report suggests:

• Alberta and Prince Edward Island would have moved from deficit to surplus in 2013/14.

• Quebec’s deficit would have been nearly eliminated (a deficit of only $29 million in the scenario).

• Ontario’s deficit would have been roughly cut in half (from $10.5 billion to $5.3 billion).

• British Columbia and Saskatchewan—already in surplus—would have posted substantially larger surpluses.

Whether one agrees with the premise of holding per-student spending constant, the scenario illustrates a key point: because K-12 is such a large spending category, changes compound into major fiscal outcomes.

What this means for school leaders planning student support services

Budgets are not just numbers; they shape what schools can deliver, how quickly they can respond to student needs, and how consistently they can provide services across a district.

1) Expect ongoing pressure to justify spending with outcomes

When provincial finances are strained, education spending is more likely to be scrutinized. That often translates into district-level expectations such as:

• Clear service metrics (minutes delivered, students served, progress monitoring)

• Transparent staffing and caseload models

• Evidence-informed interventions

• Equity across schools, including rural and remote communities

For therapy services, this can mean moving from “best effort coverage” to more structured delivery models that can be tracked and reported.

2) Service delivery models that reduce friction become more attractive

In-person delivery can be highly effective, but it also comes with operational constraints that can be expensive or hard to scale: travel time, recruitment challenges, coverage gaps, and uneven access across schools.

Online therapy models can help districts reduce some of that friction by:

• Expanding access when local clinicians are difficult to recruit

• Reducing non-service time (like travel) so more time can go to students

• Supporting continuity when staffing changes occur mid-year

• Making it easier to standardize documentation and reporting

This doesn’t eliminate the need for thoughtful planning—technology, scheduling, and collaboration still matter—but it can improve predictability in both staffing and budgeting.

3) “More spending” is not always the only path to “more support”

The Fraser Institute bulletin focuses on fiscal consequences, not program design. Still, it raises a practical question for districts: if per-student costs are rising, where can systems improve productivity without compromising student outcomes?

For student support services, productivity gains often come from operational improvements, such as:

• Better triage and referral pathways (serving the right students at the right intensity)

• Tiered models of support (universal strategies, targeted small groups, and intensive 1:1)

• Collaboration with educators and families to generalize skills beyond sessions

• Using data to adjust service intensity based on progress

These approaches can help schools stretch resources while still prioritizing student needs—especially in years when budgets are flat or uncertain.

Key takeaways for decision-makers

• K-12 spending increases have meaningful fiscal impacts because education is one of the largest provincial budget categories.

• From 2004/05 to 2013/14, Canada saw a 25.8% increase in inflation-adjusted per-student spending, even as enrolment declined nationally.

• A “restrained spending” scenario in the Fraser Institute analysis suggests deficits and surpluses could have looked dramatically different in 2013/14—highlighting how sensitive provincial finances are to K-12 spending trajectories.

• In this environment, schools and districts often look for service models that improve access, reduce operational friction, and provide clearer reporting—especially for specialized services like therapy.

For more information, please follow this link.