PUBLIC EDUCATION IN CANADA

A Policy Paper written by David J. Flower
for the
National Children’s Alliance

under the direction of

The Canadian Teachers’ Federation

March 2003

Advisory Committee to David Flower:

Ruth Baumann, Ontario Teachers’ Federation

Marie Pierce, Canadian School Boards Association

Donna Swiniarski, Alberta Teachers’ Association

Karen Virag, Alberta Teachers’ Association

Harvey Weiner, Canadian Teachers’ Federation

David J. Flower, the author of this paper, resides in Schuler, Alberta, and is currently employed as a social studies teacher with the province of Alberta. He received his prior education in England, and returned to university in 1992 to obtain his doctorate.

Mr. Flower was a communications officer with the Alberta Teachers’ Federation for 25 years. For 18 years he was editor-in-chief of The ATA News, the newspaper for Alberta’s teachers, which is published approximately 20 times each year.

Mr. Flower wishes to thank particularly Sue Flower, his “sounding board, editor and most severe critic”, as well as the members of his Advisory Committee for their counsel in the writing of this paper.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The restructuring of public education in Canada has resulted in changes to the system, many of which may well have saved government money, but have not necessarily resulted in a better education system for children. This Paper outlines some of the problems that have resulted from that restructuring. (David J. Flower)

Public Education in Canada

Public education has always had its critics, but the accusations that public schools have failed Canadian society, that public schools do not measure up to schools in other countries, and that schools are concentrating too much on self-esteem and child-centred learning and not enough on the 3Rs, has led to a barrage of criticism from the media and some politicians across the country that necessitated a response. Since public education is funded by tax dollars, that response had to come from the provincial governments who are responsible for education. The reaction from governments, intended to make schools more accountable to society as a whole, has thrown up a significant number of challenges that schools and school jurisdictions have had to face.

Education funding

Since the root of a number of these challenges is money, it would seem logical to start with education funding. In most provinces, governments have cut back funding claiming that public education was too costly and that restructuring was necessary. This restructuring resulted in reducing the number of school boards (even eliminating school boards for a time in one province), in limiting the funding that could be spent on administration, in creating parent councils in individual schools and in centralizing funding in the hands of government. The latter action removed local taxing power from school boards and permitted governments to provide funding (and in some cases increased funding) to private schools. School boards are now expected to bear the burden of responsibility and accountability even though they must operate within the budgetary constraints established by provincial governments and have no means to access additional money through local taxation. This single source of funding has created massive problems.

Schools, parents and school jurisdictions continually claim that there are not sufficient funds from government to operate the system properly. Governments, on the other hand, claim that funding for the system is adequate. One solution to this dilemma has been the need for fundraising by schools, and in many cases fundraising has become the most significant role of the school councils.

Fundraising is no longer simply bake sales, selling chocolate bars, or book fairs; it now includes casinos and bingos. It is not just fundraising for extra-curricular materials but also for computers, textbooks and even, on occasion, fundraising for an additional teacher or teacher assistant. Fundraising itself produces inequities in the system. The size of the school and the nature of its demographics will have a direct impact on its ability to raise additional monies. Fundraising can produce significant inequities where schools in poorer areas cannot raise the kinds of funds that schools in more well-to-do areas can. These inequities operate against the fundamental desire of public education to educate all children well.

The implementation of site-based decision-making, where individual schools receive an operating budget and have to make their own decisions on how that money is spent, has also added to the financial difficulties. When the money follows the students, that is, individual schools receive funding based on the number of children in the school, competition between schools often becomes important. Newer, better looking, better maintained school buildings are often more able to attract students and thereby funding. Schools are often expected to “sell themselves”, to become even what has been termed “franchise schools”, more concerned with image than with attending to basic education. After all, the more money a school can obtain by attracting more students, the more computers, the more teachers, the more extracurricular activities the school can offer.

Governments pay lip service to education as a high priority. However, with a majority of the population not having children in school and with an aging population, when decisions have to made about whether spending should be on health care or education, the winner is invariably health care. Schools and school jurisdictions strapped for funds look at alternatives to raise money - sources outside the traditional ones. Schools sign agreements with soft drink companies that will result in additional supplies or cash for the schools. Agreements are contemplated with companies offering to supply technology in return for advertising in schools, even on hallway walls. School jurisdictions strapped for money to build new schools are being encouraged by government to look at public-private partnerships in which a school will be built by a private company and leased to the school jurisdiction. In all of these instances, governments do not seem to be held accountable for the fallout of inadequate funding, even though they may well be accused of neglecting their responsibility.

Special Needs

Another major concern is the inadequate funding for special needs students. Today there is a clear expectation that students with severe special needs will be accommodated in the public school system and receive instruction in integrated classroom settings. Integration of special needs students into the regular classroom has been viewed as beneficial to all. However, the concept was predicated on the idea that adequate support services would be made available to teachers so that those special needs children who needed them would be provided with teacher-aides and whatever other assistance might be necessary. The difficulty is that the money has not been made available. In some areas there is a two-year waiting list for students to be formally assessed by the public education system. This means that a child may be considered at risk for learning disabilities for two years before anything is done. This failure to identify children as early as possible is contrary to the extensive, science-based research that clearly shows early identification is paramount to positive outcomes. Teachers have been left to manage integration without having adequate professional and paraprofessional support and resources. Often teachers must prepare individualized programs for children with special needs and make sure that these programs are followed throughout the year. Usually no extra time is provided to either prepare these programs or to meet with the parents to go over the programs and explain what is being done. Central office support programs have been reduced and in many cases eliminated because of limits on administrative spending. Increasingly, schools have to find necessary funds within their budgets to hire specialized help in areas such as speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy and counselling, thereby reducing funds for other activities within the schools. Many teachers feel that they have inadequate training to deal with special needs children while at the same time they are aware that the numbers of special needs students is increasing. One option that is being watched carefully is the development of the ‘SchoolPLUS’ program in Saskatchewan. This program integrates the delivery of services to students within the schools, so that the schools serve as centres at the community level for the delivery of appropriate social, health, recreation, culture, justice and other services for children and their families.

English/French as a Second Language

English as a second language (ESL) and French as a second language (FSL) programs have also suffered as a result of funding constraints. Prosperity in a country like Canada attracts immigrants, many of who are not fluent in English or French, and whose children need special assistance in the early years of schooling to master the language often on a case-by-case basis. Knowledge of English (and in Francophone settings, French) is an essential prerequisite not only for student learning, but also for the successful cultural integration of both students and their families. The Federal government, being responsible for immigration, needs to play a strongly supportive role in this cultural adjustment that immigrant families have to make. Once again, when budgets are tight, it is often these students who “fall through the cracks” because other programs are considered more important by those making budgetary decisions.

First Nations Students

Another group of students who have not been served well by the system are First Nations children. Although schools administered by First Nations governments are not a part of the provincial education system, many First Nations students do attend public schools in their communities. Increasingly, such students are located in large urban centres and schooled in integrated settings. Regardless of where First Nations children are educated, improving their educational experience and outcomes must be a priority for governments, school boards, schools and teachers.

Class Size

Class size, resulting from inadequate funding, is one of the most frustrating concerns both for teachers and parents. The debate over class size is not new. Arguments as to the benefits of small class size have raged for decades, even in periods of adequate funding. However, reduced funding has made the problem worse. When school budgets are reduced, the easiest way of accommodating more children is to increase the number of students in a class. Economists, not only in Canada but also in the United States, have argued the pros and cons of class size. Parents and teachers, however, know that children in the early elementary years in particular, though not exclusively, benefit from more individual attention. What constitutes a reasonable class size in grade one can be debated. Whether 15 or 20 is the right number can be argued, but 30 is certainly too many - yet teachers and parents have to accept numbers that high in many parts of Canada. There is absolutely no doubt that limiting class size would cost a great deal of money, but many parents and teachers believe that in the long run it would provide endless benefits. Young children flourish with personal attention and that is what smaller classes would achieve. With large classes, teachers feel unable to give the kind of individual time, care and attention to each child that they feel is necessary for successful learning. In addition of course, current curricula mandate hands-on activities and small group work that is extremely difficult with large classes. It is also important to remember that when school jurisdictions adopt a policy of inclusion, classes can contain students with special needs as well as ESL students. Their presence adds an additional piece to the puzzle. As indicated earlier, appropriate resources are needed to successfully integrate the special needs child in the classroom. Reducing teacher assistants and specialists in psychology and reading has left the classroom teacher alone with responsibility for all the children in the classroom, adding considerably to teacher workload and stress.

There are always dangers in playing with specific numbers. Many people confuse the term ‘class size’ with ‘pupil-teacher ratios’ (PTRs). PTRs are calculated by dividing the number of pupils in schools by the number of all certificated educators working in the school system. This includes administrators and central office personnel. Class size measures only the teachers in the classroom. When provincial figures are produced showing 17 to 1 as the PTR, that figure does not give a fair picture of the classroom. It is the classroom situation that is the important one since the main concern is giving children the best education possible.

Accountability

One of the buzzwords of education restructuring in the last decade has been accountability. Unfortunately, in public education, accountability consists almost entirely of measuring, comparing and reporting the performance of students, teachers, schools and jurisdictions as revealed by standardized test scores and government generated performance measures. Governments argue that testing students on a regular basis indicates whether the education system is working as it should. The concern is that placing such a heavy emphasis on test results was never intended. The ranking of school, as promoted by the Fraser Institute, pitted school against school, without any real consideration about the school’s demographics. Such rankings are trumpeted by the media as a mechanism for parents to choose which school to send their children to. The real problem with this heavy emphasis on testing, is that teachers often end up spending an inordinate amount of time preparing students for the tests so that the results will reflect positively both on the teacher and the school. The real purpose of accountability should be much broader. It should be used to make judgements on quality and on what is needed to improve and extend children’s learning. Accountability is an ongoing process wherever education is discussed, whether in parent councils, parent-teacher nights or school board meetings. It is important to delineate who is accountable for what in the process of educating children, and that accountability process must not be allowed to exclude the provincial governments. It is governments, after all, that control the education purse strings and their attempts to download accountability to school boards, schools, teachers or parents are simply not acceptable. There is no doubt that parents have a responsibility, as do schools, teachers, school boards and governments; but if society really values education as an end in itself, then it too has a major responsibility to ensure that all children receive the very best education society can afford. That, too, is part of the accountability process.

Technology

One of the areas where provincial governments seem prepared to throw money at schools is the area of technology. It appears that governments are looking to technology, and in particular to computers, as a panacea that will somehow solve the problems of underfunding. As with many other developments, the difficulty is that governments have provided the seed money, but have been unwilling to provide the funding and the resources to ensure that the technology is used to its best advantage. Computers are not replacements for teachers. Computers are tools that teachers can use to enhance their teaching. There is no question that computers provide teachers and students with many unique and varied learning opportunities that were not available in the past. However, simply to ensure that schools are connected to the SuperNet and can access the Internet does not do a great deal if there is inadequate investment in resources to ensure maximum use. Schools might well wired, but if there are insufficient computers, if the software is not useful or if the teachers have not been sufficiently trained, then the whole process breaks down. Governments, both at the provincial and federal levels, tend to provide funding for computer hardware (although not always sufficient) but then make the assumption that somehow the schools will find the extra money for repairs, software, technical support, teacher training and professional development to maximize the use of the computers in their classroom. In some cases, the push to use the technology means that money has to be diverted from other programs and in some cases, even from money set aside for hiring additional personnel. Governments believe that integration of technology into the school system can be achieved simply by decree and by providing some of the hardware needed. There appears to be a serious lack of policy coherence between the provincial and federal governments over the funding of technology for schools. There has to be a substantial commitment of funds to ensure that the money spent is not wasted. There also needs to be a great deal of research conducted through pilot programs to help governments understand the real costs of online e-learning for children. It is very expensive to prepare children for the technological world in which they will be working. Governments need to understand that and be prepared to finance it.

Curriculum and Professional Development

The need for software for computers leads directly into the whole area of curriculum. Most teachers believe that the curriculum is too full of “content” for students to learn. The difficulty is that the curriculum becomes overloaded because of the addition of programs which are primarily social needs, and which are often downloaded to schools. Programs such as a safe and caring curriculum, coping and stress management skills and bicycle safety are added to school curricula but no programs are deleted. There are only so many hours in the school day, and compressing more and more material into that timeframe simply means that children are not given time to develop the skills the government believes schools should be teaching - skills such as high level thinking and reasoning, skills of researching, evaluating and synthesizing information from a variety of sources.

Not only is the curriculum load heavy, it is subject to constant and ongoing change. Government departments responsible for education have, in many cases, undergone staff and budget reductions. There are concerns as to the commitment of these departments to the entire process of curriculum change. There is a concern that departments, while mandating changes, want to do as little as possible to ensure its implementation. Teachers and school jurisdictions have concerns about governments providing adequate support and funds to cover the costs of implementing a new curriculum. Teacher in-service (training to support the implementation of a particular curricula change) has suffered greatly from funding cuts. Providing a video for teachers to view - sometimes in isolation - is often considered sufficient ‘in-service’. There are examples of curriculum changes being mandated before the resources themselves are available resulting in teachers and jurisdictions having to scramble to find materials to fill the gaps until the mandated materials are available.

A program of professional development is essential in assisting teachers to keep pace with changes in technology, curriculum, teaching techniques and the ever-changing demands of society. Such professional growth often occurs out of school and can be both time consuming and expensive. Unfortunately, budgetary restraint has once again limited access to much professional development, either because there are no funds available to assist with professional growth, or it is not possible to find time within the school day. What needs to be developed is a comprehensive and coordinated approach that supports professional learning as central and vital to meeting the learning needs of students.

The Changing Role of the Teacher

Finally, there is the role of the teacher, a role that has expanded greatly over the last decade, becoming much more complex. Teachers now have multiple roles. They are not just teachers, but also have to act as parents, psychologists, counsellors, and nurses. These multiple roles are not only the result of budgetary cutbacks, but of societal changes. Over the last couple of decades, schools have been handed all the problems, such as driver education and sex education, that society now sees as being part of the school’s role. Teachers have also had to pick up additional work from children coming to school cold and hungry, some even emotionally, mentally and even physically abused. These children need help before they can be taught, and time spent helping an individual child is time taken from the other children in the class. The teaching time is automatically reduced, yet the curriculum remains rigid. At times, teachers feel overwhelmed. With more and more paperwork, more drop-in parent meetings, more recess and extracurricular supervision, more meetings with outside agencies, more staff and budget meetings piled on top of planning and organizing the day-to-day curriculum, the load appears to be getting out of hand. The amount of preparation time within the school day has been eroded as a result of the cutbacks to education funding. Schools have tightened their budgets to the point of every dollar needing to be carefully budged and providing teachers with preparation time is therefore considered wasteful. Preparation and planning have to be done in the evenings, often in isolation from other teachers, a situation not conducive to team work. Many teachers new to the profession find the time demands of the job exhausting. Up to 25% of new teachers leave the profession within five years, already worn out by the demands on their time, and more senior teachers are taking early retirement when it is offered, simply out of exhaustion. Others feel thoroughly undervalued. Criticised by parents, the media and government, many feel that they can find other jobs that, while not being as fulfilling, are significantly less stressful than teaching. If indeed education is as undervalued by society as those involved feel it is, then recruiting new teachers is going to become increasingly difficult. There are already shortages in areas such as mathematics, science, special education and technology. Such positions are not going to be filled unless teaching is seen as a worthwhile profession, truly valued and properly funded. There is no question that the single most important factor for success in schools is a staff of committed, caring and hardworking teachers. To give children the best education possible necessitates finding and retaining such teachers by providing whatever assistance they need to make their jobs rewarding and satisfying.

Conclusion

It is evident that there are immense problems facing public education as a direct result of the restructuring initiated by provincial governments over the last decade. Many of the reforms were aimed at saving governments money rather than improving the quality of education. Many of the reforms were not well planned or well executed, but it was assumed that those affected would simply work harder to ensure that children would not suffer. The provincial budgets must clearly reflect the goals and aspirations that the governments envision for the public education system. Currently there is a failure to connect the demands being made on the education system with the resources that are provided to operate it. It is the school boards that have to bear the burden of both responsibility and accountability without having the wherewithal to access additional financial assistance. It is the schools and the teachers who are expected to do more with less.

Further Reading

Alberta Teachers’ Association. (September 2002). Falling Through the Cracks: What We Heard About Teaching and Learning Conditions in Alberta Schools: Representative Submissions.[On-line]. Available: www.teachers.ab.ca (Seventy-five Ways to Improve Public Education).

Alberta Teachers’ Association. (September 2002). Falling Through the Cracks: A Summary of What We Heard About Teaching and Learning Conditions in Alberta Schools. [On-line]. Available: www.teachers.ab.ca (Seventy-five Ways to Improve Public Education).

Alberta Teachers’ Association. (September 2002). Cracks in the Foundation: Why We Heard What We Heard. [On-line]. Available: www.teachers.ab.ca (Seventy-five Ways to Improve Public Education).

Alberta Teachers’ Association. (December 2002). Improving Public Education: Supporting Teaching and Learning. [On-line]. Available: www.teachers.ab.ca (Seventy-five Ways to Improve Public Education).

Flower, D. J., & Mackay, B. M. (1999). Public Education: The Passion and the Politics. Edmonton.

Leithwood, K., Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2003). The Schools We Need: Recent Education Policy in Ontario and Recommendations for Moving Forward. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education: University of Toronto. [On-line]. Available: http://schools weneed.oise.utoronto.ca.

Ontario Government. (2002). Report of the Education Quality Task Force, Investing in Public Education: Advancing the Goal of Continuous Improvement in Student Learning and Achievement. [On-line]. Available: www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/welcome.html.

Saskatchewan Learning. (2001). SchoolPLUS: A Vision for Children and Youth. [On-line]. Available: www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/k/pecs/splus.