Why Do Parties Not Make a Difference? An Examination of the Causes of Education Policy Outputs in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta By Saman Chamanfar A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements of the degree of Ph.D. Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Saman Chamanfar 2017 Why Do Parties Not Make a Difference? An Examination of the Causes of Education Policy Outputs in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta Saman Chamanfar Doctor of Philosophy Political Science University of Toronto 2017 Abstract This study seeks to explain why partisanship—contrary to what we might expect based on the findings of other studies concerning social policies—is generally not a useful explanatory variable when examining the primary and secondary education policies of three Canadian provinces (Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta) during two periods (the 1970s and 1990- 2008). Four specific areas of the education sector of the provinces will be examined: objectives of curricula; spending; ministry relations with school boards; and government policies concerning private and charter schools. Utilizing a qualitative approach and building on the findings of other studies on provincial education systems, it will be argued that in order to understand why the three provinces generally adopted similar policies in both periods, regardless of the differences in the ideologies of governing parties, we need to consider the causal effect of key ideas in both periods. In addition, it will be shown that opposition parties in most instances did not present policies that differed from those of governing parties or criticize the policies of such parties. This will further illustrate the limited usefulness of adopting a partisanship lens when seeking to understand the policy positions of various parties in the provinces concerning the education sector. Partisanship will be shown to be a partially useful explanatory variable only in the second period when ii seeking to understand the level of spending, though not the general patterns (i.e. periods of cutbacks or expansions), and why particular policies concerning private and charter schools were implemented. This study will also allow us to better understand how and why particular policies related to dominant ideas were transferred between policy actors in different jurisdictions. iii Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 2: Objectives of Provincial Education Systems…………………………………….50 Chapter 3: Provincial Spending on Education……………………………………………….99 Chapter 4: The Relationship Between Provincial Governments and School Boards………161 Chapter 5: Provincial Policies Regarding Private and Charter Schools……………………200 Chapter 6: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contributing to Similarities in Provincial Education Policy Outputs…………………………………………………………………..231 Chapter 7: Conclusion…..………………………………………………………………….261 References………………………………………………………………………………….271 iv Chapter 1 Introduction Why is it that variation in the ideology of governing parties (i.e. partisanship) leads to major differences in the types of policies that are implemented in many policy fields, but the impact of partisanship is less pronounced—though not completely inconsequential—with respect to the education policy sector? What makes this social policy sector unique? What factor(s) lessen the causal effect of partisanship? This study seeks to answer these fundamental questions by examining the education policies and systems (kindergarten to grade twelve) of three Canadian provinces: Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. This enquiry will cover two very distinct periods: the 1970s and 1990-2008. As we will see, the primary reason why the partisanship variable is somewhat less consequential in the education policy sector unlike other social policy sectors is because the main factors shaping the outlook of policymakers in this sector were dominant ideas, specifically Keynesianism, neoliberalism, and human capital theory. As will be shown, the latter two became prominent as a result of the emergence of globalization in the final decades of the twentieth century. Due to these ideational forces, different governing parties in each jurisdiction went down the same policy paths, as opposed to pursuing policies in a manner that would be consistent with their distinctive ideologies. Five obvious questions need to be addressed before advancing. First, why even assume that partisanship can be a useful explanatory variable? This is because in the discipline of political science, there have been many studies which have shown that partisanship is a key cause of why social policies differ in Western industrialized countries 1 (i.e. differences in the ideologies of governing parties explain why certain policies are pursued or ignored at particular times). Hence, it is necessary to focus on this variable and explain why it does not have a great causal effect on the education component of the social policies of the aforementioned jurisdictions. The second question concerns whether the finding of this study contributes anything new to our knowledge about this policy sector. After all, there have been studies regarding the education systems of Canadian provinces that have shown that shared ideas among policymakers led to similar policy outputs. As important as these findings are, they do not explain why partisanship does not have a causal effect. Due to the fact that partisanship is so often found to have such an effect in other social policy areas, the lack of this focus in prior research on education systems means that we do not know why, contrary to what we might expect, partisanship does not matter in educational policy in Canadian provinces. The third question is how do the findings of this study fit into the comparative politics literature on education policies, which has shown that partisanship is a key explanatory variable internationally in terms of understanding differences in education policy outputs? The answer is that existing studies have only examined one aspect of the sector: decisions pertaining to spending. As important as these decisions are, there are other critical decisions which also have a major impact on the structure and functioning of an education system. It is not satisfactory to only examine spending decisions when attempting to determine the causes of education policy outputs. We cannot conclusively say that partisanship has a causal effect when only one aspect of the sector is examined. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to examine other aspects of education sector, in 2 addition to financing, in order to present a more complete picture and thus be in a better position to conclusively say which variable has the greatest effect on the sector as a whole. The fourth question concerns the contribution this study can make when there have been other studies which have shown that aforementioned ideas associated with the emergence of globalization in the late 20th century have led various jurisdictions to adopt similar education policies. Such studies—which are very few—do no offer a systematic account of how such variables have impacted specific components of a jurisdiction’s education system. They offer only a bird’s eye view of how such forces have influenced the education sectors of Western countries. A nuanced, detailed account is lacking, which prevents an understanding of how these forces are filtered by different jurisdictions, and of which areas of education sectors they influence the most. The final question is whether the focus on ideas as the key causal variable in this study means that other factors are completely inconsequential in explaining education policy outputs? Simply put, the answer is no. Although the focus of this study is on the effect of ideas, this should not be understood to mean that ideas always led directly government officials to adopt a certain set of policies instead of others in a given time period. Members of the policy network (e.g. teachers’ unions, parent groups, business associations, etc.) are consequential as well because at times they are the transmitters of certain policy options based on a given ideational dictate. In fact, when such members of the policy network were instrumental in advocating that a given type of policy be implemented, such evidence is provided in the empirical chapters. Nevertheless, the objective of this study is to show how certain ideas—irrespective of how policy options based on their dictates came to be known and accepted by policymakers—were the main reasons why governing parties and opposition 3 parties often came to view one set of policies in relation to a given aspect of the education sector as superior or necessary. Accordingly, a detailed examination of the policy recommendations made by members of the policy network as the (or additional) independent variable in this study would have led to focusing on the proximate cause of policy outputs. Although such an approach would help to further explain the intricate process of policymaking, such a focus was outside the scope of this study because the main objective of it is to focus on the ultimate cause of why partisanship is less consequential in the education policy sector. Zeroing in on the ultimate cause is necessary because dominant ideas, such as the ones that are the focus of this study, influence all sorts of actors, not just state actors. In other words, although focusing on a given component of the policy network to show that they advocated that a given