An Overview and Analysis of Public Opinion Polling on Education By

Final Draft Public Perspectives on Schooling: An Overview and Analysis of Public Opinion Polling on Education By Reuben N. Roth Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto Ontario M5S 1V6 Prepared for the Atkinson Foundation Project AThe Schools We Need@ -1- ACreating a useful crisis is part of what this will be about. So the first bunch of communications that the public might hear might be more negative than I would be inclined to talk about [otherwise].@ C Former Ontario Education Minister John Snobelen speaking to senior provincial bureaucrats, July 6, 1995. AWhen written in Chinese the word >crisis= is composed of two characters. One represents danger, and the other represents opportunity.@ C John F. Kennedy. ATDSB=s (Toronto District School Board) current financial crisis should have been easy to predict two or more years ago. ... The Trustees, as a group, have demonstrated a clear reluctance to accept necessary structural changes, such as necessary school closures.@ C Provincially-appointed Financial Auditor Lawrence Rosen in an investigation report to the Ontario Minister of Education, August 19, 2002. Introduction: Public Schooling and Great Expectations Today, seven years after Ontario=s proclaimed schooling crisis, the Ontario provincial education system and its students, teachers and parents, are once again facing a critical juncture; however the present crisis is far less contrived than it was in 1995. The current situation can be encapsulated by the struggle between the Ontario Ministry of Education and trustees at three rebel school boards which refused to make the large-scale cuts necessary to balance their budgets, as prescribed by provincial legislation.1 After a hasty investigation of the Toronto District School Board=s (TDSB) finances in August 2002, provincially-appointed auditor Al Rosen reported that 1 The >Battle of the Board Budgets= which took place [and is ongoing as this report is being written] during the Spring and Summer of 2002, involves the struggle between three >renegade= school boards (Ottawa, Hamilton and Toronto) whose trustees passed deficit budgets and the Ontario Minister of Education, Elizabeth Witmer. The provincial Education Act mandates that Ontario school boards produce non-deficit budgets or risk falling into ministry-mandated trusteeship. -2- A large number of the trustees= concerns have little or no relationship to how the provincial government has defined AEducation@ at the elementary and secondary school level. To some trustees, virtually every societal issue is thought to have education roots [my emphasis] (Toronto Star, 2002: A17). The question of defining the goals of education within the public=s imagination is very much at the heart of this dilemma. Moreover, if their position is being characterized correctly, TDSB trustees may have it right after all. The belief that pedagogy and citizenship are inexorably intertwined closely parallels the collective views of the public-at-large, with respect to the fundamental role and importance of education in a democratic society. Schooling has been portrayed as the cornerstone of full citizenship, encompassing goals like literacy skills, economic self-sufficiency, occupational and financial mobility, employability (Compas, 2001),2 and the ability of individuals to engage fully in a democratic community (see Merz and Furman, 1997 or Dewey, 1966 [1916]), to name only a few of the many >burdens= imposed on education. Thus Mr. Rosen may have inadvertently hit the nail on the head: it is indeed a largely-held belief among Canadians that virtually every societal issue in some way embodies education at its core. The Saskatchewan Department of Education described its social studies curriculum in the following way: 2 There has been a clear lack of polling data which suggests what the goals of education are, in the public=s view. This gap leaves policymakers and educators without any popular criteria from which to judge their success. Compas (August 26, 2001: 21) reported that Atraining youth for the work world is the most important or valuable purpose of education in the eyes of Canadians as a whole@ (32 percent), followed by Acreating good citizens@ (23 percent), and Acreating inquiring minds@ (17 percent). Remaining responses to this closed-ended query fell below 10 percent. -3- Social studies education encompasses the development of desirable personal, social and civic behaviour... It should help students to think, to develop problem solving, creative and decision-making skills, and to formulate attitudes and values for social and democratic living. In addition, it should better prepare students to deal with their problems, to accept and endeavour to improve their world and to acquire social learning which should enable them to function as responsible and effective citizens of a democratic society (in Osborne, 1991). The Canadian Teachers= Federation=s >teacher belief statement= maintains that Aschools develop citizens@ and that Canadian teachers believe Athat a strong, publicly funded education system is essential to the preservation and promotion of democracy@ (2000: 5). Ken Osborne, in a historical survey of citizenship education in Canadian schools, may have stated society=s expectations of schools most succinctly when he wrote that A[e]ducation is the best national insurance@ (Osborne, 1991).@ Moreover, this image extends well beyond Canada=s borders. For example, a 1996 Netherlands conference organized by the National Institute for Curriculum Development report began with the statement: AEveryone, everywhere, expects schools to teach god [sic] citizenship as well as everything else and that is far from easy@ (Wall, et al., 2000). It comes as no surprise then, that Ontario=s >renegade= trustees accept this view unquestioningly, as do many citizens of democratic regimes. Ironically, it seems that cash-strapped provincial education ministries may be the last refuge of narrowly-focused definitions of >education=. The policy implications are especially grave, as education officials and policymakers debate over where to draw the line around what is included, as well as what is eliminated, within the realm of public education. But the Ontario Ministry=s attack on the Toronto Board=s recalcitrance is merely the latest in a long string of similar events. The taxpayer-funded education system has endured well over two decades of unyielding criticism and relentless demands for >quality education= from many quarters, including -4- parents, taxpayers, and the corporate business sector.3 In short, the mass media=s version of Canadian public opinion on education is fairly dour. As our modern folklore tells it, Canadian students graduate en mass without literacy skills, businesses cannot find technologically skilled workers, government spending has run amuck, schools are mismanaged, students are incapable of competing internationally, and teachers are increasingly feeling overwhelmed.4 Meaghan and Casas make the observation that [t]he public has been inundated with reports purporting to show that schools are failing our youth and are responsible for the poor health of our economy because in the contemporary highly competitive and integrated world economy, prosperity can be attained only with a highly skilled and trained labour force (1995: 37). We live in an increasingly meritocractic society, and Canadians apparently consider educational attainment as an obstacle that separates them C and their children C from obtaining well-paying, stable, and meaningful employment (Coulter and Goodson, 1993: 1). As a report on the Quality of Life in Canada released by the Canadian Policy Research Networks (CPRN) in September 2002, puts it: Canadians consider education to be a key determinant of their quality of life. The measures identified by citizens demonstrate the importance of maintaining and improving the quality of a universally-accessible system@ (CPRN, 2002: 6). 3 Some claim these calls mask an underlying desire to see schools transformed into venues which produce a more passive workforce (Meaghan and Casas, 1995: 37-38). This theme is echoed in, for example, Barlow and Robertson, who write that ANorth America=s corporations have three fundamental goals for their preoccupation with and investment in North America=s schools. ... The third is to transform schools into training centres producing a workforce suited to the needs of transnational corporations@ (Barlow and Robinson, 1994: 61). 4 See for example Hargreaves and Fullan, 1998: 2-3; ASelfish teachers lack public support,@ Hamilton Spectator, September 23, 1998; or AAre schools letting businesses down?@ in Financial Post, June 11/13, 1994. -5- Furthermore our weak economy5 has become an even greater mobilizer as the nation=s employment levels have waned over the past year. As Livingstone has pointed out, many politicians continue to campaign for intensified retraining as the dominant policy response to rising or persistent unemployment, all the while ignoring the fact that most Canadians are already immersed in a >learning culture= (Livingstone, 1999a). Accordingly, the chronic shortage of sufficient paid work cannot be addressed by increased training alone. Nevertheless, the public demand for more responsive links between our schools and the economy continues. Public opinion pollsters tell us that from the standpoint of the average Canadian, education and healthcare are the two leading areas of concern, even beyond their immediate relationship

Load more