Summary
§ Parents are concerned about their children’s education: is it appropriate for an increasingly globalized world?
§
Something is wrong with the education system in
§ Reforms have been suggested: Enlarge range of choice available to families
§ Choices currently available:
o Local neighbourhood school
o Catholic schools
o French immersion
o Gifted programs
o Private schools (e.g. Montessori schools)
o Special focus secondary schools (e.g. arts/music, technology)
o Alternative schools (e.g. vocational schools)
§ Critics of the Canadian education system say:
o Schools are failing because there is no real competition
§ Choice would introduce more competition, both for schools and for students
§ Choice is in accord with a democratic and free society
o Few studies show that choice arrangements positively impact the quality of education
§ Only well-off students can take advantage of school choice
§ “cherrypicking” best students
o Widespread availability of choice may cause the loss of integrating possibilities
§ Basic school system allows all types of children to mingle
·
Easier to convey the values and beliefs of
“Shopping for
Schools: The Future of Education in
By Kari Delhi (Is school choice beneficial? “NO”)
§
Oct. and Nov. 1997:
o Centralize power over education to provincial cabinet
o Cut hundreds of millions of dollars from education budget
o Teachers: “will not improve education quality”
o Bill 160 was passed in favour of the possibility of creating market-driven forms of schooling
§ Governments restructuring education systems “to meet the challenges of the new global economy”
o Pro: innovation and high achievement, broaden opportunities, “empower” families to obtain education
o Con: ineffective, costly, bureaucratic monopoly run my administrators and self-interested union bosses who resist change
o Pro: market is free, dynamic, efficient, creative, flexible, less costly
o Con: choice would undermine public education (good schools inaccessible to poor families)
§ Open enrolment plans accompanied by initiatives:
o Budget cuts, per capita funding, centralization of curriculum and financial decisions, regular/standardized testing and publication of school-by-school results, evaluations of admin, teachers, students, reduction of collective bargaining of teachers
§ Choices are limited by geography and regulations (a special focus school must admit all students within a geographic area before “out of district” children are accommodated
§ Private schools don’t receive government funding
§ Market-based programs have competition, open student enrolment, per capita funding
o Greater portion of funding tied to enrolment
o Students become “commodities” à grants follow them to school of choice
o Families can actively choose school rather than settle
The International Context
§
o Local contexts matter (affects how choice programs work, who enrolls, how effective they are)
§ Choice process long and drawn out à variety of criteria
o Little to do with academic reputation
o Safety
o Distance
o Transportation
o Familiarity and responsiveness of a neighbourhood school
o Choice process differs with class of family, racial and ethnic groups
School Choice and Education Improvement
§ No systematic evidence that competitive school choice environments improve student learning
o “it is unlikely that choice will do anything other than simply move high achievers around from one school to another, mistaking the effect of concentrating strong and motivated students for an effect of the school or the choice system” (Fuller & Elmore, 1996, p. 200)
§ Families choose differently (e.g. rich or poor)
§ Historical, political, and economic factors in the local context shape the choices that are available
§ Families can actively choose schools and schools can actively choose students:
o Some gov’ts have imposed restrictions on abilities of schools to “screen out” minorities, poor, ESL, special needs, etc.
o Middle-class and white students are systematically favoured (Moore and Davenport, 1990 study) despite school policies’ intention of equity
o “Race and class figure in popular schools enrolment decisions”
§ Increase segregation, social divisions, school achievement (Vincent, 1992; Gordon, 1994)
§ Some families don’t choose special schools à remain in neighbourhood schools that accept everyone
o Some students return after experiencing racism at their school of choice, few mentors, lacked practical supports (e.g. transportation) (Wells & Crain, 1996)
o “If public education is to mean anything, meeting the needs of those who are able to take advantage of choice is not enough” (page 421)
§ little evidence that choice policies to date have generated substantial innovations
o “there is strikingly little evidence that enhanced choice triggers the kind of educational improvement on the supply side that it advocates predict and little evidence that active choosers rae looking for distinctive education programs when they make their choices.” (Fuller & Elmore, 1996, p. 199)
o when schools have to compete for students, they tend to adopt “safe,” conventional and teacher-centred curriculums, to stay close to prescribed curriculum, and to tailor teaching closely to test-taking (Menter et al, 1995; Edwards & Whitty 1994; Whitty, Edwards, and Gerwirtz, 1993)
§ assures good test score but that doesn’t mean improve quality of ed
§ Principals are increasingly preoccupied with budgets, image, and enrolments, and performance on standardized tests and external inspections
o Far less time for curriculum and teaching matters
o Parents are busy raising funds for essential supplies, preoccupied with the minutiae of school management
o (Menter et al., 1995; Bowe, Ball, with Gold, 1993; Blackmore et al., 1996)
§ women administrators à nuturing and supporting labour in relation to staff who must work with less and less resources and families who can’t obtain services that children need à emotional labor is very time consuming and draining
o Principals and teachers in market-driven environments report stress and dissatisfaction with their jobs (Menter et al., 1995)
o Parents (invited and/or required) to take part in governing bodies have experienced similar stresses
§ Overburdened with budget matters and fund raising
§ Schools w/ competition for enrolment: enhance image and performance
§ Governing bodies actively recruiting small business owners, managers, and professionals (and more men in general) who are presumd to posses the skills and knowledge required by more corporate forms of school gov’t
o Parents less inclined to participate b/c of time restrictions, resources, or desire to participate, esp. since their skills and resources don’t match the school’s requirements
Conclusion
§ Education markets do not lead to innovation or to better schools
§ Choice is a complex process
o Unequal society
o People choose differently
§ Don’t have the same opportunities to select from
§ Poor: have little to no choice
§ Researchers have concluded reforms deepen inequalities
§ Market doesn’t solve problems in our education system
§ Unlike products in a shopping mall, education will not be improved in a market setting
§ A school market is not the panacea for problems in education
§ Choice will reduce democracy to individuals right to consume (a right only a few can exercise)
Questions
Comprehension
1. Why was Bill 160/The Education Quality Improvement Act opposed?
2. What was the incentive behind passing Bill 160?
3. Why are market-driven school reforms desirable?
4. What are the consequences of open enrolment plans?
Discussion
5. Does
6. Some schools have been known to “screen out” minorities, poor children, special needs, and ESL learners. Is this justified, or is this wrong and unfair, especially since it is the policy of the school and teachers to move towards equity?
7. Clune & Witte, 1990 and Bowe, Gerwirtz & Ball, 1994, said that the neighbourhood school suffers when higher-achieving students choose other schools because their vocal families go with them. Does school choice damage the public school system or are these “negative” effects not really as bad as they’re made out to be? Why or why not?
8. In market schools (e.g. private schools, schools that students would have to compete for), principals focus less on innovation (in the curriculum; a ‘promise’ of school choice and market schools) because they tend to stick to tried-and-true methods of teaching tailored to test-taking for fear of standardized test scores falling. Is this an effective way of learning for the student? Why or why not?
Glossary
Competition: describes students applying to schools of their choosing and whether or not that school accepts them. Can also describe the school(s) “cherrypicking” of the best students.
Market-driven: public and private schools compete for students in an environment of open enrolment and per capita funding.
Per capita funding: funding provided based on the number of students. For example, “$15 000 per student per year” as opposed to “$200 000 for the year”. Per capita funding is directly correlated with enrolment. Scholarships and grants are forms of per capita funding.
Consumers: students and their parents who pay tuition (because they opted for a specialized/private school as opposed to the local neighbourhood school).
Open enrolment: any student can apply to a school that has open enrolment (e.g. your local neighbourhood public elementary school). An example that is NOT open enrolment would be university (you need to have a high school diploma, you need to have certain courses, and you need at least a certain average).
Local context: the background of the environment of the region. In this article, local context would be the neighbourhood public schools, the school board, the municipality or provinces legislation regarding education.
Systematic:
proceeding according to a regular method
Minutiae: A small or trivial detail.
Governing bodies: Term
used in
Panacea: A remedy for all diseases, evils, or difficulties; a cure-all.