A Message From Education Action: Toronto

December 17, 2009

Dear Friends,

     There are a three important items that have come up recently that we wanted to draw to your attention:

1. A new study on the failure of Ontario's funding formula to adequately finance the province's school system
2. School closings on the TDSB agenda and what we can do about it
3. The opportunities in Ontario's New Curriculum Review

Don't forget to check out the latest on our website: www.educationactiontoronto.com
     Dudley Paul following up province's latest moves on governance
     David Clandfield continuing to rework - as the discussion intensifies -- his article on HUBs as alternatives to school closings
     George Thompson opening up Michael Fullan's role in the privatization of education policy

 
1. Hugh Mackenzie has just completed his fine analysis of the funding formula for Ontario schools: No Time For Complacency: Education Funding Reality Check.
    
     You can find his study on the website of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications).
    
     In his analysis, Mackenzie provides a clear picture of the very substantial gap between "needs/expectations and the funding reality" of Ontario's school system.
    
     He also shows us that government arguments defending the current level of school funding don't hold up. It is true, he says, "that on a per-student inflation-adjusted basis, total operating funding is approximately $900 million higher than it was in 1997. But that doesn't take into account the fact that provincially mandated changes in school operations - additional funding specifically earmarked for class size reductions, elementary teacher preparation time, and special support teachers in secondary schools - account for $1,800 million of the operating funding provided in 2009-10. On a basis that is comparable to the level of activity required of boards in 1997, total funding is approximately $900 million lower on a per-student inflation-adjusted basis.
    
     "The claim," Mackenzie argues, "also misses the bigger picture: Ontario is falling behind on key education funding measures. A comparison of elementary and secondary education funding per student across legislation under consideration will enable the province to expand those requirements significantly. What is missing, however, is any system of accountability on the part of the provincial government for the adequacy of its funding commitment in light of Ontario's educational needs and objectives. Ontario needs a permanent, independent third party commission to provide an ongoing assessment of the appropriate level of funding and programming Ontario requires to meet its educational objectives. A special task force or review every five to 10 years simply isn't good
enough. The political review of the Ministry of Education's budget in the Legislature's estimates North America shows that Ontario ranks close to the bottom of the pack. Among U.S. states and the District of Columbia (51 jurisdictions), Ontario's spending per student would place it 46th. Among Canadian provinces and territories, Ontario ranks 9th out of 13 jurisdictions. Among the 64 jurisdictions providing public elementary and secondary education, Ontario ranks 54th. Compared to Ontario's peer jurisdictions in the United States, Ontario's level of investment looks particularly bad.... New York City spends more than twice as much per student on public elementary and secondary education as Toronto."    
    
     If you don't have time to read Hugh's report, Dudley Paul takes you through it on our website: www.educationactiontoronto.com.

2. School Closings on the TDSB agenda and what we can do about it

     The TDSB has launched seven Accommodation Review Committees (the provincially mandated "consultation" process required before closing schools). This initiative, in a stunning reminder of George Orwell's "Newspeak" of 1984, is called "Better Schools Brighter Futures." They use this upbeat name to trumpet the virtues of larger schools (minimum of 450 for the elementary panel) and an end to the tiered junior-middle system in favour of K-8 schools. The majority of the research is against them on both fronts on just about every measure of school and pupil welfare and success. The list of school systems round the world with a three-part junior-middle-secondary is impressive and average school sizes in many European countries are about half the TDSB target or lower. Smaller schools are favoured because the research supports them and communities thrive.
    
     Of course, the Board is not acting for educational reasons, but to achieve economies of scale. Fewer schools means fewer principals, caretakers and secretarial staff to pay and fewer buildings to heat and equip. And the sale of school properties, after closure, is one of the few sources of revenue available to Boards, still suffering from the massive Harris cuts and centralization of power that have not been reversed at all by the McGuinty government. Where schools are not sold, the Board leases them out. Remember that seventeen private schools are now leasing former public schools still owned by the TDSB. Communities have lost their neighbourhood schools and now watch as fee-paying students make use of buildings built for the local community and paid for with that community's taxes. A vicious circle is created as the board facilitates the flight of students to private education at public expense.
    
     What can we do? Three things.  First and foremost, all school communities need to join forces to resist these efforts to close and sell off public assets providing essential services and amenities to our children and communities. There will be a ferocious public relations effort by the TDSB to convince people that this is for their own good. Officials will work hard to make sure that trustees, who might yield to community pressure in an election year, stand firm against any resistance. Secondly, we must bring our politicians, all of them, trustees, mayors, municipal councillors and MPPs, together in a determined effort to get the Province to call a moratorium on all school closings and to work on educational restoration funding comparable, in part at least, to what is going on south of the border, where the per-pupil allocations in many cities are now rising to become double what they are here. Thirdly, we need a persuasive alternative for the use of schools affected most by declining enrolment. That alternative lies in the use of schools as community hubs, housing a wide variety of municipally and provincially funded programs that support and sustain community development: daycare and family services, adult education, newcomer settlement, intergenerational learning, public health, fitness, recreation, community kitchens and gardens, community theatre, music and dance, local green energy initiatives. These are all things that can connect pupils' learning with the daily realities of their lives, an essential key to learning success for all children, but most critically for children from poor and racialized immigrant communities.
    
     Education Action: Toronto is out there, working directly with some ARC communities and also helping in the Save Our Schools effort throughout the city organized by the Campaign for Public Education. Those interested in learning more about schools as community hubs should check David Clandfield's Power Point slides, accessible through our website: www.educationactiontoronto.com.

3. Are We Moving Forward On Curriculum Change? Maybe.

     On November 11, 2009, Program Superintendent Karen Grose produced a "briefing note" on the Education Ministry's current Elementary Curriculum Review for the Program and School Services Committee of the TDSB. Its major focus was the report of a Board "Working Group" that was "directed to examine the elementary curriculum and the question of 'overcrowdedness.'" Normally, these reports aren't worth bothering about, as they tend to mindlessly reflect Ministry curriculum policy in language designed to obscure any realistic understanding of what is meant. This one is a little different. It is hard to know what it has in mind. But it may open up an opportunity to raise some key curriculum issues in the future.

     Possibly this opening is the result of some regular classroom teachers being part of the working group (mostly composed of Board officials along with two trustees). Unfortunately, the teachers weren't appointed to the work group by their union, so there was no possibility of a minority report. But perhaps something of a minority report got worked into the text, whether teacher initiated or not.

     The working group's document - " Supporting Learning and Teaching in Ontario's Elementary School Survey" - started out well: "Although we believe a strong foundation of literacy and mathematics is critical to every child's success, the current elementary curriculum presents a series of overly robust subject based documents which are disconnected, overwhelming and full of content reflective of 20th century knowledge." God knows what they mean by "20th century knowledge" (especially the "disconnected" kind), but other than that it's a useful beginning.  Besides, the group goes on to say "the curriculum does not engage students within their current realities nor does it effectively balance and integrate the required skills and content society hopes to see in a successful 21st century learner." Again, we have no idea what "a successful 21 century learner" might need to know - the subject list that follows is no help - but the phrase "does not engage students in their current realities" is certainly one we can all use.

      There's a bit of a dip when we get to their second point - prioritizing broad themes with a focus on "structure and skills - not content," as if content can be put to one side in this fashion. But then they move on to the next question - "how could the curriculum be made more engaging for all students?" - and things pick up again. Or at least it can be read this way. "To engage students more readily, the curriculum must place students at its centre," the group declares. Furthermore, "higher order thinking skills must take priority over informational content if the curriculum is to reflect the needs of the 21st century learner as it should do.  Expectations must reflect 'big ideas' and 'big questions' that encourage students to think critically, activate their voices and take a position." "Higher order thinking skills" is a lot of nonsense (Frank Smith's To Think is very good on this point) and we have again no idea of what is meant by the "needs of the 21st century learner;" another fragmented list doesn't help. Nevertheless, encouraging students to "think critically, activate their voices and take a position" is exactly right - a perspective that would transform the official curriculum of the TDSB.

     On the question of building "flexibility into the curriculum," unfortunately the work group buys into the general "outcomes" or "expectations" framework (looking only to reduce numbers and cluster related expectations) and continues the Ministry's separation of "skills" and "content knowledge," imagining that helps a teacher "tailor delivery of the curriculum to the needs of their students."  Such a separation - especially when linked to disconnected outcomes - is thoroughly destructive of teacher creativity, which, these days, is often called "authentic teaching." However, after making this point, the work group then abruptly turns to say that a new curriculum should "explicitly value the creativity of teachers as they align and integrate the curriculum." Furthermore, they go on to say, "to create an integrated program of study, educators cluster enduring understandings and big ideas/themes, focus on inquiry based learning, collaborate with teachers in combined grades for example and set out information to be current with what our learners are interested in as part of all curricular discussions." This latter emphasis on letting our teachers teach is good stuff, as is their view later on that "there must be adequate flexibility within the curriculum for teachers to apply different perspectives to interpreting the curriculum in order to develop critical thinkers who connect with their school experiences as global learners."

     The document continues with more detailed discussion of implementation strategies - with much the same contradictory quality, but incorporating a number of good suggestions and perspectives. You can read the whole document on the TDSB website (http://www.tdsb.on.ca/) under Boardroom/Agendas/Programs and School Services - Nov. 11, 2009/6.2 Elementary Curriculum Review.

     What's important here is that key issues of curriculum - it's connection to children, its purposes, its assessment - and teachers' freedom to do their job are coming to the surface again. It's up to us to bring these issues much more forcefully into our parent and teacher communities.  This document and others like it may end up helpful in this struggle. Certainly the message that we should encourage our students to "think critically, activate their voices and take a position" can be central to our campaign.  And nowhere more so than in our working-class communities, especially those that are poor, immigrant and racialized.

     Let us know what you think about these issues and how they impact on your community.

     Our very best wishes for the holiday season.

     In solidarity,

     George Martell and  Faduma Mohamed
     Co-chairs, Education Action: Toronto