For some time I have been frustrated by the limited research data available in the Canadian context relative to the American context. I attributed this to population size, until now.
I believe the issue is constitutional. Let me explain.
[note: The following sentence appeared in the original post. It is a factual error - while the presence of federal legislation such as NCLB, a federal Secretary of Education, and Title funding give the appearance of education being a federal responsibility, that is not the case. However, the ability to pass federal legislation still provides the U.S.A. with the tools to create a national education strategy should it so choose.] Unlike the U.S.A., where education is a federal responsibility, in Canada it is a provincial responsibility. So we do not have a national education strategy. The closest we come is the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada – a loosely coupled group that attempts to leverage scale and investment across the country.
Without a national education strategy, where is the impetus for investment in national research? Each province is focused within its own borders on its plans, strategies and outcomes, and may or may not have a research agenda embedded. What funds are available are typically focused on the front line. That’s not wrong, it’s just short-sighted.
Does a national education strategy make a difference? I see significant research- and data-driven change happening in Scotland (the smaller end of the spectrum) and the U.S.A. (the larger end of the spectrum). This is not to say there is not amazing learning happening in Canada. What I am bemoaning is the lack of national data sets to support national change. Statistics Canada (a federal department) collects some minimal data. It is not sufficient for education.
Should Canada have a national education strategy? Would it make a difference?
3 responses so far ↓
1 Wesley Fryer // Jan 14, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Whoa, hold on a minute there! I think you have some misconceptions.
Education in the United States IS a state responsibility. Providing a public education for kids is NOT a power granted by the states to the federal government in our Constitution, therefore it is reserved for the states. The advent of NCLB with our thankfully outgoing President GW Bush has in many ways “nationalized” the focus on education and accountability, but the law actually provides states with wide latitude and flexibility for how to meet its mandates. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am a VOCAL opponent of high stakes testing. I absolutely believe it is the wrong path forward. That said, however, it is important to recognize that we do NOT have a national curriculum in the United States, and education is NOT a federal responsibility. The US federal government does provide a lot of money for schools through its Title programs, but those dollars are small compared to the amount of state funding which schools receive.
Those clarifications aside, I think your question is a really important one. To what degree should we centralize control and management of the educational system in the hands of the federal government?
I’m inclined to say we should NOT do this. The founders of our nation were reluctant to grant power to the federal government, and ever since the central government has been taking more and more power for itself. I definitely support educational reform and change, but I don’t think this can or should come in a top-down format. We do need strong leadership for education at the top, but I think we need to continue to permit state leadership to determine the educational course. Here in the US, much like Canada I think, we are a very diverse society. A single, homogenous “prescription” for education is NOT what we need. There is great danger in centralizing authority for ANYTHING, and this includes education. I support the continuation of state responsibility for the provision of education for students.
That said, I do not necessarily think the local funding mechanisms which we have in place for education in the U.S. should necessarily be maintained. We do NOT have equitable funding for our schools, in large part because most states draw the lion’s share of funding for schools from property taxes. To see how this plays out in my home state of Oklahoma, just compare the schools in Deer Creek and Edmond to some of them in Oklahoma City. I support initiatives which are going to look at foundational issues of economics in our schools, and pursue options of making high quality education available for ALL students regardless of where they live. Equitable education CANNOT be provided (and is not provided, in my view) by an educational system which is funded by a fundamentally inequitable formula.
Wesley Fryers last blog post..Great first impressions of videoconferencing via Google Chat
[Reply]
2 Federal or State Responsibility for Education and Inequitable Education Funding Formulas » Moving at the Speed of Creativity // Jan 14, 2009 at 9:19 pm
[...] shared the following ideas as a comment this evening to Cindy Seibel’s post “U.S. and Scotland have one – should Canada follow suit?” In her post, Cindy asserts in the United States “education is a federal [...]
3 rdrunner // Jan 14, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Thanks Wesley for clarifying for me, and I should have taken time to better understand. It’s a fascinating conundrum that although it is not a federal responsibility there is a Secretary of Education and that serveral funding mechanisms (albeit not the majority of funding as you point out) are tied to national standards. We have no comparable federal position in Canada, and in fact the federal government is very careful to not constitutionally step on the province’s toes.
The historical development of educational responsibility in our two countries followed very different paths that parallel our constitutional development.
As for the centralization of control, I think it depends in part on the nature of the strategy and the balance of responsibilities between central and distributed decision-making regardless of how distributed that decision making may be.
Control need not be total and if you are suggesting a split between central policy-making/funding and distributed implementation I would be inclined to agree.
[Reply]
Leave a Comment