Sunday, April 21, 2013

Chapter 3: Implications for 21st century Canadian public education policy making --Tackling severe public education policy knowledge fragmentation

3b

Tackling severe public education policy knowledge fragmentation 
   Desmond Morton, Canadian historian, in an interview with CBC’s Bill Harrington (the Current Friday Aug 07, 2009) talks about the battle between the French and English on the Plains of Abraham -- Morton comments on a French Canadian woman citing the dominant English version of the historical battle as an example of how myth can be so powerful that it can undermine a political position just as the consequence of ignorance. The English version writes that the battle on the Plains of Abraham lasted a mere five minutes, while evidence suggests the battle lasted a day or more. The conversation shifts to Morton's relating how he was hired by Province of British Columbia to produce a provincial history for the Ministry of Education. He said that British Columbia did not want to take responsibility for the Japanese internment camps and preferred to shift the blame to the federal government. Morton commented that the production of historical texts for public education is political, the public doesn't always want the truth, the citizenry wants softened historical versions, particularly in elementary and secondary public school curriculum. Morton remarked that there is no "national version of history," that a "pan-Canadian" version doesn't exist. By extension to this view, I write then that we cannot address historical propaganda at the provincial level, and such propaganda is facilitated by and through provincial/territorial public education policy. But public education policy analysts, regardless of the province/territorial location, should not be stopped from exploring pan-Canadian understandings simply as a consequence of political discrimination against pan-historical perspectives existing in protectionist public education policy departments at the provincial university levels.
   Desmond Morton has made comment on history production by ten provincial and three Canadian Territories', thirteen potential versions of Canadian history. (fn1) And I see a link with his observation and a point in this dissertation -- how public education is constructed in Canada and what a pan-Canadian version might look like. As an academic I am interested in this "problem." The democratic consequences experienced by citizens who live in federal systems is only fully experienced with the freedom to make choices. To make choices the citizens would have to have access to an understanding of what alternatives they have available to them. There is no alternative available in public education in regard to what the benefits to Canadians would be under with a national, centralized system. But there is an idea and possibility through a representation of a comparative and collated Canadian public education policy history. 
   A conceptualization of Canadian public education policy is dismissed as impossible by academics who would argue that the range of data -- the products of provincial and territorial legislatures -- is just too broad and voluminous to be collated to set the stage for such an idea, the history too complex to construct any argument in favour of centralized national public education policy. But without academics exploring this topic, the average citizen does not have access to any information regarding Canadian public education centralization. Alternative versions are essential to democracy. While the forming of public education may historically have required decentralization and it was the logical choice of provincial citizens, I believe this uncontested assumption is no longer valid. In the 21st century, centralizing public education in Canada must be considered seriously, and alternative (comparative) information needs to be made available so that Canadian citizens can make Canadian choices and not be limited by home province perspectives and/or propaganda. One good reason why a centralized approach to public education needs to be considered is that the freedom of Canadians to move intellectually within Canada should be protected from provincial blocks and incremental erosion. One way Canadians can be guaranteed freedom of movement with their intellectual credentials is to explore the similarities in public education policy history and development. Public education is essential in liberal democracies; if teachers are exposed to an understanding of a shared and Canadian public education history then they would be the first to conceptualize a pan-Canadian public education system and to share it with their students. I am not writing specifically about the social studies and history curriculum in elementary and secondary schools. I am interested in what is being learned by graduate students in terms of policy in faculties of education and specific public education policy departments because such values or lack of them are disseminated through such systems.
    My understanding is that a province such as Alberta is raising barriers to free flow of teachers from other provinces and territories of Canada, not reducing barriers. Ideally, in terms of national interest, teachers should be encouraged to teach in other provinces. Teachers should be able to teach in provinces without being subjected to two years of provincial probation resulting as a feature of provincial control over education not as a feature of reevaluation teachers periodically to verify professional competence. Such policy would increase dispersal of Canadian versions of history and encourage integration of ideas. Integration of ideas theoretically facilitates pan-Canadian versions of history. Ideally for the 21st century teachers should be earning Canadian rather than provincial qualifications under the three domains of English, French and First Nations/Inuit/Metis education. With access to the cultural and ideological level of public education policy production history in Canada we can begin to explore the matter of pan-Canadian versions of history and explode narrow provincial versions of public education historical development that stymie national growth and development. 
   What is the root to the problem of non-pan-Canadian versions? Well, each province (and in the 21st century this includes Canadian territories) may write its own national and provincial history because control of public education is under the control of the provinces as defined in the Constitution of Canada. We can begin to explore the matter of a lacking collective Canadian conceptualization of public education policy by investigating the roots to dissemination of fragmented versions. To examine the roots we must consider the history of public education policy development in Canada. How can this be achieved with the enormous numbers of public education policy produced by all the levels of possible education governance (local, district, regional, ministry levels)? As a researcher, I have chosen to focus on the overarching documents produced to guide provincial-level public education policy. Therefore, I am not interested in provincial local, school board, district or ministry levels. In my research these layers are "details." I am interested in conceptualizing a collective Canadian public education policy, to make strong preliminary steps toward constructing a national public education policy picture for the 20th century through investigation of the seminal texts of democracy underpinning it, public commission reports.  This provides foundations for the 21st.
   The documents that guide the highest level of public education policy are royal and special commission reports. Royal commissions are fundamental in liberal democracies. Public governments ideally do not make and change legislation or promote and fund change without thorough study of the precedents in policy. Such studies are achieved through royal, special and legislative commissions. The 20th century public education commissions and reports may be studied to produce a comparative Canadian overview and allow Canadian public education policy themes to be identified and studied. Through key commission reports produced in the 20th century, we can explore the foundations underlying the wanting national version of Canadian public education history. I don't believe we can address this problem through any other instrument, it must be examined through dissecting a layer of development of public education policy in Canada as revealed through the documents of democracy -- commission reports. I have limited the research to the 20th century because there are policy scholars working at this time constructing linear histories of provincial public education policy history from their roots in the 19th century. These scholars ensure the 19th century public education commissions are included into historical overviews. Further, 20th century commission reports are very thorough in assessing the impact of 19th century history on 20th century policy. Two examples of this are Ontario's 1950 Hope Commission and British Columbia's 1925 Putnam-Weir Report. 
    As I understand at this time in the research, no comparative overview of Canadian public education history for the 20th century has ever been undertaken. This is the case for a number of reasons. 
   First of all, the production of Canadian public commissions and reports by legislatures and special committees has not been collated and recorded since Cary F. Goulson ended his list in 1983. Goulson's work exists in two books now considered, it would seem, redundant and quite far off today's radar. My research revives Goulson’s work, makes it available online(fn2), and through sorting proves its significance. My research builds on Goulson's initial framework and his two published references. And as a consequence of the validity of Goulson's work this research is itself valid. 
    Secondly, Goulson's list was never integrated. It was presented by province/territory and it was difficult to gain any useful comparative picture because the list contained as many primary to tertiary historical public education provincial documents (and some federal reports) as possible (approximately 475 in total) making a national synthesis seem impossible. 
    Thirdly, comparative overviews also do not exist because the design of Faculties of Educations beginning in the 1960s responded primarily to commission reports recommendations. Public education policy histories were entrusted to the committees overseeing commissions. The development of public education policy critique in graduate studies at universities is relatively recent (post 1970s) in Canadian universities. Provinces that joined Confederation in the 1870s are more advanced in this type of critique, but younger provinces such as Alberta are not as advanced. Provinces and territories who joined or were formed in the early 20th only become equal players in a collective conceptualized history when the focus of public education policy history is dedicated to the 20th century since all systems were on board by the end of this century (Nunavut in 1999). Further, it is impossible to propose a scholarly legitimate 20th century comparative treatment without an understanding of Canadian Territories’ "public" education development and I have some expertise as a consequence of my Master's work. 
     Fourthly, supposed "experts" in university public education departments in many cases do not have any grounding in the public education policy histories of their home provinces, never mind any understanding of the bigger picture. This is quite acceptable to the “experts” because public education is assumed as unassailable and given. It is construed that there is little need to explore such origins since public education is essential to democracy and is perceived as protected to citizens as a consequence of this fundamental association. We now know with hindsight that nothing should be assumed concerning the public domain. All “public” domains have historical policy foundations. There is no required course providing an overview on Canadian public education policy because there is no scholarly treatment that can be referred to that would provide a foundation to such a preview. Experts have access to any number of flow charts showing the bureaucratic or skeletal arrangement of the Canadian system, but there appears to be no fundamental information concerning the origins to the bureaucratic flow-chart.(f3) Therefore many experts know at best, very little, and at worst, nothing about the commission reports and don't think such knowledge is accessible or necessary for understanding. I have read whole papers and dissertations written on subjects such as adult education or Canadian education history without any reference to Canadian commission reports and their specific chapters on “Adult Education.” The commission report layer is virtually unknown and invisible.        
   Finally, there are themes that are national in public education. One of the biggest policy pushes of the 20th century was the training of teachers and increase in credentials required by such teachers as a consequence of the ‘baby boom’. Another great shift was centralization -- the building of larger schools and bussing, so that the qualified teachers and the range of possibilities in curriculum could reach more students. These shifts were not only provincial as they are often represented, they were national shifts, and this can be traced across the commission reports.
    Many PhD students consider their doctoral dissertations a kind of Mount Everest peak. Once written they are done, they have arrived and are finished. They have reached the top and they are ready to trek down again. Well, I believe the doctoral dissertation should be analogous to setting up a permanent base camp. With a base camp well placed and supplied, ongoing research and writing will naturally evolve from it. Attempts can be made to reach the peak numerous times through journal articles and practice through study and book production. This dissertation isn't the peak, it is only base camp to further climbing and exploration.

fn1. With the cost of royal commissions, this is a perhaps an exaggeration. What is more common is regional support for provincial productions. 
fn2. This information was on my website canadianeducationapolicystudies.ca currently unavailable. Goulson's list is available in section 1.2.
fn3 A very good example is paper #1 written for UNESCO and supported by TVOntario's Development Research Office. It is written by Dorothy MacKearcher, 1984, in a booklet under paper #1, "An Overview of the Educational System in Canada," entitled "New Technologies in Education." This overview was transcribed and available with permission from TVO on the website canadianeducationalpolicystudies.ca. 

No comments:

Post a Comment