Raffe et al. and Home Internationals
David Raffe, Karen Brannen, Linda Croxford and Chris Martin present a case for comparing the four UK countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and giving this comparative research a more prominent place in research literature. Each home country (or home international) of the UK has its own education and training system and the Raffe et al. article is about comparison between these systems. By extension the Canadian system is analogous since each province/territory has, just as does England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, "its own education and training system." The UK system, however, has a Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) overseeing the four systems with devolution of responsibilities occurring through the 1980s and 1990s leaving the DfEE overseeing the English system with such exclusivity increasing. The situation in Canada has many points of comparison. Our Inuktitut-speaking territory of Nunavut compares with Wales in the article. i.e. "The Welsh language has enjoyed a recent upsurge in education in Wales where it is the main or only medium of instruction in more than one fifth of Welsh schools….English is the medium of instruction and of assessment for national certification, although schools may provide varying forms of support for children whose home language is not English." (15) The autonomy that the provinces and territories experience is similar to that experienced by the four UK countries although the reason for autonomy and/or centralization differ between Canada and the UK. It could be said the UK is centralized as a consequence of a long history of English imperialism and domination with the trend in devolution a consequence of this. On the other hand, however, the shared history of the four countries goes back many centuries and the geography that has created the relationship between England, Scotland and Wales is quite different from Canada's geography and its relationship with centralization and decentralization. In Canada, decentralization was a feature of the geographical size of the country. Central control over education in the 19th century was impossible, but indeed with exception of Upper and Lower Canada and the Maritime provinces, education in Canada began in many Canadian jurisdictions during the 19th century while compulsory education followed confederation in 1867. Raffe et al. note that, "In Scotland, compulsory education was promoted by an Act of 1494 or 1496 (allegedly the first such legislation in the world), but the origins of Scottish education are more conventionally traced to the 16th century reformation which established the principle (and, more slowly and unevenly, the reality) of a school in every parish." Because the only centralizing feature in Canadian public education legislation is decentralization of powers to the provinces (leaving the Canadian Territories like Scotland and Wales to pursue devolution of powers), in many respects the article written by Raffe et al. is more relevant to Canada where it can be said that so much fragmentation in terms of understanding public education policy history has occurred, that Canada needs to work in reverse and counter what is practised. Canada must work counter-intuitively, develop some central powers, and this is completely different from most other developd countries. It is so much more different from any international model, that such an argument as I make here is hardly to be defended anywhere in Canada, because the international model, in general, is oriented toward reduction of central powers, to devolve central administration and so on. And Canada has internalized this orientation as preferable, desirable and the primary model, and therefore tends to encourage without questioning internal fragmentation where reducing it would be preferable for Canadian unity. At this time in Canadian history, a time that follows a 19th century of development and a mid to late 20th century period of rationalization particularly between French and English-speaking Canada, it is more the case that some centralization should occur in the Canadian system for the 21st century. Because Canada is a "new" country, in many respects the systems are more alike than different resulting in greater similarities between the systems than there are in the UK, where the UK similarities are noteworthy. This is true within the English language systems, but there are areas of difference between the English language systems and the French and First Nations/Inuit/Metis systems. Perhaps Newfoundland & Labrador has a relationship to Canada comparable with Northern Ireland to the UK.
Looking at the section headed, "An Overview of the Four Systems," Raffe et al.'s summary of the similarities and differences among the four systems can be adapted to the Canadian scenario. "First," write the researchers, "the systems are interdependent to a greater extent than in the case of separate nation states." This is the quality that makes studying Canada's territories and provinces interesting because we have a few more systems to look at with a history that is relatively less complicated and much younger than the UK case. On the other hand the case of Quebec's relationship with Canada, its independence from the 1982 Constitution of Canada makes it a closer to a nation-state than Scotland may be to England, but yet providing a relationship with the rest of Canada that provides more information in terms of home international comparatives. The authors write that, "The administrative devolution of the past 20 years has reduced this interdependence, and political devolution will reduce it further, but neither will end it."
This observation for the relationship between Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England is just as true for Canada although decentralization is already a condition in section 93 of the constitution of Canada. Where devolution has been applied is in the Canadian Territories. The final comment in the paragraph discussing the UK's interdependent systems translates fairly accurately to Canada: "The [provinces and] territories will still belong to the same political system and each will be constrained by such factors as [Canadian] fiscal policy, [Canadian]-wide economic and labour market institution, and cross-border flows of students and graduates (cites Rees & Istance for the original quote, 1977).
Second, "the similarities are more important than the differences." This is definitely an argument that can be made for Canada within the three bureaucratic categories that I suggested that should be recognized at the constitutional level. The point is true for English-language, French-language and First Nations/Inuit/Metis systems. Comment on the UK system can be directly translated to the Canadian English-language system: "All the [Canadian] systems have distinctively 'British' features" the broad institutional structure of schools and colleges; the structure, function and timing of certification; the scale, structure and functions of higher education; the role of school- and work-based provision within a 'mixed model' of post-compulsory provision (cites OECD, 1985); a general emphasis on flexibility and institutional responsiveness; a competence-based model of vocational education; a 'medium-participation' system with a tradition of early transition to adulthood; and so on."
Third, "the differences vary according to the territories concerned…and according to the sector of the system." According to the UK authors, England and Wales are similar but Scotland is quite different. In Canada the differences vary according to region in many respects. The western provinces share a common understanding and often feel alienated from central Canada. The Territories share common features, but have quite different needs from southern Canada. Quebec is special in provincial status as is Newfoundland. The 'sector' of the system is interpreted either 'education' or 'training'. The Canadian Territories may share the feature of similarity in 'training' courses where the needs of the Canadian North are reflected for all three separate territorial systems. But keeping in mind the categories of English-speaking, French-speaking and First Nations/Inuit/Metis education, the differences existing between and amongst these three sectors is of Canadian interest.
Fourth, "in a few respects the systems of the UK [Canada] represent different types of systems…and would be categorised differently in cross-national typologies." The example given is Northern Ireland with a selective system versus Scotland and Wales with a comprehensive system. I interpret this to the Canadian scenario as less comparable to our system, where the systems of Canada are remarkably comparable in terms of similarities especially within the three national sectors. Newfoundland is a little bit of an outlier with a relationship to Canada that is fairly recent and a system based on religious denominational designations only recently falling under a secular public education bureaucracy. However, overall the differences within the Canadian sectors are much less than they are in the UK model, and reflect the UK model when considering the differences between the sectors. This connects with the fifth observation that in the UK system, "in a much larger number of respects differences among the systems [Canadian sectors] represent 'variations' upon common themes'. This is evidenced in examining the historical commission reports produced by the Canadians systems. Sixth, "although most of these 'variations upon common themes' may be relatively unimportant individually, their cumulative impact may be much more significant." In the UK the variations have increased with devolution enhancing divergence between the systems. In Canada this observation could be considered accurate in respect of the sectors, but there is also the problem of fragmentation, and diminished ability to construct a 'big picture'. As each province and territory has a 'variation on a common theme' and as each system produces many more secondary and tertiary policies facilitated by the new technology, a separation from other systems in Canada is enhanced creating increased divergence and difference.
Seventh, "and most tentatively, the social relations and societal context of education and training vary less across the [Canadian provinces and territories] than they typically do across nation states; the most significant cultural differences concern the politics of education and national identity, rather than individual behaviour." The idea as expressed translates very well to Canada. When Canadians convene in matters of national interest, the Olympics for example, Canadians from coast to coast understand each other, and bilingualism is emphasized and expected. The cultural differences between and amongst the Canadian sectors do cover politics of education and national identity. First Nations/Inuit/Metis and the politics of education is a particularly hot topic in Canada. Under that, as indicated by the heading "First Nations/Inuit/Metis" such a category is concerned with national 'identity'.
Finally, "the relations … are changing rapidly." The four systems of the UK have the potential to diverge especially in post-secondary education, indicating that a critical period exists where future characteristics may be determined. In terms of rapid change in Canada, some of the changes are not reflected in the constitution and the legislation. To change section 93 and usher Canadian public education for the 21st century, a national commission is required. Without some intervention at the national level it does seem that a great deal of divergence in post-secondary education may be occurring. This may mean that Canadians cannot move freely between the systems particularly with their intellectual public education products.
The authors provide five arguments for giving home international comparisons more emphasis in research. The argument of most interest for the purposes of this dissertation is the 'theoretical contribution' that such comparisons can offer. The traditional approach in comparative research has been 'societal'. For example, I was a little surprised to read a 1982 University of Alberta Master's thesis that referred to an "Alberta society," -- according to the author the lines of longitude put in place to make the province in 1905 were drawn there primarily as a predominance of the analysis using the 'societal method'. But Raffe et al. write about such an approach as having substantial drawbacks, and certainly this approach is traditional in the Canadian provinces as a consequence of provincial control over education in the constitution. It has created a divergence that is threatening Canadian nationalism. "In focusing upon the uniqueness of [Canadian provincial/territorial] education and training systems and their societal contexts, it diverts attention from the structural similarities of systems, from their internal variation, from their interdependence and from the diffusion of educational practices between them. In particular, societal analysis tends to assume that each society has clear and unambiguous boundaries and that the boundaries of education and training systems coincide with the boundaries of the economic, social and political institutions which provide their societal context." Home international comparisons illuminate some of the assumptions existing in a standard comparison, that between self-contained systems. Specifically in relation to this research, the authors point out that, "The boundaries of education/training systems … do not coincide with the boundaries of such important aspects of the societal contexts as the state, the economy and the labour market. As a result, home international comparisons may provide more opportunities for theory development than the study of homogenous systems with unique boundaries." [italics mine]
No comments:
Post a Comment